Skip to main content
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2022 Jan 17;67(2):592–605. doi: 10.1007/s11686-021-00507-z

Toxoplasma gondii Infection in Marine Animal Species, as a Potential Source of Food Contamination: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ehsan Ahmadpour 1,2, Mohamad Taghi Rahimi 3, Altin Ghojoghi 4, Fatemeh Rezaei 5, Kareem Hatam-Nahavandi 6, Sónia M R Oliveira 7,8, Maria de Lourdes Pereira 7,9, Hamidreza Majidiani 10, Abolghasem Siyadatpanah 11, Samira Elhamirad 12, Wei Cong 13, Abdol Sattar Pagheh 12,
PMCID: PMC8761968  PMID: 35038109

Abstract

Purpose

Many marine animals are infected and susceptible to toxoplasmosis, which is considered as a potential transmission source of Toxoplasma gondii to other hosts, especially humans. The current systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the prevalence of T. gondii infection among sea animal species worldwide and highlight the existing gaps.

Methods

Data collection was systematically done through searching databases, including PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science from 1997 to July 2020.

Results

Our search strategy resulted in the retrieval of 55 eligible studies reporting the prevalence of marine T. gondii infection. The highest prevalence belonged to mustelids (sea otter) with 54.8% (95% CI 34.21–74.57) and cetaceans (whale, dolphin, and porpoise) with 30.92% (95% CI 17.85–45.76). The microscopic agglutination test (MAT) with 41 records and indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) with 30 records were the most applied diagnostic techniques for T. gondii detection in marine species.

Conclusions

Our results indicated the geographic distribution and spectrum of infected marine species with T. gondii in different parts of the world. The spread of T. gondii among marine animals can affect the health of humans and other animals; in addition, it is possible that marine mammals act as sentinels of environmental contamination, especially the parasites by consuming water or prey species.

Graphical Abstract

graphic file with name 11686_2021_507_Figa_HTML.jpg

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11686-021-00507-z.

Keywords: Toxoplasma gondii, Toxoplasmosis, Marine animals, Systematic review, Meta-analysis

Introduction

Marine species constitute a very diverse group of animals with global distribution, mostly along coastal regions or habitat [1]. The human population density in coastal areas greatly increased during the recent decades and zoonotic pathogens can be transmitted to humans directly or indirectly from marine animals [2]. Thus, the health of marine mammals can substantially influence human’s well-being. Toxoplasmosis, caused by the intracellular protozoan Toxoplasma gondii, is a zoonotic infection with felids as definitive hosts, and a wide range of homoeothermic vertebrates as intermediate hosts [3, 4]. Pregnant women and immunocompromised patients are at a higher risk for developing the clinical disease with harsh outcomes, including congenital toxoplasmosis (hydrocephalus, chorioretinitis, and cerebral calcifications) and life-threatening encephalitis [57]. Understanding T. gondii transmission routes in wild, free-ranging marine mammals is problematic. There are three possible routes by which marine animals could become infected with T. gondii, including: ingestion of oocysts, ingestion of bradyzoites in tissue cysts of other intermediate hosts or vertically. Oocysts are shed via cat feces into the environment, which can readily infect several animal species [8, 9]. Small T. gondii oocysts show remarkable resistance to common disinfectants and remain alive in moist surroundings, even when exposed to a vast range of salinity and temperature conditions. This environmental tolerance leads to in fast and extensive dispersal of infection, particularly following heavy rain falls. The runoff originated from rainfalls alongside wastewater outfalls being likely contaminated with stray/feral cat fecal material make a huge depot of infective oocysts, which are usually discharged into a water body, i.e., sea and ocean, posing potential risk of T. gondii infection in those species dwelling in marine habitats [10]. In another way, marine animals acquired infection through ingestion of T. gondii protozoal cyst containing numerous bradyzoites. In areas where definitive hosts are rare and the viability of oocysts are likely limited due to freezing conditions, such as the Canadian Arctic, this could explain how animals are exposed to T. gondii. A number of investigators have pointed out that oocysts and bradyzoites of T. gondii are concentrated by oysters, clams and mussels during filter-feeding activity. It is noteworthy that the role of vertical transmission of toxoplasmosis in marine animals is unknown [9]. These are highly promising findings, but the precise mode of transmission is still open to question. Experimentally, oocyst sporulation occurs in seawater, remaining infective for animals for 6–24 months, depending on the temperature [11, 12].

During the last decades, a number of studies have reported T. gondii infection in marine animals, such as cetaceans, pinnipeds, sirenians, and sea otters (Enhydra lutris) [1316]. Disseminated clinical disease has also been documented in adult or sometimes neonate marine mammals from Europe, USA, and Australia [1719], with some degree of morbidity observed, for example, in the sea otters [13, 20, 21] and in the Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardsi) [22, 23]. Furthermore, it seems that some species have been threatened and endangered in part due to toxoplasmosis [3, 24].

The increasing amount of anthropogenic toxicants discharged into the marine environment, as well as morbillivirus infection, can suppress the immunity of marine mammals and give rise to clinical toxoplasmosis susceptibility, yet in others cases, no links to concurrent disease have been identified [25, 26]. Since T. gondii is a pronounced hallmark of aquatic pollution and marine species are superb sentinel animals in marine life [2729], it would be beneficial to assess the status of T. gondii infection in these animals. Thus, the current systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the prevalence of T. gondii infection among marine animal species worldwide and highlight the existing gaps.

Materials and Methods

Search Strategy

This study was prepared and performed in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement [30]. Data were systematically searched and collected from English language databases including PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, Scopus, ISI Web of Science, published from inception to 1 January, 2020 by two investigators (FR and ASP).

The search process was performed using the following keywords and medical subject headings (MeSH) terms: “Toxoplasma gondii”, “Toxoplasmosis”, “T. gondii” in combination with “fishes”, “marine mammals”; “oyster”, “Shellfish”, “mussels”, “dolphin”, “shark”, “crab”, “seal”, “sea lion”, “whale”, “sea otter”, “porpoise”, “shrimp”, “Manatees”, “Walruses”, “Eel”, “crayfish”, and “turtle”. To avoid missing of any paper, the reference list of relevant papers was screened manually.

Study Selection

For the first screening, the two independent authors (ASP and FR) surveyed the title and the abstract of all papers returned from the search process. To ensure the eligibility for inclusion to the systematic review, full texts of papers were also reviewed by investigators (ASP and FR), and any disagreement on articles selected was resolved.

Quality Evaluation

Selected articles were assessed according to a checklist used in previous studies [31]. This checklist was based on contents of the strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) checklist containing questions about various methodological aspects such as type of study, sample size, study population, data collection approaches and tools, sampling methods, variables estimation status, methodology, research objectives and demonstration of results according to the objectives [32]. For each question, a score was attributed and articles with a score of at least seven were selected articles. In addition, any disagreements with selected papers were reviewed by another author.

Selection Criteria and Data Extraction

Papers were included in the meta-analysis with the following criteria: (1) original articles; (2) studies in English language; (2) articles available in full-text; (3) studies that evaluated the prevalence of T. gondii infection in marine animals. On the other hand, the exclusion criteria entailed: case reports, review articles, letter to the editor, unclear or not technically acceptable diagnostic criteria, insufficient information, congress articles, as well as those with unavailable full-text. After reviewing all articles, papers without sufficient information and that did not obtain the minimum quality score were excluded.

