Relative egg extraction efficiencies of manual and automated fecal egg count methods in equines

IF 1.1 4区 生物学 Q4 PARASITOLOGY
L. Britton, B. Ripley, P. Slusarewicz
{"title":"Relative egg extraction efficiencies of manual and automated fecal egg count methods in equines","authors":"L. Britton, B. Ripley, P. Slusarewicz","doi":"10.2478/helm-2024-0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Summary The World Association for the Advancement of Veterinary Parasitology recently released new recommendations for the design of fecal egg count (FEC) reduction tests for livestock. These provide suggestions as to the number of animals to be sampled and the minimum number of eggs that must be counted to produce statistically meaningful results. One of the considerations for study design is the multiplication factor of the FEC method to be used; methods with lower multiplication factors require fewer animals to be sampled because they are presumed to count more eggs per test. However, multiplication factor is not the sole determinant of the number of eggs counted by any given method, since different techniques use very different sample extraction methodologies that could affect the number of eggs detected beyond just the amount of feces examined. In this light, we compared three commonly used manual FEC methods (mini-FLOTAC, McMaster and Wisconsin) and two automated methods (Imagyst and Parasight All-in-One) with respect to how many equine strongylid and ascarid eggs they counted in the same samples. McMaster and mini-FLOTAC (multiplication factors of 25x and 5x, respectively) produced the most accurate results of the methods tested but mini-FLOTAC counted approximately 5-times more eggs than McMaster. However, Wisconsin and Parasight (multiplication factor = 1x) counted 3-times more ova than mini-FLOTAC, which was less than the 5-fold difference in their multiplication factors. As a result, these tests perform with multiplication factors more akin to 1.6x relative to mini-FLOTAC. Imagyst, due to its unique sample preparation methodology, does not have a traditional multiplication factor but performed similarly to McMaster with respect to egg recovery.","PeriodicalId":55061,"journal":{"name":"Helminthologia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Helminthologia","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/helm-2024-0007","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PARASITOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Summary The World Association for the Advancement of Veterinary Parasitology recently released new recommendations for the design of fecal egg count (FEC) reduction tests for livestock. These provide suggestions as to the number of animals to be sampled and the minimum number of eggs that must be counted to produce statistically meaningful results. One of the considerations for study design is the multiplication factor of the FEC method to be used; methods with lower multiplication factors require fewer animals to be sampled because they are presumed to count more eggs per test. However, multiplication factor is not the sole determinant of the number of eggs counted by any given method, since different techniques use very different sample extraction methodologies that could affect the number of eggs detected beyond just the amount of feces examined. In this light, we compared three commonly used manual FEC methods (mini-FLOTAC, McMaster and Wisconsin) and two automated methods (Imagyst and Parasight All-in-One) with respect to how many equine strongylid and ascarid eggs they counted in the same samples. McMaster and mini-FLOTAC (multiplication factors of 25x and 5x, respectively) produced the most accurate results of the methods tested but mini-FLOTAC counted approximately 5-times more eggs than McMaster. However, Wisconsin and Parasight (multiplication factor = 1x) counted 3-times more ova than mini-FLOTAC, which was less than the 5-fold difference in their multiplication factors. As a result, these tests perform with multiplication factors more akin to 1.6x relative to mini-FLOTAC. Imagyst, due to its unique sample preparation methodology, does not have a traditional multiplication factor but performed similarly to McMaster with respect to egg recovery.
人工和自动马粪卵计数法的相对取卵效率
摘要 世界兽医寄生虫学促进协会(World Association for the Advancement of Veterinary Parasitology)最近发布了关于设计家畜粪便虫卵计数(FEC)还原试验的新建议。这些建议涉及需要采样的动物数量以及为得出有统计学意义的结果而必须计数的最低虫卵数量。研究设计的考虑因素之一是所使用的粪便计数法的倍增因子;倍增因子较低的方法需要采样的动物数量较少,因为它们被认为每次检测能计数更多的虫卵。然而,倍增因子并不是任何特定方法计数虫卵数量的唯一决定因素,因为不同技术使用的样本提取方法截然不同,这可能会影响检测到的虫卵数量,而不仅仅是粪便的数量。有鉴于此,我们比较了三种常用的手动 FEC 方法(mini-FLOTAC、McMaster 和 Wisconsin)和两种自动方法(Imagyst 和 Parasight All-in-One)在相同样本中计算出的马强虫卵和蛔虫卵数量。麦克马斯特和迷你FLOTAC(倍增因子分别为 25 倍和 5 倍)的结果是所有测试方法中最准确的,但迷你FLOTAC 的虫卵计数大约是麦克马斯特的 5 倍。然而,威斯康星和 Parasight(倍增因子 = 1x)计算出的卵数是迷你FLOTAC 的 3 倍,小于它们倍增因子 5 倍的差异。因此,与迷你FLOTAC 相比,这些测试的倍增因子更接近 1.6 倍。Imagyst 由于其独特的样品制备方法,没有传统的倍增因子,但在卵回收率方面的表现与麦克马斯特类似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Helminthologia
Helminthologia 生物-动物学
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Helminthologia (HELMIN), published continuously since 1959, is the only journal in Europe that encompasses the individual and collaborative efforts of scientists working on a different topics of human, veterinary and plant helminthology. The journal responsibility is to enrich the theoretical and practical knowledge in very specific areas and thus contribute to the advancements in human and veterinary medicine and agronomy. Taking the advantage of comprehensive and multidisciplinary approaches journal still maintains its original spirit and is principal source of fresh scientific information regarding helminths, endoparasites and plant parasites. Addressing the most up-to date topics journal gained rightful and exceptional place next to the other high-quality scientific journals publishing in its field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信