Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Helminthologia logoLink to Helminthologia
. 2021 Sep 30;58(3):323–327. doi: 10.2478/helm-2021-0032

Trichinella spp. Infection in European Polecats (Mustela Putorius Linnaeus, 1758) from Romania

Z Boros 1,*, A M Ionică 1,2, G Deak 1, A D Mihalca 1, G Chișamera 3, I C Constantinescu 3, C Adam 3, C M Gherman 1, V Cozma 1,4
PMCID: PMC8647949  PMID: 34934394

Summary

The European polecat (Mustela putorius Linnaeus, 1758) is in decline in Romania, often living near human settlements, from mountains to lowlands. They feed on a wide variety of small animals, including rodents, such as mice or rats. The occurrence of this parasite in polecats from Romania was mentioned only once in 1991, but the parasite species was not confirmed by molecular biology. The study aimed to investigate the occurrence of Trichinella spp. in European polecats from Romania and to identify the parasite species by molecular tools. A total of 75 wild European polecats were examined by trichinoscopy and artificial digestion. A large number of animals were examined because of their wide distribution in Romanian territory and their presence near human settlements. For species determination, the positive muscle samples and the larvae recovered from artificial digestion were collected for DNA isolation and further processed by means of Multiplex PCR.

Only two polecats from southern Romania tested positive for Trichinella spp. infection. During trichinoscopy examination, 48 (in a polecat from Giurgiu County) and 78 (in a polecat from Ialomița County) cysts were found in the tested (56 samples/animal) tissue samples. Artificial digestion revealed infection with 2466 larvae/100 g of muscle in the polecat from Ialomița and 254/100 g in the polecat from Giurgiu. The Multiplex PCR indicated the occurrence of Trichinella spiralis in the polecat from Giurgiu and a co-infection with T. spiralis and T. britovi in the polecat from Ialomița.

The current study confirms through molecular biology, the occurrence of T. spiralis and T. britovi, as well as the occurrence of co-infection with these two Trichinella species in European polecats from Romania.

Keywords: European polecats, Trichinella spp., trichinoscopy, artificial digestion, multiplex PCR

Introduction

Nematodes of the genus Trichinella are among the most widespread muscular parasites of predatory, scavenger, and omnivorous animals (Campbell, 1988). Trichinella species are primarily parasites of wildlife, but they can also be found in domestic animals, which represent the main source of infection for humans. Wild carnivores and rodents can act as a source of infection with Trichinella spp. also for domestic animals (Pozio & Zarlenga, 2005). The infection develops after the ingestion of raw meat, harboring the infective larvae (Pozio, 2007). In several regions of Europe, a wide variety of carnivores (badgers, bears, lynx, polecats, and wolves) were reported to be infected with Trichinella spp., but due to low population levels of these hosts, their ecological implication in the sylvatic cycle was considered of marginal importance (Pozio, 1998). In Romania, Trichinella spp. were detected in several wild species, such as red foxes (Vulpes vulpes), wolves (Canis lupus), wild boars (Sus scrofa), brown bears (Ursus arctos), and European wildcats (Felis silvestris) (Blaga et al., 2009 a,b). The prevalence rate of T. britovi infection in wild boars from Romania was 57.3 %, which is significantly higher than the prevalence rate obtained for bears, (9.3 %) (Nicorescu et al., 2015). Regarding carnivores from Romania, the smallest prevalence rate of T. britovi infection was found in red foxes (5.6 %), followed by European wildcats (20 %), and wolves (31 %) (Blaga et al., 2009a).

The Mustelidae family has a worldwide distribution and represents the most diverse group of carnivores, with over 60 species of small- to medium-sized animals, with an elongated, slender body and short extremities (Nascimento, 2014; Akdesir et al., 2018). The European polecat’s preferred habitat type is variable and includes riparian vegetation, watercourses, grasslands, pastures, human settlements, woodlands, agricultural lands, and in some cases pine forests (Birks & Kitchener 1999; Virgós, 2003; Baghli et al., 2005; Mestre et al., 2007). They feed on a wide variety of small animals, including rodents, such as mice or rats (Lode, 2011). The recent data shows that in Romania, the European polecat population is in decline (Croose et al., 2018). Some authors consider that in Europe, mustelids should also be considered when analyzing the presence of Trichinella spp. infection (Hurníková et al., 2009). Considering that previous studies reported Trichinella spp. in several wild animal species, including mustelids from Romania, our research aimed to investigate the occurrence of these parasites in European polecats and to identify the involved Trichinella species.