Meta-Analysis

In this study, a forest plot was used to visualize the summarized results and heterogeneity among the included studies. The size of every square indicated the weight of every study as well as crossed lines presented confidence intervals, CI. To assess heterogeneity index, Cochran’s Q test and I2 statistics were applied. Additionally, a funnel plot was designed to determine the small study effects and their publication bias, based on Egger's regression test. The meta-analysis was conducted using Stats Direct statistical software (http://www.statsdirect.com). A P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Additional meta-analysis was performed based on the type of host, location and diagnostic method.

Results

A total of 5175 papers were analyzed by exploration of PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, Google Scholar, and ISI Web of Science databases, and finally 55 records were found to be eligible for the current systematic review and meta-analysis. The searching and study selection procedures are illustrated in Fig. 1. Based on Continent, the highest number of investigations was from Europe (30 studies) with a total prevalence of 12.99%, and marine mustelids were the most infected group with 53.12%. It is also worth noting that 24 studies from North America were included in this systematic review, indicating a total prevalence of 21.15%, and an exceptionally high infection rate among cetaceans was observed in this continent (80.85%). In Asian countries, a low prevalence rate of 1.78% was reported and the pinnipeds were the most infected group with 29.2%. In South America, a pooled prevalence of 8.03% was reported with the highest infection in cetaceans (30.35%). In Oceania, the pooled prevalence was 17.73% and cetaceans were the most infected species (26.12%). In addition, the pooled prevalence rate in Antarctica was 39.21% in pinnipeds. On the other hand, no reports were found for the North Pole and the African continent (Fig. 2).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Flowchart describing the study design process

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Pooled prevalence of T. gondii in marine animal species in different continents

According to Table 1, T. gondii infection was detected in dolphins (45 entries), whales (29 entries), seals (31 entries), sea lions (5 entries), sea otters (10 entries), porpoise (3 entries), oysters/mussels/shellfish (11 entries), fishes (4 entries), shrimp (2 entries), manatees (2 entries), walruses, eel and crayfish (single record for each) using serological and/or molecular techniques. Most reports were from the USA and Brazil with 24 records for each country, followed by Scotland (15 records), Italy (13 records), China (10 records), Spain (9 records), Canada and United Kingdom (8 records for each), Mexico (5 records), Norway and Russia (4 records for each), New Zealand (3 records), Japan (2 records) as well as single records from Iran, Turkey, Portugal, Netherlands, Peru, Australia and Solomon Islands. Altogether, eight serological methods were employed to determine T. gondii infection among marine animals. These include the modified agglutination test (MAT) as the most used technique (41 records), followed by immunofluorescence antibody test (IFA) (30 records) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) (21 records). Moreover, 17 entries used conventional polymerase chain reaction (PCR), being this the most used molecular technique, followed by nested-PCR (7 records) and quantitative PCR (qPCR) (4 records). Subgroup analysis (Table 2) showed that most studies were focused on cetaceans (whale, dolphin and porpoise) (36 studies), whereas the highest prevalence rate of T. gondii infection belonged to marine mustelids (sea otter, 10 studies) with 54.8% (95% CI 34.21–74.57%). Pooled proportion of T. gondii infection in dolphin species was of 51.07%. According to Egger’s test, the prevalence rates in cetaceans (P value = 0.0489) and pinnipeds (P value = 0.0004) were statistically significant.

Table 1.

Detection of Toxoplasma gondii in marine animals (sorted by scientific name and publication date)

