Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T09:13:19.569Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preliminary evaluation of a novel, fully automated, Telenostic device for rapid field-diagnosis of cattle parasites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2020

Nagwa Elghryani ,
Joseph Crispell ,
Roohollah Ebrahimi ,
Michael Krivoruchko ,
Vladimir Lobaskin ,
Trish McOwan ,
William O'Connor ,
Eamonn Power ,
Bruno Voisin  and
Dimitri Scholz
...Show all authors
Nagwa Elghryani
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland Telenostic Limited, Kilkenny, Ireland
Joseph Crispell
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
Roohollah Ebrahimi
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
Michael Krivoruchko
Affiliation:
Independent Consultant, Dublin, Ireland
Vladimir Lobaskin
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
Trish McOwan
Affiliation:
Telenostic Limited, Kilkenny, Ireland
William O'Connor
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
Eamonn Power
Affiliation:
Telenostic Limited, Kilkenny, Ireland
Bruno Voisin
Affiliation:
Irish Centre for High End Computing, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland
Dimitri Scholz
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
Theo de Waal*
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
*
Author for correspondence: Theo de Waal, E-mail: theo.dewaal@ucd.ie
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

New ideas for diagnostics in clinical parasitology are needed to overcome some of the difficulties experienced in the widespread adoption of detection methods for gastrointestinal parasites in livestock. Here we provide an initial evaluation of the performance of a newly developed automated device (Telenostic) to identify and quantify parasitic elements in fecal samples. This study compared the Telenostic device with the McMaster and Mini-FLOTAC for counting of strongyle eggs in a fecal sample. Three bovine fecal samples were examined, in triplicate, on each of the three fecal egg-counting devices. In addition, both manual (laboratory technician) and automated analysis (image analysis algorithm) were performed on the Telenostic device to calculate fecal egg counts (FEC). Overall, there were consistent egg counts reported across the three devices and calculation methods. The Telenostic device compared very favourably to the Mini-FLOTAC and McMaster. Only in sample C, a significant difference (P < 0.05) was observed between the egg counts obtained by Mini-FLOTAC and by the other methods. From this limited dataset it can be concluded that the Telenostic-automated test is comparable to currently used benchmark FEC methods, while improving the workflow, test turn-around time and not requiring trained laboratory personnel to operate or interpret the results.

Keywords

AutomationcattleMcMasterMini-FLOTACquantitative diagnostic techniquesstrongyle eggsTelenostic device
Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 147 , Issue 11 , September 2020 , pp. 1249 - 1253
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Castañón, CAB, Fraga, JS, Fernandez, S, Gruber, A and Costa, L da F (2007) Biological shape characterization for automatic image recognition and diagnosis of protozoan parasites of the genus Eimeria. Pattern Recognition 40, 1899–1910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charlier, J, Morgan, ER, Rinaldi, L, van Dijk, J, Demeler, J, Hoglund, J, Hertzberg, H, Van Ranst, B, Hendrickx, G, Vercruysse, J and Kenyon, F (2014 a) Practices to optimise gastrointestinal nematode control on sheep, goat and cattle farms in Europe using targeted (selective) treatments. Veterinary Record 175, 250–255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charlier, J, Voort, M, Kenyon, F, Skuce, P and Vercruysse, J (2014 b) Chasing helminths and their economic impact on farmed ruminants. Trends in Parasitology 30, 361–367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cringoli, G, Rinaldi, L, Veneziano, V, Capelli, G and Scala, A (2004) The influence of flotation solution, sample dilution and the choice of McMaster slide area (volume) on the reliability of the McMaster technique in estimating the faecal egg counts of gastrointestinal strongyles and Dicrocoelium dendriticum in sheep. Veterinary Parasitology 123, 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cringoli, G, Rinaldi, L, Maurelli, MP and Utzinger, J (2010) FLOTAC: new multivalent techniques for qualitative and quantitative copromicroscopic diagnosis of parasites in animals and humans. Nature Protocols 5, 503–515.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cringoli, G, Maurelli, MP, Levecke, B, Bosco, A, Vercruysse, J, Utzinger, J and Rinaldi, L (2017) The Mini-FLOTAC technique for the diagnosis of helminth and protozoan infections in humans and animals. Nature Protocols 12, 1723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daugschies, A, Imarom, S and Bollwahn, W (1999) Differentiation of porcine Eimeria spp. by morphologic algorithms. Veterinary Parasitology 81, 201–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dogantekin, E, Yilmaz, M, Dogantekin, A, Avci, E and Sengur, A (2008) A robust technique based on invariant moments – ANFIS for recognition of human parasite eggs in microscopic images. Expert Systems with Applications 35, 728–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghazali, KH, Hadi, RS and Mohamed, Z (2013) Automated system for diagnosis intestinal parasites by computerized image analysis. Modern Applied Science 7, 98–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joachim, A, Dulmer, N and Daugschies, A (1999) Differentiation of two Oesophagostomum spp. from pigs, O. dentatum and O. quadrispinulatum, by computer-assisted image analysis of fourth-stage larvae. Parasitology International 48, 63–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaplan, RM (2004) Drug resistance in nematodes of veterinary importance: a status report. Trends in Parasitology 20, 477–481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaplan, RM (2020) Biology, epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of anthelmintic resistance in gastrointestinal nematodes of livestock. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice 36, 17–30.Google ScholarPubMed
Kenyon, F and Jackson, F (2012) Targeted flock/herd and individual ruminant treatment approaches. Veterinary Parasitology 186, 10–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levecke, B, Rinaldi, L, Charlier, J, Maurelli, MP, Morgoglione, ME, Vercruysse, J and Cringoli, G (2011) Monitoring drug efficacy against gastrointestinal nematodes when faecal egg counts are low: do the analytic sensitivity and the formula matter? Parasitology Research 109, 953–957.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levecke, B, Rinaldi, L, Charlier, J, Maurelli, MP, Bosco, A, Vercruysse, J and Cringoli, G (2012) The bias, accuracy and precision of faecal egg count reduction test results in cattle using McMaster, Cornell-Wisconsin and FLOTAC egg counting methods. Veterinary Parasitology, 188, 194–199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levecke, B, Kaplan, RM, Thamsborg, SM, Torgerson, PR, Vercruysse, J. and Dobson, RJ (2018) How to improve the standardization and the diagnostic performance of the fecal egg count reduction test? Veterinary Parasitology 253, 71–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MAFF (1986) Manual of Veterinary Parasitology Laboratory Techniques. Reference Book 418, 3rd Edn. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office.Google Scholar
Mes, TH, Eysker, M and Ploeger, HW (2007) A simple, robust and semi-automated parasite egg isolation protocol. Nature Protocols 2, 486–489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rinaldi, L, Coles, GC, Maurelli, MP, Musella, V and Cringoli, G (2011) Calibration and diagnostic accuracy of simple flotation, McMaster and FLOTAC for parasite egg counts in sheep. Veterinary Parasitology 177, 345–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, H, Rinaldi, L, Bosco, A, Mavrot, F, de Waal, T, Skuce, P, Charlier, J, Torgerson, PR, Hertzberg, H, Hendrickx, G, Vercruysse, J and Morgan, ER (2015) Widespread anthelmintic resistance in European farmed ruminants: a systematic review. Veterinary Record 176, 546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sawitz, W (1942) The buoyancy of certain nematode eggs. The Journal of Parasitology 28, 95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommer, C (1996) Digital image analysis and identification of eggs from bovine parasitic nematodes. Journal of Helminthology 70, 143–151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sommer, C (1998) Quantitative characterization of texture used for identification of eggs of bovine parasitic nematodes. Journal of Helminthology 72, 179–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stoll, NR (1930) On methods of counting nematode ova in sheep dung. Parasitology 22, 116–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, CT, Gomes, JF, Falcao, AX, Papa, JP and Hoshino-Shimizu, S (2013) Automatic segmentation and classification of human intestinal parasites from microscopy images. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 60, 803–812.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Torgerson, PR, Paul, M and Lewis, FI (2012) The contribution of simple random sampling to observed variations in faecal egg counts. Veterinary Parasitology 188, 397–401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, YS, Park, DK, Kim, HC, Choi, MH and Chai, JY (2001) Automatic identification of human helminth eggs on microscopic fecal specimens using digital image processing and an artificial neural network. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 48, 718–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Elghryani et al. supplementary material

Table S1

Download Elghryani et al. supplementary material(File)
File 15.6 KB