Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Parasitic Diseases: Official Organ of the Indian Society for Parasitology logoLink to Journal of Parasitic Diseases: Official Organ of the Indian Society for Parasitology
. 2025 Mar 8;49(3):747–755. doi: 10.1007/s12639-025-01798-z

Anthelmintic resistance against gastrointestinal nematodes: an emerging threat in cattle farms in Bangladesh

Sawda Khatun 1, Anisuzzaman 1, Nusrat Nowrin Shohana 1, Kausar A Noor 1, Mohammad Zahangir Alam 1, Anita Rani Dey 1,✉
PMCID: PMC12399488  PMID: 40901432

Abstract

Anthelmintic resistance (AR) is a major problem in the profitable production of livestock. Therefore, this study evaluated AR status in cattle farms at Mymensingh Sadar using in vivo, fecal egg count reduction test (FECRT) and in vitro, egg hatch assay (EHA) techniques. For this, ten cattle farms and forty animals from individual farms with more than 200 eggs per gram (EPG) of feces were selected by employing the McMaster technique. For FECRT, four groups having ten animals in each group were designed and animals of group I were treated with albendazole (ABZ), group II with levamisole (LEV), group III with ivermectin (IVM) according to the bodyweight and group IV was served as control (untreated). Fecal samples were collected at day 0 (pre-treatment) and day 14 of post-treatment (p. t) from animals of all treated and untreated groups directly from the rectum to calculate EPG and subsequently considered for copro-culture to detect resistant parasitic larvae. For EHA, following the collection of pooled fecal samples from ten farms, eggs were isolated and incubated with different concentrations of albendazole such as 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and 0.5 µg/ml. In FECRT, the result revealed that all three drugs such as ABZ, LEV and IVM were resistant in all farms except one where IVM was suspected resistance (SR). The identified resistant larvae from copro-culture were Haemonchus, Trichostrongylus and Oesophagostomum. In EHA, the EC50 value of ABZ ranged from 0.14 to 0.29 µg ABZ/ml (> 0.1 µg/ml designated as resistance) with the coefficient of correlation (R2) > 0.97 confirming ABZ resistance in all cattle farms. The present study suggests that AR is increasing and creates an alarming condition in controlling GI nematodes in Bangladesh.

Keywords: Anthelmintic resistance, FECRT, EHA, Gastrointestinal nematodes, Cattle

Introduction

Bangladesh is a developing country with a large number of livestock populations which plays a vital role in the agricultural economy. The contribution of the livestock sector to GDP is 1.90% and the growth rate is 3.10% in the year of 2021–2022. However, parasitism is the main constraint in profitable livestock production and productive performance (Dey et al. 2020a). Gastrointestinal (GI) helminths are important pathogens of small and large ruminants causing production loss around the world (Hesterberg et al. 2007; Rahman et al. 2018). The commonly occurring nematodes include Haemonchus contortus, Oesophagostomum sp., Strongyloides sp., Trichuris sp., and Bunostomum sp. GI nematodes have a major impact on lowering livestock production in tropical and subtropical areas (Vande Velde et al. 2018) and also have a negative correlation with overall farm productivity (Jabbar et al. 2008).

Farmers mainly rely on anthelmintics to control the parasitic infections. Anthelmintics are usually used as an effective control program against GI nematodes. In Bangladesh, BZ has been widely used for controlling GI parasites. In small ruminants, Benzimidazole, ivermectin, and imidothiazole-tetra hydropyrimidines are the main classes of anthelmintic used to control GI nematodes (Dey et al. 2020b). However, in large ruminants, it is very difficult to control by using BZ class of anthelmintic (Dorny et al. 1995). AR against GI nematodes in ruminants has reached at alarming levels in different parts of the world (Wolstenholme et al. 2004). AR against GI nematodes is the greatest concern in cattle industry throughout the world. Resistance against one or multi drugs especially commonly used broad spectrum anthelmintics in cattle have been well reported in different countries especially France, Germany, USA, China, South Africa, Argentina and Ireland. Cooperria and Ostertagia are frequently found resistant nematodes in cattle along with Haemonchus, Calicophoron and Trichostrongylus (Mukherjee et al. 2023; Coles 2002). In Bangladesh, AR has been found against both BZ and macrocyclic lactone compounds in cattle (Rahman et al. 2018). The apparently lower rate of AR detection in cattle might be due to the difficulty in diagnosis as fecal egg counts tend to be less reflective of the adult worm burden in cattle than sheep/ goats. The detection of AR based on fecal egg counts is more uncertainty in cattle than small ruminants due to volume of fecal pad (Geurden et al. 2015a, b).

