High Prevalence of Infection with Entamoeba Dispar, but Not E. Histolytica, in Captive Macaques.

Hiroshi Tachibana,Xun-Jia Cheng,Seiki Kobayashi,Nobuko Matsubayashi,Shunji Gotoh,Kiyoaki Matsubayashi
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s004360000289
2001-01-01
Parasitology Research
Abstract:A total of 268 nonhuman primates (20 species) kept in the Primate Research Institute, Kyoto University, Japan, were surveyed for intestinal amebas. Total positive rates as based on the presence of cysts in the stool following formalin-ether sedimentation were as follows: Entamoeba histolytica/E. dispar, 53%; E. coli, 34%; E. hartmanni, 34%; Iodamoeba buetschlii, 25%; Endolimax nana, 8%; and E. chattoni, 3%. Positive rates were higher in Old World monkeys and lower in New World monkeys. All the 141 E. histolytica/E. dispar-positive animals were Macaca monkeys. The E. histolytica/E. dispar-positive samples were analyzed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for identification of E. histolytica and E. dispar. E. dispar DNA was detected in 137 samples, whereas no E. histolytica DNA was seen. Zymodeme analysis and reactivity to monoclonal antibodies of cultured trophozoites also supported the presence of E. dispar and the absence of E. histolytica. When the sera of 93 macaques were examined by an indirect fluorescent antibody test, only 3 animals proved to be positive for E. histolytica, showing the lowest titer. These results demonstrate that infection with E. dispar, but not E. histolytica, is predominant in macaques.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?