Skip to main content
PMC home page
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2012 Aug 24;7(8):e43782. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043782

Multilocus Sequence Subtyping and Genetic Structure of Cryptosporidium muris and Cryptosporidium andersoni

Rongjun Wang 1, Fuchun Jian 1, Longxian Zhang 1,*, Changshen Ning 1, Aiqin Liu 2, Jinfeng Zhao 1, Yaoyu Feng 3, Meng Qi 1, Helei Wang 1, Chaochao Lv 1, Guanghui Zhao 4, Lihua Xiao 5,*
Editor: Rudy A Hartskeerl6
PMCID: PMC3427161  PMID: 22937094

Abstract

In this study, nine C. muris and 43 C. andersoni isolates from various animals in China were subtyped by a multilocus sequence typing (MLST) tool. DNA sequence analyses showed the presence of 1–2 subtypes of C. muris and 2–6 subtypes of C. andersoni at each of the four loci (MS1, MS2, MS3, and MS16), nine of which represented new subtypes. Altogether, two C. muris and 10 C. andersoni MLST subtypes were detected. Linkage disequilibrium analysis indicated although the overall population structure of the two parasites was clonal, the Chinese C. andersoni in cattle has an epidemic structure. Three and two clusters were produced in the C. muris and C. andersoni populations by Structure 2.3.3 analysis, with Chinese C. muris and C. andersoni substructures differing from other countries. Thus, this study suggested the prevalence of C. andersoni in China is not attributed to the introduction of dairy cattle. More studies involving more genetic loci and systematic sampling are needed to better elucidate the population genetic structure of C. muris and C. andersoni in the world and the genetic basis for the difference in host specificity among the two most common gastric parasites.

Introduction

Cryptosporidium muris was first identified in the gastric glands of mice, but has been shown since to have a wide range of hosts, including various rodents, pigs, bactrian camels, giraffes, dogs, cats, cynomolgus monkeys, seals, bilbies, and birds [1]–[14]. In contrast, Cryptosporidium andersoni was long considered C. muris and was established as a new species only based on genetic and host specificity differences [15]. Results of studies conducted in numerous countries suggested that C. andersoni is mostly a parasite of cattle, only occasionally being detected in other animals such as bactrian camels, sheep, goats, and hamsters [7], [16], [17]. Both C. muris and C. andersoni are considered minor zoonotic Cryptosporidium species based on the fact that a few human cases have been reported in recent years [18]–[28].

Various subtyping tools have been developed for Cryptosporidium parvum and Cryptosporidium hominis using polymorphic microsatellite and minisatellite markers identified in recent whole genome sequencing data. They have been very useful in molecular epidemiologic and population genetic studies [29]. However, most of these tools can only subtype C. parvum and C. hominis, two intestinal species of the most public health significance [29], [30]. The recent whole genome sequencing of C. muris has allowed the identification of microsatellite and minisatellite markers for gastric Cryptosporidium spp. Thus, Feng et al. screened the C. muris genome sequence data for microsatellite and minisatellite targets, and developed a multilocus sequence typing (MLST) tool for C. muris and C. andersoni [31].

The characterization of Cryptosporidium genetic structure has direct implications in understanding its biology as well as transmission dynamics and infection sources in different hosts and geographic areas [30]. Previously, population genetic structure analysis was only conducted in C. parvum and C. hominis and three types of populations were identified, including panmictic populations, clonal populations, and epidemic populations 32–34. The aim of the present study was to subtype C. muris and C. andersoni isolates and explore the population genetic structure of C. muris and C. andersoni by mining the MLST data using cluster analysis, diversity statistical test, and measurements of linkage disequilibrium.

Materials and Methods

Ethics Statement

This study was performed in accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the Ministry of Health, China. Prior to experiment, the protocol of the current study was reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Henan Agricultural University. The fecal samples were obtained by the collection of feces excreted from animals after the permission of farm owners, with no specific permits being required by the authority for the feces collection.