Early diagnosis of AR is important to reduce spreading of resistant parasites. Some reliable methods have been established to detect AR against nematode parasites including various in vivo and methods (Demeler et al. 2012). The most widely used in vivo method is fecal egg count reduction test (FECRT), the best proven method for detecting AR at field level. It compares the number of parasitic eggs in fecal samples taken before and after treatment (Coles et al. 2006; McKenna 1996). In contrast, the most reported in vitro method for the diagnosis of AR especially BZ resistance in large and small animals is the egg hatch assay (EHA) (Calvete et al. 2014; Ghisi et al. 2007; Varady et al. 2006). AR is the greatest concerns in ruminants around the world with very few reports are available against BZ resistance in cattle in Bangladesh (Hoque et al. 2003; Rahman et al. 2018). However, information on AR against GI nematodes is essential for control strategy. Therefore, the study was planned to investigate the present status of AR in cattle farms using fecal egg count reduction test (FECRT) and Egg Hatch Assay (EHA).

Materials and methods

Study period

The study was conducted during a period of 1 year from April 2022 to March 2023.

Study area

The study was conducted in ten cattle farms at Mymensingh Sadar, Mymensingh (Fig. 1). The farms included in this study were farm 1(Char chatrapur cattle farm; 90°26′29.8"E, 24°43′00.9"N), farm 2 (BAU cattle farm-1; 90°25′22.8"E, 24°43′46.6"N), farm 3 (Boira Moddhapara cattle farm; 90°26′19.8"E, 24°42′19.4"N), farm 4 (Somadhaner mor; 90°26′02.7"E, 24°42′25.2"N), farm 5 (Digharkanda cattle farm; 90°26′29.6"E, 24°43′00.5"N), farm 6 (Seshmor cattle fearm; 90°26′38.0"E, 24°43′06.3"N), farm 7 (BAU cattle farm-2; 90°25′24.0"E,24°43′49.0"N), farm 8 (Karim bhaban cattle farm; 90°26′33.6"E, 24°43′19.5"N), farm 9 (Pagla bazar cattle farm; 90°26′02.8"E, 24°42′49.1"N) and farm 10 (Jamtala mor cattle farm; 90°26′46.2"E, 24°42′58.1"N). The cattle populations in each farm were varied from 70 to 90. According to farmer’s information, parasitic infections were prevalent in these farms and varied in different seasons of the year. Farmers used albendazole, levamisole and ivermectin as a drug of choice against these parasitic infections for the prevention of infections. Farmers also confirmed that no anthelmintics were used in the farms at least two months before of this experiment. The activities related to microscopy and culture were performed in the laboratory, Department of Parasitology, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

The selected ten cattle farms at Mymensingh sadar upazila, Mymensingh, Bangladesh

Sample collection

A fresh fecal sample was collected from each cattle from every farm at early morning by wearing hand gloves for preventing contamination. Each cattle was marked by their tag number. At least 10 g of fecal materials were collected in a glass vial with an identify number.

Microscopic examination

After collection of samples, samples were processed using McMaster technique (Dey et al. 2020a). Briefly, 4 g of fecal sample was gradually mixed with 56 ml flotation solution (saturated salt solution, specific gravity 1.200). The suspension was thoroughly stirred and allowed to pass through a sieve to remove coarse particles. The chambers of McMaster slide were filled with the suspension and allowed to stand for 5 min to float all parasitic eggs. Then, the slide was examined under microscope (Olympus CX21LED, Olympus Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) using low power objective (10×) and counted all eggs inside of the grid areas in both chambers. A total of 40 cattle were selected from each farm according to their fecal egg count (at least 200 eggs per gram).

Fecal egg count reduction test (FECRT)

The experiment was performed according to the guideline of World Association for the Advancement of Veterinary Parasitology (WAAVP) (Soutello et al. 2007). In each farm, the selected 40 animals were individualized by tagging and divided into four groups namely group I, group II, group III and group IV. Animals of Group I were treated with ABZ, group II with LEV, group III with IVM and group IV served as untreated control. ABZ and LEV were administered orally at 7.5 mg/kg body weight and IVM at 0.2 mg/kg body weight in injectable form. At day 14 of post-treatment (p. t.), fecal samples were collected and calculated EPG using the McMaster technique.

Copro-culture at day 0 and day 14 of post-treatment (p. t.)

Fifty grams (50 g) of a pooled sample of each group was placed in 500 ml plastic cylindrical jars without a cap and incubated at 22–25 ℃ for 10 days in dark cabinet and maintained moisture by spraying with water. After incubation, the plastic container was filled with lukewarm tap water and overturned in a petri dish. Forty milliliters of lukewarm water were added to the petri dish and exposed to light for 24 h; thus, stimulating the hatched larvae to migrate out from the plastic container to the petri dish. The water containing L3 was collected in a 50 ml falcon tube and stored at 4 ℃ for further use.

Examination of larvae from fecal culture

The L3 from the culture petridish of each group were extracted and identified according to their morphological features given by Van Wyk and Mayhew (2013).

Egg hatch assay (EHA)

EHA was performed to detect BZ resistance following the procedure of Dey et al. (2020b). Eggs were extracted from the pooled fecal sample by simultaneous sedimentation, floatation and centrifugation methods and a suspension with desired egg concentration (100–150 eggs/100 µl) was prepared to perform EHA.

