Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Parasite Epidemiology and Control logoLink to Parasite Epidemiology and Control
. 2019 Dec 21;9:e00131. doi: 10.1016/j.parepi.2019.e00131

Differentiation of Blastocystis and parasitic archamoebids encountered in untreated wastewater samples by amplicon-based next-generation sequencing

Christen Rune Stensvold a,⁎, Marianne Lebbad b, Anette Hansen b, Jessica Beser b, Salem Belkessa a,c,d, Lee O'Brien Andersen a, C Graham Clark e
PMCID: PMC6940715  PMID: 31909230

Abstract

Background

Application of next-generation sequencing (NGS) to genomic DNA extracted from sewage offers a unique and cost-effective opportunity to study the genetic diversity of intestinal parasites. In this study, we used amplicon-based NGS to reveal and differentiate several common luminal intestinal parasitic protists, specifically Entamoeba, Endolimax, Iodamoeba, and Blastocystis, in sewage samples from Swedish treatment plants.

Materials and methods

Influent sewage samples were subject to gradient centrifugation, DNA extraction and PCR-based amplification using three primer pairs designed for amplification of eukaryotic nuclear 18S ribosomal DNA. PCR products were sequenced using ILLUMINA® technology, and resulting sequences were annotated to species and subtype level using the in-house BION software, sequence clustering, and phylogenetic analysis.

Results

A total of 26 samples from eight treatment plants in central/southern Sweden were analysed. Blastocystis sp. and Entamoeba moshkovskii were detected in all samples, and most samples (n = 20) were positive for Entamoeba coli. Moreover, we detected Entamoeba histolytica, Entamoeba dispar, Entamoeba hartmanni, Endolimax nana, and Iodamoeba bütschlii in 1, 11, 4, 10, and 7 samples, respectively. The level of genetic divergence observed within E. nana and E. moshkovskii was 20.2% and 7.7%, respectively, across the ~400-bp region studied, and two clades of E. moshkovskii were found. As expected, Blastocystis sp. subtypes 1–4 were present in almost all samples; however, ST8 was present in 10 samples and was the only subtype not commonly found in humans that was present in multiple samples.

Conclusions

Entamoeba and Blastocystis were identified as universal members of the “sewage microbiome”. Blastocystis sp. ST8, which has been rarely reported in humans, was a very common finding, indicating that a hitherto unidentified but common host of ST8 contributed to the sewage influent. The study also provided substantial new insight into the intra-generic diversity of Entamoeba and Endolimax.

Keywords: Sewage, Wastewater; Scandinavia, Genetic diversity, Parasite; Amoebae; Ameba, Archamoebae, Stramenopiles, NGS, Survey, Phylogeny, Ribosomal lineage

1. Introduction

Over the past few decades, molecular methods have enabled us to optimise detection and differentiation of intestinal parasites in human faecal material (Verweij and Stensvold, 2014; Stensvold et al., 2011a; van Lieshout and Verweij, 2010; Stensvold and Nielsen, 2012). Studies of the genetic diversity within these parasites have been increasing due to the recognition that differences in genetic make-up may reflect variable clinical/public health significance of these parasites, including host specificity and clinical impact of infection (Stensvold et al., 2011a; Stensvold, 2019; Stensvold et al., 2009a; Verweij et al., 2001).

For common luminal intestinal parasitic protists (CLIPPs) such as Blastocystis sp. and the archamoebids, reports of novel ribosomal lineages are emerging regularly (Stensvold, 2019; Verweij et al., 2001; Jacob et al., 2016; Elsheikha et al., 2018). CLIPPS, a term recently coined to address all single-celled intestinal parasites usually confined to the intestinal lumen only (Stensvold, 2019), are transmitted faecal-orally and have environmentally resistant stages that help them survive outside the host. Some of these lineages may represent species complexes. In this context, a species complex is a cluster of nuclear ribosomal RNA gene sequences that exhibit substantial levels of genetic divergence, on a scale usually observed between species in that particular genus. Examples include Entamoeba coli, which is known to have two lineages with 18S ribosomal RNA gene sequences differing by up to at least 13% (Stensvold et al., 2011b), and Iodamoeba bütschlii, which is known also to comprise at least two ribosomal lineages with sequences that differ by about 30% (Stensvold et al., 2012a). Preliminary data indicate a similar situation is present in Endolimax nana (Poulsen and Stensvold, 2016).

Untreated sewage samples taken from sewage treatment plants represent pools of human excreta, and are valuable resources to explore the geographical distribution of and genetic diversity within CLIPPs. Application of next-generation sequencing (NGS) to DNA from sewage offers a unique and cost-effective opportunity to study the genetic diversity of CLIPPs, and, in the long run, may enable efficient and standardised surveillance of parasitic organisms.

We recently developed a NGS-based platform for detection and differentiation of prokaryotic and eukaryotic nuclear ribosomal DNA, which has already been used in a few studies (Krogsgaard et al., 2018; Ring et al., 2017; Lear et al., 2019). In the present study, we used this method to reveal and differentiate taxa within several CLIPP genera in samples from Swedish sewage treatment plants.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Samples and DNA extraction

Genomic DNAs were available from samples collected from eight different wastewater treatment plants (also referred to as sampling sites in the following) in southern Sweden from May 2014–December 2014. These wastewater samples were the same as those used in a previous limited study (Stensvold et al., 2018), with an additional five samples added.

Each wastewater sample was shaken to ensure a homogenous sample, and 200 mL was filtered into a 200-mL Falcon bottle through four layers of gauze and centrifuged at 1700 ×g (3,000 rpm) for 10 min. The supernatants were decanted, leaving approximately 10 mL of each sample, which was transferred to a 10-mL centrifuge tube and centrifuged at 1700 ×g for 10 min, after which the supernatants were discarded. The sediments were washed again with Milli-Q water for 10 min at 1700 ×g and supernatants discarded. The resulting sediments were processed by a sucrose gradient to enrich these for spores and (oo)cysts, and DNA was extracted from separated cysts as previously described (Lebbad et al., 2008).

2.2. PCR and sequencing

18S rRNA gene segments were amplified by PCR using a total of three primer sets as previously described (Krogsgaard et al., 2018; Ring et al., 2017; Lear et al., 2019); G3F1/G3R1 (5′-GCCAGCAGCCGCGGTAATTC-3′/5′-ACATTCTTGGCAAATGCTTTCGCAG-3′), G4F3/G4R3 (5′-CAGCCGCGGTAATTCCAGCTC-3′/5′-GGTGGTGCCCTTCCGTCAAT-3′) and G6F1/G6R1 (5′-TGGAGGGCAAGTCTGGTGCC-3′/5′-ACGGTATCTGATCGTCTTCGATCCC-3′). G3 and G6 primers target the hyper-variable regions V3-V4 of the 18S rRNA gene, and G4 primers target V3-V5. 18S rDNA was amplified in a 25 μL volume, using the REDExtract-N-Amp PCR ReadyMix (Sigma-Aldrich, St Louis, MO, USA) with 0.4 μM of each primer and 2 μL of template. PCR cycling conditions included initial denaturation at 95 °C for 3 min, 20 cycles of 95 °C for 1 min, 60 °C for 1 min, and 72 °C for 30 s, and a final elongation at 72 °C for 4 min. PCR products were prepared for sequencing by a second PCR (adaptor PCR), using the same PCR protocol as described above. This PCR attached an adaptor A, an index barcode, and a forward sequencing primer site to the 5′ end of the amplicons and an adaptor B, an index barcode, and a reverse sequencing primer site (RSP) to the 3′ end of the amplicons. DNA was quantified using the Quant-ITTM dsDNA High Sensitive Assay Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific), and PCR2 products were pooled in equimolar amounts across samples. Undesirable DNA amplicons were removed from the pooled amplicon library by Agencourt AMPure XP bead (Beckman Coulter) purification. The resulting AMPure beads-purified pooled amplicon library was diluted to its final concentration of 11.5 pM DNA in 0.001 N NaOH and used for sequencing on the Illumina MiSeq desktop sequencer (Illumina Inc., San Diego, CA 29122, USA). The library was sequenced with the 500 rxn MiSeq Reagent Kit V2 in a 2 × 250 nt setup (Illumina Inc., San Diego, CA 29122, USA).

2.3. Sequence-based identification of parasite taxa

Data were analysed with BION (http://box.com/bion), a recently developed pipeline that accepts raw sequence data and includes steps for de-multiplexing, primer-extraction, sampling, sequence- and quality-based trimming and filtering, de-replication, clustering, chimera-checking, reference data similarities and taxonomic mapping and formatting. Non-overlapping paired reads are allowed for analysis. The filtered abundance matrix was analysed in R using the phyloseq (v.1.26.0) and ggplot (v.3.1.0) packages.

