Skip to main content
Download PDF

Prevalence and genetic characterization of Toxoplasma gondii in naturally infected backyard pigs intended for familial consumption in Romania

Parasites & Vectors volume 12, Article number: 586 (2019) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Foodborne toxoplasmosis in humans can be due to the exposure to tissue cysts of Toxoplasma gondii through the consumption of meat, including pork, of infected animals. Traditional Romanian food habits include pork as the preferred meat, while backyard pig rearing remains a common practice in many rural areas of Romania. The aims of the present study were to estimate the prevalence of T. gondii infection in naturally infected backyard pigs slaughtered for familial consumption and to genetically characterize the T. gondii strains obtained.

Methods

Paired blood and heart samples were collected from 94 backyard pigs, home slaughtered for private consumption. Serum samples were analyzed using the immunofluorescence antibody test (IFAT) for anti-T. gondii antibody detection. Heart samples were screened by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) targeting the 529-bp repeat region (REP529) for T. gondii detection. In addition, heart samples from IFAT positive animals were bioassayed in mice. The T. gondii isolates were genotyped by the analysis of 15 microsatellite markers.

Results

The results showed that almost half of the pigs investigated were T. gondii seropositive (46.8%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 36.4–57.4%) and in more than a quarter of the pigs (26.6%, 95% CI: 18.0–36.7%), the parasite was detected by PCR. Three (3/44) T. gondii strains were isolated from hearts of seropositive pigs and they all belonged to genotype II.

Conclusions

The present study showed the presence of T. gondii infection in backyard pigs in Romania, which suggests that consumption of pork from animals reared and slaughtered at home may pose a potential threat to human health and should be given attention. In addition, to our knowledge, this is the first study to provide data concerning T. gondii strains circulating in pigs from Romania.

Background

Toxoplasma gondii, a coccidian parasite of the family Sarcocystidae, is one of the most studied parasites because of its medical and veterinary importance. This parasite induces parasitic infection in humans and other warm-blooded animals [1]. Backyard rearing of livestock represents an important source of food, but also contributes to human exposure to different zoonotic pathogens. Pigs are one of the species in which T. gondii is often found [2, 3]. Worldwide, the prevalence of anti-T. gondii antibodies in pigs was estimated to be 19%, with Europe recording the lowest values and Africa and North America having a high prevalence, respectively [3]. Toxoplasma gondii prevalence in pigs can vary according the age of animal and the animal husbandry system, backyard pigs being more exposed to the parasite compared to indoor pigs [4]. Likewise, the higher mean annual temperature and lower geographical latitude were identified as risk factors for T. gondii infection [3].

Regarding the possibility of infection with T. gondii, it should be taken into account that meat processing methods have an important role in the viability and infectivity of T. gondii tissue cysts. In order to inactivate T. gondii in meat, it is recommended to cook whole cuts of pork to an internal temperature of at least 65.6 °C, with a three-minute rest [5]. Infectivity of T. gondii cysts is also influenced by processing methods such as curing [6] or freezing [7] as well as by the interaction between salt concentration, maturation time and temperature [8].

It is estimated that up to one third of human population worldwide is T. gondii seropositive [9]. In Romania, a higher T. gondii seroprevalence was reported in individuals from rural areas (76.9%) when compared to those from urban regions (55.3%) [10]. In the countries with a temperate climate, between 30% and 63% of infections have been attributed to the consumption of undercooked or cured meat products, whereas only 6% to 17% to soil contact [11, 12]. Moreover, there were reported cases of toxoplasmosis related to the consumption of pork or cured pork products in Italy [13, 14], the USA [15] and Korea [16].

The traditional Romanian food habits are based on meat. The annual average meat consumption per capita is around 65 kg [17]. Pork is the preferred meat in Romania, covering almost half of the meat consumption, and its consumption is considerably increasing during winter, especially during Christmas. In the food habits of the local population, especially from the north-west of Romania, the pork products are consumed raw, processed only by smoking and/or salting [18]. Most pork may originate from two sources: backyard pigs, with 1 to 3 pigs per unit, raised for familial consumption and slaughtered at home at the age of 10–12 months (100–120 kg); and indoor pigs, raised for large consumption, slaughtered in abattoirs at the age of 6–8 months (80–90 kg) [19].

However, backyard rearing of pigs, together with other animals such as cats, dogs, chickens etc., remains a common practice in many Romanian rural areas [4]. So far, only a few studies have focused on T. gondii infection in this type of pig production system in Romania [4]. Likewise, to our knowledge, no information on the genetic characterization of T. gondii isolates from pigs in Romania is available. Thus, the aims of this study were to estimate the seroprevalence of T. gondii antibodies and to genetically characterize the T. gondii strains obtained from backyard pigs intended for familial consumption.

Methods

Study area and sample collection

From December 2011 to March 2013, paired samples of blood and heart (n = 194) were collected randomly from backyard pigs. The samples were obtained in 67 different backyard holdings, from 11 counties in central, north-western and western Romania (Transylvania) (Fig. 1). The backyard pigs were reared in small extensive farms, 1–3 pigs per unit, were slaughtered at home and were used for familial consumption. The pig owners voluntarily participated in the study. A questionnaire was prepared for collection of data regarding the age, sex and region of origin of the animals. From each pig, a blood sample was collected from the jugular vein during the slaughtering. Heart samples were collected individually. The samples were transported under refrigerated conditions to the laboratory. Serum samples were tested by IFAT within 24–48 h. Heart tissue samples were kept under refrigeration conditions (4 °C) until bioassay in mice was performed. Only heart samples from seropositive animals were selected for bioassay in order to isolate and genotype the T. gondii strains.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Regional distribution over Romania of households with backyard pigs included in the study. Yellow circles, sites where blood and heart samples were collected from backyard pigs; red squares, sites where T. gondii isolates were obtained. The map was created with ArcGis software. Abbreviations: AB, Alba county; AR, Arad county; BH, Bihor county; BN, Bistrița-Năsăud county; BV, Brașov county; CJ, Cluj county; HR, Harghita county; MS, Mureș county; SB, Sibiu county; SJ, Sălaj county; SM, Satu Mare county

Full size image

Immunofluorescence antibody test (IFAT)

Serum samples were analyzed by an in-house IFAT assay for anti-Toxoplasma specific IgG-antibodies as previously described by Györke et al. [20], using a cut-off titer of 32. Two dilutions were performed 1:32 and 1:64. Whole tachyzoites of T. gondii RH strain were used as antigen (in-house product of the Laboratory of Parasitology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, UASVM-CN, Romania). Positive and negative controls were used from a previous epidemiological study [4].

Bioassay

The heart samples from pigs identified as seropositive by IFAT were bioassayed on pathogens-free Swiss mice, in order to isolate the viable T. gondii strains. The protocol described in the study of Paştiu et al. [21] was used. Briefly, each heart sample (8–95 g) was minced and mixed (Knife Mill Grindomix GM 200, Retsch, Haan, Germany) with digestion solution (0.25% trypsin (93613, Sigma-Aldrich, Saint-Louis, USA)/0.025% EDTA). The homogenate was incubated for 1.5 h at 37 °C and then filtered through gauze. The suspension was centrifuged at 1800×g for 10 min. The supernatant was discarded, and the pellet was washed 3 times with phosphate buffered saline (PBS, pH 7.2) by centrifugation. As a last step, the pellet (digest) was mixed with 3 ml PBS containing 100 µl antibiotic solution (20,000 units penicillin/10,000 units streptomycin, P0781, Sigma-Aldrich) [22]. For each sample, 0.5 ml of digest was inoculated intraperitoneally in two Swiss mice.

The mice were monitored for clinical signs of toxoplasmosis, twice daily, for 4 weeks, then euthanized and their brains recovered. The mice were euthanized earlier if signs of acute toxoplasmosis (ruffled fur, diminished response to handling, state of prostration) were observed for three consecutive days. Mouse brains were mechanically homogenized and examined microscopically between a glass slide and coverslip using ×10–40 magnifications. For each brain, 5 glass slides were prepared. Also, the mouse brains were analyzed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) [23].

Toxoplasma gondii DNA detection

DNA was extracted from heart samples and from the mice brains (40 mg/sample) using a commercial kit (Isolate Genomic DNA Kit, Bioline, London, UK) according to the manufacturer’s protocol. Positive control was represented by DNA obtained from T. gondii RH strains, but no negative DNA extraction controls were used. DNA was amplified using the 529-bp DNA fragment [23] as previously described by Paştiu et al. [24]. Positive and negative controls were included in each run. A negative control was represented by distilled ultrapure water. No internal control was included in the PCR.

Genotyping analysis

Toxoplasma gondii-positive DNA samples which were extracted from the mouse brain homogenate were submitted for genotyping using 15 microsatellite markers (N61, B18, M33, M48, TUB2, N83, XI.1, N82, TgM-A, W35, IV.1, B17, N60, M102 and AA) distributed on 11 of the 14 chromosomes that comprise the T. gondii genome, as described elsewhere [25]. Briefly, the forward primer from each pair was 5′-end labelled with fluorescein as follow: 6-carboxyfluorescein (6-FAM) was used for TUB2, XI.1, B18, N83, N61, M33 and M48; hexachlorofluorescein (HEX) for MS TgM-A, B17, N82, W35 and IV.1; and 2,7′,8-benzo-5′-fluoro-2,4,7-trichloro-5-carboxyfluorescein (NED) for AA, N60 and M102. The PCR was carried out in a 25 µl reaction mixture consisting of 12.5 µl of 2× Qiagen Multiplex PCR Master Mix (Qiagen, Courtaboeuf, France), 5 pmol of each primer and 5 µl DNA. Cycling conditions were: initial denaturation 15 min at 95 °C, followed by 35 cycles of 94 °C for 30 s, 61 °C for 3 min, 72 °C for 30 s, and 30 min at 60 °C. PCR products were diluted 1:10 with deionized formamide (Applied Biosystems, Life Technologies, Carlsbad, California). One microliter of each diluted PCR product was mixed with 0.5 µl of a dye-labelled size standard (ROX 500, Applied Biosystems) and 23.5 µl of deionized formamide (Applied Biosystems). This mixture was denatured at 95 °C for 5 min. The PCR products were electrophoresed using an automatic sequencer (ABI PRISM 3130xl, Applied Biosystems). The size of the alleles in bp was estimated using GeneMapper analysis software (version 4.0, Applied Biosystems).

An unrooted neighbour-joining dendrogram was produced from the microsatellite data using Populations 1.2.32 (http://bioinformatics.org/populations/) based on Cavalli-Sforza and Edwards [26] chord distance estimator and generated with MEGA7 (http://www.megasoftware.net/history.php).

Statistical analyses

Frequency, apparent prevalence and its 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated for the anti-T. gondii antibodies and T. gondii DNA. These parameters were determined overall and by age group (young, < 1 year old; adults, ≥ 1 year old), sex (males, females), and for each region (central, north-western, western). The difference in prevalence among groups was statistically analyzed using a Chi-square test of independence. A P-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Data were processed using EpiInfo 2000 software (CDC, Atlanta, GA, USA).

In addition, the level of agreement between T. gondii detection methods (IFAT and PCR) was calculated using the overall agreement measure and Cohen’s Kappa statistic with the Win Episcope 2.0 program. Positive and negative percent agreement was also calculated. Interpretation of k index was performed as follows: < 0, no agreement; 0–0.20, slight agreement; 0.21–0.40, poor agreement; 0.41–0.60, moderate agreement; 0.61–0.80, good agreement; and 0.81–1, very good agreement [27].

Results

Forty-four out of 94 pigs (46.8%, 95% CI: 36.4–57.4%) were seropositive for T. gondii, with a titer of 1:32 (as a cut-off point). The household seroprevalence level was 49.25% (33/67). A similar exposure to T. gondii infection was observed, the pigs originated from the same household being all seropositive or seronegative, respectively. The prevalence was significantly higher in the central area (56.8%, χ2 = 7.2648, df = 2, P = 0.04) than in the western area (10%). There were no statistically significant differences in T. gondii seroprevalence between males (53.3%) and females (40.8%) (χ2 = 1.4761, df = 1, P = 0.22), and between adult (50.9%) and young pigs (40.5%) (χ2 = 0.9628, df = 1, P = 0.33) (Table 1). The endpoint serum dilution was 1:32 for 28.7% of samples and 1:64 for 18.1% of samples, respectively.

Table 1 Prevalence levels of T. gondii infection in backyard pigs from Romania by region, age and sex using IFAT and PCR
Full size table

Toxoplasma gondii DNA was found in 25 out of 94 heart tissues (26.6%, 95% CI: 18.0–36.7%). There were no statistically significant differences in T. gondii prevalence between regions (χ2 = 4.9415, df = 2, P = 0.08), between males (28.9%) and females (22.4%) (χ2 = 0.5117, df = 1, P = 0.47), and between adult (27%) and young pigs (24.6%) (χ2 = 0.0717, df = 1, P = 0.79) (Table 1). The negative controls were always negative.

IFAT (46.8%) has shown a higher prevalence of T. gondii infection in pigs compared to PCR (25.5%) (Table 1), but without statistically significant differences (P > 0.5). Overall, 57.4% (n = 54) of pigs were positive at least in one of the performed tests. Discordant results were found in 40 cases (42.6%): 30 (31.9%) samples were positive only in IFAT and 10 (10.6%) samples were positive only for T. gondii DNA. Cohen’s Kappa statistic showed a slight agreement between indirect (IFAT) and direct (PCR) methods (k = 0.12) (Table 2). The overall agreement was 57.7%, the positive agreement 41.2% and the negative agreement 66.7%, respectively (Table 2).

Table 2 Measures of agreement between IFAT and PCR results
Full size table

Toxoplasma gondii was isolated by mice bioassay from 3 out of 44 seropositive pigs (6.82%, 95% CI: 1.4–18.7%). Also, these pigs were positive in IFAT and PCR from heart tissues. PCRs performed on DNA extracted from mouse brains confirmed the results obtained in the bioassay. The isolates were obtained from pigs sampled in Bihor (n = 2) and Alba (n = 1) counties. The two sampling sites are located at a distance of 224 km. The T. gondii strains were designated as TgRO-1PBH, TgRO-2PBH and TgRO-3PAB, respectively. All three isolates were obtained from males, aged ≥ 1 year-old. The T. gondii isolates had a type II genotype (Table 3, Fig. 2). Two of them, TgRO-1PBH, TgRO-2PBH, were genetically identical.

Table 3 Genotyping results of Toxoplasma gondii DNA from Romanian strains (n = 13) isolated from pigs and a set of Romanian and European strains isolated from animals and humans and analyzed in previous studies with 15 microsatellite markers in a single multiplex PCR assay
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Neighbour-joining clustering of T. gondii isolates based on 15 microsatellite markers. Green circles next to the identifiers of genotypes indicate strains from Romania (n = 16), red triangles indicate strains from the neighbouring Serbia (n = 12) [47] and black squares indicate reference strains representing the three most common lineages in Europe: types I, II and III. Support values using 1000 bootstrap samples are shown at the base of each clade. For details refer to Table 3

Full size image

Discussion

The seroprevalence of anti-T. gondii antibodies in backyard pigs from central, north-western and western Romania was 46.8% by IFAT. In a previous comparative assessment of T. gondii seroprevalence in pigs using IFAT, modified agglutination test (MAT) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), IFAT obtained the best sensitivity (97.4%, 95% CI: 92.3–100%) and specificity (96.4%, 95% CI: 91.6–100%) [28]. Surveys based on the presence of anti-T. gondii antibodies in pig’s serum samples, using different detection methods, especially ELISA, MAT and IFAT, have been reported worldwide [1]. In Europe, the T. gondii seroprevalence has been estimated to be 13% (95% CI: 10–15%) [3]. Few data are available on T. gondii seroprevalence in pigs in eastern Europe. A seroprevalence of 30.5% was reported in backyard pigs in Romania [4], similar studies from eastern Europe report lower values such as 5.8% in Estonia [29], 17% in Serbia [30], 19.2% in Poland [31] and 27.6% in the Czech Republic, respectively [32]. Considering that the samples in the present study were collected from 2011–2013, further research is required to assess the current seroprevalence of T. gondii in backyard pigs in Romania.

In the present study, almost half of the tested backyard pigs were positive for IFAT, while a quarter were positive for PCR. The small quantity of heart tissue (40 mg) used for DNA extraction, as well as an inhomogeneous distribution of T. gondii cysts in tissue samples [33] often decreases the sensitivity of PCR-based methods and can further explain the difference between serology and T. gondii DNA detection [30, 34]. There are other PCR techniques (MC-qPCR), which are more sensitive than conventional PCR [35]. In contrast, negative serology together with a T. gondii DNA-positive result can be due to the low sensitivity of the method used for antibody detection [36]. Moreover, contamination or PCR inhibition can be potential reasons for a low concordance between PCR and serology methods. However, all these results demonstrate the presence of T. gondii without providing data on the infectivity and viability of the parasite.

The gold standard method for T. gondii detection is represented by bioassay in mice or cats [1]. Considering the low parasite load in the tissues of most T. gondii hosts, mouse bioassay is required to increase the parasite burden [37]. The size of samples bioassayed in mice can influence the results. In the present study, the three T. gondii isolates (TgRO-1PBH, TgRO-2PBH and TgRO-1PAB) were obtained from samples sized between 63.72–80.15 g. The results were in agreement with other studies, which recommended between 50–100 g of tissue for bioassay in mice [22, 33]. The low number of T. gondii isolates obtained may be due to the variation in size of heart samples and to the fact that only seropositive samples were tested by bioassay.

In the present study, T. gondii strains isolated from backyard pigs belonged to the type II genotype. Two of the isolates shared precisely the same alleles at all the 15 microsatellite loci. Considering the very high discrimination power of multilocus genotyping with microsatellite markers [25], the result obtained suggests that TgRO-1PBH and TgRO-2PBH are identical and belong to a single strain. Moreover, the two T. gondii strains were isolated from pigs from the same household. The third isolate, named TgRO-1PAB, showed minor multilocus variation at 2 of the 15 microsatellite markers, in comparison with the two first genotypes (Fig. 2). To our knowledge, this is the first study in Romania to report the isolation of viable T. gondii from seropositive pigs reared in an extensive growth system.

Toxoplasma gondii type II, followed by type III are the most prevalent genotypes detected in Europe [38,39,40,41], but few data are available on T. gondii genotypes in pigs in eastern Europe. In pigs, type II has previously been detected in Switzerland, Slovakia, Portugal, France, the Czech Republic, and Italy [32, 36, 42,43,44,45], while in Serbia both type II and III were reported [30].

Generally, in Romanian households, 1–3 backyard pigs are reared together with other animal species (e.g. cats, dogs, poultry and possibly rodents). The pigs are fed mainly kitchen leftovers and, in some households, they have outdoor access. The backyard pigs are slaughtered at home and used for consumption in the family [4]. Breeding backyard pigs is a necessity for many families in Romania, but it is important that education on the development of sanitary and animal health standards is undertaken. An increase in biosecurity measures and the development of health education in order to limit the spread of T. gondii infection are required in the country.

New information regarding the T. gondii strains present in backyard pigs in Romania are provided, which also helps complete the scarce data regarding T. gondii genotypic diversity in eastern Europe. To date, in Romania, previous studies have shown the presence of type II isolates obtained from humans [46] and goat-kids [21]. Further studies are required to develop a more complete picture of the T. gondii genotypes present in various species of domestic and wild animals in Romania.

Conclusions

The present study reports the presence of T. gondii antibodies in backyard pigs from Romania. In addition, we also describe the presence of viable T. gondii from these seropositive pigs. This highlights the real risk of human contamination by consumption of raw/undercooked pork from backyard pigs in Romania.

Availability of data and materials

The data supporting the results and conclusions of this article are included within the article.

Abbreviations

CI:

confidence interval

ELISA:

enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay

6-FAM:

6-carboxyfluorescein

HEX:

hexachlorofluorescein

IFAT:

immunofluorescence antibody test

MAT:

modified agglutination test

MC-qPCR:

magnetic capture-qPCR

NED:

2,7′,8′-benzo-5′-fluoro-2′,4,7-trichloro-5-carboxyfluorescein

PCR:

polymerase chain reaction

References

  1. Dubey JP. Toxoplasmosis of animals and humans. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hill DE, Dubey JP. Toxoplasma gondii prevalence in farm animals in the United States. Int J Parasitol. 2013;43:107–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Foroutan M, Fakhri Y, Riahi SM, Ebrahimpour S, Namroodi S, Taghipour A, et al. The global seroprevalence of Toxoplasma gondii in pigs: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Vet Parasitol. 2019;269:42–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Paştiu AI, Györke A, Blaga R, Mircean V, Rosenthal BM, Cozma V. In Romania, exposure to Toxoplasma gondii occurs twice as often in swine raised for familial consumption as in hunted wild boar, but occurs rarely if ever among fattening pigs raised in confinement. Parasitol Res. 2013;112:2403–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Jones JL, Dubey JP. Foodborne toxoplasmosis. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;55:845–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Herrero L, Gracia MJ, Perez-Arquillu C, Lazaro R, Herrera A, Bayarri S. Toxoplasma gondii in raw and dry-cured ham: the influence of the curing process. Food Microbiol. 2017;65:213–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bayarri S, Gracia MJ, Lázaro R, Pe Rez-Arquillué C, Barberán M, Herrera A. Determination of the viability of Toxoplasma gondii in cured ham using bioassay: influence of technological processing and food safety implications. J Food Prot. 2010;73:2239–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mie T, Pointon AM, Hamilton DR, Kiermeier A. A qualitative assessment of Toxoplasma gondii risk in ready-to-eat smallgoods processing. J Food Prot. 2008;71:1442–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Flegr J, Prandota J, Sovičková M, Israili ZH. Toxoplasmosis—a global threat. Correlation of latent toxoplasmosis with specific disease burden in a set of 88 countries. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e90203.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Olariu TR, Petrescu C, Dărăbuș G, Lighezan R, Mazilu O. Seroprevalence of Toxoplasma gondii in western Romania. Infect Dis. 2015;47:580–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cook AJ, Gilbert RE, Buffolano W, Zufferey J, Petersen E, Jenum PA, et al. Sources of Toxoplasma infection in pregnant women: European multicentre case-control study. European Research Network on Congenital Toxoplasmosis. BMJ. 2000;321:142–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Tenter AM, Heckeroth AR, Weiss LM. Toxoplasma gondii: From animals to humans. Int J Parasitol. 2000;30:1217–58.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Vitale M, Tumino G, Partanna S, La Chiusa S, Mancuso G, Giglia ML, et al. Impact of traditional practices on food safety: a case of acute toxoplasmosis related to the consumption of contaminated raw pork sausage in Italy. J Food Prot. 2014;77:643–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Condoleo R, Rinaldi L, Sette S, Ziad M. Risk assessment of human toxoplasmosis associated with the consumption of pork meat in Italy. Risk Analysis. 2018;38:1202–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Guo M, Lambertini E, Buchanan RL, Dubey JP, Hill DE, Gamble HR, et al. Quantifying the risk of human Toxoplasma gondii infection due to consumption of fresh pork in the United States. Food Control. 2017;73:1210–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Choi WY, Nam HW, Kwak NH, Huh W, Kim YR, Kang MW, et al. Foodborne outbreaks of human toxoplasmosis. J Infect Dis. 1997;175:1280–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nistor E, Bampidis V, Pet L. Impact of EU enlargement on the Romanian meat industry. Sci Pap Animal Sci Biotechnol. 2010;43:365–8.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Neghina R. Trichinellosis, a Romanian never-ending story An overview of traditions, culinary customs, and public health conditions. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2010;7:999–1003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Blaga R, Durand B, Stoichici A, Gherman C, Stefan N, Cozma V, et al. Animal Trichinella infection in Romania: geographical heterogeneity for the last 8 years. Vet Parasitol. 2009;159:290–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Györke A, Opsteegh M, Mircean V, Iovu A, Cozma V. Toxoplasma gondii in Romanian household cats: evaluation of serological tests, epidemiology and risk factors. Prev Vet Med. 2011;102:321–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Paştiu AI, Ajzenberg D, Györke A, Şuteu O, Balea A, Rosenthal BM, et al. Traditional goat husbandry may substantially contribute to human toxoplasmosis exposure. J Parasitol. 2015;101:45–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Montoya A, Miro G, Mateo M, Ramirez C, Fuentes I. Detection of Toxoplasma gondii in cats by comparing bioassay in mice and polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Vet Parasitol. 2009;160:159–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Homan WL, Vercammen M, De Braekeleer J, Verschueren H. Identification of a 200- to 300-fold repetitive 529 bp DNA fragment in Toxoplasma gondii, and its use for diagnostic and quantitative PCR. Int J Parasitol. 2000;30:69–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Paştiu AI, Györke A, Kalmár Z, Bolfă P, Rosenthal BM, Oltean M, et al. Toxoplasma gondii in horse meat intended for human consumption in Romania. Vet Parasitol. 2015;212:393–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ajzenberg D, Collinet F, Mercier A, Vignoles P, Dardé ML. Genotyping of Toxoplasma gondii isolates with 15 microsatellite markers in a single multiplex PCR assay. J Clin Microbiol. 2010;48:4641–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Cavalli-Sforza LL, Edwards AW. Phylogenetic analysis. Models and estimation procedures. Am J Hum Genet. 1967;19:233–57.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Paștiu A, Györke A, Blaga R, Mircean V, Cozma V. Seroprevalence of Toxoplasma gondii infection in pigs from Romania evaluated by IFAT, MAT and ELISA. Lucrări Ştiinţifice - Universitatea de Ştiinţe Agricole a Banatului Timişoara, Medicină Veterinară. 2013;46:132–7.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Santoro A, Tagel M, Must K, Laine M, Lassen B, Jokelainen P. Toxoplasma gondii seroprevalence in breeding pigs in Estonia. Acta Vet Scand. 2017;59:82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Kuruca L, Klun I, Uzelac A, Nikolić A, Bobić B, Simin S, et al. Detection of Toxoplasma gondii in naturally infected domestic pigs in northern Serbia. Parasitol Res. 2017;116:3117–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Holec-Gasior L, Kur J, Hiszczyńska-Sawicka E, Drapała D, Dominiak-Górski B, Pejsak Z. Application of recombinant antigens in serodiagnosis of swine toxoplasmosis and prevalence of Toxoplasma gondii infection among pigs in Poland. Pol J Vet Sci. 2010;13:457–64.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Slany M, Reslova N, Babak V, Lorencova A. Molecular characterization of Toxoplasma gondii in pork meat from different production systems in the Czech Republic. Int J Food Microbiol. 2016;238:252–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Opsteegh M, Langelaar M, Sprong H, den Hartog L, De Craeye S, Bokken G, et al. Direct detection and genotyping of Toxoplasma gondii in meat samples using magnetic capture and PCR. Int J Food Microbiol. 2010;139:193–201.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Juránková J, Opsteegh M, Neumayerová H, Kovařčík K, Frencová A, Baláž V, et al. Quantification of Toxoplasma gondii in tissue samples of experimentally infected goats by magnetic capture and real-time PCR. Vet Parasitol. 2013;193:95–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Sharma R, Parker S, Elkin B, Mulders R, Branigan M, Pongracz J, et al. Risk factors and prevalence of antibodies for Toxoplasma gondii in diaphragmatic fluid in wolverines (Gulo gulo) from the Northwest Territories, Canada. Food Waterborne Parasitol. 2019;15:e00056.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Djokic V, Blaga R, Aubert D, Durand B, Perret C, Geers R, et al. Toxoplasma gondii infection in pork produced in France. Parasitology. 2016;143:557–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Gamble A, Ramos R, Parra-Torres Y, Mercier A, Galal L, Pearce-Duvet J, et al. Exposure of yellow-legged gulls to Toxoplasma gondii along the Western Mediterranean coasts: tales from a sentinel. Int J Parasitol Parasites Wildl. 2019;8:221–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Shwab EK, Zhu XQ, Majumdar D, Pena HFJ, Gennari SM, Dubey JP, et al. Geographical patterns of Toxoplasma gondii genetic diversity revealed by multilocus PCR-RFLP genotyping. Parasitology. 2014;141:453–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Skorpikova L, Reslova N, Lorencova A, Plhal R, Drimaj J, Kamler J, et al. Molecular detection of Toxoplasma gondii in feathered game intended for human consumption in the Czech Republic. Int J Food Microbiol. 2018;286:75–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Amouei A, Sarvi S, Sharif M, Aghayan SA, Javidnia J, Mizani A, et al. A systematic review of Toxoplasma gondii genotypes and feline: geographical distribution trends. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2019;13340.

  41. Ivovic V, Potusek S, Buzan E. Prevalence and genotype identification of Toxoplasma gondii in suburban rodents collected at waste disposal sites. Parasite. 2019;26:27.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Berger-Schoch AE, Herrmann DC, Schares G, Müller N, Bernet D, Gottstein B, et al. Prevalence and genotypes of Toxoplasma gondii in feline faeces (oocysts) and meat from sheep, cattle and pigs in Switzerland. Vet Parasitol. 2011;177:290–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Turčeková L, Antolová D, Reiterová K, Spišák F. Occurrence and genetic characterization of Toxoplasma gondii in naturally infected pigs. Acta Parasitol. 2013;58:361–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Lopes AP, Vilares A, Neto F, Rodrigues A, Martins T, Ferreira I, et al. Genotyping characterization of Toxoplasma gondii in cattle, sheep, goats and swine from the north of Portugal. Iran J Parasitol. 2015;10:465–72.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Gazzonis AL, Marangi M, Villa L, Ragona ME, Olivieri E, Zanzani SA, et al. Toxoplasma gondii infection and biosecurity levels in fattening pigs and sows: serological and molecular epidemiology in the intensive pig industry (Lombardy, Northern Italy). Parasitol Res. 2018;117:539–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Costache CA, Colosi HA, Blaga L, Györke A, Paştiu AI, Colosi IA, et al. First isolation and genetic characterization of a Toxoplasma gondii strain from a symptomatic human case of congenital toxoplasmosis in Romania. Parasite. 2013;20:11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Klun I, Uzelac A, Villena I, Mercier A, Bobić B, Nikolić A, et al. The first isolation and molecular characterization of Toxoplasma gondii from horses in Serbia. Parasit Vectors. 2017;10:167.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Verma SK, Ajzenberg D, Rivera-Sanchez A, Su C, Dubey JP. Genetic characterization of Toxoplasma gondii isolates from Portugal, Austria and Israel reveals higher genetic variability within the type II lineage. Parasitology. 2015;142:948–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Mercier A, Ajzenberg D, Devillard S, Demar MP, de Thoisy B, Bonnabau H, et al. Human impact on genetic diversity of Toxoplasma gondii: example of the anthropized environment from French Guiana. Infect Genet Evol. 2011;11:1378–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This article is based upon research within the framework of COST Action FA 1408 - A European Network for Foodborne Parasites in Europe (EURO-FBP), supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology; http://www.cost.eu) and PN-III-P1-1.1-MC-2018-1950, No. 537/17.10.2018 (UEFISCDI). The authors thank Cristian Domşa for support in the preparation of the figures.

Funding

This project was funded by the Ministry of Education and Scientific Research of Romania, Projects for Financing the Excellence in CDI, Contract No. 37PFE/06.11.2018.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Parasitology and Parasitic Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca, 3-5 Calea Mănăştur Street, 400372, Cluj-Napoca, Cluj, Romania

    Anamaria Ioana Paştiu, Anamaria Balea, Viorica Mircean & Adriana Györke

  2. Department of Genetics and Hereditary Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca, 3-5 Calea Mănăştur Street, 400372, Cluj-Napoca, Cluj, Romania

    Anamaria Ioana Paştiu & Dana Liana Pusta

  3. Department of Bromatology, Hygiene, Nutrition, Faculty of Pharmacy, “Iuliu Haţieganu” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 6 Pasteur Street, 400349, Cluj-Napoca, Cluj, Romania

    Anamaria Cozma-Petruț

  4. INSERM UMR_S 1094, Neuroépidémiologie Tropicale, Laboratoire de Parasitologie-Mycologie, Faculté de Médecine, Université de Limoges, Limoges, France

    Aurélien Mercier & Lokman Galal

  5. Centre National de Référence Toxoplasmose/Toxoplasma Biological Resource Center, CHU Limoges, 2 Martin Luther King Street, 87042, Limoges, France

    Aurélien Mercier & Lokman Galal

  6. Department of Reproduction, Obstetrics and Pathology of Animal Reproduction, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, 3-5 Calea Mănăştur Street, 400372, Cluj-Napoca, Cluj, Romania

    Liviu Bogdan

Authors
  1. Anamaria Ioana Paştiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anamaria Cozma-Petruț
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Aurélien Mercier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anamaria Balea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lokman Galal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Viorica Mircean
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Dana Liana Pusta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Liviu Bogdan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Adriana Györke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AIP collected and analyzed the samples and wrote the manuscript. ACP critically revised the manuscript and made important suggestions. AM and LG genotyped the T. gondii isolates, revised the manuscript and contributed to the building of the phylogentic tree. AB collected and analyzed the samples. VM made the design of the study and writing suggestions. DLP built the phylogentic tree with AIP, and made writing suggestions and language corrections. LB performed the collection of samples. AG made the design of the study, statistical analysis of data and writing suggestions. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anamaria Cozma-Petruț.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The experiment was approved by the Animal Ethics Committee of our institution (Protocol No. 92/20.12.2017), according to the national law 43/2014 and the EU Directive 2010/63/EU.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Paştiu, A.I., Cozma-Petruț, A., Mercier, A. et al. Prevalence and genetic characterization of Toxoplasma gondii in naturally infected backyard pigs intended for familial consumption in Romania. Parasites Vectors 12, 586 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-019-3842-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-019-3842-8

Keywords

Parasites & Vectors

ISSN: 1756-3305

Contact us