Suppr超能文献

马的手动和自动粪便虫卵计数方法的相对虫卵提取效率

Relative egg extraction efficiencies of manual and automated fecal egg count methods in equines.

作者信息

Britton L, Ripley B, Slusarewicz P

机构信息

Parasight System Inc., Suite 2130, 1532 N. Limestone St., Lexington, KY 40505, USA.

出版信息

Helminthologia. 2024 Apr 23;61(1):20-29. doi: 10.2478/helm-2024-0007. eCollection 2024 Mar.

Abstract

The World Association for the Advancement of Veterinary Parasitology recently released new recommendations for the design of fecal egg count (FEC) reduction tests for livestock. These provide suggestions as to the number of animals to be sampled and the minimum number of eggs that must be counted to produce statistically meaningful results. One of the considerations for study design is the multiplication factor of the FEC method to be used; methods with lower multiplication factors require fewer animals to be sampled because they are presumed to count more eggs per test. However, multiplication factor is not the sole determinant of the number of eggs counted by any given method, since different techniques use very different sample extraction methodologies that could affect the number of eggs detected beyond just the amount of feces examined. In this light, we compared three commonly used manual FEC methods (mini-FLOTAC, McMaster and Wisconsin) and two automated methods (Imagyst and Parasight All-in-One) with respect to how many equine strongylid and ascarid eggs they counted in the same samples. McMaster and mini-FLOTAC (multiplication factors of 25x and 5x, respectively) produced the most accurate results of the methods tested but mini-FLOTAC counted approximately 5-times more eggs than McMaster. However, Wisconsin and Parasight (multiplication factor = 1x) counted 3-times more ova than mini-FLOTAC, which was less than the 5-fold difference in their multiplication factors. As a result, these tests perform with multiplication factors more akin to 1.6x relative to mini-FLOTAC. Imagyst, due to its unique sample preparation methodology, does not have a traditional multiplication factor but performed similarly to McMaster with respect to egg recovery.

摘要

世界兽医寄生虫学发展协会最近发布了关于家畜粪便虫卵计数(FEC)减少试验设计的新建议。这些建议针对采样动物的数量以及为得出具有统计学意义的结果必须计数的最小虫卵数量提供了指导。研究设计的考虑因素之一是要使用的FEC方法的增殖系数;增殖系数较低的方法需要采样的动物较少,因为据推测它们每次测试能计数更多的虫卵。然而,增殖系数并非任何给定方法所计数虫卵数量的唯一决定因素,因为不同技术使用的样本提取方法差异很大,这可能会影响检测到的虫卵数量,而不仅仅是所检查粪便的量。有鉴于此,我们比较了三种常用的手动FEC方法(微型FLOTAC法、麦克马斯特法和威斯康星法)以及两种自动化方法(Imagyst法和Parasight一体机法)在相同样本中计数马圆线虫和蛔虫卵的数量。麦克马斯特法和微型FLOTAC法(增殖系数分别为25倍和5倍)在所测试的方法中得出了最准确的结果,但微型FLOTAC法计数的虫卵数量大约是麦克马斯特法的5倍。然而,威斯康星法和Parasight法(增殖系数 = 1倍)计数的虫卵数量是微型FLOTAC法的3倍,这低于它们增殖系数的5倍差异。因此,相对于微型FLOTAC法,这些测试的增殖系数更接近1.6倍。Imagyst法由于其独特的样本制备方法,没有传统的增殖系数,但在虫卵回收率方面与麦克马斯特法表现相似。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验