Materials and methods

Study area

Romania is located in Eastern Europe, in the northern part of the Balkan Peninsula (Trusca & Alecu, 2005). Between 2016 and 2020, 75 (60 adults, 15 juveniles; 54 males, 21 females) wild European polecats (Mustela putorius) were examined by complete parasitological necropsy. The collected animals were found dead (road kills) or legally hunted (31 March – 15 September) from nine different counties of Romania. A large number of polecats were examined because of their wide distribution in Romania and their presence near human settlements that exposes them to Trichinella spp. infections. The counties from where the animals originated are the following: Arad, Brașov, Constanța, Brăila, Călărași, Ialomița, Giurgiu, Teleorman, and Olt (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Distribution of Trichinella spp. infection in European polecats in nine counties in Romania. The white circles indicate the 7 counties in which the polecats were negative for Trichinella spp infections. The black circle indicates the polecat from Giurgiu County (positive for Trichinella spiralis). The black rectangle indicates the polecat from Ialomița County (co-infection with T. spiralis and Trichinella britovi). The first number from each county shows the number of positive animals, the second number is the total of polecats tested from each county.

Trichinoscopy and artificial digestion

For analyzing the presence of Trichinella spp., 56 oat kernel sized pieces of diaphragm (n=20), foreleg muscles (n=18), and posterior leg muscles (n=18) were collected from each animal and tested by trichinoscopy, and examined under a light microscope using 40× magnification (Blaga et al., 2009a). Five muscle samples from each trichinoscopy-positive animal were collected in two 1.5 ml tubes with 70 % ethanol (one/animal). To collect the larvae for species identification, artificial digestion was done from all samples (in a total of 100g of muscle from each animal, meaning diaphragm, foreleg muscles, and posterior leg muscles) according to Gamble et al. (2000). Afterward, the detected larvae were collected using a micropipette in two 1.5 ml tubes (one/animal) with 70 % ethanol.

Multiplex PCR

The collected positive muscle samples (5 samples/animal), and larvae from the two 1.5 ml tubes with 70 % ethanol (one/animal) were subjected to DNA extraction. DNA was extracted from the 5 positive muscle samples/animal, as well as from the pooled larvae (50 larvae/animal) recovered from the artificial digestion, using a commercially available kit (Isolate II Genomic DNA Kit, Bioline, London, UK), according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Trichinella species were identified by means of a multiplex PCR reaction able to discriminate 9 species of Trichinella, as previously described in the literature (Zarlenga et al., 1999). The PCR products were visualized by electrophoresis in a 2 % agarose gel stained with RedSafe™ 20000x Nucleic Acid Staining Solution (Chembio, Hertfordshire, UK), and their molecular weight was assessed by comparison to a molecular marker (HyperLadder™ 100 bp, Bioline, London, UK).

Statistical analysis

Prevalence and 95 % Confidence Interval (95 % CI) were calculated using EpiInfo 7 software (CDC, USA).

Ethical Approval and/or Informed Consent

All applicable national and institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

The examination and collection of dead animals were approved by the bioethical committee of the University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Cluj-Napoca, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine: number 232 from 23.11.2020.

Results and Discussion

Overall, two European polecats (2.7 %; 95 % CI 0.32 – 9.3 %) were positive for Trichinella spp. by both methods. The animals originated in southern Romania, from Ialomița and Giurgiu counties (Fig. 1). The number of identified cysts varied between the examined muscles in both animals. The polecat from Ialomița county had a total of 78 cysts (diaphragm 15; foreleg 46; posterior leg 17) and the polecat from Giurgiu county had 48 cysts (diaphragm 13; foreleg 12; posterior leg 23).

Artificial digestion revealed a larval burden of 2466 larvae/100 g of muscle in the polecat from Ialomița and 254/100g in the animal from Giurgiu. The electrophoretic profile of the polecat from Ialomița (infected muscle and larval isolates) included a total of three bands, indicating the co-occurrence of Trichinella britovi (~127 and 253 bp respectively) and Trichinella spiralis (173 bp). The electrophoretic profile for the polecat from Giurgiu county (infested muscle and larval isolates) included only one band of ~173bp, thus indicating the occurrence of only T. spiralis in this second polecat. The current study revealed that European polecats from Romania can act as reservoirs for both T. britovi and T. spiralis. The prevalence obtained during the present study was 1.3 % (95 % CI 0.03 – 7.2 %) for T. britovi and 2.7 % (95 % CI 0.32 – 9.3 %) for T. spiralis, which is more precise than the results reported by similar studies performed in other European countries, but with smaller sample sizes, such as Slovakia, where the number of animals tested was only 3 (one positive) and respectively 9 (3 positive) (Hurníková et al., 2007; Hurníková et al., 2009). In Belorussia, 40 animals (2 positive) were tested (Shimalov et al., 2002), and in Lithuania only 7 (1 positive) (Jaunė & Grikienienė, 2001).

The current study used both, trichinoscopy and artificial digestion, to detect Trichinella spp. in European polecats, whereas other studies used exclusively one of these methods.

A good example is the study from Belorussian Polesie, where a total of 40 polecats were examined for Trichinella spp. by trichinoscopy. Only two animals were identified as positive for this parasitic infection (Shimalov et al., 2002).

Other studies that used artificial digestion also collected the larvae for species identification by multiplex PCR. In Slovakia, during the hunting season 2005 – 2006, one European polecat was positive for T. britovi (Hurníková et al., 2007). In a follow-up study, the multiplex PCR revealed that three polecats were positive for T. britovi (Hurníková et al., 2009). The current study also identified the occurrence of T. spiralis in European polecats, besides T. britovi, and also proved the possibility of a co-infection with these two parasite species.

However, not all studies targeting polecats revealed positive results, such as the study from Poland (Piekarska et al., 2016) and Serbia (Klun et al., 2018). However, in both cases, the number of tested animals was small (Piekarska et al., 2016; Klun et al., 2018).

One of the earliest experimental studies on Mustela putorius furo and T. spiralis was done in 1982. The experimental study showed that T. spiralis can be transmitted from mice to ferrets, with the highest number of larvae located in the diaphragm muscles. The experimental study confirmed that, the same thing can also happen in polecats in the sylvatic fauna (Campbell et al., 1982).

A few previous studies indicated the presence of Trichinella spp. in mustelids from Romania. Nesterov et al. (1991) were the first to report polecats as hosts of Trichinella spp. in Romania, but no specific confirmation was done. A study from 2014 showed that stone martens (Martes foina) were infected with T. britovi, stoats (Mustela erminea) with T. britovi and T. spiralis and European minks (Mustela lutreola) with T. spiralis (Oltean et al., 2014). In the same study, all six tested polecats were negative for Trichinella spp. (Oltean et al., 2014). European badgers (Meles meles) from Romania were recently shown to carry T. britovi (Boros et al., 2020).

To the best of our knowledge, the presence of T. britovi and T. spiralis was not confirmed in European polecats from Romania using molecular biology, before the present study. There was also no record of a T. britovi and T. spiralis co-infection in this animal species. In conclusion, the large number of animals were examined, so the study could emphasize their wide distribution in Romania, but also present as exactly as possible the prevalence of Trichinella spp. infections in polecats in different areas of the country. The present paper reports the occurrence, and the co-infection with T. britovi and T. spiralis in European polecats from Romania using the molecular biology method. The epidemiological role of European polecats in maintaining the parasite’s circulation in this eastern European country’s sylvatic cycle is thus confirmed. The fact that T. spiralis was found in both polecats shows that this species can get infected with this parasite species when a domestic cycle spillover occurs.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their deepest gratitude to all the people that were involved in collecting the carcasses (hunters, Alexandru Sarmași, friends, social media people). We are also grateful for the students who helped with the necropsies (Alexandru Felea, Andreea Iani).

This research was supported by the University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Cluj-Napoca (USAMV Cluj-Napoca). One of the authors (Georgiana Deak) was financially supported by Altius SRL Romania by a grant in order to support and promote research in Romania.

Footnotes

Conflicts of interest Authors have no potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. AKDESIR E., ORIGGI F.C., WIMMERSHOF J., FREY J., FREY C.F., RYSER-DEGIORGIS M. P.. Causes of mortality and morbidity in free-ranging mustelids in Switzerland: necropsy data from over 50 years of general health surveillance. BMC Vet Res. 2018;14:195. doi: 10.1186/s12917-018-1494-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. BAGHLI A., VERHAGEN R.. The distribution and status of the polecat Mustela putorius in Luxembourg. Mamm Rev. 2003;33:57–68. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2907.2003.00006.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. BLAGA R., GHERMAN C., COZMA V., ZOCEVIC A., POZIO E., BOIREAU P.. Trichinella species circulating among wild and domestic animals in Romania. Vet Parasitol. 2009a;159(3-4):218–221. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2008.10.034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. BLAGA R., DURAND B., STOICHICI A., GHERMAN C., STEFAN N., COZMA V., BOIREAU P.. Animal Trichinella infection in Romania: Geographical heterogeneity for the last 8 years. Vet Parasitol. 2009b;159(3-4):290–294. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2008.10.059. DOI.org/ [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. BOROS Z., IONICĂ A.M., DEAK G., MIHALCA A.D., CHISAM ERA G.B., GYÖRKE A., COZMA V.. The European badger, Meles meles, as a new host for Trichinella britovi in Romania. Vet Parasitol. 2020;288:109301. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2020.109301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. BIRKS J.D.S., KITCHENER A.C. BIRKS J.D.S., KITCHENER A.C. The distribution and status of the polecat Mustela putorius in Britain in the 1990s. The Vincent Wildlife Trust (VWT) London; 1999. Ecology of the Polecat in lowland England; pp. 111–130. [Google Scholar]
  7. CAMPBELL W. C.. Trichinosis revisited, another look at modes of transmission. Parasitol Today. 1988;4:83–86. doi: 10.1016/0169-4758(88)90203-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. CAMPBELL W., BLAIR L., KUNG F., EWANCIW D.. Experimental Trichinella spiralis infection in the ferret, Mustela putorius furo. J Helminth. 1982;56(1):55–58. doi: 10.1017/S0022149X0003501X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. CROSE E., DUCKWORTH J.W., RUETTE S., SKUMATOV D.V., KOLESNIKOV V.V., SAVELJEV A.P.. A review of the status of the Western polecat Mustela putorius: a neglected and declining species? Mammalia. 2018;82(6):550–564. doi: 10.1515/mammalia-2017-0092. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. GAMBLE H.R., BESSONOV A.S., CUPERLOVIC K., GAJADHAR A.A VAN KNAPEN, F NOECKLER, K SCHENONE, ZHU H.X.. International commission on trichinellosis: recommendations on methods for the control of Trichinella in domestic and wild animals intended for human consumption. Vet Parasitol. 2000;93:393–408. doi: 10.1016/S0304-4017(00)00354-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. HURNÍKOVÁ Z., CHOVA NCOVÁ B., BARTKOVÁ D.. The role of wild carnivores in the maintenance of trichinellosis in the Tatras National Park, Slovakia. Helminthologia. 2007;44:18–20. doi: 10.2478/s11687-006-0050-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. HURNÍKOVÁ Z., MITERPAKOVA M., CHOVA NCOVA B. The important zoonoses in the protected areas of the Tatra National Park. 2009. [PubMed]
  13. JAUNĖ S., JAD VYGA G.. Prevalence of Trichinella in Muscles of Some Domestic and Wild Mammals in Lithuania and their Impact on the Organism. Acta Zool Litu. 2001;11:4:395–404. doi: 10.1080/13921657.2001.10512477. (TANAP). Wiad Parazytol, 55: 395–398. PMID: 20209814. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. KLUN I., ĆOSIĆ N., ĆIROVIĆ D., VASILEV D., TEODOROVIĆ V., DJURKOVIĆ -DJA KOVIĆ O.. Trichinella spp. in wild mesocarnivores in an endemic setting. Acta Vet Hun. 2019;67(1):34–39. doi: 10.1556/004.2019.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. LODE T.. Habitat selection and mating success in a Mustelid. Int J Zool. 2011;Vol 2011 doi: 10.1155/2011/159462. 6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. MESTRE F.M., FERREIRA J.P., MIRA A.. Modelling the distribution of the European Polecat Mustela putorius in a Mediterranean agricultural landscape. Rev. Ecol. 2007;62:35–47. http://hdl.handle.net/2042/55702 URI. [Google Scholar]
  17. NASCIMENTO F.O.. On the correct name for some subfamilies of Mustelidae (Mammalia, Carnivora) Pap. Avulsos Zool. (São Paulo) 2014;54(21):307–313. doi: 10.1590/0031-1049.2014.54.21. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. NESTEROV V., CIOLOFA N I., NITULESCU A., COSTINOV F., DUMITRESCU C., MILLA C., POPESCU S.. Implicatii ale activitatii umane in epizootologia trichinelozei silvatice. [The impact of human activities on sylvatic trichinellosis. Rev. Rom. Parazitol. 1991;I:71. –. [Google Scholar]
  19. NICORESCU I.M.D., IONITA M., CIUPESCU L., BUZATU C.V., TANASUICA R., MITREA I.L.. New insights into the molecular epidemiology of Trichinella infection in domestic pigs, wild boars, and bears in Romania. Vet Parasitol. 2015;212(3-4):257–261. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2015.07.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. OLTEAN M., KALMÁR Z., KISS B.J., MARINOV M., VASILE A., SÁNDOR A.D., DOMŞA C., GHERMA N C.M., BOIREAU P., COZMA V., MIHALCA A.D.. European mustelids occupying pristine wetlands in the Danube Delta are infected with trichinella likely derived from domesticated swine. J Wildl Dis. 2014;50(4):972–975. doi: 10.7589/2013-12-335. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. PIEKARSKA J., GORCZYKOWSKI M., KICIA M., PACON J., SOLTYSIAK Z., MERTA D.. Trichinella spp. (Nematoda) in free-living carnivores (Mammalia: Carnivora) from the Lower Silesia (Poland) Ann Parasitol. 2016;62 Suppl. [Google Scholar]
  22. POZIO E.. Trichinellosis in Europen Union: epidemiology, ecology and economic impact. Parasitol Today. 1998;14:35–38. doi: 10.1016/S0169-4758(97)01165-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. POZIO E., ZARLENGA D.S.. Recent advances on the taxonomy, systematics and epidemiology of Trichinella. Int J Parasitol. 2005;35:1191–1204. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2005.07.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. POZIO E.. World distribution of Trichinella spp. infections in animals and humans. Vet Parasitol. 2007;149:3–21. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2007.07.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. SHIMALOV V., SHIMALOV V.. Helminth fauna of the European polecat (Mustela putorius Linnaeus, 1758) in Belorussian Polesie. Parasitol Res. 2002;88:259–260. doi: 10.1007/s00436-001-0521-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. TRUSCA V., ALECU M.. Romania’s Third National Communication on Climate Change under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Grue and Hornstrup, Holstebro. 28. Retrieved January. 2005;5:2020. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/romnc3.pdf from unfccc.int database. [Google Scholar]
  27. VIRGÓS E.. Association of the polecat Mustela putorius in eastern Spain with mountain pine forests. Oryx. 2003;37:484–487. doi: 10.1017/S0030605303000863. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. ZARLENGA D.S., CHUTE M.B., MARTIN A., KAPEL C.M.O.. A multiplex PCR for unequivocal differentiation of all encapsulated and non-encapsulated genotypes of Trichinella. Int J Parasitol. 1999;29:1859–1867. doi: 10.1016/S0020-7519(99)00107-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Helminthologia are provided here courtesy of De Gruyter

RESOURCES