Preparation of different concentrations of ABZ

To prepare stock solution A, 50 mg ABZ (Tokyo Chemical Industry, Japan) was dissolved in 5 ml DMSO. For stock solution B, 9 ml of DMSO was added in 1 ml of stock solution A. Working solutions were prepared by adding 100 to 1000 µl of stock solution B up to 10 ml of DMSO. Of these working solutions, 10 µl was added to 1990 µl egg suspension to obtain 0.05 µg, 0.1 µg, 0.2 µg, 0.3 µg and 0.5 µg ABZ per ml with a total volume of 2000 µl in a 24-well culture plate.

Incubation of eggs for hatching and examination of eggs and larvae

The same volume of egg suspension and drug suspension was used in each well. In control well, only 0.5% DMSO was used without ABZ suspension. The test was performed in triplicate. The culture plate was incubated at 25 °C for 48 h in a CO2 incubator (Biobase Bioindustry Co., Ltd., Shandong, China) and then stopped development by adding drops of Lugol’s iodine. A total of hundred eggs (embryonated and dead) and hatched larvae were counted from each well under a microscope by a blind examiner.

Data analysis

Fecal egg count reduction test (FECRT)

The percentage of reduction in fecal egg counts was determined following the guidelines of WAAVP using arithmetic mean egg counts. The percentage of reduction was calculated as 100(1-Xt/Xc), where ‘Xt’ is the mean egg count of treated group and ‘Xc’ is the mean egg count of the untreated group, and 95% confidence intervals were estimated. When the percentage of reduction in egg count was less than 95% and the lower limit of 95% confidence level was less than 90%, it was considered as resistance. If only one of the two criteria was met, then resistance was suspected (Coles et al. 1992).

Egg hatch assay (EHA)

To analyze concentration-dependent data of EHA by non-linear regression, a four-parameter logistic equation with a variable slope was chosen using the computer program GraphPad Prism 9.0 for Windows. The data were analyzed to determine the EC50 (concentration required to inhibit hatching of 50% eggs), the 95% confidence intervals, coefficient of determination (R2), and EC50 value > 0.1 µg/ml was considered as ABZ resistance (Coles et al. 1992).

Results

Multiple anthelmintic resistance (AR) in cattle farms

In the present study, FECRT was performed in ten randomly selected cattle farms to know the status of AR against GI nematodes. The status of resistance was determined by calculating the percentage of FECR and 95% confidence interval. The result revealed that AR against GI nematodes was developed in almost all cattle farms according to the criteria recommended by WAAVP. Resistance was observed to three selected drugs including ABZ, LEV and IVM. The Cattle of all the selected farms were resistant to ABZ and LEV. IVM resistance was detected in nine farms and the status of one farm was suspected resistance (SR). The status of AR in cattle farms against the selected drugs is presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Status of AR in selected cattle farms at Mymensingh Sadar, Mymensingh using FECRT

No of farms Anthelmintic used FECR (%) 95% CI of FECR Status
Farm 1 ABZ 85.29 94.03–63.75 R
LEV 85.29 96.02–45.65 R
IVM 94.11 99.27–52.16 R
Farm 2 ABZ 85.71 96.14–47.09 R
LEV 85.71 95.36–55.97 R
IVM 88.57 97.49–47.89 R
Farm 3 ABZ 70.00 80.44–53.96 R
LEV 70.00 80.44–53.96 R
IVM 85.00 92.57–69.70 R
Farm 4 ABZ 88.46 97.00-55.59 R
LEV 76.92 86.18–61.46 R
IVM 84.61 88.91–78.64 R
Farm 5 ABZ 85.18 94.27–61.65 R
LEV 81.48 88.49–70.20 R
IVM 85.18 94.27–61.65 R
Farm 6 ABZ 71.42 81.52–55.80 R
LEV 80.95 91.91–55.13 R
IVM 71.42 81.52–55.80 R
Farm 7 ABZ 78.94 91.10-50.18 R
LEV 78.94 91.10-50.18 R
IVM 89.47 96.83–65.04 R
Farm 8 ABZ 90.90 97.27–69.61 R
LEV 86.36 93.38–71.87 R
IVM 95.45 99.42–64.26 SR
Farm 9 ABZ 73.68 88.30-40.78 R
LEV 73.68 83.36–58.36 R
IVM 84.21 92.26–67.78 R
Farm 10 ABZ 81.81 92.67–54.87 R
LEV 90.90 97.35–68.74 R
IVM 77.27 86.79–60.88 R
Open in a new tab

FECR, Fecal egg count reduction; ABZ, Albendazole; LEV, Levamisole; IVM, Ivermectin; CI, Confidence Interval; R, Resistance, SR, Suspected Resistance

Identification of resistant gins through copro-culture

Copro-culture was performed in all ten cattle farms to detect resistant parasites. For this, pooled fecal samples were collected at day 0 and day 14 of post-treatment (p. t). The result revealed mixed infections with the larvae of Haemonchus, Oesophagostomum, and Trichostrongylus at day 0 (before anthelmintic medication) in all farms. The third-stage larvae (L3) were identified only at genus level based on morphological features. At day 14 of p. t., Haemonchus, Oesophagostomum and Trichostrongylus were detected in nine farms whereas Haemonchus and Oesophagostomum were detected only in one farm signifying increased frequency of resistant larvae in studied cattle farms (Fig. 2; Table 2).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Resistant larvae identified from fecal culture at day 14 of post treatment. Larval stage 3 of Haemonchus (A), Oesophagostomum (B) and Trichostrongylus (C) were identified in the studied farms

Table 2.

