Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
Department of Pathobiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran.
Abstract
Keywords
Main Subjects
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Fasciolosis is an important parasitic disease among humans and animals in Iran and throughout the world, which especially limits the productivity of ruminants. Fasciolosis is prevalent in developing countries and poor societies with temperate, hot and/or humid areas. In Iran, it is a prevalent disease in northern regions due to climatic conditions and consumption of contaminated vegetables with metacercerie of Fasciola species. Control of fasciolosis in ruminants is depend on anthelmintic drugs' prescription. During the last two decades, anthelmintic drugs have been increasingly applied in Iran. There are several methods for determining the resistance to anthelmintic compounds, i.e. necropsy, Egg hatch assay (EHA), larval development assay (LDA), faecal egg count reduction test (FECRT), and molecular tools. They demonstrated Benzimidazoles (BZs)-resistance was present and sometimes widespread in examined farms. Thus the aim of the present study was to evaluate drug resistance of Fasciola hepatica to albendazole and rafoxanide in sheep under laboratory conditions in Marivan municipality, West of Iran.
Materials and Methods
A total number of 290 sheep livers were randomly collected in Marivan municipality, West of Iran from October 2020 to June 2021 and transferred to the Parasitology Lab. They were cut into small pieces and adult F. hepatica were removed from naturally infected livers of sheep. They were count and identified using key identification. Then, the helminths were washed into 10 ml of sterile distilled water and crushed. The homogeneous mixture was passed through a 120 sieve and centrifuged at 2,000 rpm for 5 minutes. About 1,000 eggs of F. hepatica in 0.9% Ringer’s solution were provided and incubated at 28˚C for 16 days. On the 14th day, albendazole (0.1 μg/ml) and rafoxanide (0.1 μg/ml) along with control group were incubated at 28˚C for 48 h. The percentage of hatched eggs and lethal dose of 50% larvae (LD50) were figure out.
Results and Discussion
Fifty out of 290 examined livers (17.24%) were positive for F. hepatica infection. The highest infection rate of F. hepatica was found in spring (6.89%). There was significant difference between percentage of the hatched eggs and both treated with albendazole and rafoxanide and control groups. The average of the hatched eggs of F. hepatica was lower in rafoxanide treated group (19.6±17.6) than albendazole treated group (32.8±14.9) and control group (35.4±12.1). LD50 did not demonstrate resistance to albendazole (32.75%) and rafoxanide (19.5%) in treated groups.
Conclusions
This study significantly demonstrated expected effect of examined anthelmintic drugs, i.e. Albendazole and Rafoxanide on egg hatching of F. hepatica. The study also uncovered that the helminths were less sensitive to Albendazole than Rafoxanide. It was also concluded that there was no resistance to albendazole and rafoxanide in sheep in the region. It is therefore recommended that farmers correctly applied anthelmintic drugs and raised their awareness on drug control principles.
For research articles with several authors, a short paragraph specifying their individual contributions must be provided. The following statements should be used “Conceptualization, X.X. and Y.Y.; methodology, X.X.; software, X.X.; validation, X.X., Y.Y. and Z.Z.; formal analysis, X.X.; investigation, X.X.; resources, X.X.; data curation, X.X.; writing—original draft preparation, X.X.; writing—review and editing, X.X.; visualization, X.X.; supervision, X.X.; project administration, X.X.; funding acquisition, Y.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.” Please turn to the CRediT taxonomy for the term explanation. Authorship must be limited to those who have contributed substantially to the work re-ported.
All authors contributed equally to the conceptualization of the article and writing of the original and subsequent drafts.
In this section, please provide details regarding where data supporting reported results can be found, including links to publicly archived datasets analyzed or generated during the study (see examples). Data available on request from the authors.
If the study did not report any data, you might add “Not applicable” here.
The Acknowledgments section should be a few sentences at the end, but it is important to recognize those people (organizations and individuals) who made considerable impact on the research, provided significant help to the author to formulate and complete the experiment, and improved the research at any stage (from providing access to equipment or field sites to editing the manuscript). However, this is an optional section.
In this section, you can acknowledge any support given which is not covered by the author contribution or funding sections. This may include administrative and technical support, or donations in kind (e.g., materials used for experiments).
The authors would like to thank all participants of the present study.
The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of ABCD (Ethical code: IR.UT.RES.2024.500). The authors avoided data fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and misconduct.
The author declares no conflict of interest.
The author declares no conflict of interest.
)