Skip to main content
Parasitology logoLink to Parasitology
. 2020 Aug 24;147(14):1636–1642. doi: 10.1017/S0031182020001559

Taenia hydatigena cysticercosis in wild boar (Sus scrofa) from southern Italy: an epidemiological and molecular survey

Giovanni Sgroi 1,2, Antonio Varcasia 3, Nicola D'Alessio 4,5, Paolo Varuzza 1, Francesco Buono 1, Maria Grazia Amoroso 4, Belgees Boufana 6, Domenico Otranto 2,7, Alessandro Fioretti 1, Vincenzo Veneziano 1,5,
PMCID: PMC7708990  PMID: 32829716

Abstract

Taenia hydatigena cysticercosis is a widespread parasitic disease of wild and domestic animals. In Europe, the increase in wild boar population may potentially contribute to the spread of this parasitic infection. To determine the occurrence of cysticerci (metacestodes) in wild boar population from southern Italy, carcasses were inspected during three hunting seasons (2016–2018). Out of 3363 wild boar examined, 229 (6.8%) harboured cysticerci with 188 (82.1%) infected by a single cyst, vs 41 (17.9%) boars having more than one. Most of the positive animals (187; 81.7%) showed cysts on the liver, whereas a multiple localization of cysticerci was reported in 10 (4.4%) wild boar. The total number of cysts retrieved from positive animals was 301 (average 1.3). Molecular analysis revealed the occurrence of a common haplotype (Hap 8) shared between wild boar and domestic animals. Our findings suggest the presence of a T. hydatigena semi-domestic life cycle in which wild boar may play an important role, due to a large number of offal available to hunting dogs, wolves and foxes during hunting seasons. Hunters may be players in the management of wildlife species to control and prevent the circulation of parasitic diseases.

Key words: Haplotype, Italy, Taenia hydatigena cysticercosis, wild boar

Introduction

Taenia hydatigena cysticercosis is a parasitic infection of many wild and domestic animals and is considered an important cause of economic and productive losses in the livestock industry, both in developing and industrialized countries (Getaw et al., 2010; Nguyen et al., 2016). In Europe, T. hydatigena is a widespread cestode which develops in definitive [i.e. dogs and other carnivores such as foxes (Vulpes vulpes), wolves (Canis lupus), jackals (Canis aureus), European lynx (Lynx lynx), raccoons (Procyon lotor), bears (Ursus arctos) and cats] as well as in many species of intermediate hosts [i.e. pigs, sheep, goats, cattle, buffaloes, wild boars (Sus scrofa), fallow deer (Dama dama), red deer (Cervus elaphus), roe deer (Capreleous capreleous) and moose (Alces alces)] (Chapman and Chapman, 1987; Nguyen et al., 2016; Filip et al., 2019). The larval stage (metacestode), formerly known as ‘Cysticercus tenuicollis’, localizes in organs in the abdominal cavity, as well as in the lungs of intermediate hosts. Gravid proglottids containing eggs are excreted in the feces of the definitive host contaminating the environment; when eggs are ingested during grazing by intermediate hosts, the oncospheres migrate via the bloodstream to reach the liver and other organs (Deplazes et al., 2016). In the intermediate hosts, the localization of cysticerci involves the subserous tissue of the abdominal and thoracic cavities; most frequently, they are found on the omentum, mesentery, visceral and parietal peritoneum and, less frequently, on pleura, pericardium and peritoneal ligaments (Scala et al., 2015). Cysticerci are able to migrate through the liver parenchyma causing traumatic hepatitis cysticercosis (Blažek et al., 1985). In domestic intermediate hosts, cysticercosis may cause production losses due to clinical disease and/or condemnation of organs and offal and high mortality rates (i.e. 19.0% in lambs) due to massive hepatic and pulmonary infections (Scala et al., 2016). The risk factors involved in the occurrence of metacestodosis include access of stray dogs to sheep pastures, extensive grazing methods, home slaughtering practices and improper disposal of offal; these factors may also favour the spread of cysticercosis and other important metacestodoses, such as coenurosis and cystic echinococcosis, not only in domestic animals (Varcasia et al., 2009, 2011; Scala et al., 2016) but also in wildlife species, such as red foxes and wild boar (Varcasia et al., 2015; Sgroi et al., 2019a, b).

In recent years, wild boar populations have increased in many European countries, including Italy (Pittiglio et al., 2018) and this ungulate may act as a reservoir of several diseases, both to domestic and wild animals (Meng et al., 2009). The role of wild boar as an intermediate host of T. hydatigena was previously reported in Italy (Di Nicola et al., 2015; Paoletti et al., 2019), as well as from some European countries, such as Croatia (Rajković-Janje et al., 2002), Estonia (Jarvis et al., 2007) and Spain (de la Muela et al., 2001). However, these studies were performed using a small number of animals (<100 individuals) and European epidemiological data on the distribution of the metacestode of T. hydatigena remain scant. Several studies have reported significant molecular variability in the ND1 and cox1 nucleotide sequences of T. hydatigena from several host species (Rostami et al., 2013; Boufana et al., 2015), however, data concerning genetic population structure of T. hydatigena from wild boar are limited. This study investigated the prevalence, distribution, genetic variation and population structure of T. hydatigena cysticercosis in free-ranging wild boar from southern Italy.

Materials and methods

Sample size calculation

A sample size of 3321 wild boar was calculated using the open-source software OpenEpi (Dean et al., 2003), inserting the following information: study population (84 000 wild boar; data supplied by Piano Emergenza Cinghiale in Campania – PECC 2016–2019), expected prevalence of T. hydatigena infection of 5–15% (Di Nicola et al., 2015), confidence interval (95%) and desired absolute precision (1%).

Study area and sampling

This survey was conducted in four different provinces (Avellino, Benevento, Caserta and Salerno) of the Campania region, southern Italy (total surface 123 417 hectares). Wild boar examined in the present study (n = 3363) originated from three hunting seasons (2016–2018) and were classified according to the season, age class, gender and provinces (Table 1). The examination of the carcasses was performed by 20 veterinarians specialized in meat inspection and involved in the field activities of the regional project ‘Piano Emergenza Cinghiali in Campania – PECC 2016–2019’. The age of the animals was estimated by the examination of the teeth, according to Massei and Toso (1993). Organs and viscera from abdominal and thoracic cavities were removed from the carcasses and delivered for parasitological examination to the Department of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Productions, University of Naples, Italy.

Table 1.

Wild boar (n = 3363) examined in Campania region, southern Italy

Hunting Season Age classes Gender Total Province
Piglet Sub-adult Adult Male Female
2016 0 22 18 19 21 40
2017 34 27 125 95 91 186
2018 1 117 266 206 178 384
Sub-total 35 166 409 320 290 610 Avellino
2016 3 68 97 97 71 168
2017 21 65 134 124 96 220
2018 12 35 178 126 99 225
Sub-total 36 168 409 347 266 613 Benevento
2016 10 16 33 31 28 59
2017 15 38 56 49 60 109
2018 40 69 105 107 107 214
Sub-total 65 123 194 187 195 382 Caserta
2016 82 290 358 376 354 730
2017 73 141 376 307 283 590
2018 34 82 322 230 208 438
Sub-total 189 513 1056 913 845 1758 Salerno
Total 325 970 2068 1767 1596 3363

Morphological analysis

At post-mortem, the viscera were examined by visual inspection, palpation and serial cuts to investigate the presence of T. hydatigena cysts or necrotic-haemorrhagic tracks of the migrating parasites. Number and localization of the cysts were assessed and cysticerci, in various developmental stages, were removed for microscopical identification, which was performed using keys reported by Rostami et al. (2013). Massive infections were defined when more than 10 cysts were found in a single animal. In order to confirm the morphological examination, cysticerci were stored at −20°C for subsequent molecular analysis at the Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Sassari, Italy.

Polymerase chain reaction and sequencing

DNA was extracted from individual cysts using NucleoSpin Tissue (Macherey-Nagel GmbH & Co. KG, Düren, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany) prior to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and DNA sequencing. Primers JB3 (5′-TTTTTTGGGCATCCTGAGGTTTAT-3′) and JB4.5 (5′-AAAGAAAGAACATAATGAAAATG-3′) were used to amplify a nucleotide fragment (approximately 391 bp in length) within the cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 (cox1) (Bowles et al., 1992). PCR products (amplicons) were purified using a Nucleospin Gel, PCR Cleaned (Macherey-Nagel GmbH & Co. KG, Düren, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany) and commercially sequenced (Eurofins Genomics, Germany). Generated sequences were edited in MEGA X (Tamura et al., 2013) and compared with those on the NCBI database (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/BLAST/).

Data analysis

Data analysis using 386 bp of the cox1 nucleotide sequences amplified in this study was accomplished as previously described (Boufana et al., 2015). In brief, Proseq 3.5 (Filatov, 2002) was used to align and trim sequences and the generated alignment was checked in MEGA X (Kumar et al., 2018) to determine correct reading frames. The flatworm mitochondrial code (Nakao et al., 2000) was used to infer amino acid sequences. Nucleotide sequences were then aligned in ClustalX2 (Larkin et al., 2007) and transported into DnaSP6 (Rozas et al., 2017) where data on DNA diversity and polymorphism was retrieved. Hapview (Salzburger et al., 2011) was used to generate haplotype networks and determine genealogies. Genetic diversity was accessed using Arelquin (Excoffier and Lischer, 2010) and included the computation of haplotype and nucleotide diversity as well as the evaluation of demographic events such as population expansion and bottleneck using Fu's Fs (Fu, 1997) and Tajima's D (Tajima, 1989). The model of evolution was determined using Modeltest 3.7 (Posada and Crandall, 1998) executed in Paup 4 (Swofford, 2002).

Statistical analysis

A Chi-squared test was used to assess the differences in parasite prevalence and variables analysed (hunting season, age class, gender, provinces) as well as the localization of cysticerci. A value of P < 0.05 was considered significant. Abundance (number of cysts/animal examined) and intensity (number of cysts/positive animals) was also determined. The distribution of positive animals associated with the administrative boundaries of municipalities, provinces and national parks was determined using ArcGIS (version 10.3, ESRI, Redlands, CA, USA). A choropleth map with proportioned circles was designed displaying the following information: province borders, national park, hunting areas, municipalities investigated (positive/negative) and number of positive animals for each municipality.

Results

A total of 301 T. hydatigena metacestodes were found in 229 (6.8%) of the 3363 wild boar examined; the majority of animals (n = 188; 82.1%) were parasitized with a single cyst; the remaining (n = 40) with multiple and a single animal harboured 10 cysts (abundance, 0.09; intensity, 1.3). All cysticerci appeared with their characteristic bottleneck morphology (Fig. 1). Cyst localization among organs and viscera examined was statistically significant (χ2 = 755.81; P < 0.05); this shows that of the 229 infected pigs, most (187; 81.7%) had cysticerci in the livers. Multiple cyst localization was also observed in 10 animals (4.4% of infected boars). Data on cyst localization are reported in Table 2.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Cysticerci of Taenia hydatigena found in (a) liver, (b) spleen, (c) isolated cyst, (d) tendinous centre of the diaphragm.

Table 2.

Number of wild boar positive to Taenia hydatigena metacestodes according to the organ localization

Localization Number of positive wild boar (%)
Liver 187 (81.7%)
Omentum 14 (6.1%)
Lungs 5 (2.2)
Diaphragm 3 (1.3%)
Spleen 9 (3.9%)
Colon 1 (0.4%)
Liver-lungs 7 (3.1%)
Liver-omentum 3 (1.3%)
Total 229 (6.8%)

Details regarding the prevalence of cysticercosis according to hunting season, age class, gender and province are summarized in Table 3. No significant statistical difference (χ2 = 3.81; P = 0.15) in T. hydatigena infection among the three hunting seasons was found. The age of positive boars ranged from 1 to 9 years (average number 1.3) with the highest prevalence found in adult animals (9.1%), followed by sub-adults (4.2%); no positive piglets were reported (χ2 = 50.9; P < 0.05). The prevalence of infection detected in males and females was 6.8% (χ2 = 0.00; P = 0.96). The positivity observed for the study area revealed different scenarios depending on the province considered (χ2 = 16.17; P < 0.05), with a higher exposure reported for Avellino and Salerno provinces, close to the Cilento National Park. The number and geographical distribution of positive wild boar are shown in Fig. 2.

Table 3.

Number (percentage) of wild boar positive to Taenia hydatigena metacestodes, according to hunting season, age, gender and province

Variables Wild boar *Pos/Tot (%)
Hunting season
2016 78/997 (7.8%)
2017 63/1105 (5.7%)
2018 88/1261 (7.0%)
Age
Piglets 0/325 (0.0%)
Sub-adults 41/970 (4.2%)
Adults 188/2068 (9.1%)
Gender
Male 120/1767 (6.8%)
Female 109/1596 (6.8%)
Province
Avellino 55/610 (9.0%)
Benevento 32/613 (5.2%)
Caserta 12/382 (3.1%)
Salerno 130/1758 (7.4%)
Total 229/3363 (6.8%)

*Pos/Tot = number and percentage of positive samples out of the total examined.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Map showing the location of wild boar infected with metacestodes of Taenia hydatigena from different provinces (AV, Avellino; BN, Benevento; CE, Caserta; SA, Salerno; NA, Napoli) and hunting areas in Campania region.

A blast search of the amplified DNA sequences confirmed that wild boar was infected with T. hydatigena. These nucleotide sequences gave a 99% identity with T. hydatigena cox1 sequence from GenBank (e.g. accession number: AB792721). We were able to successfully amplify and sequence DNA from 52 metacestodes spread across the studied area. A total of 20 variable polymorphic sites were detected within the analysed sequences of which 11 were parsimony informative. The generated haplotype network (Fig. 3) consisted of 21 haplotypes separated from each other by 1–4 mutational steps indicating their genetic relatedness, with a main centrally positioned haplotype (Hap 8) that encompassed a quarter (i.e. 13/52–25%) of the isolates. The majority of the haplotypes (57%) had a single T. hydatigena isolate (haplotypes 1, 5–7, 10, 12–13, 17–21). The remaining haplotypes were represented by 2 (haplotypes 14–16), 3 haplotypes (3, 9, 11), 5 (haplotype 4) and 7 (haplotype 2) isolates. Blast search of isolate sequences within Hap 8, showed a 100% identity with haplotype SR07 (accession number: KT372522) that occupied the central haplotype in a study on sheep T. hydatigena from Sardinia (Boufana et al., 2015). The high haplotype diversity for T. hydatigena from wild boar in this study together with the low nucleotide diversity is indicative of rapid demographic expansion (Table 4). Tajima's D was negative indicating an excess of rare polymorphic sites, a feature of recent population expansion. The significantly negative Fu's Fs indicated the presence of rare haplotypes compared to what is expected under neutrality and points to past bottleneck and/or purifying selection events.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3.

Frequencies of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 haplotypes of Taenia hydatigena metacestodes (n = 52) derived from wild boar, southern Italy. Circle size is proportional to haplotype frequency.

Table 4.

Diversity and neutrality indices using nucleotide data of the cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 (cox1) (386 base pairs) mitochondrial gene for Taenia hydatigena metacestdoes removed from wild boar, southern Italy

Mitochondrial gene No. of isolates Polymorphic sites hn hd ± s.d. πd ± s.d. Tajima's D P value Fu's Fs P value
cox1 52 20 21 0.908 ± 0.026 0.006 ± 0.004 −1.62397 0.0312 −15.338 <0.0000*

hn, number of haplotypes; hd, haplotype diversity; πd, nucleotide diversity; s.d., standard deviation.

*Significant at P value ⩽0.001.

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first European large-scale survey providing epidemiological and molecular data on T. hydatigena cysticercosis in wild boar populations. The prevalence of infection recorded in this study (6.8%) is consistent with that previously reported from central Italy which ranged from 2.9% (Paoletti et al., 2019) to 15.0% (Di Nicola et al., 2015). Similar prevalence was also detected in Spain (de la Muela et al., 2001) and Croatia (Rajković-Janje et al., 2002) with a higher infection rate in wild boar from Estonia (20.0% – Jarvis et al., 2007). Among the three hunting seasons monitored, the difference in prevalence was not statistically significant (χ2 = 3.81; P = 0.15), suggesting that infection remained constant in the studied wild boar population, due to the persistence of risk factors (i.e. the improper disposal of boar offal to dogs).

Adult boars showed higher exposure to infection (9.1% – χ2 = 50.9; P = <0.05) compared to sub-adults (4.7%), and there were no cases in piglets, suggesting that older animals are significantly more likely to ingest parasite eggs (ie: through coprophagy), and their infection intensity may be a reflection of accumulation of parasites over the animals' lifespan. Indeed, this is consistent with observations from the same study area for another metacestodosis (cystic echinococcosis) in wild boar (Sgroi et al., 2019b), as well as in domestic ruminants (Veneziano et al., 2004).

The higher prevalence of infection of T. hydatigena observed in Avellino and Salerno provinces (χ2 = 16.17; P < 0.05) is probably due to the larger number of dogs enrolled in hunting teams (Varuzza et al., 2019), feeding on raw boar organs and viscera, which may thus increase the parasite transmission. This would suggest a possible relationship between the prevalence of cysticercosis and the number of hunting dogs in a given hunting area. However, some aspects (i.e. number of hunters and their dogs according to the different provinces) which likely affect the circulation of the parasite were not investigated in this study. It should be emphasized that, in rural environments, T. hydatigena infection is historically related to a domestic life cycle, in which farmers fed their dogs with sheep and goat offal (Varcasia et al., 2011). Although this habit is decreasing due to the improvement of small ruminant's health management, hunters frequently give raw organs and viscera of hunted animals (mainly wild boar) as a reward to their hunting dogs (Sgroi et al., 2019b). In this scenario, hunters could replace the role previously played by shepherds, allowing the perpetuation of a T. hydatigena semi-domestic life cycle. In addition, the deworming of shepherd/hunting dogs using inadequate drugs, such as extra-label ivermectin is often ineffective against tapeworms (Varcasia et al., 2011; Piantedosi et al., 2017) thus favouring the persistence of T. hydatigena infection in dogs. This underlines the importance of informing hunters on hunting hygiene and hunting dog healthcare, including the use of targeted anthelmintic treatments with high efficacy, to avoid the dissemination of parasites, which have an economic impact on farmers and pose a health risk for animals and humans. Therefore, the role of hunters as important players in the management of wildlife species to control and prevent the circulation of infectious and parasitic diseases should be reviewed. Considering over 12 000 wild boars culled per year in the Campania region and 4960 dogs employed in the entire studied area during the hunting season (Veneziano, personal communication), strategic game waste management is a crucial aspect to reduce the spread of meat/offal-borne diseases, including metacestodoses.

In this study, a high prevalence of T. hydatigena metacestodes was recorded in close proximity to the Cilento National Park (i.e. in areas included in the administrative boundaries of Avellino and Salerno provinces). This finding may be due to the widespread distribution of wild carnivores, mainly wolves, in this protected area (Fulgione and Pellegrino, 2017). Indeed, in Europe, wolf population growth and its territorial expansion are strictly related to wild boar abundance (Chapron et al., 2014; Galaverni et al., 2015). For instance, in protected areas of northern Italy, the presence of boar undigested prey in wolf feces is commonly reported (Meriggi et al., 2011), as well as a high copro-molecular prevalence (40.7%) of T. hydatigena (Poglayen et al., 2017). Therefore, these findings suggest a crucial role of the wolf in the Taeniidae sylvatic life cycle, as previously shown for Echinococcus granulosus sensu lato (Gori et al., 2015). However, in recent years, rural landscapes were transformed into peri-urban areas, which are extremely attractive as a food source for foxes (Mackenstedt et al., 2015). Moreover, due to its wide distribution range and huge population size, this canid is considered the most common wild carnivore in Europe (Scott et al., 2014) and constitutes the linkage species between sylvatic and anthropic environments (Plummer et al., 2014). Although foxes are considered reservoirs of several parasites (i.e. Echinococcus multilocularis, Taenia multiceps, Angiostrongylus vasorum and Trichinella britovi) that can infect animals and humans (Otranto et al., 2015), a very low prevalence (<5%) of T. hydatigena was reported in this species in Europe (Richards et al., 1995; Shimalov and Shimalov, 2003; Saeed et al., 2006) and Italy (Guberti and Poglayen, 1991; Di Cerbo et al., 2008; Fiocchi et al., 2016).

In this study, massive T. hydatigena infections were uncommon in the animals examined, with only a single case reported. This finding is similar to a previous study when up to 265 cysts were found in a single boar from the studied area (Sgroi et al., 2019a). The above case could be due to the fact that the animal was used by hunters as a captive boar to train hunting dogs which could potentially shed in their feces a high amount of T. hydatigena eggs, contaminating the soil in a delimited enclosure, therefore perpetuating the massive infection (Sgroi et al., 2019a). Regarding cyst localization, most of the positive boars showed cysticerci in the liver, as previously reported (Paoletti et al., 2019). Although the intensity of infection (1.3) observed in this study was low, the epidemiological role of wild boar in the spread of cysticercosis is not negligible, considering the high amount of offal available in the environment for wild and domestic carnivores during the hunting activity.

Finally, the existence of a common lineage for T. hydatigena was further confirmed in this study through the presence of a common central haplotype (Hap 8) shared with sheep, goat, pig, dog (data not shown) and is consistent with that previously described for T. hydatigena (Boufana et al., 2015). Further studies are required using a larger number of isolates, additional mitochondrial genes and longer nucleotide sequences (Boufana et al., 2015).

Concluding remarks

This survey revealed that wild boar may play a role as one of the main intermediate hosts in a semi-domestic life cycle of T. hydatigena cysticercosis in southern Italy. Further studies are required to highlight the role of hunting dogs, wolves and foxes in the circulation of T. hydatigena to better define parasite control strategies. Therefore, based on current results, hunters, as opposed to shepherds may be responsible for the spread of T. hydatigena cysticercosis, particularly in the light of the improvement in small ruminants' practices. Thus, in rural areas, the role of hunters should be reviewed as a prospective sanitary player to avoid the spread of the parasite, being responsible for hunting hygiene, public health and hunting dog healthcare.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Dr Giorgia Dessì and Dr Claudia Tamponi (University of Sassari, Italy) for technical assistance with molecular procedures and statistical analysis. The authors are grateful to all veterinarians involved in the project for their kind collaboration in carcasses inspection and sample collection: Antonio Apuzzo, Domenico Benedetto, Francesco Celano, Luca De Blasio, Lucio De Maria, Francesco Di Domenico, Vittorio Di Matteo, Simone Iovino, Piero Matonte, Giuseppe Mollo, Antonio Parisi, Simone Palmieri, Boris Pietraggi, Domenico Rufrano, Pasquale Russo, Valerio Toscano, Andrea Santillo, Giampiero Sepe, Pasquale Silvestri and Alessio Vitale.

Financial support

The study was supported by a grant from the Regione Campania UOD Prevenzione e Sanità Pubblica Veterinaria, Wild Boar Emergency Plan in Campania – 2016–2019” (PECC 2016–2019), and by grants from the Ministry of Health of the Italian Republic (IZS ME 04/18 RC and 05/19 RC).

Ethical standards

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. Blažek K, Schramlová J and Hulínská D (1985) Pathology of the migration phase of Taenia Hydatigena (Pallas, 1766) larvae. Folia Parasitologica 32, 127–137. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Boufana B, Scala A, Lahmarc S, Pointingd S, Craig PS, Dessì G, Zidda A, Pipia AP and Varcasia A (2015) A preliminary investigation into the genetic variation and population structure of Taenia Hydatigena from Sardinia, Italy. Veterinary Parasitology 214, 67–74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bowles J, Blair D and McManus DP (1992) Genetic variants within the genus Echinococcus Identified by mitochondrial DNA sequencing. Molecular and Biochemical Parasitology 54, 165–173. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Chapman NG and Chapman DI (1987) Cysticercosis in fallow deer in England. Acta Theriologica 32, 105–113. [Google Scholar]
  5. Chapron G, Kaczensky P, Linnel JDC, Von Arx M, Huber D, Andrèn H, Lòpez-Bao JV, Adamec M, Alvares F, Anders O, Balčiauskas L, Balys V, Bedö P, Bego F, Blanco JC, Breitenmoser U, Brøseth H, Bufka L, Bunikyte R, Ciucci P, Dutsov A, Engleder T, Fuxjäger C, Groff C, Holmala K, Hoxha B, Iliopoulos Y, Ionescu O, Jeremić J, Jerina K, Kluth G, Knauer F, Kojola I, Kos I, Krofel M, Kubala J, Kunovac S, Kusak J, Kutal M, Liberg O, Majić A, Männil P, Mertzanis Y, Myslayek RW, Nowak S, Odden J, Ozolins J, Palomero G, Paunović M, Persson J, Potočnik H, Quenette PY, Rauer G, Reinhardt I, Rigg R, Ryser A, Salvatori V, Skrbinšek T, Stojanov A, Swenson JE, Szemethy L, Trajçe A, Tsingarska- Sedefcheva E, Váňa M, Veeroja R, Wabakken P, Wölfl M, Wölfl S, Zimmermann F, Zlatanova D and Boitani L (2014) Recovery of large carnivores in Europe's modern human-dominated landscapes. Science (New York, N.Y.) 346, 1517–1519. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Dean AG, Sullivan KM and Soe MM (2003) OpenEpi: open source epidemiologic statistics for public health. Retrieved from the software website: Available at http://www.openepi.com (Accessed 08 April 2019).
  7. de la Muela N, Hernàndez-de-Lujàn S and Ferre I (2001) Helminths of wild boar in Spain. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 37, 840–843. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Deplazes P, Eckert J, Mathis A, von Samson-Himmelstjerna G and Zahner H (2016) Parasitology in Veterinary Medicine, 1st Edn. Wageningen, NL: Wageningen Academic Pub. [Google Scholar]
  9. Di Cerbo AR, Manfredi MT, Trevisiol K, Bregoli M, Ferrari N, Pirinesi F and Bazzoli S (2008) Intestinal helminth communities of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes L.) in the Italian Alps. Acta Parasitologica 53, 302–311. [Google Scholar]
  10. Di Nicola U, Scacchia M and Marruchella G (2015) Pathological and serological findings in wild boars (Sus scrofa) from Gran Sasso and Monti della Laga National Park (Central Italy). Large Animal Review 21, 167–171. [Google Scholar]
  11. Excoffier L and Lischer HEL (2010) Arlequin suite ver 3.5: a new series of programs to perform population genetics analyses under linux and windows. Molecular Ecology Resources 10, 564–567. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Filatov DA (2002) Proseq: a software for preparation and evolutionary analysis of DNA sequence data sets. Molecular Ecology Resources 2, 621–624. [Google Scholar]
  13. Filip KJ, Pyziel AM, Jezewski W, Myczka AW, Wiaczesław Demiaszkiewicz A and Laskowski Z (2019) First molecular identification of Taenia Hydatigena in Wild Ungulates in Poland. EcoHealth 16, 161–170. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Fiocchi A, Gustinelli A, Gelmini L, Rugna G, Renzi M, Fontana MC and Poglayen G (2016) Helminth parasites of the red fox Vulpes Vulpes (L., 1758) and the wolf Canis lupus italicus Altobello, 1921 in Emilia-Romagna, Italy. Italian Journal of Zoology 83, 503–513. [Google Scholar]
  15. Fu YX (1997) Statistical tests of neutrality of mutations against population growth, hitchhiking and background selection. Genetics 147, 915–925. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Fulgione D and Pellegrino T (2017) Rapporto lupo 2017 Parco Nazionale del Cilento, Vallo di Diano e Alburni. Retrieved from the Parco Nazionale del Cilento website: Available at http://www.parks.it/parco.nazionale.cilento/dettaglio.php?id=43157 (accessed 03 August 2017).
  17. Galaverni M, Caniglia R, Fabbri E, Milanesi P and Randi E (2015) One, no one, or one thousand: how many wolves are there currently in Italy? Mammal Research 61, 13–24. [Google Scholar]
  18. Getaw A, Beyene D, Ayana D, Megersa B and Abunna F (2010) Hydatidosis: prevalence and its economic importance in ruminants slaughtered at Adama municipal abattoir, Central Oromia, Ethiopia. Acta Tropica 113, 221–225. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Gori F, Armua-Fernandez MT, Milanesi P, Serafini M, Magi M, Deplazes P and Macchioni F (2015) The occurrence of taeniids of wolves in Liguria (northern Italy). International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife 4, 252–255. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Guberti V and Poglayen G (1991) Parasitic zoonoses: survey in foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in the northern appennines. Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy 3, 167–173. [Google Scholar]
  21. Jarvis T, Kapel CH, Moks E, Talvik H and Magi E (2007) Helminths of wild boar in the isolated population close to the northern border of its habitat area. Veterinary Parasitology 150, 366–369. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Kumar S, Stecher G, Li M, Knyaz C and Tamura K (2018) MEGA X: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis across computing platforms. Molecular Biology and Evolution 35, 1547–1549. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Larkin MA, Blackshields G, Brown NP, Chenna R, McGettigan PA, McWilliam H, Valentin F, Wallace IM, Wilm A, Lopez R, Thompson JD, Gibson TJ and Higgins DG (2007) Clustal W and clustal X version 2.0. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 23, 2947–2948. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Mackenstedt U, Jenkins D and Romig T (2015) The role of wildlife in the transmission of parasitic zoonoses in peri-urban and urban areas. International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife 4, 71–79. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Massei G and Toso S (1993) Biologia e gestione del cinghiale. Retrieved from the Istituto Nazionale per la Fauna Selvatica website: Available at https://www.isprambiente.gov.it/files/pubblicazioni/documenti-tecnici/6651_DOC_TEC_5.pdf.
  26. Meng X, Lindsay D and Sriranganathan N (2009) Wild boars as sources for infectious diseases in livestock and humans. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 364, 2697–2707. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Meriggi A, Brangi A, Schenone L, Signorelli D and Milanesi P (2011) Changes of wolf (Canis lupus) diet in Italy in relation to the increase of wild ungulate abundance. Ethology Ecology & Evolution 23, 195–210. [Google Scholar]
  28. Nakao M, Sako Y, Yokoyama N, Fukunaga M and Ito A (2000) Mitochondrial genetic code in cestodes. Molecular and Biochemical Parasitology 111, 415–424. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Nguyen MTT, Gabriël S, Abatih EN and Dorny P (2016) A systematic review on the global occurrence of Taenia Hydatigena in pigs and cattle. Veterinary Parasitology 226, 97–103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Otranto D, Cantacessi C, Dantas-Torres F, Brianti E, Pfeffer M, Genchi C, Guberti V, Capelli G and Deplazes P (2015) The role of wild canids and felids in spreading parasites to dogs and cats in Europe. Part II: helminths and arthropods. Veterinary Parasitology 213, 24–37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Paoletti B, Della Salda L, Di Cesare A, Iorio R, Vergara A, Fava C, Olivastri A, Dessì G, Scala A and Varcasia A (2019) Epidemiological survey on cystic echinococcosis in wild boar from Central Italy. Parasitology Research 118, 43–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Piantedosi D, Neola B, D'Alessio N, Di Prisco F, Santoro M, Pacifico L, Sgroi G, Auletta L, Buch J, Chandrashekar R, Breitschwerdt EB and Veneziano V (2017) Seroprevalence and risk factors associated with Ehrlichia canis, Anaplasma Spp., Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato and D. immitis in hunting dogs from southern Italy. Parasitology Research 116, 2651–2660. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Pittiglio C, Khomenko S and Beltran-Alcrudo D (2018) Wild boar mapping using population-density statistics: from polygons to high resolution raster maps. PLoS One 13, e0193295. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Plummer L, Davison J and Saarma U (2014) Rapid urbanization of red foxes in Estonia: distribution, behaviour, attacks on domestic animals, and health-risks related to zoonotic diseases. PLoS One 9, e115124. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Poglayen G, Gori F, Morandi B, Galuppi R, Fabbri E, Caniglia R, Milanesi P, Galaverni M, Randi E, Marchesi B and Deplazes P (2017) Italian Wolves (Canis lupus italicus Altobello, 1921) and molecular detection of taeniids in the Foreste Casentinesi National Park, Northern Italian Apennines. International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife 6, 1–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Posada D and Crandall KA (1998) Modeltest: testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 14, 817–818. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Rajković-Janje R, Bosnic S, Rimac D, Dragičevic FP and Vinkovic B (2002) Prevalence of helminths in wild boar from hunting grounds in eastern Croatia. Zeitschriftfür Jagdwissenschaft 48, 261–270. [Google Scholar]
  38. Richards DT, Harris S and Lewis JW (1995) Epidemiological studies on intestinal helminth parasites of rural and urban red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in the United Kingdom. Veterinary Parasitology 59, 39–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Rostami S, Salavati R, Beech RN, Babaei Z, Sharbatkhori M, Baneshi MR, Hajialilo E, Shad H and Harandi MF (2013) Molecular and morphological characterization of the tapeworm Taenia Hydatigena (Pallas, 1766) in sheep from Iran. Journal of Helminthology 89, 150–157. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Rozas J, Ferrer-Mata A, Sánchez-DelBarrio JC, Guirao-Rico S, Librado P, Ramos-Onsins SE and Sánchez-Gracia A (2017) DnaSPv6, DNA sequence polymorphism analyses of large datasets. Molecular Biology and Evolution 34, 3299–3302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Saeed I, Maddox-Hyttel C, Monrad J and Kapel CM (2006) Helminths of red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in Denmark. Veterinary Parasitology 139, 168–179. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Salzburger W, Ewing GB and Haeseler A (2011) The performance of phylogenetic algorithms in estimating haplotype genealogies with migration. Molecular Ecology 20, 1952–1963. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Scala A, Pipia AP, Dore F, Sanna G, Tamponi C, Marrosu R, Bandino E, Carmona C, Boufana B and Varcasia A (2015) Epidemiological updates and economic losses due to Taenia Hydatigena in sheep from Sardinia, Italy. Parasitology Research 114, 3137–3143. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Scala A, Urrai G, Varcasia A, Nicolussi P, Mulas M, Goddi L, Pipia AP, Sanna G, Genchi M and Bandino E (2016) Acute visceral cysticercosis by Taenia Hydatigena in lambs and treatment with praziquantel. Journal of Helminthology 90, 113–116. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Scott DM, Berg MJ, Tolhurst BA, Chauvenet AL, Smith GC, Neaves K, Lochhead J and Baker PJ (2014) Changes in the distribution of red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in urban areas in Great Britain: findings and limitations of a media-driven nationwide survey. PLoS One 9, e99059. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Sgroi G, Varcasia A, Dessì G, D'Alessio N, Pacifico L, Buono F, Neola B, Fusco G, Santoro M, Toscano V, Fioretti A and Veneziano V (2019a) Massive Taenia Hydatigena Cysticercosis in a Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) from Italy. Acta Parasitologica 64, 938–941. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Sgroi G, Varcasia A, Dessì G, D'Alessio N, Tamponi C, Saarma U, Laurimäe T, Kinkar L, Santoro M, Caputo V, Sarnelli P, Fusco G, Varuzza P, Fioretti A, Scala A and Veneziano V (2019b) Cystic echinococcosis in wild boars (Sus scrofa) from southern Italy: epidemiological survey and molecular characterization. International Journal of Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife 9, 305–311. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Shimalov VV and Shimalov VT (2003) Helminth fauna of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes Linnaeus, 1758) in southern Belarus. Parasitology Research 89, 77–78. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Swofford DL (2002) PAUP*. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsinomy (*and Other Methods). Version 4.0 beta Version. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates. [Google Scholar]
  50. Tajima F (1989) Statistical method for testing the neutral mutation hypothesis by DNA polymorphism. Genetics 123, 585–595. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Tamura K, Stecher G, Peterson D, Filipski A and Kumar S (2013) MEGA6: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 6.0. Molecular Biology and Evolution 30, 2725–2729. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Varcasia A, Tosciri G, Coccone GN, Pipia AP, Garippa G, Scala A, Damien V, Vural G, Gauci CG and Lightowlers MW (2009) Preliminary field trial of a vaccine against coenurosis caused by Taenia multiceps. Veterinary Parasitology 162, 285–289. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Varcasia A, Tanda B, Giobbe M, Solinas C, Pipia AP, Malgor R, Carmona C, Garippa G and Scala A (2011) Cystic echinococcosis in Sardinia: farmers’ knowledge and dog infection in sheep farms. Veterinary Parasitology 181, 335–340. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Varcasia A, Tamponi C, Tosciri G, Pipia AP, Dore F, Schuster RK, Kandil OM, Manunta ML and Scala A (2015) Is the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) a competent definitive host for Taenia multiceps? Parasites & Vectors 8, 491. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Varuzza P, Sgroi G, D'Alessio N, Neola B, Argenio F, Caputo V, Toscano V, Veneziano V and Fioretti A (2019) The role of Drive Hunting to Manage Wild Boar Population in Campania Region. Retrieved from agricultural and forestry sciences Department website: Available at https://www.unitus.it/it/evento/dafne/11th-international-symposium-on-wild-fauna (accessed 30 July 2020).
  56. Veneziano V, Rinaldi L, Apicella G, Garippa G and Cringoli G (2004) Cystic echinococcosis in the Campania region (southern Italy). Parassitologia 46, 449–451. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Parasitology are provided here courtesy of Cambridge University Press

RESOURCES