Identified larvae at day 0 and day 14 of post treatment from fecal culture

Farm no. Detected larvae at day 0 (Before treatment) Detected larvae at day 14 (after treatment)
Farm 1

Haemonchus,

Oesophagostomum, Trichostrongylus,

Haemonchus,

Oesophagostomum

Farm 2

Oesophagostomum, Trichostrongylus,

Haemonchus

Oesophagostomum, Trichostrongylus,

Haemonchus

Farm 3

Oesophagostomum, Trichostrongylus,

Haemonchus

Oesophagostomum, Trichostrongylus,

Haemonchus

Farm 4

Oesophagostomum, Trichostrongylus,

Haemonchus

Oesophagostomum, Trichostrongylus,

Haemonchus

Farm 5

Oesophagostomum, Trichostrongylus,

Haemonchus

Oesophagostomum, Trichostrongylus,

Haemonchus

Farm 6

Oesophagostomum, Trichostrongylus,

Haemonchus

Oesophagostomum, Trichostrongylus,

Haemonchus

Farm 7

Oesophagostomum, Trichostrongylus,

Haemonchus

Oesophagostomum, Trichostrongylus,

Haemonchus

Farm 8

Trichostrongylus

Haemonchus

Trichostrongylus,

Haemonchus

Farm 9

Oesophagostomum, Trichostrongylus,

Haemonchus

Oesophagostomum, Trichostrongylus,

Haemonchus

Farm 10

Oesophagostomum, Trichostrongylus,

Haemonchus

Oesophagostomum,

Trichostrongylus,

Haemonchus

Open in a new tab

Egg hatch assay (EHA) confirms ABZ resistance in cattle farms

The in vitro technique, EHA was also employed in the studied farms to confirm ABZ resistance. To perform this, eggs were collected and isolated from pooled fecal samples of each farmand different concentrations of ABZ were used to treat isolated eggs. The levels of EC50 values of ABZ in all selected farms ranged from 0.14 to 0.29 µg ABZ/ml (EC50 > 0.1 µg ABZ/ml, the recommended value of resistance according to WAAVP) and the coefficient of correlation (R2) > 0.97 confirming ABZ resistance in all cattle farms (Table 3).

Table 3.

EC50 values from egg hatch assay in ten selected cattle farms

Name of farms EC50 value (µg/ml) 95% CI R 2
Farm 1 0.20 0.13–0.23 0.99
Farm 2 0.21 0.06–0.24 0.97
Farm 3 0.14 0.09–0.20 0.99
Farm 4 0.15 0.08–0.24 0.99
Farm 5 0.25 0.07–0.34 0.97
Farm 6 0.23 0.13–0.33 0.99
Farm 7 0.14 0.11–0.16 0.99
Farm 8 0.29 0.22–0.34 0.99
Farm 9 0.28 0.21–0.35 0.99
Farm 10 0.26 0.23–0.34 0.99
Open in a new tab

EC50 above 0.1 µg ABZ/ml indicates resistance against albendazoles; R2, Correlation coefficient; CI, Confidence interval

Discussion

Anthelmintic resistance (AR) in cattle is a global issue and reported by different research group around the world (Kaplan 2004; Kelleher et al. 2020; Gilleard 2013; Sutherland and Leathwick 2011; Anziani et al. 2004; Bartley et al. 2012; Stafford and Coles 1999). AR poses a huge threat to the future production and welfare of grazing animals. Development of resistance in gastrointestinal (GI) nematodes has been documented against all the major classes of anthelmintics (Hoglund et al. 2022). Management practices of farms, frequency of treatment, incorrect dosing or underdosing, management of pasture and treatment timing, lacking of altering family of anthelmintics and introduction of resistance parasites into herd or flock are the major factors associated with the development of AR in animals. The reports on AR in small ruminants are more than cattle and create a possibility of developing resistance in cattle because sheep, goats and cattle share common pasture land (Islam et al. 2018). The pasture contaminated with the developmental stages of resistant parasites helps to spread from one animal to another.

In the present study, FECRT and EHA were performed in ten different cattle farms in Mymensingh and all farms were found positive for AR against GI nematodes. The level of resistance ranged from low to high against selected drugs, especially ABZ. The farmers usually use anthelmintics only for treatment purposes not to control parasites. Most of the cases, farmers use anthelmintics from local pharmacies or from quack without maintaining proper dose of drugs. Also, negligence in weighing animals is an important factor for improper dosing of anthelmintics resulting development of AR in farm animals. Exposures of sub-lethal doses or over doses of drugs makes the parasites resistant to the practiced drugs (Charlier et al. 2018; Glover et al. 2017; Kaplan and Vidyashankar 2012; Rose et al. 2015; Sangster et al. 2018).