Cryptosporidium Isolates

A total of nine C. muris isolates and 43 C. andersoni isolates were used in this study (Table 1). The C. muris isolates were from Siberian chipmunk, hamsters, and ostriches in Henan province. The C. andersoni isolates were from hamsters, sheep, and cattle (including dairy cattle and beef cattle) in Henan, Jilin, Heilongjiang, Shaanxi, Sichuan, and Guangxin provinces. Some of the C. muris and C. andersoni DNA specimens (C. muris: MC2, MC4, MC14, and MC17; C. andersoni: MC7, MC16, CL01, SP69, SP75, DY-ZZ7, DY-ZZ8, DY-ZZ13, DY-ZZ17, DY-ZZ30, DY-ZZ31, DY-ZZ47, DY-ZZ48, DY-HLJ3, DY-HLJ9, DY-HLJ13, DY-HLJ14, and DY-HLJ18) (Table 1) are part of our laboratory’s archive, which have been identified in previous studies [7], [16], [35], [36], whereas the remaining isolates were diagnosed as positive for C. muris or C. andersoni by PCR-RFLP and DNA sequence analysis of a ∼830 bp fragment of the small subunit (SSU) rRNA gene [37].

Table 1. Isolates used in this study and their subtype identity at the four minisatellite loci.

Isolate ID Species Host Geographic source MLST subtype
MS1 MS2 MS3 MS16
MC2 C. muris Siberian chipmunk Henan M11 M4 M6 M1
MC4 C. muris Hamster Henan M11 M4 M6 M1
MC14 C. muris Hamster Henan M11 M4 M6 M1
MC17 C. muris Hamster Henan M11 M4 M6 M1
OH1 C. muris Ostrich Henan M5 M4 M6 M4
OH2 C. muris Ostrich Henan M5 M4 M6 M4
OH14 C. muris Ostrich Henan M5 M4 M6 M4
OH16 C. muris Ostrich Henan M5 M4 M6 M4
OH18 C. muris Ostrich Henan M5 M4 M6 M4
MC7 C. andersoni Hamster Henan A3 A4 A2 A2
MC16 C. andersoni Hamster Henan A3 A4 A2 A2
CL01 C. andersoni Bactrian camel Henan A6 A5 A2 A1
CL02 C. andersoni Bactrian camel Henan A6 A4 A2 A1
SP69 C. andersoni Sheep Henan A2 A5 A2 A1
SP75 C. andersoni Sheep Henan A2 A4 A2 A1
DY-LB2 C. andersoni Dairy cattle Henan A4 A4 A4 A1
DY-LB8 C. andersoni Dairy cattle Henan A4 A4 A4 A1
DY-LY2 C. andersoni Dairy cattle Henan A4 A4 A4 A1
DY-LY3 C. andersoni Dairy cattle Henan A4 A4 A4 A1
DY-ZZ7 C. andersoni Dairy cattle Henan A2 A4 A2 A1
DY-ZZ8 C. andersoni Dairy cattle Henan A4 A4 A4 A1
DY-ZZ13 C. andersoni Dairy cattle Henan A4 A4 A4 A1
DY-ZZ17 C. andersoni Dairy cattle Henan A3 A4 A4 A1
DY-ZZ30 C. andersoni Dairy cattle Henan A4 A4 A4 A1
DY-ZZ31 C. andersoni Dairy cattle Henan A1 A4 A4 A1
DY-ZZ47 C. andersoni Dairy cattle Henan A2 A4 A2 A1
DY-ZZ48 C. andersoni Dairy cattle Henan A4 A4 A4 A1
DY-HLJ3 C. andersoni Dairy cattle Heilongjiang A4 A4 A4 A1
DY-HLJ9 C. andersoni Dairy cattle Heilongjiang A4 A4 A4 A1
DY-HLJ13 C. andersoni Dairy cattle Heilongjiang A4 A4 A4 A1
DY-HLJ14 C. andersoni Dairy cattle Heilongjiang A4 A4 A4 A1
DY-HLJ18 C. andersoni Dairy cattle Heilongjiang A4 A4 A4 A1
DY-JL6-3 C. andersoni Dairy cattle Jilin Noisy – A4 –
DY-JL26 C. andersoni Dairy cattle Jilin A4 A4 A4 A1
DY-SC1 C. andersoni Dairy cattle Sichuan A4 A4 A4 A1
DY-SC2 C. andersoni Dairy cattle Sichuan A4 A4 A4 A1
DY-SC3 C. andersoni Dairy cattle Sichuan A2 A4 A4 A1
DY-SC5 C. andersoni Dairy cattle Sichuan A1 A4 A4 A1
DY-SC6 C. andersoni Dairy cattle Sichuan A4 A4 A4 A1
DY-GX1 C. andersoni Dairy cattle Guangxi A1 A4 A4 A1
DY-GX5 C. andersoni Dairy cattle Guangxi A1 A4 A4 A1
DY-GX6 C. andersoni Dairy cattle Guangxi A2 A4 A2 A1
DY-GX7 C. andersoni Dairy cattle Guangxi A4 A4 A4 A1
DY-SX96 C. andersoni Dairy cattle Shanxi A4 A4 A4 A1
BF-SX00 C. andersoni Beef cattle Shanxi A4 A4 A4 A1
BF-SX13 C. andersoni Beef cattle Shanxi A4 A4 A4 A1
BF-SX23 C. andersoni Beef cattle Shanxi A4 A4 A4 A1
BF-SX101 C. andersoni Beef cattle Shanxi A4 A4 A4 A1
BF39 C. andersoni Beef cattle Henan A4 A4 A4 A1
BF43 C. andersoni Beef cattle Henan A5 A4 A4 A1
BF156 C. andersoni Beef cattle Henan A1 A4 A4 A1
BF160 C. andersoni Beef cattle Henan A1 A4 A4 A1
Open in a new tab

DNA Extraction and Subtyping

Genomic DNA was extracted from Cryptosporidium-positive feces samples using the E.Z.N.A.® Stool DNA kit (Omega Biotek Inc., Norcross, USA) and the manufacturer-recommended procedures. Primers and amplification conditions used in nested-PCR analysis of MS1 (coding for hypothetical protein), MS2 (coding for 90 kDa heat shock protein), MS3 (coding for hypothetical protein), and MS16 (coding for leucine rich repeat family protein) genes were previously described [31]. KOD-Plus-Neo amplification enzyme (Toyobo Co. Ltd, Osaka, Japan) was used for PCR amplification. 400 ng/µl of non-acetylated bovine serum albumin (Solarbio Co. Ltd, Beijing, China) was used in the primary PCR to neutralize PCR inhibitors. The secondary PCR products were examined by agarose gel electrophoresis and visualized after GelRed™ (Biotium Inc., Hayward, CA) staining. The secondary PCR products were sequenced on an ABI 3730 DNA Analyzer (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, USA), using the secondary primers and the Big Dye Terminator v3.1 Cycle Sequencing kit (Applied Biosystems). The sequence accuracy was confirmed by two-directional sequencing and by sequencing a new PCR product if necessary.

Data Analysis

Sequence alignment was done using the program ClustalX 1.83 (ftp://ftp-igbmc.u-strasbg.fr/pub/ClustalX/). Neighbor-joining trees were constructed using the program Phylip version 3.69, based on the evolutionary distances calculated by Kimura-2-parameter model. DnaSP version 5.10.01 (http://www.ub.edu/dnasp/) was used to analyze the genetic diversity of the C. muris and C. andersoni sequences. Linkage disequilibrium across all loci was assessed using the standardized index of association (I S A) proposed by Habould and Hudson [38]. The index and its probability under a null model of complete panmixia were calculated using LIAN version 3.5 (http://adenine.biz.fh-weihenstephan.de/cgi-bin/lian/lian.cgi.pl) with hypothesis testing by a parametric method. The genetic structures of C. muris and C. andersoni groups were calculated using STRUCTURE version 2.3.3 by K-means partitional clustering and the admixture model. STRUCTURE calculated membership coefficients to place all the individuals to K clusters, where K value was set from 2 to 8 in this study and the most appropriate number of K was determined by calculating delta K as described in a previous study [39].

Nucleotide Sequence Accession Numbers

Representative nucleotide sequences were deposited in the GenBank under accession numbers JF732833 to JF732872.

Results

Subtypes of C. muris and C. andersoni

A total of 52 isolates were successfully subtyped at all four loci. In contrast, only MS1 and MS3 were amplified for isolate DY-JL6-3. At each of the four loci, the acquired sequences consisted of two groups by multiple-sequence alignment analysis: one group consisted of C. muris isolates and the second one was all C. andersoni isolates. This was supported by results of phylogenetic analysis (Figure 1). Altogether, 2, 1, 1, and 2 subtypes were identified in C. muris, and 6, 2, 2, and 2 subtypes in C. andersoni at the MS1, MS2, MS3, and MS16 loci, respectively (Figure 1). Among them, two C. muris subtypes and seven C. andersoni subtypes represented new subtypes (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Phylogenetic relationship among subtypes of C. muris and C. andersoni at four microsatellite and minisatellite loci (MS1, MS2, MS3, and MS16) as assessed by a neighbor-joining analysis of the nucleotide sequences, using distance calculated by the Kimura 2-parameter model.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Nature of Polymorphism in Minisatellite Sequences

The two groups of parasites identified differed from each other by having numerous nucleotide substitutions in the non-repeat region. Within each group, sequences differed from each other only in the number of minisatellite repeats. The insertions and deletions were always in trinucleotides because of the coding nature of the targets.

The two species differed from each other in the nature of minisatellite repeats at some loci. At the MS16 locus, C. muris and C. andersoni had the same repeat sequence (CTTCTTCAT). However, the repeat sequences of C. muris and C. andersoni differed from each other at the MS2 and MS3 loci. In addition, the extent of differences in repeat sequences also varied by locus. At the MS1 locus, only one nucleotide difference was noticed in one of the two minisatellite regions between C. muris and C. andersoni. In contrast, the repeat sequences were totally different at the MS3 locus (Table 2).

Table 2. The nature of minisatellite repeats at four genetic loci.

Locus C. muris C. andersoni
MS1 (TAAAGGGAGAGA)3 & (GAACGAGATAGG)15,18 (TAAAGGGCGAGA)3 & (GAACGAGATAGG)12–17
MS2 (CCATATCCC)3 & (CCATACCTC)3 (CCATACCTC)10–11
MS3 (TGTTGG)10 & (GCTGCA)6 (TGTTGGTGTTGCTGT)2 & (TGCTGCAGCTGC)2–3
MS16 (CTTCTTCAT)10–11 (CTTCTTCAT)12,14
Open in a new tab

Multilocus Subtypes and Polymorphism

Except for a C. andersoni isolate (DY-JL6-3), the remaining isolates were successfully subtyped at all four loci, forming two C. muris and 10 C. andersoni MLST subtypes. Three C. muris isolates from Siberian chipmunk and hamsters, and five C. muris isolates from ostriches each formed a single MLST subtype. In C. andersoni, the MLST subtype A4, A4, A4, A1 had the most number of isolates (n = 24), followed by MLST subtype A1, A4, A4, A1 (n = 6). In contrast, other eight MLST subtypes had 1–4 isolates (Table 1). Thus, a total of 14 C. muris and 17 C. andersoni MLST subtypes have been identified, including those reported previously [31] (Table S1).

Sequence data of all four loci, including the data reported by Feng et al. [31], were concatenated making a multilocus gene of 2056 bp length for C. muris and 2142 bp length for C. andersoni. Genetic diversity of sequences was analyzed using DnaSP version 5.10.01. The former produced 59 polymorphic sites and 4 haplotypes with a haplotype diversity of 0.677±0.075, nucleotide diversity of 0.00734, and average number of nucleotide differences of 14.24 (Table 3). The latter had 4 polymorphic sites and 5 haplotypes with a haplotype diversity of 0.384±0.079, nucleotide diversity of 0.00024, and average number of nucleotide differences of 0.477 (Table 3).

Table 3. Genetic diversity of C. andersoni and C. muris DNA sequences.

Cryptosporidium species Number of sequences Number of sites No. of polymorphicsites, S No. of haplotypes, h Haplotype diversity, Hd Nucleotide diversity, Pi Average number of nucleotide differences, k
C. muris 25 2056 59 4 0.677±0.075 0.00734 14.24
C. andersoni 54 2142 4 5 0.384±0.079 0.00024 0.477
Open in a new tab

Linkage Disequilibrium Analysis

The I S A values for the populations are shown in Table 4. When all isolates were used in the analysis, the C. muris and C. andersoni populations both had positive I S A values and the pairwise variance (V D) was greater than the 95% critical value (L) indicating the presence of linkage disequilibrium (LD) in both populations. To test for the possibility that LD could be due to clonal expansion of one or more subtypes which masks the underlying equilibrium, I S A was calculated for MLST subtypes only (considering each group of isolates with the same MLST subtype as one individual) for C. muris and C. andersoni. The I S A value obtained was still above zero in the C. muris population (I S A = 0.1355, V D >L). In contrast, negative values (−0.0094 and −0.0109) of I S A were obtained for the C. andersoni population from various animals. The same analysis was performed for C. andersoni in cattle in China, which suggested that this population had an epidemic population structure (I S A = 0.0290, V D <L).

Table 4. Analysis of linkage disequilibrium in C. andersoni and C. muris populations.

species Area Source of isolates No. ofcompletelytyped Standardizedindex ofassociation (I S A) P value V D >L
C. andersoni China, USA, Australia, Czech Cattle, bactrian camel, sheep, hamster 54 0.2058 1.85×10−23 Yes
China Cattle, bactrian camel, sheep, hamster 48 0.2520 3.71×10−25 Yes
China Cattle, bactrian camel, sheep 46 0.2542 1.86×10−28 Yes
China Cattle 42 0.2422 3.04×10−19 Yes
China, USA, Australia, Czech Cattle, bactrian camel, sheep, hamster 17a −0.0094 1 No
China Cattle, bactrian camel, sheep, hamster 13a −0.0109 1 No
China Cattle 9a 0.0290 6.14×10−1 No
C. muris China, Czech, Kenya, Egypt Bactrian camel, human, mara (Dolichotis patagonum),bactrian camel via Mastomys coucha, mountaingoat, laboratory mouse, mouse, Yellow ratsnake, ostrich, Siberian chipmunk, hamster, squirrel,Tachyorectes via Meriones unguiculatus, camel viamice, dog via mice, RN66 via SCID mice 26 0.3288 6.45×10−73 Yes
China, Czech, Kenya, Egypt Bactrian camel, human, mara (Dolichotis patagonum),bactrian camel via Mastomys coucha, mountaingoat, laboratory mouse, mouse, Yellow rat snake,ostrich, Siberian chipmunk, hamster, squirrel,Tachyorectes via Meriones unguiculatus, camelvia mice, dog via mice, RN66 via SCID mice 14a 0.1093 2.79×10−4 Yes
Open in a new tab

Note: V D = the pairwise variance, L = 95% critical value; awith the same MLST type as one individual; the data of the non-Chinese isolates came from a recently published paper [31].

Population Substructure

A Bayesian statistical approach was used to infer population substructure in allelic variation in the minisatellite sequences using the software STRUCTURE. The peak value of delta K was noticed at K = 3, thus, Cryptosporidium muris produced 3 clusters (Figure 2A). Cluster 2 consisted of the C. muris samples from hamsters and ostriches in China, Cluster 3 contained three laboratory passaged C. muris isolates from the Czech Republic, including bactrian camel via Mastomys coucha, RN66 via SCID mice, and Tachyorectes via Meriones unguiculatus, while cluster 1 included the remaining C. muris isolates from Japan, Peru, Kenya, Egypt, and Czech Republic (Figure 2A). Likewise, two clusters (K = 2) were identified in C. andersoni isolates. Cluster 1 included isolates from dairy cattle in the United States, Czech Republic, and Australia, and bactrian camel, sheep, hamster, and a small number of dairy cattle and beef cattle in China. In contrast, cluster 2 consisted of most C. andersoni isolates from dairy cattle and beef cattle in China (Figure 2B).

Figure 2. Population structure inferred by Bayesian clustering using multilocus subtype information.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

A, Cryptosporidium muris; B, Cryptosporidium andersoni. Each individual is shown as a thin vertical line, which is partitioned into K colored components representing estimated membership fractions in K genetic clusters, and the geographic locations are at the bottom. The pie charts show the distribution of genetic clusters in different countries and various animals. JP = Japan; PE = Peru; Ken = Kenya; EG = Egypt; CS = Czech Republic; CN = China; B = beef cattle; C = bactrian camel; D = dairy cattle; H = hamster; S = sheep.

Discussion

In this study, 1–2 subtypes of C. muris and 2–6 subtypes of C. andersoni were seen at each of the polymorphic loci. The sequence polymorphism in C. muris and C. andersoni was largely in the form of differences in the copy number of minisatellite repeats (Table 2). Thus, as discussed in a more recent study [31], the coding nature of the targets was probably not responsible for the differences observed between the gastric and intestinal Cryptosporidium spp. In contrast, this difference might be a reflection of intrinsic biologic and genetic difference between gastric and intestinal Cryptosporidium species.

Multilocus DNA sequence analysis by DnaSP showed that the genetic diversity of C. andersoni was much smaller than that of C. muris (Table 3), which might attribute to the narrow host specificity of C. andersoni [31]. For both parasites, genetic differences were observed depending on the animal host species. For example, the MLST subtype of C. muris in ostriches obviously differed from those in bactrian camel, mice, squirrels, dogs, mountain goats, maras, and humans (Table 1) [31]. Likewise, differences were also noticed in the MLST subtypes of C. andersoni among hamsters, bactrian camels, sheep, and cattle (Table 1). These differences observed may be a reflection of co-evolution of hosts and parasites, which might lead to different biologic characteristics. For example, C. andersoni isolates in Japan, the so-called Kawatabi strain, differ from C. andersoni isolates in other areas in its ability to infect SCID mice [40].

In the present study, the I S A values for C. muris and C. andersoni populations were all above zero when all isolates from various animals were included in the analysis (Table 4), which indicated both C. muris and C. andersoni populations had clonal genetic structure and genetic exchange occurred rarely. Therefore, unlike Cryptosporidium parvum, the number of subtypes of C. muris and C. andersoni was relatively less. When each group of isolates with the same MLST subtype was considered as one individual, data analysis showed that LD still existed in C. muris population (I S A = 0.1355, V D > L). Conversely, although “statistically significant," the I S A value for C. andersoni isolates was near zero (Table 4), suggesting it could not be the evidence for panmictic population structure. Interestingly, the same analysis indicated that the C. andersoni in cattle in China had an epidemic population structure (I S A = 0.0290, V D <L). These results, combining with different MLST subtypes compared to other countries, suggested that the prevalence of C. andersoni in China is not attributed to the introduction of dairy cattle based on the following facts: 1) the introduction of dairy cattle in China only occurred in the last 20 years and the main breed is Holstein cattle from Australia and New Zealand [41]; 2) Cryptosporidium andersoni was present in China in non-dairy areas and before the introduction of Holstein cattle [42] and 3) the C. parvum IId subtype (IIdA19G1) found in cattle in China has not been reported in cattle in Australia and New Zealand, or most other places in the world [36]. Thus, diverse factors including transmission dynamics, geographical isolation, and host-specificity might contribute to the emergence of epidemic populations.

STRUCTURE analysis showed that the Cryptosporidium muris population formed three clusters (Figure 2A). Among which, three “C. muris variant" isolates from the Czech Republic including an isolate (TS03) originated from East African mole rat (Tachyoryctes splendens) formed a single substructure. This result was in agreement with previous observations that the East African isolate differed from other C. muris isolates based on cross-transmission, genotyping and subtyping studies [30], [43]. In addition, Chinese C. muris isolates from rodents and ostriches also consisted of a separate cluster. Thus, the substructure of C. muris noticed in this study further confirmed the existence of genetic and biologic diversity in C. muris.

Cryptosporidium andersoni formed two clusters in the STRUCTURE analysis. Most C. andersoni isolates from dairy cattle and beef cattle in China belonged to a separate cluster, whereas the C. andersoni isolates from other animals formed a different cluster. Therefore, as discussed above, this observation provides further evidence that the prevalence of C. andersoni in China is not attributed to the introduction of dairy cattle. On the other hand, cluster 2 consisted of the MLST subtypes (A4, A4, A4, A1) (n = 24) and (A1, A4, A4, A1) (n = 6) (Figure 2B), which represented the two most common subtypes found in cattle in China. Thus, the clonal expansion of such subtype might have led to the epidemic population structure of C. andersoni in cattle in China.

In conclusion, as expected, multiple MLST subtypes of C. muris or C. andersoni were present in various animals examined in the present study. The C. muris and C. andersoni populations examined in this and a previous study had an overall clonal genetic structure, with the Chinese C. andersoni population in cattle having an epidemic structure. Georgaphic isolation and host-adaptation were both observed in C. muris and C. andersoni populations. In addition, the present study suggested that the prevalence of C. andersoni in China is not attributed to the introduction of dairy cattle. Nevertheless, more studies are needed to better elucidate the genetic basis for the difference in host specificity in the two most common gastric parasites, and the population genetic structure and spread of C. muris and C. andersoni in the world.

Supporting Information

Table S1

The frequency and allele composition of the multilocus sequence types including those reported by Feng et al. [31]

(DOC)

Click here for additional data file. (81.5KB, doc)

Funding Statement

The National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 31172311, 31101805)(http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/Portal0/default152.htm); the Key National Science and Technology Specific Projects (No. 2012ZX10004220-001)(http://www.nmp.gov.cn/); the International Cooperation and Exchange of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 31110103901)(http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/Portal0/default152.htm). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1. Dubey JP, Markovits JE, Killary KA (2002) Cryptosporidium muris-like infection in stomach of cynomolgus monkeys (Macaca fascicularis). Vet Pathol 39: 363–371. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Hikosaka K, Nakai Y (2005) A novel genotype of Cryptosporidium muris from large Japanese field mice, Apodemus speciosus . Parasitol Res 97: 373–379. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Hurkova L, Hajdusek O, Modry D (2003) Natural infection of Cryptosporidium muris (Apicomplexa: Cryptosporiidae) in Siberian chipmunks. J Wildl Dis 39: 441–444. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Kodadkova A, Kvac M, Ditrich O, Sak B, Xiao L (2010) Cryptosporidium muris in a reticulated giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis reticulata). J Parasitol 96: 211–212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Kvac M, Hanzlikova D, Sak B, Kvetonova D (2009) Prevalence and age-related infection of Cryptosporidium suis, C. muris and Cryptosporidium pig genotype II in pigs on a farm complex in the Czech Republic. Vet Parasitol 160: 319–322. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Lupo PJ, Langer-Curry RC, Robinson M, Okhuysen PC, Chappell CL (2008) Cryptosporidium muris in a Texas canine population. Am J Trop Med Hyg 78: 917–921. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Lv C, Zhang L, Wang R, Jian F, Zhang S, et al. (2009) Prevalence and molecular characterization of Cryptosporidium spp. in wild, laboratory, and pet rodents in China. Appl Environ Microbiol 75: 7692–7699. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Morgan UM, Xiao L, Monis P, Sulaiman I, Pavlasek I, et al. (2000) Molecular and phylogenetic analysis of Cryptosporidium muris from various hosts. Parasitol 120: 457–464. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Ng J, Pavlasek I, Ryan U (2006) Identification of novel Cryptosporidium genotypes from avian hosts. Appl Environ Microbiol 72: 7548–7553. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Pavlasek I, Ryan U (2007) The first finding of a natural infection of Cryptosporidium muris in a cat. Vet Parasitol 144: 349–352. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Santin M, Dixon BR, Fayer R (2005) Genetic characterization of Cryptosporidium isolates from ringed seals (Phoca hispida) in Northern Quebec, Canada. J Parasitol 91: 712–716. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Santin M, Trout JM, Vecino JA, Dubey JP, Fayer R (2006) Cryptosporidium, Giardia and Enterocytozoon bieneusi in cats from Bogota (Colombia) and genotyping of isolates. Vet Parasitol 141: 334–339. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Warren KS, Swan RA, Morgan-Ryan UM, Friend JA, Elliot A (2003) Cryptosporidium muris infection in bilbies (Macrotis lagotis). Aust Vet J 81: 739–741. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Zintl A, Neville D, Maguire D, Fanning S, Mulcahy G, et al. (2007) Prevalence of Cryptosporidium species in intensively farmed pigs in Ireland. Parasitol 134: 1575–1582. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Lindsay DS, Upton SJ, Owens DS, Morgan UM, Mead JR, et al. (2000) Cryptosporidium andersoni n. sp. (Apicomplexa: Cryptosporiidae) from cattle, Bos taurus. J Eukaryot Microbiol 47: 91–95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Wang R, Zhang L, Ning C, Feng Y, Jian F, et al. (2008) Multilocus phylogenetic analysis of Cryptosporidium andersoni (Apicomplexa) isolated from a bactrian camel (Camelus bactrianus) in China. Parasitol Res 102: 915–920. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Wang Y, Feng Y, Cui B, Jian F, Ning C, et al. (2010) Cervine genotype is the major Cryptosporidium genotype in sheep in China. Parasitol Res 106: 341–347. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Al-Brikan FA, Salem HS, Beeching N, Hilal N (2008) Multilocus genetic analysis of Cryptosporidium isolates from Saudi Arabia. J Egypt Soc Parasitol 38: 645–658. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Gatei W, Ashford RW, Beeching NJ, Kamwati SK, Greensill J, et al. (2002) Cryptosporidium muris infection in an HIV-infected adult, Kenya. Emerg Infect Dis 8: 204–206. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Gatei W, Greensill J, Ashford RW, Cuevas LE, Parry CM, et al. (2003) Molecular analysis of the 18S rRNA gene of Cryptosporidium parasites from patients with or without human immunodeficiency virus infections living in Kenya, Malawi, Brazil, the United Kingdom, and Vietnam. J Clin Microbiol 41: 1458–1462. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Gatei W, Wamae CN, Mbae C, Waruru A, Mulinge E, et al. (2006) Cryptosporidiosis: prevalence, genotype analysis, and symptoms associated with infections in children in Kenya. Am J Trop Med Hyg 75: 78–82. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Guyot K, Follet-Dumoulin A, Lelievre E, Sarfati C, Rabodonirina M, et al. (2001) Molecular characterization of Cryptosporidium isolates obtained from humans in France. J Clin Microbiol 39: 3472–3480. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Katsumata T, Hosea D, Ranuh IG, Uga S, Yanagi T, et al. (2000) Short report: possible Cryptosporidium muris infection in humans. Am J Trop Med Hyg 62: 70–72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Leoni F, Amar C, Nichols G, Pedraza-Diaz S, McLauchlin J (2006) Genetic analysis of Cryptosporidium from 2414 humans with diarrhoea in England between 1985 and 2000. J Med Microbiol 55: 703–707. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Morse TD, Nichols RA, Grimason AM, Campbell BM, Tembo KC, et al. (2007) Incidence of cryptosporidiosis species in paediatric patients in Malawi. Epidemiol Infect 135: 1307–1315. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Muthusamy D, Rao SS, Ramani S, Monica B, Banerjee I, et al. (2006) Multilocus genotyping of Cryptosporidium sp. isolates from human immunodeficiency virus-infected individuals in South India. J Clin Microbiol 44: 632–634. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Palmer CJ, Xiao L, Terashima A, Guerra H, Gotuzzo E, et al. (2003) Cryptosporidium muris, a rodent pathogen, recovered from a human in Peru. Emerg Infect Dis 9: 1174–1176. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Tiangtip R, Jongwutiwes S (2002) Molecular analysis of Cryptosporidium species isolated from HIV-infected patients in Thailand. Trop Med Int Health 7: 357–364. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Xiao L (2010) Molecular epidemiology of cryptosporidiosis: an update. Exp Parasitol 124: 80–89. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Xiao L, Ryan U (2008) Molecular epidemiology. In: Fayer R, Xiao L, editors. Cryptosporidium and cryptosporidiosis. Boca Raton: CRC Press and IWA Publishing. 119–151.
  • 31. Feng Y, Yang W, Ryan U, Zhang L, Kvác M, et al. (2011) Development of a multilocus sequence tool for typing Cryptosporidium muris and Cryptosporidium andersoni . J Clin Microbiol 49: 34–41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Mallon M, MacLeod A, Wastling J, Smith H, Reilly B, et al. (2003) Population structures and the role of genetic exchange in the zoonotic pathogen Cryptosporidium parvum . J Mol Evol 56: 407–417. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Ngouanesavanh T, Guyot K, Certad G, Fichoux YL, Chartier C, et al. (2006) Cryptosporidium population genetics: evidence of clonality in isolates from France and Haiti. J Eukaryot Microbiol 53: S33–S36. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Tanriverdi S, Grinberg A, Chalmers RM, Hunter PR, Petrovic Z, et al. (2008) Inferences about the global population structures of Cryptosporidium parvum and Cryptosporidium hominis . Appl Environ Microbiol 74: 7227–7234. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Wang R, Ma G, Zhao J, Lu Q, Wang H, et al. (2011) Cryptosporidium andersoni is the predominant species in post-weaned and adult dairy cattle in China. Parasitol Int 60: 1–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Wang R, Wang H, Sun Y, Zhang L, Jian F, et al. (2011) Characteristics of Cryptosporidium transmission in preweaned dairy cattle in henan, china. J Clin Microbiol 49: 1077–1082. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Xiao L, Bern C, Limor J, Sulaiman I, Roberts J, et al. (2001) Identification of 5 types of Cryptosporidium parasites in children in Lima, Peru. J Infect Dis 183: 492–497. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Haubol B, Hudson RR (2000) LIAN 3.0: detecting linkage disequilibrium in multilocus data. Bioinformatics 16: 847–848. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Evanno G, Regnaut S, Goudet J (2005) Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software STRUCTURE: a simulation study. Mol Ecol 14: 2611–2620. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Matsubayashi M, Kimata I, Iseki M, Hajiri T, Tani H, et al. (2005) Infectivity of a novel type of Cryptosporidium andersoni to laboratory mice. Vet Parasitol 129: 165–168. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Zhang KZ (2003) The status and trends of dairy cattle import in China. China Animal Husbandry Bulletin 11: 26–27 (in Chinese).. [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Jiang XS, Zhu HQ (1989) Investigation on the prevalence of Cryptosporidium in yaks in the Northwest Sichuan province. J Southwest University 15: 18–20 (in Chinese).. [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Kvac M, Sak B, Kvetonova D, Ditrich O, Hofmannova L, et al. (2008) Infectivity, pathogenicity, and genetic characteristics of mammalian gastric Cryptosporidium spp. in domestic ruminants. Vet Parasitol 153: 363–367. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

Table S1

The frequency and allele composition of the multilocus sequence types including those reported by Feng et al. [31]

(DOC)

Click here for additional data file. (81.5KB, doc)

Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

RESOURCES