Indirect versus direct detection methods of Trichinella spp. infection in wild boar (Sus scrofa)

Parasites & Vectors

Table 1 Prevalence of anti- Trichinella IgG detected in muscle fluids of wild boar hunted in Italy

Region of origin province	ELISA positive/tested wild boar (%)	Western blot positive/ELISA positive wild boar (%)	Western blot positive/tested wild boar (%)	Previous reports of *Trichinella* spp. in wildlife
Lombardy
Bergamo	65/194 (33.5)	6/65 (9.2)	6/194 (3.1)	Yes
Como	159/544 (29.2)	18/159 (11.3)	18/544 (3.3)	Yes
Varese	31^a/113 (27.4)	2^a/31 (12.5)	2^a/113 (1.8)	Yes
Veneto
Padua	21/146 (14.4)	0.0/21	0.0/146	No^b
Emilia Romagna
Bologna	1/12 (8.3)	0.0/1	0.0/12	Yes
Modena	4/20 (20.0)	1/4	1/20 (5.0)	Yes
Tuscany
Florence	12/108 (11.1)	1/12 (8.3)	1/108 (0.9)	No^c
Grosseto	18/256 (7.0)	3/18 (16.7)	3/256 (1.2)	Yes
Sardinia
Nuoro	5/69 (7.2)	1/5	1/69 (1.4)	No^d
Total	315^a/1,462 (21.5)	32^a/315 (10.1)	32^a/1,462 (2.2)

^aTrichinella britovi larvae detected in muscle tissues of a single animal.
^bnone reported in the Padua province and Veneto region since 2005 (see Figure 3).
^cnone reported in the Florence province, but T. britovi has been documented in the neighbouring provinces (see Figure 3).
^dnone reported in wild animals before 2011, but T. britovi has been documented in free-ranging pigs from 2005 to the present.

ISSN: 1756-3305