The management practice of using anthelmintic is similar in almost all livestock farms throughout the country. In the studied farms, ABZ, LEV and IVM are the drugs of choice to treat GI parasitic infections and resistance was identified against two or three groups of drugs. Multiple AR is documented in cattle in China, Ireland and South Africa (Hou et al. 2022; Kelleher et al. 2020; Tsotetsi et al. 2013). In India, very few reports are available related to BZ resistance in cattle compared to goats and sheep (Choudhury et al. 2018; Das and Singh 2005; Manikkavasagan et al. 2015; Sing and Yadav 1997).

Multiple AR is also documented in naturally grazing animals where anthelmintics are used frequently (Pawar et al. 2019). Different in vivo, in vitro and molecular techniques are used to investigate AR in farm animals. FECRT is a well-recognized in vivo technique for the diagnosis of AR (Babjak et al. 2018). Several authors detected AR by FECRT in South West of England (Stafford and Coles 1999), Argentina (Anziani et al. 2004), New Zealand (Sutherland and Leathwick 2011) and Scotland (Bartley et al. 2012). According to Suarez and Cristel (2007), AR is detected in 16 herds and found resistant to both fenbendazole and ivermectin in goat and sheep farms by performing FECRT (Sissay et al. 2006).

A very few reports are available on AR in cattle in Bangladesh (Rahman et al. 2018). However, reports on AR in cattle are documented around the world including USA and New Zealand (Gasbarre 2014; McKenna 1996). AR to benzimidazole, levamisole and ivermectin in cattle farms in Sao Paulo State, Brazil, has also been well documented (Soutello et al. 2007). In India, several studies indicate the presence of multiple AR in cattle (Gill 1996; Kalkal et al. 2020; Sankar et al. 2021; Verma et al. 2018).

In this study, Haemonchus, Trichostrongylus, and Oesophagostomum were detected as resistant parasites in cattle. In our previous communication, Haemonchus and Oesophagostomum were also recorded as resistant nematodes in sheep and goats (Dey et al. 2020b).

Ivermectin (IVM) resistance is commonly found in Cooperia spp. (Geurden et al. 2015a, b). Haemonchus was implicated in the resistance against benzimidazole and ivermectin (Hoglund et al. 2022). Ostertagia spp. was detected as a resistant parasite against IVM by few studies (Demeler et al. 2009; Rendell 2010). In this study, IVM resistance was detected in all studied farms (100%). The accurate diagnosis of resistance status in GIN-infecting cattle is more difficult than in small ruminants. Due to voluminous feces, egg output in feces tends to be lower, which creates a problem in accurate calculation of drug efficacy (McKenna 1996).

Nematodes of the family Trichostrongylidae are predominantly resistant nematodes in cattle (Mukherjee et al. 2023). These parasites are developing resistance due to their genetic makeup. The high gene flow of nematode population due to unrestricted movement of hosts contributes to disseminating resistant genes (Dey et al. 2019). In Bangladesh, the previous reports indicate that resistance in small ruminants is gradually increasing (Dey et al. 2020b; Hoque et al. 2003; Parvin et al. 2022). This might be attributed to the undepicted use of anthelmintics and spread of resistant alleles. Also, the genetic features of Haemonchus favor the individual resistant to anthelmintic (Dey et al. 2019, 2020b).

The egg hatch assay (EHA) is one of the main in vitro methods for detection of ABZ resistance in nematode parasites of cattle (Demeler et al. 2012). Many authors detected ABZ resistance by EHA in India (Kumar et al. 2014; Kumbhakar et al. 2016), South America (Canevari et al. 2014) and Ethiopia (Eguale et al. 2009).

The control of GI parasitism for large ruminants has long been under threat due to development of AR by parasite populations. Resistance to modern anthelmintics by nematode parasites is a great problem globally (Gasbarre et al. 2009; Geurden et al. 2015a, b; Rendell 2010). The emergence of AR can be prevented by accurate use of anthelmintics such as the correct dose by weighing the animals, treatment frequency and alternate use of anthelmintics. Farmers training on parasitism and developing AR in livestock provided by extension officers and animal health technicians will help to lessen the emergence of AR. In addition, a new approach of sustainable integrated parasite management might be practiced by using fewer anthelmintics in a more targeted and strategic way to battle the development of AR.

Conclusion

In the present study, albendazole, levamisole and ivermectin resistance were documented in cattle farms by FECRT. The study also revealed that Haemonchus, Trichostrongylus, and Oesophagostomum were resistant nematodes using copro-culture. Albendazole resistance was also confirmed by EHA in ten cattle farms. The levels of EC50 value of ABZ by EHA ranged from 0.14 to 0.29 µg ABZ/ml (> 0.1 µg/ml) with the coefficient of correlation (R2) > 0.97. This is the first detailed study on AR covering ten cattle farms. The study indicates an alarming situation on increasing AR at farm animals. Further study on the detection of BZ resistance using a new genome-wide SNP analysis in nematodes is essential on the diagnosis of drug resistance, leading to prompt changes in the strategies for parasite control.