Species Location Continent Test Sample size Positive (%) References
Dolphin
 Tursiops truncatus USA North America MAT 141 138 (97.9) Dubey et al. [17]
 Sousa chinensis Australia Australia IHC 4 4 (100) Bowater et al. [47]
 Stenella coeruleoalba Spain Europe MAT 36 4 (11.1) Cabezón et al [48]
 Delphinus delphis Spain Europe MAT 4 2 (50) Cabezón et al. [48]
 Tursiops truncatus Spain Europe MAT 7 4 (57.1) Cabezón et al. [48]
 Phocoena phocoena Spain Europe MAT 1 1 (100) Cabezón et al. [48]
 Grampus griseus Spain Europe MAT 9 0 Cabezón et al. [48]
 Tursiops aduncus Solomon Islands Oceania Immunoblotting 58 8 (13.8) Omata et al. [49]
 Tursiops truncatus ponticus Russia Europe ELISA 59 27 (45.7) Alekseev et al. [50]
 Tursiops truncatus USA North America MAT 52 27 (51.9) Dubey et al. [44]
 Tursiops truncatus ponticus Russia Europe ELISA 74 39 (52.7) Alekseev et al. [51]
 Tursiops truncatus USA North America MAT 7 7 (100) Dubey et al. [18]
 Delphinus delphis United Kingdom Europe Sabin Feldman 21 6 (28.5) Forman et al. [52]
 Grampus griseus United Kingdom Europe Sabin Feldman 1 0 Forman et al. [52]
 Lagenorhynchus acutus United Kingdom Europe Sabin Feldman 1 0 Forman et al. [52]
 Tursiops truncatus United Kingdom Europe Sabin Feldman 1 0 Forman et al. [52]
 Stenella coeruleoalba United Kingdom Europe Sabin Feldman 5 0 Forman et al. [52]
 Stenella coeruleoalba Italy Europe IFA 8 4 (50) Di Guardo et al. [53]
 Tursiops truncates Italy Europe Nested-PCR and MAT 8 7 (87.5) Pretti et al. [54]
 Stenella coeruleoalba Italy Europe Nested-PCR and MAT 6 6 (100) Pretti et al. [54]
 Inia geoffrensis Brazil South America MAT 95 82 (86.3) Santos et al. [55]
 Tursiops truncatus truncatus Mexico North America MAT 63 55 (87.3) Alvarado-Esquivel et al. [56]
 Tursiops truncatus gillii Mexico North America MAT 3 3 (100) Alvarado-Esquivel et al. [56]
 Cephalorhynchys hectori New Zealand Oceania PCR 49 17 (34.7) Roe et al. [57]
 Tursiops truncatus Spain Europe IFA 24 2 (8.3) Bernal-Guadarrama et al. [58]
 Stenella coeruleoalba Italy Europe IFA 18 8 (44.4) Profeta et al. [59]
 Tursiops truncatus Italy Europe IFA 3 2 (66.6) Profeta et al. [59]
 Grampus griseus Scotland Europe IFA 7 2 (28.5) et al. [26]
 Delphinus delphis Scotland Europe IFA 13 2 (15.4) van de Velde et al. [26]
 Stenella coeruleoalba Scotland Europe IFA 9 0 van de Velde et al. [26]
 Lagenorhynchus albirostris Scotland Europe IFA 6 1 (16.6) van de Velde et al. [26]
 Stenella coeruleoalba Italy Europe PCR 10 6 (60) Pintore et al. [60]
 Tursiops truncatus Italy Europe PCR 1 1 (100) Pintore et al. [60]
 Steno bredanensis Brazil South America IHC 3 0 Costa-Silva et al. [61]
 Lagenodelphis hosei Brazil South America IHC 2 0 Costa-Silva et al. [61]
 Sotalia guianensis Brazil South America IHC 27 1 (3.7) Costa-Silva et al. [61]
 Tursiops truncatus Brazil South America IHC 4 1 (25) Costa-Silva et al. [61]
 Pontoporia blainvillei Brazil South America IHC 102 0 Costa-Silva et al. [61]
 Stenella frontalis Brazil South America IHC 6 0 Costa-Silva et al. [61]
 Stenella longirostris Brazil South America IHC 5 0 Costa-Silva et al. [61]
 Stenella clymene Brazil South America IHC 6 0 Costa-Silva et al. [61]
 Stenella coeruleoalba Brazil South America IHC 2 0 Costa-Silva et al. [61]
Delphinus delphis Brazil South America IHC 1 0 Costa-Silva et al. [61]
 Delphinus delphis Brazil South America IHC 1 0 Costa-Silva et al. [61]
 Inia geoffrensis Brazil South America IHC 1 0 Costa-Silva et al. [61]
Whale
 Balaenoptera acutorostrata Norway Europe MAT 202 0 Oksanen et al. [62]
 Delphinapterus leucas USA North America MAT 3 0 Dubey et al. [17]
 Globicephala melas Spain Europe MAT 1 0 Cabezón et al. [48]
 Orcinus orca Japan Asia PCR 8 1 (12.5) Omata et al. [49]
 Delphinapterus leucas Russia Europe ELISA 147 7 (4.7) Alekseev et al. [51]
 Megaptera novaeangliae United Kingdom Europe Sabin Feldman 1 1 (100) Forman et al. [52]
 Ziphius cavirostris United Kingdom Europe Sabin Feldman 1 0 Forman et al. [52]
 Physeter macrocephalus Portugal Europe qPCR 5 0 Hermosilla et al. [63]
 Balaenoptera physalus Italy Europe IFA 1 0 van de Velde et al. [26]
 Globicephala melas Italy Europe IFA 1 0 van de Velde et al. [26]
 Balaenoptera physalus Scotland Europe IFA 1 0 van de Velde et al. [26]
 Orcinus orca Scotland Europe IFA 3 0 van de Velde et al. [26]
 Globicephala melas Scotland Europe IFA 10 4 (40) van de Velde et al. [26]
 Balaenoptera acutorostrata Scotland Europe IFA 5 0 van de Velde et al. [26]
 Mesoplodon bidens Scotland Europe IFA 4 0 van de Velde et al. [26]
 Physeter macrocephalus Scotland Europe IFA 2 0 Alekseev et al. 2017 [64]
 Balaenoptera borealis Scotland Europe IFA 1 0 Iqbal et al. [65]
 Delphinapterus leucas Russia Europe ELISA 87 10 (11.5) Profeta et al. [59]
 Delphinapterus leucas Canada North America PCR 34 15 (44.1) Profeta et al. [59]
 Globicephala melas Italy Europe PCR 1 0 Pintore et al. [60]
 Kogia sima Brazil South America IHC 7 0 Costa-Silva et al. [61]
 Peponocephala electra Brazil South America IHC 5 0 Costa-Silva et al. [61]
 Globicephala macrorhynchus Brazil South America IHC 3 0 Costa-Silva et al. [61]
 Physeter macrocephalus Brazil South America IHC 3 0 Costa-Silva et al. [61]
 Kogia breviceps Brazil South America IHC 2 0 Costa-Silva et al. [61]
 Megaptera novaeangliae Brazil South America IHC 2 0 Costa-Silva et al. [61]
 Orcinus orca Brazil South America IHC 2 1 (50) Costa-Silva et al. [61]
 Mesoplodon europaeus Brazil South America IHC 1 0 Costa-Silva et al. [61]
 Balaenoptera physalus Italy Europe PCR 7 1 (14.2) Marcer et al. [66]
Seals
 Phoca groenlandica Norway Europe MAT 316 0 Oksanen et al. [62]
 Phoca hispida Norway Europe MAT 48 0 Oksanen et al. [62]
 Cystophora cristata Norway Europe MAT 78 0 Oksanen et al. [62]
 Phoca vitulina USA North America MAT 380 29 (7.6) Lambourn et al. [67]
 Phoca vitulina USA North America MAT 311 51 (16.4) Dubey et al. [17]
 Phoca hispida USA North America MAT 32 5 (15.6) Dubey et al. [17]
 Erignathus barbatus USA North America MAT 8 4 (50) Dubey et al. [17]
 Phoca largha USA North America MAT 9 1 (11.1) Dubey et al. [17]
 Phoca fasciata USA North America MAT 14 0 Dubey et al. [17]
 Phoca groenlandica Canada North America MAT 112 0 Measures et al. [68]
 Cystophora cristata Canada North America MAT 60 1 (1.6) Measures et al. [68]
 Halichoerus grypus Canada North America MAT 122 11 (9) Measures et al. [68]
 Phoca vitulina Canada North America MAT 34 3 (8.8) Measures et al. [68]
 Phoca vitulina stejnegeri Japan Asia ELISA 77 3 (3.9) Fujii et al. [9]
 Phoca vitulina vitulina Spain Europe MAT 56 3 (5.3) Cabezón et al. [48]
 Halichoerus grypus Spain Europe MAT 47 11 (23.4) Cabezón et al. [48]
 Pusa hispida Canada North America DAT 788 80 (10.1) Simon et al. [69]
 Erignathus barbatus Canada North America DAT 20 2 (10) Simon et al. [69]
 Phoca vitulina Canada North America DAT 9 2 (22.2) Simon et al. [69]
 Leptonychotes weddellii Antarctic Peninsula South America DAT 31 13 (41.9) Rengifo-Herrera et al. [70]
 Mirounga leonina Antarctic Peninsula South America DAT 13 10 (76.9) Rengifo-Herrera et al. [70]
 Lobodon carcinophaga Antarctic Peninsula South America DAT 2 1 (50) Rengifo-Herrera et al. [70]
 Arctocephalus gazella Antarctic Peninsula South America DAT 165 4 (2.4) Rengifo-Herrera et al. [70]
 Arctocephalus gazella Antarctica Antarctica DAT 21 12 (57.1) Jensen et al. [71]
 Leptonychotes weddellii Antarctica Antarctica DAT 33 17 (51.5) Jensen et al. [71]
 Mirounga leonina Antarctica Antarctica DAT 48 11 (22.9) Jensen et al. [71]
 Arctocephalus australis Peru South America IFA 27 0 Jankowski et al. [72]
 Halichoerus grypus Scotland Europe IFA 13 0 van de Velde et al. [26]
 Phoca vitulina Scotland Europe IFA 17 2 (11.7) van de Velde et al. [26]
 Phoca vitulina richardsi Alaska North America IFA 34 0 Bauer et al. [73]
 Pusa caspica Iran Asia MAT 36 30 (83.3) Namroodi et al. [74]
 Sea lions
 Zalophus californianus USA North America MAT 45 19 (42.2) Dubey et al. [17]
 Otaria flavescens Mexico North America MAT 2 0 Alvarado-Esquivel et al.[56]
 Zalophus californianus Mexico North America MAT 4 2 (50) Alvarado-Esquivel et al. [56]
 Zalophus californianus USA North America IFA 1630 46 (2.8) Carlson-Bremer et al. [75]
 Phocarctos hookeri New Zealand Oceania ELISA 50 5 (10) Michael et al. [76]
Sea otters
 Lontra canadensis USA North America LAT 103 46 (44.6) Tocidlowski et al. [77]
 Enhydra lutris nereis USA North America IFA 223 115 (51.5) Miller et al. [78]
 Enhydra lutris nereis USA North America IFA 80 29 (36.2) Miller et al. [78]
 Enhydra lutris kenyoni USA North America IFA 21 8 (38.1) Miller et al. [78]
 Enhydra lutris kenyoni USA North America IFA 65 0 Miller et al. [78]
 Enhydra lutris nereis USA North America Microscopic test 35 15 (42.8) Miller et al. [79]
 Enhydra lutris USA North America MAT 145 107 (73.7) Dubey et al. [17]
 Lontra canadensis USA North America IFA 40 7 (17.5) Gaydos et al. [80]
 Lutra lutra Scotland Europe IFA 32 17 (53.1) van de Velde et al. [26]
 Enhydra lutris kenyoni USA North America MAT 70 65 (92.8) Verma et al. [81]
Porpoise
 Phocoena phocoena United Kingdom Europe Sabin Feldman 70 1 (1.4) Forman et al. [52]
 Phocoena phocoena Netherlands Europe MAT 31 4 (12.9) van de Velde et al. [26]
 Phocoena phocoena Scotland Europe IFA 98 2 (2) van de Velde et al. [26]
Oysters/mussels/shellfish
 Mytella guyanensis Brazil South America Nested PCR 300 0 Esmerini et al. [82]
 Crassostrea rhizophorae Brazil South America Nested PCR 300 10 (3.3) Esmerini et al. [82]
 Mytilus galloprovincialis Turkey Europe HRM 53 21 (39.6) Aksoy et al. [37]
 Ostreae concha China Asia PCR 398 0 Zhang et al. [83]
 Mytilus galloprovincialis Italy Europe qPCR 53 7 (13.2) Marangi et al. [84]
 Crassostrea virginica USA North America PCR 230 4 (1.7) Marquis et al. [85]
 Crassostrea rhizophorae Brazil South America PCR 624 17 (2.7) Ribeiro et al. [86]
 Oysters China Asia Nested PCR 998 26 (2.6) Cong et al. [87]
 Perna canaliculus New Zealand Oceania Nested PCR 104 13 (12.5) Coupe et al. [88]
 Mytilus edulis China Asia Nested PCR 2215 55 (2.4) Cong et al. [89]
 Crassostrea virginica USA North America qPCR 1440 446 (30.9) Marquis et al. [90]
Fishes
 Carassius auratus China Asia PCR 309 0 Zhang et al. [83]
 Cyprinus carpio China Asia PCR 309 0 Zhang et al. [83]
 Hypophthalmichthys molitrix China Asia PCR 456 1 (0.2) Zhang et al. [83]
 Fishes Italy Europe qPCR 147 32 (21.7) Marino et al. [91]
Shrimp
 Penaeus monodon Fabricius China Asia PCR 426 0 Zhang et al. [83]
 Macrobrachium nipponense China Asia PCR 813 1 (0.1) Zhang et al. [83]
Manatees
 Trichechus manatus Mexico North America MAT 3 0 Alvarado-Esquivel et al. [56]
 Trichechus inunguis MAT 74 29 (39.1) Mathews et al. [15]
Walruses
 Odobenus rosmarus USA North America MAT 53 3 (5.6) Dubey et al. [17]
Eel
 Monopterus albus China Asia PCR 98 0 Zhang et al. [83]
Crayfish
 Procambarus clarkii China Asia PCR 618 4 (0.64) Zhang et al. [83]

IHC immunohistochemistry, IFA immunofluorescence antibody test, DAT direct agglutination test, LAT latex agglutination test, HRM real time PCR/high-resolution melting analysis, IHAT indirect hemagglutination test

Table 2.

Pooled prevalence of Toxoplasma infection in marine animals and subgroup analyses

Types of animals (species) No. of studies Prevalence (95% CI) Heterogeneity Egger’s test
I2 Q P value T P value
Cetaceans (whale, dolphin, porpoise) 36 30.92 (17.85–45.76) 97.5 1377.98 < 0.0001 4.87 0.0489
Pinniped (seals, sea lions, walruses) 18 12.16 (7.28–18.09) 96.3 460.63 < 0.0001 4.59 0.0004
Sirenians (manatees) 2 26.51 (2.46–63.69) 2.62 0.1049
Marine fissipeds (sea otter) 6 54.8 (34.21–74.57) 96.6 147.12 < 0.0001 −0.42 0.9593
Fishes (fish, eel) 5 1.64 (0.02–7.22) 96.2 105.71 < 0.0001 4.34 0.1065
Decapoda (crayfish, shrimp) 3 0.26 (0.03–0.73) 57.1 4.35 0.1132
Mollusca (oysters, mussels, shellfish) 10 7.45 (2.06–15.81) 99.1 962.83 < 0.0001 7.56 0.067

Discussion

The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the prevalence rate of T. gondii infection worldwide. The obtained data were categorized based on the species of marine animals, continents, and diagnostic techniques. Among marine animals, the prevalence of T. gondii infection was higher in the population of sea otters (54.8%). In a study, Miller et al. [33] suggested that coastal freshwater runoff is a risk factor for toxoplasmosis in southern sea otters (Enhydra lutris nereis) in southern California. Furthermore, it has been shown that exposure to T. gondii among sea otters was highly influenced by individual animal prey choice and habitat use [34]. Toxoplasmosis had considerable morbidity and mortality rates in the sea otter [35]. T. gondii encephalitis in sea otters causes high mortality rate and is responsible for slow population recovery, particularly for the endangered Southern sea otter [27]. In addition, cetaceans were the most infected animals in North America, South America, and Oceania.

Modified agglutination test (MAT) was the most applied diagnostic assay for T. gondii detection in marine animals. This technique is widely employed in research of toxoplasmosis in humans and in all species of animals because it is considered as a rapid and simple approach without the requirement for special facilities [36]. Molecular methods, particularly polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and nested PCR, were used in marine animals usually as a food source for humans like fishes, shrimp, oysters, and crayfish, amongst others. Some studies indicate that consumption of contaminated raw shellfish and mussels can be considered a significant health danger due to their ability to infect a wide variety of hosts such as other marine animals and humans. However, they are particularly at risk for T. gondii infection, and therefore, they can be considered a bioindicator for monitoring waterborne pathogens [37, 38]. The high prevalence rate of T. gondii in the examined marine species may indicate that the nearby terrestrial environment in the studied area was heavily contaminated by T. gondii, and consequently, contamination was transferred to the aquatic environment. Furthermore, marine hosts may associate with T. gondii infection as paratenic hosts in some area [39]. Hence, contamination of marine animal species is an important bioindicator for contamination of aquatic environments.

Each cat, as final host for T. gondii, shed over 3–810 million oocysts. The sporulation of the oocysts takes 1–5 days, and they can remain infective in the soil for up to 18 months [40]. Furthermore, experiments showed that oocysts of T. gondii can sporulate in sea water and survive at 4 °C for 24 months and then infect mice [12]. One important factor in infected hosts is the strain of the parasite, which plays a major role in the toxoplasmosis prognosis. So far, the genotypes T. gondii were classified as classical types I, II, III, mix/recombinant atypical, and African lineages [41]. Comparison between T. gondii genotypes from the marine and terrestrial environments would help clarify routs and mechanisms of land-sea transmission. Type I strains, which are highly virulent and pathogenic, can lead to acquired ocular toxoplasmosis in individuals with disseminated congenital form of T. gondii [42, 43]. Aksoy et al. [37] reported T. gondii type 1 infection in Mytilus galloprovincialis (Mediterranean mussel), one of the most consumed shellfish in Turkey. The authors suggested that these types of contaminated seafood may be involved in the transmission of the parasite to humans and other hosts. Type II T. gondii strains are the vast majority of human infections and have a worldwide distribution. Type II strains are causative agents for numerous asymptomatic toxoplasmosis cases in Europe, it can be pathogenic for two important categories of subjects, namely immature fetuses and immunocompromised individuals [43]. On the basis of a previous study, Dubey et al. [44] showed Type II T. gondii from a striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba) in Costa Rica. It is noteworthy that Type III T. gondii in mice are classified as avirulent strain. Study carried out by Hancock et al. [45] showed the first report of type III T. gondii in a Hawaiian monk seal. This genotype was determined to be restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLP) of the SAG2 gene. On the other hand, it has previously been shown that Type X strains of T. gondii are virulent for southern sea otters from coastal California [27]. Additionally, one interesting study has demonstrated Type X strains of T. gondii in canids, coastal-dwelling felids, nearshore-dwelling sea otters, and marine bivalve. It is assumed that contaminated runoff to feline faecal rapidly reaches sea from lands, and otters could be infected with T. gondii via the consumption of filter-feeding marine invertebrates [46].

The prevalence rate of marine T. gondii infection in various regions of the world was very different, and ranged from 0 to 100%. These differences may originate from different types of marine animals, sample sizes, and diagnostic approaches in the reviewed studies. Regarding continents, North America showed the highest T. gondii infection in marine animals that may suggest the level of fecal contamination of the soil and water reservoirs. Our analysis also showed that there is either no available data (Africa) or very limited literature (Antarctica, Oceania, and South America) on the prevalence of T. gondii infection in significant parts of the globe. Therefore, it is essential to conduct more studies to determine the putative role of T. gondii on marine species. The main limitation expressed in the included studies regarding prevalence of T. gondii infection in marine animal species was related to the use of different diagnostic methods with varying sensitivity and specificity due to their great impact on the results. The use of an accurate and reliable technique can help to correctly interpret the results of T. gondii prevalence in marine species in different parts of the world.

Conclusion

The results of current study indicated that the global prevalence rate of T. gondii infection was high in marine animals. It is well demonstrated that T. gondii parasite has a very successful adaptation in aquatic environments. Despite the worldwide range and broad marine animals host record of T. gondii infection, there was no evidence regarding toxoplasmosis in these animals in most parts of the world. Therefore, it is necessary to develop surveillance for detection of T. gondii in aquatic animals in different regions with appropriate molecular and serological techniques. It is also important to know the ecology of this parasite in aquatic environment to design appropriate strategies for monitoring, controlling, and prevention of the transmission of toxoplasmosis to humans or other hosts.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Acknowledgements

Maria de Lourdes Pereira acknowledge project CICECO-Aveiro Institute of Materials, UIDB/50011/2020 and UIDP/50011/2020.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, ASP and EA; methodology, ASP, FR. and MTR; formal analysis, EA, AG and SMO; investigation, HM, AS, and MLP; data curation, EA and MLP; writing original draft preparation, ASP, MTR, HM; writing-review and editing, EA, MLP, and ASP; all authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this article.

Availability of Data and Material

Data supporting the conclusions of this article are included within the article.

Footnotes

Publisher's Note

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

References

  • 1.Mikaelian I, Boisclair J, Dubey J, Kennedy S, Martineau D. Toxoplasmosis in beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) from the St Lawrence estuary: two case reports and a serological survey. J Comp Pathol. 2000;122(1):73–76. doi: 10.1053/jcpa.1999.0341. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Bossart GD. Marine mammals as sentinel species for oceans and human health. Oceanography. 2006;19(2):134–137. doi: 10.1177/0300985810388525. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Aguirre AA, Longcore T, Barbieri M, Dabritz H, Hill D, Klein PN, et al. The one health approach to toxoplasmosis: epidemiology, control, and prevention strategies. Eco Health. 2019;16(2):378–390. doi: 10.1007/s10393-019-01405-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Dubey J. Toxoplasmosis—a waterborne zoonosis. Vet Parasitol. 2004;126(1–2):57–72. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2004.09.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hoseini SA, DehganiN SM, Daryani A, Gholami S, Ebrahimi F, Pagheh AS, Arefkhah N. Serological survey of toxoplasmosis in pregnant women. J Maz Univ Med Sci. 2014;24(114):146–150. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Safarpour H, Cevik M, Zarean M, Barac A, Hatam-Nahavandi K, Rahimi MT, et al. Global status of Toxoplasma gondii infection and associated risk factors in people living with HIV. AIDS. 2020;34(3):469–474. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000002424. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Anvari D, Sharif M, Sarvi S, Aghayan SA, Gholami S, Pagheh AS, Hosseini SA, Saberi R, et al. Seroprevalence of Toxoplasma gondii infection in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Microb Pathog. 2019;129:30–42. doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2019.01.040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Djurkovic-Djakovic O, Dupouy-Camet J, Van der Giessen J, Dubey JP. Toxoplasmosis: overview from a one health perspective. Food Waterborne Parasitol. 2019;15:e00054. doi: 10.1016/j.fawpar.2019.e00054. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Fujii K, Kakumoto C, Kobayashi M, Saito S, Kariya T, Watanabe Y, et al. Seroepidemiology of Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum in seals around Hokkaido, Japan. J Vet Med Sci. 2007;69(4):393–398. doi: 10.1292/jvms.69.393. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Fayer R, Dubey JP, Lindsay DS. Zoonotic protozoa: from land to sea. Trends Parasitol. 2004;20(11):531–536. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2004.08.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Lindsay DS, Collins MV, Mitchell SM, Cole RA, Flick GJ, Wetch CN, et al. Sporulation and survival of Toxoplasma gondii oocysts in seawater. J Eukaryot Microbiol. 2003;50:687–688. doi: 10.1111/j.1550-7408.2003.tb00688.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Lindsay DS, Dubey J. Long-term survival of Toxoplasma gondii sporulated oocysts in seawater. J Parasitol. 2009;95(4):1019–1020. doi: 10.1645/GE-1919.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Cole RA, Lindsay D, Howe D, Roderick CL, Dubey J, Thomas N, et al. Biological and molecular characterizations of Toxoplasma gondii strains obtained from southern sea otters (Enhydra lutris nereis) J Parasitol. 2000;86(3):526–530. doi: 10.1645/0022-3395(2000)086[0526:BAMCOT]2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ubey JP, Murata FH, Cerqueira-Cézar CK, Kwok OC, Grigg ME. Recent epidemiologic and clinical importance of Toxoplasma gondii infections in marine mammals: 2009–2020. Vet Parasitol. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2020.109296. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Mathews PD, Da Silva VM, Rosas FC, Neto JAdA, Lazzarini SM, Ribeiro DC, et al. Occurrence of antibodies to Toxoplasma gondii and Lepstospira spp. in manatees (Trichechus inunguis) of the Brazilian Amazon. J Zoo Wildl Med. 2012;43(1):85–88. doi: 10.1638/2011-0178.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Oksanen A, Åsbakk K, Prestrud K, Aars J, Derocher A, Tryland M, et al. Prevalence of antibodies against Toxoplasma gondii in polar bears (Ursus maritimus) from Svalbard and East Greenland. J Parasitol. 2009;95(1):89–94. doi: 10.1645/GE-1590.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Dubey J, Zarnke R, Thomas N, Wong S, Van Bonn W, Briggs M, et al. Toxoplasma gondii, Neospora caninum, Sarcocystis neurona, and Sarcocystis canis-like infections in marine mammals. Vet Parasitol. 2003;116(4):275–296. doi: 10.1016/s0304-4017(03)00263-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Dubey J, Mergl J, Gehring E, Sundar N, Velmurugan G, Kwok O, et al. Toxoplasmosis in captive dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and walrus (Odobenus rosmarus) J Parasitol. 2009;95(1):82–85. doi: 10.1645/GE-1764.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Miller M, Conrad P, James E, Packham A, Toy-Choutka S, Murray MJ, et al. Transplacental toxoplasmosis in a wild southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis) Vet Parasitol. 2008;153(1–2):12–18. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2008.01.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kreuder C, Miller M, Jessup D, Lowenstine LJ, Harris M, Ames J, et al. Patterns of mortality in southern sea otters (Enhydra lutris nereis) from 1998–2001. J Wildl Dis. 2003;39(3):495–509. doi: 10.7589/0090-3558-39.3.495. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Thomas N, Dubey J, Lindsay D, Cole RA, Meteyer C. Protozoal meningoencephalitis in sea otters (Enhydra lutris): a histopathological and immunohistochemical study of naturally occurring cases. J Comp Pathol. 2007;137(2–3):102–121. doi: 10.1016/j.jcpa.2007.05.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Miller MA, Sverlow K, Crosbie PR, Barr BC, Lowenstine LJ, Gulland FM, et al. Isolation and characterization of two parasitic protozoa from a Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardsi) with mening oencephalomyelitis. J Parasitol. 2001;87(4):816–822. doi: 10.1645/0022-3395(2001)087[0816:IACOTP]2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Pelt RV, Dieterich R. Staphylococcal infection and toxoplasmosis in a young harbor seal. J Wildl Dis. 1973;9(3):258–261. doi: 10.7589/0090-3558-9.3.258. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Van Wormer E, Fritz H, Shapiro K, Mazet JAK, Conrad PA. Molecules to modeling: Toxoplasma gondii oocysts at the human–animal–environment interface. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 2013;36(3):217–231. doi: 10.1016/j.cimid.2012.10.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Mazzariol S, Marcer F, Mignone W, Serracca L, Goria M, Marsili L, et al. Dolphin Morbillivirus and Toxoplasma gondii coinfection in a Mediterranean fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) BMC Vet Res. 2012;8(1):1–5. doi: 10.1186/1746-6148-8-20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.van de Velde N, Devleesschauwer B, Leopold M, Begeman L, Ijsseldijk L, Hiemstra S, et al. Toxoplasma gondii in stranded marine mammals from the North Sea and Eastern Atlantic Ocean: findings and diagnostic difficulties. Vet Parasitol. 2016;230:25–32. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2016.10.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Conrad PA, Miller M, Kreuder C, James E, Mazet J, Dabritz H, et al. Transmission of Toxoplasma: clues from the study of sea otters as sentinels of Toxoplasma gondii flow into the marine environment. Int J Parasitol. 2005;35(11–12):1155–1168. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2005.07.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Jessup DA, Miller M, Ames J, Harris M, Kreuder C, Conrad PA, et al. Southern sea otter as a sentinel of marine ecosystem health. EcoHealth. 2004;1(3):239–245. doi: 10.1007/s10393-004-0093-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Stewart JR, Gast RJ, Fujioka RS, Solo-Gabriele HM, Meschke JS, Amaral-Zettler LA, et al. The coastal environment and human health: microbial indicators, pathogens, sentinels and reservoirs. J Environ Health. 2008;7(2):1–14. doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-7-S2-S3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8(5):336–341. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Moosazadeh M, Nekoei-Moghadam M, Emrani Z, Amiresmaili M. Prevalence of unwanted pregnancy in Iran: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J health Plan Manag. 2014;29(3):e277–e290. doi: 10.1002/hpm.2184. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Bull World Health Organ. 2007;85:867–872. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.07.013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Miller M, Gardner I, Kreuder C, Paradies D, Worcester K, Jessup D, et al. Coastal freshwater runoff is a risk factor for Toxoplasma gondii infection of southern sea otters (Enhydra lutris nereis) Int J Parasitol. 2002;32(8):997–1006. doi: 10.1016/s0020-7519(02)00069-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Johnson CK, Tinker MT, Estes JA, Conrad PA, Staedler M, Miller MA, et al. Prey choice and habitat use drive sea otter pathogen exposure in a resource-limited coastal system. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2009;106(7):2242–2247. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0806449106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Shapiro K, Miller M, Mazet J. Temporal association between land-based runoff events and California sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis) protozoal mortalities. J Wildl Dis. 2012;48(2):394–404. doi: 10.7589/0090-3558-48.2.394. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Packham AE, Sverlow KW, Conrad PA, Loomis EF, Rowe JD, Anderson ML, et al. A modified agglutination test for Neospora caninum: development, optimization, and comparison to the indirect fluorescent-antibody test and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 1998;5(4):467–473. doi: 10.1128/CDLI.5.4.467-473.1998. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Aksoy U, Marangi M, Papini R, Ozkoc S, Delibas SB, Giangaspero A. Detection of Toxoplasma gondii and Cyclospora cayetanensis in Mytilus galloprovincialis from Izmir Province coast (Turkey) by real time PCR/high-resolution melting analysis (HRM) Food Microbiol. 2014;44:128–135. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2014.05.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Arkush KD, Miller MA, Leutenegger CM, Gardner IA, Packham AE, Heckeroth AR, et al. Molecular and bioassay-based detection of Toxoplasma gondii oocyst uptake by mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis) Int J Parasitol. 2003;33(10):1087–1097. doi: 10.1016/s0020-7519(03)00181-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Shapiro K, Bahia-Oliveira L, Dixon B, Dumètre A, de Wit LA, VanWormer E, et al. Environmental transmission of Toxoplasma gondii: oocysts in water, soil and food. Food Waterborne Parasitol. 2019;15:e00049. doi: 10.1016/j.fawpar.2019.e00049. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Dubey J, Jones J. Toxoplasma gondii infection in humans and animals in the United States. Int J Parasitol. 2008;38(11):1257–1278. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2008.03.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Hosseini S, Amouei A, Sharif M, Sarvi S, Galal L, Javidnia J, et al. Human toxoplasmosis: a systematic review for genetic diversity of Toxoplasma gondii in clinical samples. Epidemiol Infect. 2019;147:e36. doi: 10.1017/S0950268818002947. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Ahmadpour E, Sarvi S, Soteh MBH, Sharif M, Rahimi MT, Valadan R, et al. Enhancing immune responses to a DNA vaccine encoding Toxoplasma gondii GRA14 by calcium phosphate nanoparticles as an adjuvant. Immunol Lett. 2017;185:40–47. doi: 10.1016/j.imlet.2017.03.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Dardé M. Toxoplasma gondii, "new" genotypes and virulence. Parasite. 2008;15(3):366–371. doi: 10.1051/parasite/2008153366. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Dubey J, Fair P, Sundar N, Velmurugan G, Kwok OCH, McFee W, et al. Isolation of Toxoplasma gondii from bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) J Parasitol. 2008;94(4):821–823. doi: 10.1645/GE-1444.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Hancock K, Thiele LA, Zajac AM, Elvinger F, Lindsay DS. Prevalence of antibodies to Toxoplasma gondii in raccoons (Procyon lotor) from an urban area of Northern Virginia. J Parasitol. 2005;91(3):694–695. doi: 10.1645/GE-443R. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Miller M, Miller W, Conrad PA, James E, Melli A, Leutenegger C, et al. Type X Toxoplasma gondii in a wild mussel and terrestrial carnivores from coastal California: new linkages between terrestrial mammals, runoff and toxoplasmosis of sea otters. Int J Parasitol. 2008;38(11):1319–1328. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2008.02.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Bowater RO, Norton J, Johnson S, Hill B, Odonoghue P, Prior H. Toxoplasmosis in Indo-Pacific humpbacked dolphins (Sousa chinensis), from Queensland. Aust Vet J. 2003;81(10):627–632. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.2003.tb12509.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Cabezón O, Resendes A, Domingo M, Raga J, Agustí C, Alegre F, et al. Seroprevalence of Toxoplasma gondii antibodies in wild dolphins from the Spanish Mediterranean coast. J Parasitol. 2004;90(3):643–644. doi: 10.1645/GE-257R. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Omata Y, Hammond T, Itoh K, Murata K. Antibodies against Toxoplasma gondii in the Pacific bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops aduncus) from the Solomon Islands. J Parasitol. 2005;91(4):965–967. doi: 10.1645/GE-3457RN.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Alekseev AY, Rozanova E, Ustinova E, Tumanov YI, Kuvshinova I, Shestopalov A. The prevalence of antibodies to morbilliviruses, Brucella, and Toxoplasma in the Black Sea bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus ponticus maintained in captivity. Russ J Mar Biol. 2007;33(6):425–428. doi: 10.1134/S1063074007060107. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Alekseev AY, Reguzova AY, Rozanova E, Abramov A, Tumanov YV, Kuvshinova I, et al. Detection of specific antibodies to morbilliviruses, Brucella and Toxoplasma in the Black Sea dolphin Tursiops truncatus ponticus and the beluga whale Delphinapterus leucas from the Sea of Okhotsk in 2002–2007. Russ J Mar Biol. 2009;35(6):494–497. doi: 10.1134/S1063074009060078. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Forman D, West N, Francis J, Guy E. The sero-prevalence of Toxoplasma gondii in British marine mammals. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2009;104(2):296–298. doi: 10.1590/S0074-02762009000200024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Di Guardo G, Proietto U, Di Francesco CE, Marsilio F, Zaccaroni A, Scaravelli D, et al. Cerebral toxoplasmosis in striped dolphins (Stenella coeruleoalba) stranded along the Ligurian Sea coast of Italy. Vet Pathol. 2010;47(2):245–253. doi: 10.1177/0300985809358036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Pretti C, Mancianti F, Nardoni S, Ariti G, Monni G, Bello Dd, et al. Detection of Toxoplasma gondii infection in dolphins stranded along the Tuscan coast, Italy. Rev Med Vet. 2010;161(10):428–431. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Santos PS, Albuquerque GR, Da Silva V, Martin AR, Marvulo MFV, Souza S, et al. Seroprevalence of Toxoplasma gondii in free-living Amazon River dolphins (Inia geoffrensis) from central Amazon, Brazil. Vet Parasitol. 2011;183(1–2):171–173. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2011.06.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Alvarado-Esquivel C, Sánchez-Okrucky R, Dubey J. Serological evidence of Toxoplasma gondii infection in captive marine mammals in Mexico. Vet Parasitol. 2012;184(2–4):321–324. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2011.08.036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Roe WD, Howe L, Baker EJ, Burrows L, Hunter SA. An atypical genotype of Toxoplasma gondii as a cause of mortality in Hector's dolphins (Cephalorhynchus hectori) Vet Parasitol. 2013;192(1–3):67–74. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2012.11.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Bernal-Guadarrama MJ, Salichs J, Almunia J, García-Parraga D, Fernández-Gallardo N, Santana-Morales MÁ, et al. Development of an indirect immunofluorescence technique for the diagnosis of toxoplasmosis in bottlenose dolphins. Parasitol Res. 2014;113(2):451–455. doi: 10.1007/s00436-013-3674-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Profeta F, Di Francesco CE, Marsilio F, Mignone W, Di Nocera F, De Carlo E, et al. Retrospective seroepidemiological investigations against Morbillivirus, Toxoplasma gondii and Brucella spp. in cetaceans stranded along the Italian coastline (1998–2014) Res Vet Sci. 2015;101:89–92. doi: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2015.06.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Pintore MD, Mignone W, Di Guardo G, Mazzariol S, Ballardini M, Florio CL, et al. Neuropathologic findings in cetaceans stranded in Italy (2002–14) J Wildl Dis. 2018;54(2):295–303. doi: 10.7589/2017-02-035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Costa-Silva S, Sacristán C, Gonzales-Viera O, Díaz-Delgado J, Sánchez-Sarmiento AM, Marigo J, et al. Toxoplasma gondii in cetaceans of Brazil: a histopathological and immunohistochemical survey. Rev Bras Parasitol Vet. 2019;28:395–402. doi: 10.1590/s1984-29612019051. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Oksanen A, Tryland M, Johnsen K, Dubey J. Serosurvey of Toxoplasma gondii in North Atlantic marine mammals by the use of agglutination test employing whole tachyzoites and dithiothreitol. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 1998;21(2):107–114. doi: 10.1016/s0147-9571(97)00028-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Hermosilla C, Silva LM, Kleinertz S, Prieto R, Silva MA, Taubert A. Endoparasite survey of free-swimming baleen whales (Balaenoptera musculus, B. physalus, B. borealis) and sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) using non/minimally invasive methods. Parasitol Res. 2016;115(2):889–896. doi: 10.1007/s00436-015-4835-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Alekseev AY, Shpak O, Adamenko L, Glazov D, Galkina I, Schelkanov MY, et al. Serological detection of causative agents of infectious and invasive diseases in the beluga whale Delphinapterus leucas (Pallas, 1776) (Cetacea: Monodontidae) from Sakhalinsky Bay. Russ J Mar Biol. 2017;43(6):485–490. doi: 10.1134/S1063074017060037. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Iqbal A, Lair S, Dixon B. Toxoplasma gondii infection in stranded St. Lawrence Estuary beluga Delphinapterus leucas in Quebec, Canada. Dis Aquat Org. 2018;130(3):165–175. doi: 10.3354/dao03262. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Marcer F, Marchiori E, Centelleghe C, Ajzenberg D, Gustinelli A, Meroni V, et al. Parasitological and pathological findings in fin whales Balaenoptera physalus stranded along Italian coastlines. Dis Aquat Organ. 2019;133(1):25–37. doi: 10.3354/dao03327. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Lambourn D, Jeffries S, Dubey J. Seroprevalence of Toxoplasma gondii in harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) in southern Puget Sound, Washington. J Parasitol. 2001;87(5):1196–1197. doi: 10.1645/0022-3395(2001)087[1196:SOTGIH]2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Measures LN, Dubey J, Labelle P, Martineau D. Seroprevalence of Toxoplasma gondii in Canadian pinnipeds. J Wildl Dis. 2004;40(2):294–300. doi: 10.7589/0090-3558-40.2.294. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Simon A, Chambellant M, Ward BJ, Simard M, Proulx J-F, Lévesque B, et al. Spatio-temporal variations and age effect on Toxoplasma gondii seroprevalence in seals from the Canadian Arctic. Parasitology. 2011;138(11):1362–1368. doi: 10.1017/S0031182011001260. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Rengifo-Herrera C, Ortega-Mora LM, Álvarez-García G, Gómez-Bautista M, García-Párraga D, García-Peña FJ, et al. Detection of Toxoplasma gondii antibodies in Antarctic pinnipeds. Vet Parasitol. 2012;190(1–2):259–262. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2012.05.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Jensen S, Nymo I, Forcada J, Godfroid J, Hall A. Prevalence of Toxoplasma gondii antibodies in pinnipeds from Antarctica. Ecol Manag Restor. 2012;2:129–138. doi: 10.1136/vr.100848. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Jankowski G, Adkesson MJ, Saliki JT, Cárdenas-Alayza S, Majluf P. Survey for infectious disease in the South American fur seal (Arctocephalus australis) population at Punta San Juan, Peru. J Zoo Wildl Med. 2015;46:246–254. doi: 10.1638/2014-0120.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Bauer KL, Goertz CE, Belovarac JA, Walton RW, Dunn JL, Tuomi P. Infectious disease and toxicological monitoring of stranded pacific harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardsi) in cook inlet as surrogates for monitoring endangered belugas (Delphinapterus leucas) J Zoo Wildl Med. 2016;47(3):770–780. doi: 10.1638/2015-0147.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Namroodi S, Shirazi AS, Khaleghi SR, Mills JN, Kheirabady V. Frequency of exposure of endangered Caspian seals to canine distemper virus, Leptospira interrogans, and Toxoplasma gondii. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(4):e0196070. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196070. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Carlson-Bremer D, Colegrove KM, Gulland FM, Conrad PA, Mazet JA, Johnson CK. Epidemiology and pathology of Toxoplasma gondii in free-ranging California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) J Wildl Dis. 2015;51(2):362–373. doi: 10.7589/2014-08-205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Michael S, Howe L, Chilvers B, Morel P, Roe W. Seroprevalence of Toxoplasma gondii in mainland and sub-Antarctic New Zealand sea lion (Phocarctos hookeri) populations. N Z Vet J. 2016;64(5):293–297. doi: 10.1080/00480169.2016.1191974. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Tocidlowski ME, Lappin MR, Sumner PW, Stoskopf MK. Serologic survey for toxoplasmosis in river otters. J Wildl Dis. 1997;33(3):649–652. doi: 10.7589/0090-3558-33.3.649. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Miller M, Gardner I, Packham A, Mazet J, Hanni K, Jessup D, et al. Evaluation of an indirect fluorescent antibody test (IFAT) for demonstration of antibodies to Toxoplasma gondii in the sea otter (Enhydra lutris) J Parasitol. 2002;88(3):594–599. doi: 10.1645/0022-3395(2002)088[0594:EOAIFA]2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Miller MA, Grigg ME, Kreuder C, James E, Melli A, Crosbie P, et al. An unusual genotype of Toxoplasma gondii is common in California sea otters (Enhydra lutris nereis) and is a cause of mortality. Int J Parasitol. 2004;34(3):275–284. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2003.12.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Gaydos JK, Conrad PA, Gilardi KV, Blundell GM, Ben-David M. Does human proximity affect antibody prevalence in marine-foraging river otters (Lontra canadensis)? J Wildl Dis. 2007;43(1):116–123. doi: 10.7589/0090-3558-43.1.116. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Verma SK, Knowles S, Cerqueira-Cézar CK, Kwok OC, Jiang T, Su C, et al. An update on Toxoplasma gondii infections in northern sea otters (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) from Washington State, USA. Vet Parasitol. 2018;258(133):7. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2018.05.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Esmerini PO, Gennari SM, Pena HF. Analysis of marine bivalve shellfish from the fish market in Santos city, São Paulo state, Brazil, for Toxoplasma gondii. Vet Parasitol. 2010;170(1–2):8–13. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2010.01.036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Zhang M, Yang Z, Wang S, Tao L, Xu L, Yan R, et al. Detection of Toxoplasma gondii in shellfish and fish in parts of China. Vet Parasitol. 2014;200(1–2):85–89. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2013.10.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Marangi M, Giangaspero A, Lacasella V, Lonigro A, Gasser RB. Multiplex PCR for the detection and quantification of zoonotic taxa of Giardia, Cryptosporidium and Toxoplasma in wastewater and mussels. Mol Cell Probes. 2015;29(2):122–125. doi: 10.1016/j.mcp.2015.01.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Marquis ND, Record NR, Robledo JAF. Survey for protozoan parasites in Eastern oysters (Crassostrea virginica) from the Gulf of Maine using PCR-based assays. Parasitol Int. 2015;64(5):299–302. doi: 10.1016/j.parint.2015.04.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Ribeiro L, Santos L, Brito P, Jr, Maciel B, Da Silva A, Albuquerque G. Detection of Toxoplasma gondii DNA in Brazilian oysters (Crassostrea rhizophorae) Genet Mol Res. 2015;14(2):4658–4665. doi: 10.4238/2015.May.4.25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Cong W, Zhang N-Z, Hou J-L, Wang X-C, Ma J-G, Zhu X-Q, et al. First detection and genetic characterization of Toxoplasma gondii in market-sold oysters in China. Infect Genet Evol. 2017;54:276–278. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2017.07.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Coupe A, Howe L, Burrows E, Sine A, Pita A, Velathanthiri N, et al. First report of Toxoplasma gondii sporulated oocysts and Giardia duodenalis in commercial green-lipped mussels (Perna canaliculus) in New Zealand. Parasitol Res. 2018;117(5):1453–1463. doi: 10.1007/s00436-018-5832-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Cong W, Zhang N-Z, Yuan D-Q, Zou Y, Li S, Liang Z-L. Detection and genetic characterization of Toxoplasma gondii in market-sold mussels (Mytilus edulis) in certain provinces of China. Microb Pathogen. 2019;136:103687. doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2019.103687. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Marquis ND, Bishop TJ, Record NR, Countway PD, Fernández Robledo JA. Molecular Epizootiology of Toxoplasma gondii and Cryptosporidium parvum in the Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) from Maine (USA) Pathogens. 2019;8(3):125. doi: 10.3390/pathogens8030125. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Marino AMF, Giunta RP, Salvaggio A, Castello A, Alfonzetti T, Barbagallo A, et al. (2019) Toxoplasma gondii in edible fishes captured in the Mediterranean basin. Zoonoses Public Health. 2019;66(7):826–834. doi: 10.1111/zph.12630. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials


Articles from Acta Parasitologica are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES