Advertisement

Parasitology Research

, Volume 118, Issue 2, pp 583–598 | Cite as

Cecal coccidiosis in turkeys: Comparative biology of Eimeria species in the lower intestinal tract of turkeys using genetically typed, single oocyst–derived lines

  • S. El-Sherry
  • M. E. Ogedengbe
  • M. A. Hafeez
  • M. Sayf-Al-Din
  • N. Gad
  • J. R. BartaEmail author
Protozoology - Original Paper
  • 50 Downloads

Abstract

Differentiating the Eimeria species causing cecal coccidiosis in turkeys is challenging. To obtain benchmark biological data for Eimeria gallopavonis Hawkins 1952 and Eimeria meleagridis Tyzzer 1929 and to support the stability of the species concept for each, genetically typed, single oocyst–derived lines of E. gallopavonis Weybridge strain and E. meleagridis USAR97-01 were used to redescribe the biological, pathological, and morphological features of these parasites. Oocysts of E. meleagridis and E. gallopavonis overlap in dimensions, but oocysts of the former have a single polar granule compared with multiple in the latter. Mature first-generation meronts of E. gallopavonis were observed histologically as early as 48 h post-inoculation alongside the villi in jejunum (before and after Meckel’s diverticulum), ileum, cecal neck and rectum, but not cecal pouches. Three asexual cycles were observed suggesting that early workers apparently overlooked one asexual cycle. Examination of endogenous development of a culture labeled “Eimeria adenoeides Weybridge strain” suggested that this strain (found in a number of publications as a large oocyst strain of “Eimeria adenoeides”) matched the species description of E. gallopavonis and so has been renamed herein. Macroscopic lesions induced by E. gallopavonis consisted of caseous material distally from posterior of the yolk stalk through the remaining intestinal tract, excluding the cecal pouches. For E. meleagridis, only the first asexual generation was observed outside of the cecal pouches within the jejunum around the yolk stalk. Second- and 3rd-generation asexual stages developed almost exclusively in the cecal pouches (but not cecal necks). Macroscopic lesions described for E. meleagridis were similar to those of E. adenoeides. Marked corrugation of the cecal serosal surface was observed. Cecal pouches contained creamy colored, caseous material varying from loose material to granular. Distinguishing features of the Eimeria species infecting the lower part of the small intestine are summarized in the present study, and new type specimens were designated for E. gallopavonis and E. meleagridis to provide a stable reference for future work with these parasites.

Keywords

Eimeria gallopavonis Eimeria meleagridis Eimeria adenoeides Coccidiosis Turkey Eimeria Life cycle Endogenous development Nuclear 18S rDNA Mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I Taxonomy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Julie Cobean and Julia Whale are thanked for their skilled technical assistance. Staff members of the CAF Animal Isolation Facility at the University of Guelph are thanked for their skilled care of experimental animals used in this study.

Funding information

This work was supported by grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC, DG 400566); from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA, Tier II 200331); and from the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario (FedDev) to J.R.B. Scholarship support was provided by the Ministry of Higher Education and Research (MOHE), Egypt, to S.E.S. administered through the Bureau of Cultural and Educational Affairs (BCEA) of Egypt in Canada; scholarship support was provided to M.E.O. by the Ontario Veterinary College (OVC PhD Scholarship).

Compliance with ethical standards

All experimental manipulations were reviewed and approved by the University of Guelph’s Animal Care Committee and complied with the Canadian Council on Animal Care’s Guide to the Care and Use of Experimental Animals (2nd edition).

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Chapman HD (2008) Coccidiosis in the turkey. Avian Pathol 37:205–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clarkson MJ (1958) Life history and pathogenicity of Eimeria adenoeides Moore & Brown, 1951, in the turkey poult. Parasitology 48:70–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clarkson MJ (1959) The life history and pathogenicity of Eimeria meleagridis Tyzzer, 1927, in the turkey poult. Parasitology 49:519–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clarkson MJ (1960) The coccidia of the turkey. Ann Trop Med Parasitol 54:253–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cook SM, Higuchi DS, McGowan AL, Schrader JS, Withanage GS, Francis MJ (2010) Polymerase chain reaction-based identity assay for pathogenic turkey Eimeria. Avian Dis 54:1152–1156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Doran DJ, Augustine PC (1977) Eimeria dispersa and Eimeria gallopavonis: infectivity, survival, and development in primary chicken and turkey kidney cell cultures. J Protozool 24:172–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. El-Sherry S, Ogedengbe ME, Hafeez MA, Barta JR (2013) Divergent nuclear 18S rDNA paralogs in a turkey coccidium, Eimeria meleagrimitis, complicate molecular systematics and identification. Int J Parasitol 43:679–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. El-Sherry S, Rathinam T, Hafeez MA, Ogedengbe ME, Chapman HD, Barta JR (2014a) Biological re-description of a genetically typed, single oocyst line of the turkey coccidium, Eimeria meleagrimitis Tyzzer 1929. Parasitol Res 113:1135–1146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. El-Sherry S, Ogedengbe ME, Hafeez MA, Sayf-Al-Din M, Gad N, Barta JR (2014b) Re-description of a genetically typed, single oocyst line of the turkey coccidium, Eimeria adenoeides Moore and Brown, 1951. Parasitol Res 113:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. El-Sherry S, Ogedengbe ME, Hafeez MA, Sayf-Al-Din M, Gad N, Barta JR (2015) Sequence-based genotyping clarifies conflicting historical morphometric and biological data for 5 Eimeria species infecting turkeys. Poult Sci 94:262–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Farr MM (1964) Life cycle of Eimeria gallopavonis Hawkins in the turkey. J Parasitol 50(3 Section 2, Suppl):52Google Scholar
  12. Farr M, Wehr E, Shalkop W (1961) Pathogenicity of Eimeria gallopavonis. V J Sci 12:150–151Google Scholar
  13. Hammond DM, Bowman GW, Davis LR, Simms B (1946) The endogenous phase of the life cycle of Eimeria bovis. Parasitology 32:409–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hawkins PA (1952) Coccidiosis in turkey. Technical Bulletin 226. Michigan State College Agricultural Experiment Station, East Lansing, MIGoogle Scholar
  15. Hein H (1969) Eimeria adenoeides and E. meleagrimitis: pathogenic effect in turkey poults. Exp Parasitol 24:163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Joyner LP, Norton CC (1972) The drug sensitivity of recently isolated strains of Eimeria meleagrimitis and a laboratory strain of Eimeria adenoeides in turkeys to robenidene. Res Vet Sci 13:279–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Matsler PL, Chapman HD (2006) Characterization of a strain of Eimeria meleagridis from the turkey. Avian Dis 50:599–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McDougald LR, Fitz-Coy SH (2003) Coccidiosis. In: Saif YM, Fadly AA, Glisson JR, McDougald LR, Nolan L, Swayne DE (eds) Diseases of poultry, 12th edn. ISU, Ames, pp 1080–1083Google Scholar
  19. Miska KB, Schwarz RS, Jenkins MC, Rathinam T, Chapman HD (2010) Molecular characterization and phylogenetic analysis of Eimeria from turkeys and game birds: implications for evolutionary relationships in Galliform birds. J Parasitol 96:982–986.  https://doi.org/10.1645/GE-2344.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moore EN, Brown JA (1951) A new coccidium pathogenic for turkeys, Eimeria adenoeides n. sp. (Protozoa: Eimeriidae). Cornell Vet 41:124–135Google Scholar
  21. Ogedengbe ME, El-Sherry S, Whale J, Barta JR (2014) Complete mitochondrial genome sequences from five Eimeria species (Apicomplexa; Coccidia; Eimeriidae) infecting domestic turkeys. Parasit Vectors 7:335.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-7-335 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Poplstein M, Vrba V (2011) Description of the two strains of turkey coccidia Eimeria adenoeides with remarkable morphological variability. Parasitology 138:1211–1216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rampin T, Manarolla G, Recordati C, Sironi G (2006) Caecal coccidiosis in commercial male turkeys. Ital J Anim Sci 5:315–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Remmler O, McGregor JK (1964) A method to facilitate isolation of single coccidial oocysts. J Parasitol 50:294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Trees AJ (2002) Parasitic diseases. In: Jordan FTW (ed) Poultry diseases. Baillière Tindal, London, p p413Google Scholar
  26. Tyzzer EE (1929) Coccidiosis in gallinaceous birds. Am J Hyg 10:269–383Google Scholar
  27. Tyzzer EE, Theiler H, Jones EE (1932) Coccidiosis in gallinaceous birds. II. A comparative study of species of Eimeria of the chicken. Am J Hyg 15:319–393Google Scholar
  28. Vrba V, Pakandl M (2014) Coccidia of turkey: from isolation, characterisation and comparison to molecular phylogeny and molecular diagnostics. Int J Parasitol 44(13):985–1000.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpara.2014.06.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wehr EE, Farr MM, Shalkop WT (1962) Studies on pathogenicity of Eimeria gallopavonis to turkeys. J Protozool 9:8–9Google Scholar
  30. Williams RB (2010) The correct date of the original description and availability of the coccidian name Eimeria meleagridis Tyzzer (Apicomplexa: Eimeriorina: Eimeriidae). Syst Parasitol 76:77–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PathobiologyUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada
  2. 2.Department of Poultry Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary MedicineAssiut UniversityAsyutEgypt
  3. 3.University of Veterinary and Animal SciencesLahorePakistan

Personalised recommendations