Authors’ contributions

ARD conceived the project. ARD, MSK, NNS, A, KAN and MZA were involved in study design and coordination of data collection. MSK, NNS, KAN and A conducted laboratory work and performed data analyses. ARD, A, KAN and MZA interpreted the data. MSK, NNS, KAN, A and MZA drafted the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This research was granted by the University Grants Commission of Bangladesh (Grant number 2023/13/ UGC).

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

Consent for publication

The work has not been published previously or not under consideration for publication elsewhere. The article is approved by all authors.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethics approval

No animals were harmed or unethically injured/killed. The study was approved by the Animal Welfare and Ethical Committee of Bangladesh Agricultural University (06/AWEEC/2017).

Footnotes

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. Anziani OS, Suarez V, Guglielmone AA, Warnke O, Grande H, Coles GC (2004) Resistance to benzimidazole and macrocyclic lactone anthelmintics in cattle nematodes in Argentina. Vet Parasitol 122:303–306 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Babjak M, Konigova A, Dolinska MU, Vadlejch J, Varady M (2018) Anthelmintic resistance in goat herds—In vivo versus in vitro detection methods. Vet Parasitol 254:10–14 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bartley D, McArthur C, Devin L, Sutra J, Morrison A, Lespine A, Matthews J (2012) Characterisation of macrocyclic lactone resistance in two field-derived isolates of Cooperia oncophora. Vet Parasitol 190:454–460 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Calvete C, Ferrer L, Lacasta D, Calavia R, Ramos J, Ruiz-de-Arkaute M, Uriarte J (2014) Variability of the egg hatch assay to survey benzimidazole resistance in nematodes of small ruminants under field conditions. Vet Parasitol 203:102–113 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Canevari J, Ceballos L, Sanabria R, Romero J, Olaechea F, Ortiz P, Cabrera M, Gayo V, Fairweather I, Lanusse C (2014) Testing albendazole resistance in Fasciola hepatica: validation of an egg hatch test with isolates from South America and the United Kingdom. J Helminthol 88:286–292 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Charlier J, Thamsborg S, Bartley DJ, Skuce PJ, Kenyon F, Geurden T, Hoste H, Williams AR, Sotiraki S, Hoglund J (2018) Mind the gaps in research on the control of gastrointestinal nematodes of farmed ruminants and pigs. Transbound Emerg Dis 65:217–234 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Choudhury D, Phukan S, Islam S, Sarmah R, Baruah A, Milli D, Bulbul K (2018) Diagnosis of anthelmintic resistance against naturally infected gastrointestinal nematodes in cattle of Assam employing FECRT and molecular techniques. J Entomol Zool Stud 6:2439–2442 [Google Scholar]
  8. Coles GC (2002) Cattle nematodes resistant to anthelmintics: Why so few cases? Vet Res 33:481–489 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Coles G, Bauer C, Borgsteede F, Geerts S, Klei T, Taylor M, Waller P (1992) World association for the advancement of veterinary parasitology (WAAVP) methods for the detection of anthelmintic resistance in nematodes of veterinary importance. Vet Parasitol 44:35–44 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Coles G, Jackson F, Pomroy W, Prichard R, von Samson-Himmelstjerna G, Silvestre A, Taylor M, Vercruysse J (2006) The detection of anthelmintic resistance in nematodes of veterinary importance. Vet Parasitol 136:167–185 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Das M, Singh S (2005) Anthelmintic resistance to nematodes in sheep and goat farms in hisar. J Vet Parasitol 19:103–106 [Google Scholar]
  12. Demeler J, Van Zeveren A, Kleinschmidt N, Vercruysse J, Höglund J, Koopmann R, Cabaret J, Claerebout E, Areskog M, von Samson-Himmelstjerna G (2009) Monitoring the efficacy of Ivermectin and albendazole against gastro intestinal nematodes of cattle in Northern Europe. Vet Parasitol 160:109–115 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Demeler J, Kleinschmidt N, Küttler U, Koopmann R, von Samson-Himmelstjerna G (2012) Evaluation of the egg hatch assay and the larval migration Inhibition assay to detect anthelmintic resistance in cattle parasitic nematodes on farms. Parasitol Int 61:614–618 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Dey AR, Zhang Z, Begum N, Alim MA, Hu M, Alam MZ (2019) Genetic diversity patterns of Haemonchus contortus isolated from sheep and goats in Bangladesh. Infect Genet Evol 68:177–184 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Dey AR, Begum N, Alim MA, Malakar S, Islam MT, Alam MZ (2020a) Gastro-intestinal nematodes in goats in Bangladesh: a large-scale epidemiological study on the prevalence and risk factors. Parasite Epidemiol Control: e00146 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  16. Dey AR, Begum N, Anisuzzaman, Alim MA, Alam MZ (2020b) Multiple anthelmintic resistance in gastrointestinal nematodes of small ruminants in Bangladesh. Parasitol Int: 102105 [DOI] [PubMed]
  17. Dorny P, Symoens C, Jalila A, Vercruysse J, Sani R (1995) Strongyle infections in sheep and goats under the traditional husbandry system in Peninsular Malaysia. Vet Parasitol 56:121–136 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Eguale T, Chaka H, Gizaw D (2009) Efficacy of albendazole against nematode parasites isolated from a goat farm in Ethiopia: relationship between dose and efficacy in goats. Trop Anim Health Prod 41:1267–1273 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Gasbarre LC (2014) Anthelmintic resistance in cattle nematodes in the US. Vet Parasitol 204:3–11 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Gasbarre LC, Smith LL, Lichtenfels JR, Pilitt PA (2009) The identification of cattle nematode parasites resistant to multiple classes of anthelmintics in a commercial cattle population in the US. Vet Parasitol 166:281–285 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Geurden T, Chartier C, Fanke J, Di Regalbono AF, Traversa D, von Samson-Himmelstjerna G, Demeler J, Vanimisetti HB, Bartram DJ, Denwood MJ (2015a) Anthelmintic resistance to Ivermectin and moxidectin in gastrointestinal nematodes of cattle in Europe. Int J Parasitol Drugs Drug Resist 5:163–171 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Geurden T, Chartier C, Fanke J, Di Regalbono AF, Traversa D, von Samson-Himmelstjerna G, Demeler J, Vanimisetti HB, Bartram DJ, Denwood MJ (2015b) Anthelmintic resistance to Ivermectin and moxidectin in gastrointestinal nematodes of cattle in Europe. Int J Parasitol Drugs Drug Resist 5(3):163–171 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Ghisi M, Kaminsky R, Maser P (2007) Phenotyping and genotyping of Haemonchus contortus isolates reveals a new putative candidate mutation for benzimidazole resistance in nematodes. Vet Parasitol 144:313–320 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Gill B (1996) Anthelmintic resistance in India. Vet Parasitol 63:173–176 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Gilleard JS (2013) Haemonchus contortus as a paradigm and model to study anthelmintic drug resistance. Parasitology 140:1506–1522 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Glover M, Clarke C, Nabb L, Schmidt J (2017) Anthelmintic efficacy on sheep farms in south-west England. Vet Rec 180:378 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Hesterberg U, Bagnall R, Perrett K, Horner R, Gummow B (2007) A questionnaire survey of perceptions and preventive measures related to animal health amongst cattle owners of rural communities in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. J S Afr Vet Assoc 78:205–208 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Hoglund J, Baltrusis P, Enweji N, Gustafsson K (2022) Signs of multiple anthelmintic resistance in sheep gastrointestinal nematodes in Sweden. Vet Parasitol Reg Stud Rep 36:100789 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Hoque M, Begum N, Nooruddin M (2003) Albendazole resistance in gastrointestinal nematode parasites of cattle in Bangladesh. Trop Anim Health Prod 35:219–222 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Hou B, Yong R, Wuen J, Zhang Y, Buyin B, Subu D, Zha H, Li H, Hasi S (2022) Positivity rate investigation and anthelmintic resistance analysis of gastrointestinal nematodes in sheep and cattle in Ordos, China. Animals 12(7):891 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Islam S, Dey AR, Akter S, Biswa H, Talukder MH, Alam MZ (2018) Status of anthelmintic resistance of Gastrointestinal nematodes in organized sheep and goat farms. Asian J Med Biol Res 4:378–382 [Google Scholar]
  32. Jabbar A, Iqbal Z, Saddiqi HA, Babar W, Saeed M (2008) Prevalence of multiple anthelmintic resistant gastrointestinal nematodes in dairy goats in a desolated tract (Pakistan). Parasitol Res 103:29–35 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Kalkal H, Vohra S, Gupta S (2020) Anthelmintic resistance in livestock parasites: Indian scenario. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci 9:2839–2851 [Google Scholar]
  34. Kaplan RM (2004) Drug resistance in nematodes of veterinary importance: a status report. Trends Parasitol 20:477–481 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Kaplan RM, Vidyashankar AN (2012) An inconvenient truth: global worming and anthelmintic resistance. Vet Parasitol 186:70–78 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Kelleher AC, Good B, De Waal T, Keane OM (2020) Anthelmintic resistance among gastrointestinal nematodes of cattle on dairy calf to beef farms in Ireland. Ir Vet J 73:12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Kumar S, Renukaprasad C, D’Souza PE, Pradeep B (2014) Evaluation of albendazole against sheep strongyles in farms of Karnataka state by different in vitro tests. IJVASR 10:330–339 [Google Scholar]