Sequences identified as being from Archamoebae and Blastocystis by BION were extracted from the html browser of BION for each of the samples and managed individually. The fasta-formatted sequences were clustered using Clustal Omega (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/Tools/msa/clustalo/; CLUSTAL O(1.2.4) multiple sequence alignment). Sequence alignment results were viewed with ‘Jalview’, and the consensus sequence of each cluster was analysed and confirmed to genus level by e.g., BLAST.

For E. nana and Entamoeba moshkovskii data, consensus sequences so obtained were aligned with reference sequences using the multiple sequence alignment option ‘Muscle’ in MEGA 6.0 (Tamura et al., 2013). Alignments were edited manually so that ambiguously aligned bases were deleted and the edited alignment was used for phylogenetic analysis using the Neighbor-Joining algorithm as implemented in MEGA 6.0.

Four consensus sequences for E. nana and two for E. moshkovskii were deposited in GenBank (MN508053–MN508056 and MN498050–MN498051, respectively).

For Blastocystis data, consensus sequences were queried by the BLAST algorithm in the NCBI Database and annotated to subtype level based on the level of similarity to reference sequences.

3. Results

The number of archamoebid and Blastocystis sequences produced by the G3 primers was negligible compared with those produced by the G4 and G6 primers, and so only G4 and G6 sequence outputs were used. G6 sequences were typically shorter than the G4 sequences, and in contrast to most G4 sequences did not have gap in the middle when assembled.

Archamoebid sequences were identified in all samples (Table 1). Entamoeba moshkovskii was present in all samples, while E. coli was present in 20 (77%) and Entamoeba dispar, Entamoeba hartmanni, and Entamoeba histolytica were detected in 11, 4, and 1 of the 26 samples, respectively. Finally, E. nana and I. bütschlii were found in 10 and 7 samples, respectively.

Table 1.

Distribution of species and subtypes of Archamoebae and Blastocystis, in the 26 wastewater samples sourced from seven different Swedish water treatment plants (E. histolytica = Entamoeba histolytica; E. dispar = Entamoeba dispar; E. coli ST1 = Entamoeba coli ST1; E. coli ST2 = Entamoeba coli ST2; E. moshkovskii Clade 1 = Entamoeba moshkovskii Clade 1; E. moshkovskii Clade 2 = Entamoeba moshkovskii Clade 2; E. nana = Endolimax nana; I. bütschlii = Iodamoeba bütschlii). See text for further details.

Sample ID Sampling site E. histolytica E. dispar E. hartmanni E. coli ST1 E. coli ST2 E. moshkovskii Clade 1 E. moshkovskii Clade 2 E. nana I. bütschlii RL1 Blastocystis
ST1 ST2 ST3 ST4 ST8 ST10
A46 1 ND ND ND + ND ND + ND ND + + + + + ND
A47 2 ND ND ND ND ND + + ND ND + + + + + ND
A48 3 ND ND ND + ND + + + ND + + + + ND ND
A52 4 ND ND ND + ND + + + ND + + + + ND ND
A53 5 ND ND ND + ND ND + + ND + + + + ND ND
A55 5 ND ND ND ND ND ND + + ND + + + + ND ND
A56 6 ND + ND + ND ND + + ND + + + + + ND
A59 6 ND + ND ND + ND + ND ND + + + + + ND
A63 4 ND ND ND + ND ND + + ND + + ND + ND ND
A64 6 ND + + + ND ND + ND + + + + + + ND
A65 4 ND ND ND + ND + + ND ND + + + + ND ND
A67 5 ND ND ND + + ND + ND + + + + + + ND
A69 6 ND + ND + ND ND + ND ND + + + + ND ND
A70 4 ND ND ND ND ND ND + ND ND ND + + + ND ND
A72 5 ND + ND + ND ND + + + + + + + ND ND
A77 4 ND ND + + + + + ND ND + + + + ND ND
A79 5 ND + + + ND ND + ND ND + + + + + ND
A81 1 ND + ND + + ND + ND + + + + + + ND
A82 2 + + ND + ND ND + + + + + + + ND ND
A83 7 ND ND ND + ND + + ND ND + + + + ND ND
A88 1 ND ND ND ND ND + + ND ND + + + + ND ND
A89 2 ND + ND + ND + + ND + + + + + ND ND
A95 7 ND ND ND ND ND + + ND ND + + + + ND +
A96 8 ND ND ND ND ND + + ND ND + + + + ND ND
A100 8 ND + + + + + + + + + + + + + ND
A101 4 ND + ND + + + + + ND + + + + + ND
Open in a new tab

Phylogenetic analysis using E. moshkovskii sequences obtained by the G4 and G6 primer pairs resulted in the formation of two clades, Clade 1 and Clade 2 (Fig. 1). Clade 1 was found in 12 samples (46%), while Clade 2 was present in all samples. Entamoeba moshkovskii clade consensus sequences differed by 6.7%, indicating substantial intra-species diversity.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Phylogenetic analysis of Entamoeba moshkovskii sequences. This Neighbor–joining tree was produced using the Tajima-Nei Model, as selected by Model Test implemented in MEGA 6.0 (Tamura et al., 2013). Bootstrap proportions are shown where a node is supported by over 50% of the 1000 replicates. E. moshkovskii sequences identified by stars have an environmental origin while those identified by asterisks are from animal hosts, including humans.

Both subtypes of E. coli acknowledged to date (Stensvold et al., 2011b) were found. Entamoeba coli ST1 was most common and found in 19/26 samples (73%), while E. coli ST2 was found in six samples (23%). Entamoeba coli ST1 was found at all sampling sites and E. coli ST2 at 5/8 sampling sites.

Entamoeba dispar was found at 6/8 sampling sites, and at one of these, it was observed in each of the four samples taken. In contrast, E. histolytica was found at only one of the treatment plants and only in one sample.

Extensive genetic diversity has been identified previously in both Endolimax and Iodamoeba. In the present study, only one of the two acknowledged ribosomal lineages of Iodamoeba was detected, namely RL1. With regard to Endolimax, phylogenetic analysis resulted in the recovery of no fewer than four clades; in sample A56, all four clades were found. Half of the sequences fell into a clade that included an as yet unpublished Endolimax sequence from a human (H80028).

Blastocystis subtypes 1–4 were found in all but two samples: in sample A63, no Blastocystis ST3 was found, while in A70, no Blastocystis ST1 was found. Blastocystis ST8 was found at 6/8 sampling sites, and in a total of 10/26 samples (38%). Finally, one sample was positive for Blastocystis ST10.

For quite a few samples, a genus or species (complex) was represented by multiple distinct lineages (e.g., four different sequences of Endolimax from a single sample mentioned above).

4. Discussion

Surveillance of parasites in raw and treated wastewater should employ robust, cost-effective, and precise molecular tools for detection and differentiation. Nevertheless, large-scale analysis of parasites in wastewater samples is still a costly and laborious activity. Studies relying on PCR followed by cloning and Sanger sequencing are also time consuming and expensive. Metagenomic analysis of microbial communities in faecal material, including sewage, has been undertaken previously, but most frequently with a view to surveying antimicrobial resistance genes rather than exploring taxonomic diversity. Moreover, most studies have focused on bacteria, and only a few studies have addressed eukaryotic populations in wastewater (Berglund et al., 2017; Li et al., 2012; Kitajima et al., 2014; Zahedi et al., 2019), typically using real-time PCR for targeted detection especially of Giardia and Cryptosporidium. Finally, compared with bacteria, reference data for some parasitic eukaryotic organisms such as the Archamoebae are limited (Stensvold, 2019). Nevertheless, recent studies of the genetic diversity within CLIPPs have led to the recognition of dozens of species and ribosomal lineages within Blastocystis, Entamoeba, Iodamoeba, and Endolimax. For instance, at least 17 ribosomal lineages of Blastocystis (the so-called subtypes, which are arguably species) have been identified in mammals and birds (Alfellani et al., 2013a). In addition, what are known as E. coli, I. bütschlii, and E. nana based on morphology actually reflect species complexes rather than single species (Stensvold et al., 2011b; Stensvold et al., 2012a). For example, E. coli ST1 (AF149915) and E. coli ST2 (AF149914) only share 86.7% identity across the entire 18S rRNA gene.

Unsurprisingly, parasites identified in the sewage samples analysed in the present study largely reflected parasites found in human stool. After the introduction of DNA-based methods to detect and differentiate Blastocystis, the estimated prevalence of this parasite increased tremendously (Stensvold et al., 2012b; El Safadi et al., 2014; Poulsen et al., 2016; Oliveira-Arbex et al., 2018). Numerous surveys of the subtypes colonising humans have been undertaken, and it was recently estimated that more than 95% of all human Blastocystis carriage is attributed to subtypes 1–4 (Alfellani et al., 2013b), all four of which were found in almost all our sewage samples. While subtypes 1–4 are the Blastocystis subtypes commonly seen in humans, these subtypes have also been found in non-human hosts, and so the question remains to what extent the Blastocystis detected in these samples might originate from hosts other than humans. Recent 18S rRNA gene allele analyses have detected cryptic host specificity in these subtypes (Alfellani et al., 2013c; Vaisusuk et al., 2018), such that, e.g., ST3 strains isolated from humans are largely distinct from ST3 strains isolated from non-human primates. Since data for the same gene region are not produced by the methods used in this study, unfortunately it is not possible to speculate on the host origin of these subtypes. However, since the prevalence of parasites commonly found in livestock and wild animals, such as Blastocystis ST10, was low (only found in 1/26 samples), we believe that the Blastocystis ST1–ST4 identified here are mostly of human origin.

Given the distribution of parasite taxa found in this study and the broad specificity of the primers used, it is likely that only the most abundant species/genera were detected. We know from our previous study (Stensvold et al., 2018) that three of the samples included in the present study were positive for Entamoeba polecki using single-round conventional PCR; this species, however, did not show up in any reads from the present study. This circumstance also implies that since Blastocystis ST8 was detected so frequently, it must be relatively abundant in the sewage in which it was found. However, there are only single reports of ST8 in Sweden (Forsell et al., 2017) and Denmark (Stensvold et al., 2008), in imported human cases. Due to the fact that Blastocystis ST8 has been so rarely reported in humans, it was a surprise to detect this particular subtype in so many of the samples. This raises the question of whether ST8 in the sewage is a result of human excretion or as a result of excretion from non-human hosts, such as rodents, birds or arthropods. The latter groups have had limited sampling, so there is still limited knowledge of the subtypes colonising them. To date, ST8 has only been identified with regularity in some New World monkeys (Alfellani et al., 2013c). There are only sporadic reports of ST8 in humans (Forsell et al., 2017; Stensvold et al., 2008; Barbosa et al., 2018; Mattiucci et al., 2016; Stensvold et al., 2009b; Seguí et al., 2018), non-human primates (Alfellani et al., 2013c; Helenbrook et al., 2015; Scicluna et al., 2006), birds (Abe et al., 2003), other hosts (Noradilah et al., 2017a) and water (Noradilah et al., 2017b). Although ST8 has been reported once in bird droppings (Abe et al., 2003) the subtypes usually reported in birds are ST6 (Jacob et al., 2016) and ST7 (Stensvold et al., 2009b; Greige et al., 2018; Deng et al., 2019). As these subtypes were not detected in this study, a limited contribution of birds to the sewage samples is suggested. Similarly, Blastocystis ST10, a subtype commonly found in ruminants, particularly in cattle (Stensvold et al., 2009b; Greige et al., 2019; Zhu et al., 2017), is the only strictly ‘non-human subtype’ found in the material. It was found in only one of the samples, suggesting that the contribution of stool from larger animals to the sewage was limited. The host of the Blastocystis ST8 in our samples remains unknown at present.

The finding of E. coli ST2 in so many of the samples may provide another useful clue to contamination of the sewage by non-human faeces. Entamoeba coli has traditionally been regarded as a parasite of humans. Although there are no reports of E. coli in rats, a DNA sequence in the NCBI Database from a rat attributed to Entamoeba muris (FN396613) is in fact E. coli ST2 (Jacob et al., 2016). This suggests that rats can be hosts of E. coli ST2. However, other non-primate hosts are also known to host E. coli ST2, namely the rhea (FN396614) and chinchilla (FR686439), suggesting a wider and incompletely known host range. Octonucleate-cyst producing amoebae have been reported in birds – E. gallinarum in chickens, ducks and geese, for example. However, although it is tempting to speculate that rodents and birds may be common hosts of E. coli ST2, no DNA sequence data are available for E. gallinarum and until the genetic diversity and host specificity of this Entamoeba group is better mapped, the host origins of these protists in our samples remain obscure. With regard to E. coli ST1, DNA sequences belonging to this clade to date belong exclusively to humans and non-human primates.

Another common finding was E. moshkovskii, which is considered largely free-living but with the potential to infect humans, cattle and turtles (Jacob et al., 2016). In 1961, Levine considered E. moshkovskii “not as a parasite of animals, but of the municipal digestive tract” and as a parasite that “occurs in sewage” (Levine, 1961). Our findings strongly support the idea of E. moshkovskii as a “sewage parasite”. Nevertheless, there were two major variants detected in this study. One of the variants (Clade 2, 55 sequences) was a consistent finding across all samples. It shares high similarity with a sequence from a Canadian sewage E. moshkovskii (FIC). The other clade (Clade 1, 16 sequences) was present in almost half of the samples. It has only limited similarity to previously identified E. moshkovskii sequences. A third clade, which includes the most widely studied E. moshkovskii strain (Laredo) (Wilson et al., 2019) was not found in our sewage samples, and neither was a fourth clade comprising mostly environmental isolates.

We detected vast genetic variation within Endolimax, with no fewer than four clades detected across the eight Endolimax-positive samples included in Fig. 2. Although insight into the genetic diversity within Endolimax is still limited, these data appear to confirm that, like I. bütschlii, parasites referred to as E. nana based on morphology actually reflect a species complex. This knowledge of course has consequences for studies seeking to investigate the role of Endolimax in health and disease, including the epidemiology of the parasite.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Phylogenetic analysis of Endolimax sequences obtained by the G6 primers. A total of 17 sequences for 8 samples were aligned with two reference sequences. This Neighbor–joining tree was produced using the Tajima-Nei Model with rate variation modelled with a Gamma distribution (shape parameter = 0.42), as selected by Model Test implemented in MEGA 6.0. Bootstrap proportions are shown where a node is supported by over 50% of the 1000 replicates.

In this study, DNA was extracted only after isolation of cysts by gradient centrifugation. This means, that the DNA used may not yield the same results as DNA extracted directly from the sewage material. Importantly, the amount of DNA from trophozoites present in the sample material would be very limited. This might explain why we did not detect Dientamoeba fragilis, which is a parasite that is very common in Sweden and the rest of Scandinavia. Whether D. fragilis produces cysts is a matter of current debate (Clark et al., 2014; Munasinghe et al., 2013), but if such cysts existed, DNA from such cysts would likely be present in the extracted DNA. However, we also know that the sensitivity of our platform in terms of detecting flagellate DNA is low, so Giardia and Dientamoeba are detected only when tested samples are highly positive as evidenced by e.g. real-time PCR (unpublished observations).

Given the complexity of sewage material, the present dataset should not be seen as an exhaustive analysis of the Blastocystis and Archamoebae present in the samples, due to template competition for primers. Nevertheless, the present dataset provides insight into the diversity of Blastocystis and Archamoebae present in sewage material in Sweden, and may be useful to inform future studies on genetic diversity within the genera detected and also - at least to some extent - on host specificity. Moreover, the diversity captured by this dataset should reflect the species circulating in the population of middle and southern Sweden.

Acknowledgements

We thank the technical staff at Laboratory of Parasitology, Statens Serum Institut. We would also like to thank Dr. Jeff Silberman for making available his unpublished 18S rRNA sequences from E. moshkovskii before release in GenBank.

References

  1. Abe N. Molecular characterization of Blastocystis isolates from birds by PCR with diagnostic primers and restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis of the small subunit ribosomal RNA gene. Parasitol. Res. 2003;89(5):393–396. doi: 10.1007/s00436-002-0782-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Alfellani M.A. Genetic diversity of Blastocystis in livestock and zoo animals. Protist. 2013;164(4):497–509. doi: 10.1016/j.protis.2013.05.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Alfellani M.A. Variable geographic distribution of Blastocystis subtypes and its potential implications. Acta Trop. 2013;126(1):11–18. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2012.12.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Alfellani M.A. Diversity and distribution of Blastocystis sp. subtypes in non-human primates. Parasitology. 2013:1–6. doi: 10.1017/S0031182013000255. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Barbosa C.V. Intestinal parasite infections in a rural community of Rio de Janeiro (Brazil): prevalence and genetic diversity of Blastocystis subtypes. PLoS One. 2018;13(3) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193860. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Berglund B. Occurrence and removal efficiency of parasitic protozoa in Swedish wastewater treatment plants. Sci. Total Environ. 2017;598:821–827. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Clark C.G. Transmission of Dientamoeba fragilis: pinworm or cysts? Trends Parasitol. 2014;30(3):136–140. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2014.01.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Deng L. First report of Blastocystis in giant pandas, red pandas, and various bird species in Sichuan province, southwestern China. Int J Parasitol Parasites Wildl. 2019;9:298–304. doi: 10.1016/j.ijppaw.2019.06.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. El Safadi D. Children of Senegal River Basin show the highest prevalence of Blastocystis sp. ever observed worldwide. BMC Infect. Dis. 2014;14:164. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-14-164. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Elsheikha H.M. Novel Entamoeba findings in nonhuman primates. Trends Parasitol. 2018;34(4):283–294. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2017.12.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Forsell J. The relation between Blastocystis and the intestinal microbiota in Swedish travellers. BMC Microbiol. 2017;17(1):231. doi: 10.1186/s12866-017-1139-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Greige S. Prevalence and subtype distribution of Blastocystis sp. isolates from poultry in Lebanon and evidence of zoonotic potential. Parasit. Vectors. 2018;11(1):389. doi: 10.1186/s13071-018-2975-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Greige S. First report on the prevalence and subtype distribution of Blastocystis sp. in dairy cattle in Lebanon and assessment of zoonotic transmission. Acta Trop. 2019;194:23–29. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2019.02.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Helenbrook W.D. Characterization of Blastocystis species infection in humans and mantled howler monkeys, Alouatta palliata aequatorialis, living in close proximity to one another. Parasitol. Res. 2015;114(7):2517–2525. doi: 10.1007/s00436-015-4451-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Jacob A.S. Expanding the Entamoeba universe: new hosts yield novel ribosomal lineages. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 2016;63(1):69–78. doi: 10.1111/jeu.12249. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Kitajima M. Occurrence of Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and Cyclospora in influent and effluent water at wastewater treatment plants in Arizona. Sci. Total Environ. 2014;484:129–136. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.03.036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Krogsgaard L.R. Characteristics of the bacterial microbiome in association with common intestinal parasites in irritable bowel syndrome. Clin. Transl. Gastroenterol. 2018;9(6):161. doi: 10.1038/s41424-018-0027-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Lear R. Tart cherry concentrate does not alter the gut microbiome, glycaemic control or systemic inflammation in a middle-aged population. Nutrients. 2019;11(5) doi: 10.3390/nu11051063. (pii: E1063) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Lebbad M. Dominance of Giardia assemblage B in León, Nicaragua. Acta Trop. 2008;106(1):44–53. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2008.01.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Levine N.D. Burgess Pub. Co.; Minneapolis: 1961. Protozoan Parasites of Domestic Animals and of Man. [Google Scholar]
  21. Li N. Molecular surveillance of Cryptosporidium spp., Giardia duodenalis, and Enterocytozoon bieneusi by genotyping and subtyping parasites in wastewater. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2012;6(9) doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001809. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. van Lieshout L., Verweij J.J. Newer diagnostic approaches to intestinal protozoa. Curr. Opin. Infect. Dis. 2010;23(5):488–493. doi: 10.1097/QCO.0b013e32833de0eb. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Mattiucci S. Molecular epidemiology and genetic diversity of Blastocystis infection in humans in Italy. Epidemiol. Infect. 2016;144(3):635–646. doi: 10.1017/S0950268815001697. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Munasinghe V.S. Cyst formation and faecal-oral transmission of Dientamoeba fragilis—the missing link in the life cycle of an emerging pathogen. Int. J. Parasitol. 2013;43(11):879–883. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2013.06.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Noradilah S.A. Molecular epidemiology of Blastocystis sp in animals reared by the aborigines during wet and dry seasons in rural communities, Pahang, Malaysia. Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Public Health. 2017;48(6):1151–1160. [Google Scholar]
  26. Noradilah S.A. Molecular epidemiology of blastocystosis in Malaysia: does seasonal variation play an important role in determining the distribution and risk factors of Blastocystis subtype infections in the aboriginal community? Parasit. Vectors. 2017;10(1):360. doi: 10.1186/s13071-017-2294-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Oliveira-Arbex A.P. Blastocystis genetic diversity among children of low-income daycare center in Southeastern Brazil. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2018;57:59–63. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2017.11.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Poulsen C.S., Stensvold C.R. Systematic review on Endolimax nana: a less well studied intestinal ameba. Trop Parasitol. 2016;6(1):8–29. doi: 10.4103/2229-5070.175077. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Poulsen C.S. Epidemiological aspects of Blastocystis colonization in children in Ilero, Nigeria. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2016;95(1):175–179. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.16-0074. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Ring H.C. The follicular skin microbiome in patients with hidradenitis suppurativa and healthy controls. JAMA Dermatol. 2017;153(9):897–905. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2017.0904. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Scicluna S.M. DNA barcoding of Blastocystis. Protist. 2006;157(1):77–85. doi: 10.1016/j.protis.2005.12.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Seguí R. Prevalence of intestinal parasites, with emphasis on the molecular epidemiology of Giardia duodenalis and Blastocystis sp., in the Paranaguá Bay, Brazil: a community survey. Parasit. Vectors. 2018;11(1):490. doi: 10.1186/s13071-018-3054-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Stensvold C.R. Pinning down the role of common luminal intestinal parasitic protists in human health and disease - status and challenges. Parasitology. 2019;146(6):695–701. doi: 10.1017/S0031182019000039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Stensvold C.R., Nielsen H.V. Comparison of microscopy and PCR for detection of intestinal parasites in danish patients supports an incentive for molecular screening platforms. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2012;50(2):540–541. doi: 10.1128/JCM.06012-11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Stensvold C.R. Symptomatic infection with Blastocystis sp. subtype 8 successfully treated with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. Ann. Trop. Med. Parasitol. 2008;102(3):271–274. doi: 10.1179/136485908X278847. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Stensvold C.R. Pursuing the clinical significance of Blastocystis—diagnostic limitations. Trends Parasitol. 2009;25(1):23–29. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2008.09.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Stensvold C.R. Subtype distribution of Blastocystis isolates from synanthropic and zoo animals and identification of a new subtype. Int. J. Parasitol. 2009;39(4):473–479. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2008.07.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Stensvold C.R. The impact of genetic diversity in protozoa on molecular diagnostics. Trends Parasitol. 2011;27(2):53–58. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2010.11.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Stensvold C.R. Increased sampling reveals novel lineages of Entamoeba: consequences of genetic diversity and host specificity for taxonomy and molecular detection. Protist. 2011;162(3):525–541. doi: 10.1016/j.protis.2010.11.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Stensvold C.R. Last of the human protists: the phylogeny and genetic diversity of Iodamoeba. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2012;29(1):39–42. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msr238. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Stensvold C.R. Development and evaluation of a genus-specific, probe-based, internal process controlled real-time PCR assay for sensitive and specific detection of Blastocystis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2012;50(6):1847–1851. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00007-12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Stensvold C.R. Evaluation of a PCR method for detection of Entamoeba polecki, with an overview of its molecular epidemiology. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2018;56(5) doi: 10.1128/JCM.00154-18. (pii: e00154-18) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Tamura K. MEGA6: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis version 6.0. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2013;30(12):2725–2729. doi: 10.1093/molbev/mst197. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Vaisusuk K. Blastocystis subtypes detected in long-tailed macaques in Thailand-further evidence of cryptic host specificity. Acta Trop. 2018;184:78–82. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2017.09.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Verweij J.J., Stensvold C.R. Molecular testing for clinical diagnosis and epidemiological investigations of intestinal parasitic infections. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2014;27(2):371–418. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00122-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Verweij J.J. Genetic variation among human isolates of uninucleated cyst-producing Entamoeba species. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2001;39(4):1644–1646. doi: 10.1128/JCM.39.4.1644-1646.2001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Wilson I.W. Genetic diversity and gene family expansions in members of the genus Entamoeba. Genome Biol. Evol. 2019;11(3):688–705. doi: 10.1093/gbe/evz009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Zahedi A. Identification of eukaryotic microorganisms with 18S rRNA next-generation sequencing in wastewater treatment plants, with a more targeted NGS approach required for Cryptosporidium detection. Water Res. 2019;158:301–312. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2019.04.041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Zhu W. First report of Blastocystis infections in cattle in China. Vet. Parasitol. 2017;246:38–42. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2017.09.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Parasite Epidemiology and Control are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES