Journals / Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine / 2021 / Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 4

The high co-existence rate of Blastocystis and Dientamoeba fragilis in human faecal samples and the analysis of demographic and clinical findings

Pages
422–427
Publication Date
2021-07-15
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In addition, analysis of clinical findings was supported common asymptomatic colonisation of Blastocystis and D. fragilis.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: Blastocystis and Dientamoeba fragilis (D. fragilis) are among the most common protozoon species in human faecal samples.
📊
Key Findings & Data:However, we have very limited information about the co-existence rate of those protozoans.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In addition, analysis of clinical findings was supported common asymptomatic colonisation of Blastocystis and D. fragilis.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Blastocystis · Dientamoeba fragilis · co-infection

Abstract

Aim: Blastocystis and Dientamoeba fragilis (D. fragilis) are among the most common protozoon species in human faecal samples. The cross-sectional studies have reported the frequencies in a variety of populations. However, we have very limited information about the co-existence rate of those protozoans. The study aimed to compare D. fragilis frequency in Blastocystis positive and negative faecal samples in order to determine the co-existence rate. The secondary objective was to analyse demographic characteristics and gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms in relation to both infections. Material and Method: In the present study, we defined a study group that included 100 Blastocystis positive faecal samples and a control group that included 100 Blastocystis negative samples. The frequency of D. fragilis in samples was determined with a PCR assay specific to the small-subunit ribosomal RNA (SS rRNA) gene. A positive control of D. fragilis was used and the samples with amplification of the expected size (863 bp) were considered as positive. In addition to the statistical comparison of frequencies, the descriptive and clinical findings of cases were analysed retrospectively with Pearson chi-square or ANOVA tests. Results: The frequency of D. fragilis was 21% in Blastocystis positive group and it was 10% in Blastocystis negative group. There was statistically significant difference in terms of D. fragilis positivity between the groups (p 0.05). Conclusion: Our study highlighted the high co-existence of D. fragilis and Blastocystis in human faecal samples. A possible explanation for this finding may be the faecal-oral transmission of these protozoans. In addition, analysis of clinical findings was supported common asymptomatic colonisation of Blastocystis and D. fragilis.

🔖

Cite This Article

MALATYALİ, E., YILDIZ, İ., TİLEKLİOGLU, E., ERTABAKLAR, H., ERTUĞ, S. (2021). The high co-existence rate of Blastocystis and Dientamoeba fragilis in human faecal samples and the analysis of demographic and clinical findings. Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine, Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 4, 422–427. https://ajindex.com/articles/776869

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Silberman JD, Clark CG, Sogin ML. Dientamoeba fragilis shares a recent common evolutionary history with the trichomonads. Mol Biochem Parasitol 1996; 76: 311-4. Garcia LS. Dientamoeba fragilis, one of the neglected intestinal protozoa. J Clin Microbiol 2016; 54: 2243-50. Caccio SM. Molecular epidemiology of Dientamoeba fragilis. Acta Trop 2018; 184: 73-7.
  2. Pietila JP, Meri T, Siikamaki H, et al. Dientamoeba fragilis - the most common intestinal protozoan in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area, Finland, 2007 to 2017. European Com Dis Bul 1019; 24: 1800546. Roser D, Simonsen J, Nielsen HV, et al. Dientamoeba fragilis in Denmark: epidemiological experience derived from four years of routine real-time PCR. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2013; 32: 1303-10.
  3. Oliveira-Arbex AP, David ÉB, Cacciò SM, et al. Prevalence and genetic characterization of Dientamoeba fragilis in asymptomatic children attending daycare centers. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo 2021; 63, e39. Stark D, Barratt J, Roberts T, Marriott D, Harkness J, Ellis J. A review of the clinical presentation of dientamoebiasis. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2010; 82: 614-9.
  4. Torgerson PR, Devleesschauwer B, Praet N, et al. World Health Organization estimates of the global and regional disease burden of 11 foodborne parasitic diseases, 2010: a data synthesis. PLoS Med 2015; 12: e1001920.
  5. Kurt O, Oktem Okullu S, Ozen NM, et al. Is Dientamoeba fragilis friend or foe? A study from Istanbul on patients and healthy individuals from different cohorts. Turk Mikrobiyol Cem Derg 2020; 50: 244-9.
  6. Mumcuoğlu İ, Coşkun FA, Aksu N, Pürnak T, Güngör Ç. İrrite bağırsak sendromunda Dientamoeba fragilis ve Blastocystis spp’ nin rolü. Türkiye Parazitol Derg 2013; 37: 73-7. Tan KS. New insights on classification, identification, and clinical relevance of Blastocystis spp. Clin Microbiol Rev 2008; 21: 639-65.
  7. Stensvold CR, Clark CG. Current status of Blastocystis: a personal view. Parasitol Int 2016; 65: 763-71.
  8. Scanlan PD, Stensvold CR. Blastocystis: getting to grips with our guileful guest. Trends Parasitol 2013; 29: 523-9. Légeret C, Rüttimann C, Fankhauser H, Köhler H. Parasitic infections in Swiss children: are we overtesting? BMC Gastroenterol 2021; 21: 39. Lappan R, Henry R, Chown SL, et al. Monitoring of diverse enteric pathogens across environmental and host reservoirs with TaqMan array cards and standard qPCR: a methodological comparison study. Lancet Planet Health 2021; 5: e297-e308. Alsuwaidi AR, Al Dhaheri K, Al Hamad S, et al. Etiology