  38. Kumbhakar N, Sanyal P, Rawte D, Kumar D, Kerketta A, Pal S (2016) Efficacy of Pharmacokinetic interactions between piperonyl butoxide and albendazole against gastrointestinal nematodiasis in goats. J Helminthol 90:624–629 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Manikkavasagan I, Binosundar S, Raman M (2015) Survey on anthelmintic resistance to gastrointestinal nematodes in unorganized goat farms of Tamil Nadu. J Parasit Dis 39:258–261 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. McKenna P (1996) Anthelmintic resistance in cattle nematodes in new Zealand: Is it increasing? N Z Vet J 44:76 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Mukherjee A, Kar I, Patra AK (2023) Understanding anthelmintic resistance in livestock using omics approaches. Environ Sci Pollut Res 30(60):125439–125463 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Parvin S, Dey AR, Rony SA, Akter S, Anisuzzaman, Talukder MH, Alam MZ (2022) Frequency of benzimidazole resistance in Haemonchus contortus populations isolated from sheep and goats in Bangladesh. Ann Parasitol 68(3):563–568 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Pawar P, Das Singla L, Kaur P, Bal MS, Javed M (2019) Evaluation and correlation of multiple anthelmintic resistances to gastrointestinal nematodes using different fecal egg count reduction methods in small ruminants of Punjab, India. Acta Parasitol 64:456–463 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Rahman T, Dey AR, Islam S, Hossain MS, Talukder MH, Alam MZ (2018) Anthelmintic resistance to cattle gastrointestinal nematodes in selected dairy farms of Mymensingh and Sirajganj districts of Bangladesh. Res Agric Livest Fish 5:87–92 [Google Scholar]
  45. Rendell D (2010) Anthelmintic resistance in cattle nematodes on 13 south-west Victorian properties. Aust Vet J 88:504–509 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Rose H, Rinaldi L, Bosco A, Mavrot F, De Waal T, Skuce P, Charlier J, Torgerson P, Hertzberg H, Hendrickx G (2015) Widespread anthelmintic resistance in European farmed ruminants: a systematic review. Vet Rec 176:546–546 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Sangster NC, Cowling A, Woodgate RG (2018) Ten events that defined anthelmintic resistance research. Trends Parasitol 34:553–563 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Sankar M, Yashica K, Ghosh S (2021) Strategies to reduce anthelmintic resistance in livestock. Indian J Comp Microbiol Immunol Infect Dis 42:32–40 [Google Scholar]
  49. Sing S, Yadav C (1997) A survey of anthelmintic resistance by nematodes on three sheep and two goat farms in hisar (India). Vet Res Commun 21:447–451 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Sissay MM, Asefa A, Uggla A, Waller PJ (2006) Anthelmintic resistance of nematode parasites of small ruminants in Eastern Ethiopia: exploitation of refugia to restore anthelmintic efficacy. Vet Parasitol 135:337–346 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Smith G, Grenfell BT, Isham V, Cornell S (1999) Anthelmintic resistance revisited: under-dosing, chemoprophylactic strategies, and mating probabilities. Int J Parasitol 29:77–91 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Soutello R, Seno M, Amarante A, Coles GC (2007) Anthelmintic resistance in cattle nematodes in Northwestern Sao Paulo State, Brazil. Vet Parasitol 148:360–364 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Stafford K, Coles G (1999) Nematode control practices and anthelmintic resistance in dairy calves in the South West of England. Vet Rec 144:659–661 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Suarez V, Cristel S (2007) Anthelmintic resistance in cattle nematode in the Western Pampeana region of Argentina. Vet Parasitol 144:111–117 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Sutherland IA, Leathwick DM (2011) Anthelmintic resistance in nematode parasites of cattle: A global issue? Trends Parasitol 27:176–181 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Tsotetsi AM, Njiro S, Katsande TC et al (2013) Prevalence of Gastrointestinal helminths and anthelmintic resistance on small-scale farms in Gauteng Province, South Africa. Trop Anim Health Prod 45:751–761 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Van Wyk JA, Mayhew E (2013) Morphological identification of parasitic nematode infective larvae of small ruminants and cattle: A practical lab guide. Onderstepoort J Vet Res 80:1–14 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Vande Velde F, Charlier J, Claerebout E (2018) Farmer behavior and Gastrointestinal nematodes in ruminant livestock—uptake of sustainable control approaches. Front Vet Sci 5:255 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Varady M, Cernanska D, Corba J (2006) Use of two in vitro methods for the detection of anthelmintic resistant nematode parasites on Slovak sheep farms. Vet Parasitol 135:325–331 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Verma R, Lata K, Das G (2018) An overview of anthelmintic resistance in Gastrointestinal nematodes of livestock and its management: India perspectives. Int J Chem Stud 6:1755–1762 [Google Scholar]
  61. Wolstenholme AJ, Fairweather I, Prichard R, von Samson-Himmelstjerna G, Sangster NC (2004) Drug resistance in veterinary helminths. Trends Parasitol 20:469–476 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Articles from Journal of Parasitic Diseases: Official Organ of the Indian Society for Parasitology are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES