Skip to main content

Rapid on-site diagnosis of canine giardiosis: time versus performance

Abstract

Background

Infections by protozoans of the genus Giardia are a common cause of diarrhea in dogs. Canine giardiosis constitutes a disease with a zoonotic potential; however, it is often underestimated due to its challenging diagnosis. The objective of the study was to assess the diagnostic performance of an immunochromatographic strip test (SpeedTM Giardia, Virbac, France) comparing it with microscopy (zinc sulfate flotation) by utilizing the combination of an enzyme immunoassay (ProSpecTTM Giardia EZ Microplate Assay, Oxoid Ltd., UK) and the PCR as the gold standard. A positive result in both ELISA and PCR was set as the gold standard.

Methods

Initially, fecal samples from dogs with clinical signs compatible with giardiosis were tested with the SpeedTM Giardia test and separated into two groups of 50 samples each: group A (positive) and group B (negative). Thereafter, all samples were examined by zinc sulfate centrifugal flotation technique and assayed by the ProSpecTTM Giardia Microplate Assay and PCR. The performance of the SpeedTM Giardia and zinc sulfate centrifugal flotation tests were calculated estimating sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratio; the chi-square and McNemar tests were used for the comparison of the two methods.

Results

Giardia cysts were not detected by microscopy in 16 out of the 50 samples (32%) of group A and in none of group B samples. Eight out of 50 samples in group B (16%) were tested positive both with the ProSpecTTM Giardia Microplate Assay and PCR. Fecal examination with the SpeedTM Giardia test was more sensitive (86.2%) than the parasitological method (58.6%, P < 0.001) while the specificity of both methods was 100%.

Conclusions

The SpeedTM Giardia test is an easy-to-perform diagnostic method for the detection of Giardia spp., which can increase laboratory efficiency by reducing time and cost and decrease underdiagnosis of Giardia spp. infections. This immunochromatographic strip test may be routinely exploited when a rapid and reliable diagnosis is required, other diagnostic techniques are unavailable and microscopy expertise is inefficient. In negative dogs with compatible clinical signs of giardiosis, it is recommended either to repeat the exam or proceed with further ELISA and PCR testing.

Background

Giardia spp. are flagellated protozoans that colonize the duodenum of many mammals, including dogs and humans [1]. Among the several species of Giardia, only Giardia duodenalis (syn. G. lamblia, G. intestinalis) has been recovered from both the aforementioned mammals, hence being regarded as potentially zoonotic [2,3,4,5]. The transmission chain includes the defecation of Giardia spp. cysts, which are infective immediately after excretion, the contamination of feeds and water and the infection via the fecal-oral route [6]. Giardia spp. infections may impair dogs’ health and welfare resulting in a wide spectrum of clinical manifestations, such as diarrhea, bloating, abdominal discomfort, weight loss, malabsorption, growth retardation and sometimes even death, especially in puppies [7,8,9]. The occurrence of disease depends on many factors, such as the Giardia strain virulence, the parasite burden, the age and immunity of the host, whereas many animals remain sub-clinically infected and act as reservoirs of the parasite.

Giardia duodenalis contains at least eight distinct genetic assemblages (A-H) as demonstrated by molecular typing methods [10, 11]. Assemblages A and B have been reported in many mammals, including humans [12,13,14,15] and dogs [16, 17] and have a zoonotic potential which renders them of great public health concern [9, 18,19,20]. Currently, there is cumulative evidence that dogs act as a source of contamination for humans and pose a risk especially for pet owners and shelter staff [21, 22]. Also, giardiosis outbreaks due to contaminated drinking water and food have been reported [23,24,25,26].

Giardiosis is a common parasitosis even in the well-cared dog populations [27]. Relatively high prevalence of canine Giardia infection has been reported in many European countries by employing microscopy (28.5% for Belgium, 27.5% for France, 25.9% for Italy, 25.1% for Spain, 24.6% for the Netherlands, 23.8% for Germany, and 14.6% for the UK) [28]. In a recent large-scale study conducted in Greece, Giardia spp. were detected by microscopy following zinc sulfate flotation in 9.5% of the sampled dogs with no apparent clinical signs [29]. Studies employing immunological and molecular assays have reported much higher prevalence than microscopy [28], indicating that Giardia spp. infections may remain underdiagnosed when microscopy is the selected exam. In any case, the infection level is considerably higher in young animals [30], while it is up to 100% in dogs living in kennels or shelters [31], due to overcrowding and inadequate hygiene conditions [32].

The well-documented pathogenicity of Giardia spp. both for humans and animals, coupled with the high prevalence of giardiosis underpin the demand for universally accepted diagnostic tests and protocols for the early and accurate diagnosis of this disease. Therefore, the development of valid and cost-effective assays is essential for the surveillance of the disease and the evidence-based planning for its control (preventive measures and treatment) [33].

Nowadays, a variety of diagnostic methods for canine giardiosis are available. Among them, microscopy following zinc sulfate flotation, and immunoassay methods such as the direct fluorescent antibody (DFA) tests, which detect intact parasites [34], and the immunofluorescence antibody (IFA) microscopy, which detects epitopes of cysts [35], are commonly used. Other immunoassays include the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) and the immunochromatographic lateral-flow tests, also known as rapid diagnostic tests (RDT), and detect soluble coproantigens of the parasite [36,37,38,39]. RDT are qualitative, commercially available enzyme immunoassays, which have become popular diagnostic tools for practitioners [36, 38]. Finally, molecular techniques such as the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) have also been developed for the detection of Giardia spp. [6, 40, 41]. All the aforementioned methods have both advantages and limitations and the selection of the suitable diagnostic tests in practice is mostly dependent on their performance, the availability of laboratory infrastructures and equipment, the personnel expertise, as well as their quickness and cost-effectiveness [42, 43].

The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the SpeedTM Giardia test (Virbac, Carros, France), a rapid immunochromatographic lateral-flow test for the detection of Giardia spp. in canine fecal samples and to compare it with microscopy, using the combination of enzyme immunoassay ProSpecTTM Giardia Microplate Assay (Oxoid Ltd., Hampshire, UK) and PCR as gold standard.

Methods

Dog population and fecal sample collection

A total of 100 dogs with diarrhea (the main clinical sign of giardiosis) were included in the study. Canine fecal samples were collected from local animal shelters and veterinary clinics in northern Greece, between February and June 2018. Sex was almost evenly distributed (52 male and 48 female dogs) while all dogs were older than 6 months. None of the examined animals received any antiparasitic treatment at least 3 months prior to inclusion. From each individual dog, a fecal sample was collected either immediately after spontaneous elimination or fresh from kennel grounds avoiding contamination. Samples were placed individually in plastic containers, labelled with consecutive numbers, stored at 2–6 °C, transferred to the Laboratory of Parasitology and Parasitic Diseases of the School of Veterinary Medicine, Thessaloniki, Greece, and processed within 1 day.

Rapid diagnostic test (RDT)

Initially, the SpeedTM Giardia assay was performed according to the manufacturer’s instructions. In brief, one spoonful of each labelled fecal sample was added to the buffer diluent in a corresponding vial, which was closed and shaken to homogenize. The solution was allowed to sediment for 3 min. The strip was gently plunged into the solution in the direction indicated by the arrow and allowed to stand for 1 min, without immersing the central reactive zone in the solution. Thereafter, it was removed and placed on a flat, horizontal surface. The liquid was left to migrate and the results were read after 5 min. The test was valid when a blue control band appeared. The test was considered as positive when a red band appeared at the Giardia test window along with the blue control band. Any red colouration of the test band regardless of colour gradation was interpreted as a positive result. Two groups of animals emerged, each consisting of 50 dogs. Group A consisted of 50 Giardia-positive dogs and group B consisted of 50 Giardia-negative dogs.

Microscopy following zinc sulfate flotation

All fecal samples were examined by qualitative flotation with zinc sulphate (ZnSO4 33.2%, specific weight 1.3) [44,45,46]. In detail, 1 g of feces was diluted with water, passed through a sieve (No. 150) into a centrifuge tube and centrifuged at 200× g for 3 min. The supernatant was discarded and zinc sulphate solution was added to the sediment, which was then completely diluted. Zinc sulphate solution was added to the tube so as to form a crescent and a coverslip was placed on top of it. Following centrifugation at 150× g for 1 min, the coverslip was carefully removed and placed on a microscope slide. Microscopic examination was carried out by the same experienced parasitologist. Identification of Giardia spp. cysts was based on morphological characteristics [45, 47]. A dog was considered positive if at least one cyst was observed.

ELISA

A copro-antigen ELISA was performed using the ProSpecTTM Giardia EZ Microplate Assay (Oxoid Ltd.) for all the samples according to the manufacturer’s instructions. This immunoassay uses a monoclonal antibody for the qualitative detection of Giardia specific antigen 65 (GSA 65) in aqueous extracts of fecal specimens.

DNA extraction

Genomic DNA was extracted directly from all preserved Giardia-positive and Giardia-negative fecal samples using QIAmp® Fast DNA Stool Mini Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s protocol for isolating DNA for pathogen detection. To maximize cyst lysis, an initial step of three freeze-thaw cycles (heating at 80 °C water bath for 5 min, followed by freezing at -20 °C for 5 min) was incorporated in the protocol as proposed by Tan et al. [1]. The extracted DNA was eluted in 50 μl of elution buffer, and all the eluates were stored at -20 °C until further molecular analyses.

PCR amplification of the 18S rRNA gene

A region of the 18S ribosomal RNA gene was amplified by using a forward primer RH11 (5′-CAT CCG GTC GAT CCT GCC-3′) and a reverse primer RH4 (5′-AGT CGA ACC CTG ATT CTC CGC CAG G-3′) as described by Hopkins et al. [40]. The predictive amplification fragment was 292 bp. All PCRs were performed in a total volume of 25 μl containing 4 μl DEPC (diethyl pyrocarbonate) water, 2 μl of each primer RH11/RH4 (50 μmol/l), 2.5 μl One Taq high GC enhancer, 12.5 μl One Taq 2× master mix with GC Buffer (M0483S; New England BioLabs Inc., Hitchin, UK) and 2 μl DNA template. All reaction components were assembled on ice. The thermocycler program consisted of an initial denaturation of 96 °C for 4 min, followed by a set of 35 cycles, each consisting of 20 s at 96 °C, 20 s for annealing at 59 °C, 30 s at 72 °C, followed by a final extension step at 72 °C for 7 min. Along with the samples a negative control (doubled distilled water) and a positive control (genomic DNA from a fecal sample positive in all other three tests) were tested for each reaction. All amplification products were submitted to 1.5% ethidium bromide-stained agarose gel electrophoresis. The obtained gel images were recorded with a CCD camera under UV light and visualized with the MiniBis Pro gel documentation system (DNR BioImaging systems, Neve Yamin, Israel).

Statistical analyses

Initially, data were recorded in a specially designed Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. In the subsequent statistical analyses, accuracy [(true positive + true negative)/(true positive + true negative + false positive + false negative)], sensitivity [Sn, true positive/(true positive + false negative)], specificity [Sp, true negative/(true negative + false positive)], positive likelihood ratio [LR+, Sn/(1−Sp)] and negative likelihood ratio [LR−, (1−Sn)/Sp] were calculated from the 2 × 2 contingency tables of the studied methods using chi-square test in SPSS 23. McNemar test was used for the comparison between SpeedTM Giardia test and microscopy. A positive result in both ELISA and PCR was chosen as the gold standard.

Results

Out of the 50 samples of group A (positive with the SpeedTM Giardia test, Fig. 1a), microscopy confirmed 34 (68%) positive for Giardia spp. (Fig. 2). In the remaining 16 (32%) samples of group A Giardia cysts were not detected during microscopy. On the contrary, results from the microscopic examination of the 50 samples of group B (negative with SpeedTM Giardia test, Fig. 1b) were in agreement (100%) with the SpeedTM Giardia test results. All samples in group A were ELISA-positive, while 15 out of 50 samples (30%) in group B were also ELISA-positive. Eight out of the 15 ELISA-positive samples were also PCR-positive, whereas the remaining 7 were PCR-negative (Table 1).

Fig. 1
figure1

a Samples testing positive with the SpeedTM Giardia test (blue line: control band, red line: positive samples). b Samples testing negative with the SpeedTM Giardia test (blue line: control band, no other line was detected: negative samples)

Fig. 2
figure2

Giardia spp. cysts (arrow) as seen with microscopy (400× magnification) following the zinc sulfate flotation technique

Table 1 2 × 2 contingency tables of the four techniques used for the diagnosis of Giardia spp. infection

PCR amplifications of the 18S rRNA gene of Giardia spp. were consistent with the expected size (292 bp), without non-specific bands. Samples from group A were all PCR-positive (Fig. 3a). Twenty-two out of the 50 samples from group B (44%) tested positive by PCR (Fig. 3b). Fourteen out of these 22 samples were ELISA-negative (Table 1).

Fig. 3
figure3

Positive and negative samples with PCR from the examined groups of dogs. PCR products analysed by electrophoresis on 1.5% agarose gel, stained with ethidium bromide and visualized on a UV transilluminator. The band of 292 bp corresponds to the amplified product of the 18S rRNA gene. a Lane L: DNA ladder; Lanes 1–23: positive samples from group A; Lane 24: control. b Lane L: DNA ladder; Lanes 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14–22: positive samples from group B; Lanes 1–4, 6, 9, 10, 13, 23: negative samples from group B; Lane 24: control

Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive and negative likelihood ratios for the four diagnostic tests are summarized in Table 2. Fecal examination with the SpeedTM Giardia assay was more sensitive (86.2%) than microscopy (58.6%, McNemar test, P < 0.001) while the specificity of both methods was 100%.

Table 2 Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio of the four studied methods. The combination of ELISA and PCR was used as reference method

Discussion

The objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance (sensitivity and specificity) of the SpeedTM Giardia method by comparing it with microscopy using the combination of ELISA and PCR.

SpeedTM Giardia assay is a commercially available RDT. This test allows the detection of specific soluble antigens of Giardia spp. in preserved canine fecal samples [36, 39]. Up to date, a number of commercial RDT have been developed for the detection of G. duodenalis coproantigens in dogs [34, 37] and they have become increasingly popular [38]. Overall, several studies have evaluated the methods for diagnosing canine Giardia spp. infections [48,49,50,51,52,53,54], but, none of them so far has assessed simultaneously the four tests employed here and compared the SpeedTM Giardia test with microscopy. In the present study, a positive ELISA and PCR was defined as the gold standard. To set the gold standard, the combination of the two methods was preferred due to the high sensitivity and specificity of both methods and the lack of a validated and universally accepted gold standard for the diagnosis of giardiosis [38, 52, 54]. In detail and according to the international literature, PCR assays exhibit high sensitivity and specificity [52, 55,56,57], whereas the reported sensitivities and specificities of commercially available ELISA range from 94 to 97% and from 99 to 100%, respectively [37, 58, 59]. ELISA use antibodies for the qualitative detection of Giardia-specific antigens in fecal specimens [36, 60]. The ProSpecTTM Giardia EZ Microplate Assay was selected as being one of the most reliable ELISA [61, 62]. It is a fast assay, as it requires the fewest washing steps, it provides a more efficient interpretation of the results and also has a very high specificity and positive predictive values (98–100%) as well as the highest sensitivity (96–98%) among the other commercially available ELISA [61, 63].

The SpeedTM Giardia test displayed higher sensitivity (86.2%) compared to microscopy (58.6%, P < 0.001), being in accordance with numerous other studies, which have demonstrated that various different commercial RDT were more sensitive than microscopy [38, 50,51,52, 54, 64,65,66]. It is indeed expected that tests based on antigen detection, such as the RDT, to be more sensitive than microscopy and to at least approach the PCR results, as highlighted by McGlade et al. [55]. Although microscopy following zinc sulfate flotation for the recovery of Giardia spp. cysts is a commonly used method for the diagnosis of giardiosis, it has low sensitivity, as is the case of the present study (58.6%). This can be attributed to the intermittency of excretion of this protozoon in canine feces [67, 68]. Given this excretion pattern of Giardia cysts, a single coprological examination could partially explain the occasional inexistence of cysts during microscopy in the present study, as the fecal samples were collected and examined only once. Moreover, a low concentration of shedding cysts (not detectable with microscopy), and/or collapsed cysts (cysts with different density which are not able to float and be identified) may be associated with the low sensitivity recorded for microscopy [69]. Based on the above, it is evident that a single negative result may not definitely determine the presence or absence of Giardia spp. in examined dogs and therefore re-examination of fecal samples is necessary to increase the sensitivity of the method [48, 70, 71]. The demand for repeated testing renders microscopy a time-consuming and labor-strenuous method. However, poor performance of microscopy has been reported even in cases where consecutive samples were pooled and tested [66]. This can be justified due to the fact that even at the peak of cyst excretion, the accurate identification of Giardia cysts still requires personnel with a high level of expertise. Giardia cysts can be easily misdiagnosed because of their small size (8–12 μm × 7–10 μm) and their resemblance to plant remnants, yeasts and debris, which are common in fecal samples [50]. Consequently, the SpeedTM Giardia test provides an alternative assay to overcome diagnostic challenges in clinical practice. This RDT detects excreted antigens and thus cyst identification is no longer required, overcoming the major drawback of microscopy [72]. According to relevant research findings, it is recommended to use centrifugal fecal flotation in conjunction with an immunoassay for increasing the sensitivity of diagnosing Giardia spp. infections in veterinary practices [68, 69].

Nevertheless, in our study eight out of the 50 samples (16%) of group B (negative by the SpeedTM Giardia assay) were tested positive both with the ProSpecTTM Giardia EZ Microplate Assay and PCR. This lower sensitivity of the RDT (86.2%) compared to that of the two methods combined is an expected finding, as the combination of the two methods was considered the gold standard in this experimental design. This is in accordance with other studies where RDT false negative results were observed in cases of low parasitic burdens [73,74,75]. Low parasite load results in diminished coproantigen production and possible failure of the RDT to detect it [66, 72]. Conclusively, the sensitivity of this method implies that almost one out of six infected by Giardia spp. diarrheic dogs might test negative with the SpeedTM Giardia assay. To overcome it, it could be suggested for the practitioners either to repeat the test (after 48 h) or to test a pool sample from feces collected for two consecutive days in clinically suspected animals with a negative SpeedTM Giardia test result and, furthermore, in the case of dogs from the same breeding unit, it is recommended to conduct tests on several animals [63].

All samples of the group A (confirmed positive by the SpeedTM Giardia test) were tested positive with both the ProSpecT Giardia EZ Microplate Assay and PCR, resulting in 100% PPV. The specificity for Giardia spp. is also optimal, reaching 100% for RDT, as it has been extensively reported in the literature [64, 74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81] and confirmed by our study.

In the routine diagnostic practice, the veterinarian may face other possible combinations of contradictory results, as was the case in the present study. More precisely, seven specimens of group B were found positive according to ELISA, while at the same time they were negative by PCR. This suggests either an ELISA false positive or a PCR false negative result. In the first assumption, ELISA may indeed give a false positive result in a limited number of cases (2%), due to 98–100% specificity and positive predictive values (98–100%), as registered by the manufacturer.

In the case of the second assumption, PCR false negative results may arise because the DNA yields from feces remain poor [82, 83]. Giardia cysts wall is difficult to disrupt and this may lead to insufficient DNA yields, whereas at the same time stool specimens commonly contain compounds such as DNases, proteases, bile salts, and polysaccharides that might cause DNA degradation and inhibition of enzymatic reactions [56, 84]. In this study the QIAmp® Fast DNA Stool Mini Kit was used for DNA isolation, which provides high inhibitor removal efficiency. Additionally, a pre-treatment of the cysts with three freeze-thaw cycles and extension of the incubation time were incorporated in the protocol to maximize cyst lysis, which according to [85] renders the QIAmp® Fast DNA Stool Mini Kit more sensitive than other conventional extraction methods, i.e. the phenol-chloroform protocol. Another possible reason of failure to amplify Giardia spp. is the inhomogeneous distribution of the cysts within a sample [86], or other minor factors, which may be the case in our study. According to Rochelle et al. [87] PCR amplification of the Giardia 18S rRNA gene may result false negative due to the unusually high GC content of its sequence. However, the 18S rRNA gene was selected as a target sequence in our study, because it is represented by high copy numbers (approximately 60 to 130 copies of G. duodenalis per nucleus, arranged in tandem repeats) and thus it is considered of higher sensitivity [88, 89]. Furthermore, to overcome the aforementioned GC limitation, the One Taq® 2× master mix with GC Buffer (M0483S; New England BioLabs Inc., Hitchin, UK) was used. This optimized blend of Taq and Deep VentTM DNA polymerases has higher fidelity than solely Taq and provides robust amplification of GC rich templates.

Another combination of contradictory results that arose was that 14 samples negative according to ELISA resulted positive to PCR. This implies either an ELISA false negative result or a PCR false positive one.

The ProSpecT Giardia EZ Microplate Assay has certain performance limitations and a false negative result is likely to occur when the antigen level in the sample is below the detection level of the assay [75]. Lower antigen levels may arise due to a low parasite load at the start of the infection and also in cases of some immunocompetent infected animals, which manage to maintain it very low, thus not detectable. Finally, since the ProSpecTTM Giardia EZ Microplate Assay is an immunoassay commonly used for humans, the lower sensitivity of this assay in veterinary medicine could be attributed to genetic heterogeneity between Giardia spp. isolates of human and canine origin [90].

On the other hand, false positive PCR findings may occur due to excessive PCR cycling resulting in amplification of similar to the target sequence DNA, low specificity of the primers or through the inclusion of contaminated DNA within the reaction, either at the stage of DNA extraction or at the set-up process [91]. In this study a region of the 18S rRNA was amplified by using a valid protocol, as described by Hopkins et al. [40], with well-tested cycling conditions and primers. Furthermore, all precautions regarding avoidance of contamination were taken, as proved by the inclusion of the negative control template which was similarly subjected to DNA extraction. Indeed, gel electrophoresis revealed that no contaminated nucleic acid was introduced in the master mix during specimen processing. All the above support the hypothesis that these fourteen samples were most likely ELISA false negative samples. In any case, a positive PCR test cannot discriminate living and dead protozoa, as genetic material is present in both cases. Consequently, although a positive PCR result indicates the detection of the pathogen, it cannot differentiate between its incidental presence and active infection with clinical manifestations. It is therefore evident that PCR results should be interpreted in conjunction with the case history and clinical evidence of giardiosis.

Conclusions

Veterinary practitioners must be aware of canine giardiosis in order to take into appropriate account the impact of this underestimated protozoan infection in the canine population as well as its possible zoonotic implication. The present study contributes to the understanding of the complex diagnosis of canine giardiosis. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to evaluate the performance of the SpeedTM Giardia test, which is a very commonly used diagnostic approach in veterinary practice. The sensitivity of the test was sufficient while specificity was excellent for Giardia spp. This diagnostic tool supports valid sample testing that is more rapid, easy to use and interpret and affordable. In conclusion, the SpeedTM Giardia test can be a valuable tool in veterinary settings with a high caseload where rapid diagnosis is required as well as in smaller practices where other techniques are often not available or there is limited training in fecal flotation interpretation. Our findings highlight the need to further improve the quality of current diagnostic methods in terms of sensitivity. This may elucidate most of the diagnostic challenges and assist towards reliable surveys and effective treatment of giardiosis under the umbrella of one health leading to protection of animal and public health.

Availability of data and materials

The dataset supporting the conclusions of this study are included within the article and its Additional file 1.

Abbreviations

DEPC:

Diethyl pyrocarbonate

DFA:

direct fluorescent antibody

ELISA:

enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay

GSA 65:

Giardia Specific antigen 65

IFA:

immunofluorescence antibody

LR+:

positive likelihood ratio

LR−:

negative likelihood ratio

PCR:

polymerase chain reaction

RDT:

rapid diagnostic test

Sn:

sensitivity

Sp:

specificity

18S rRNA:

18S ribosomal RNA

References

  1. 1.

    Tan L, Wu S, Abdullahi AY, Yu X, Hu W, Song M, et al. PCR-RFLP method to detect zoonotic and host-specific Giardia duodenalis assemblages in dog fecal samples. Parasitol Res. 2016;115:204–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Thompson RCA. Giardiasis as a re-emerging infectious disease and its zoonotic potential. Int J Parasitol. 2000;30:1259–67.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Adam RD. Biology of Giardia lamblia. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2001;14:447–75.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Mohamed AS, Glickman LT, Camp JW, Lund E, Moore GE. Prevalence and risk factors for Giardia spp. infection in a large national sample of pet dogs visiting veterinary hospitals in the United States (2003–2009). Vet Parasitol. 2013;195:35–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Painter JE, Gargano JW, Collier SA, Yoder JS. Giardiasis surveillance—United States, 2011–2012. MMWR Suppl. 2015;64:15–25.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Caccio SA, De Giacomo M, Pozio E. Sequence analysis of the beta-giardin gene and development of a polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism assay to genotype Giardia duodenalis cysts from human faecal samples. Int J Parasitol. 2002;32:1023–30.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Hunter PR, Thompson RCA. The zoonotic transmission of Giardia and Cryptosporidium. Int J Parasitol. 2005;35:1181–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Mircean V, Gyorke A, Cozma V. Prevalence and risk factors of Giardia duodenalis in dogs from Romania. Vet Parasitol. 2012;184:325–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Ryan U, Caccio SM. Zoonotic potential of Giardia. Int J Parasitol. 2013;43:943–56.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Caccio SM, Ryan U. Molecular epidemiology of giardiasis. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 2008;160:75–80.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Heyworth MF. Giardia duodenalis genetic assemblages and hosts. Parasite. 2016;23:13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Bouzid M, Steverding D, Tyler KM. Detection and surveillance of waterborne protozoan parasites. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2008;19:302–6.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Plutzer J, Ongerth J, Karanis P. Giardia taxonomy, phylogeny and epidemiology: facts and open questions. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2010;213:321–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Plutzer J, Torokne A, Karanis P. Combination of ARAD microfibre filtration and LAMP methodology for simple, rapid and cost-effective detection of human pathogenic Giardia duodenalis and Cryptosporidium spp. in drinking water. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2010;50:82–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Vanni I, Caccio SM, van Lith L, Lebbad M, Svard SG, Pozio E, et al. Detection of Giardia duodenalis assemblages A and B in human feces by simple, assemblage-specific PCR assays. PloS Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6:e1776.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Caccio SM, Thompson RCA, McLauchlin J, Smith HV. Unravelling Cryptosporidium and Giardia epidemiology. Trends Parasitol. 2005;21:430–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Monis PT, Caccio SM, Thompson RCA. Variation in Giardia: towards a taxonomic revision of the genus. Trends Parasitol. 2009;25:93–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Thompson RCA. The zoonotic significance and molecular epidemiology of Giardia and giardiasis. Vet Parasitol. 2004;126:15–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Claerebout E, Casaert S, Dalemans AC, De Wilde N, Levecke B, Vercruysse J, et al. Giardia and other intestinal parasites in different dog populations in northern Belgium. Vet Parasitol. 2009;161:41–6.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Cardoso AS, Costa IMH, Figueiredo C, Castro A, Conceicao MAP. The occurrence of zoonotic parasites in rural dog populations from northern Portugal. J Helminthol. 2014;88:203–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Pantchev N, Broglia A, Paoletti B, Vrhovec MG, Bertram A, Nockler K, et al. Occurrence and molecular typing of Giardia isolates in pet rabbits, chinchillas, guinea pigs and ferrets collected in Europe during 2006–2012. Vet Rec. 2014;175:18.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Tan LP, Yu XG, Abdullahi AY, Wu S, Zheng GC, Hu W, et al. Development of a rapid HRM genotyping method for detection of dog-derived Giardia lamblia. Parasitol Res. 2015;114:4081–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Dorny P, Praet N, Deckers N, Gabriel S. Emerging food-borne parasites. Vet Parasitol. 2009;163:196–206.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Baldursson S, Karanis P. Waterborne transmission of protozoan parasites: review of worldwide outbreaks—an update 2004–2010. Water Res. 2011;45:6603–14.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Feng YY, Xiao LH. Zoonotic potential and molecular epidemiology of Giardia species and giardiasis. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2011;24:110–40.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Popruk S, Thima K, Udonsom R, Rattaprasert P, Sukthana Y. Does silent Giardia infection need any attention? Open Trop Med J. 2011;4:26–32.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Lane S, Lloyd D. Current trends in research into the waterborne parasite Giardia. Crit Rev Microbiol. 2002;28:123–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Bouzid M, Halal K, Jeffreys D, Hunter PR. The prevalence of Giardia infection in dogs and cats, a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence studies from stool samples. Vet Parasitol. 2015;207:181–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Symeonidou I, Gelasakis AI, Arsenopoulos KV, Schaper R, Papadopoulos E. Regression models to assess the risk factors of canine gastrointestinal parasitism. Vet Parasitol. 2017;248:54–61.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Barutzki D, Schaper R. Age-dependant prevalence of endoparasites in young dogs and cats up to one year of age. Parasitol Res. 2013;112:119–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Dubna S, Langrova I, Napravnik J, Jankovska I, Vadlejch J, Pekar S, et al. The prevalence of intestinal parasites in dogs from Prague, rural areas, and shelters of the Czech Republic. Vet Parasitol. 2007;145:120–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Gal A, Harrus S, Arcoh I, Lavy E, Aizenberg I, Mekuzas-Yisaschar Y, et al. Coinfection with multiple tick-borne and intestinal parasites in a 6-week-old dog. Can Vet J. 2007;48:619–22.

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Caccio SM. New methods for the diagnosis of Cryptosporidium and Giardia. Parassitologia. 2004;46:151–5.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Garcia LS, Shum AC, Bruckner DA. Evaluation of a new monoclonal-antibody combination reagent for direct fluorescence detection of Giardia cysts and Cryptosporidium oocysts in human fecal specimens. J Clin Microbiol. 1992;30:3255–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Rimhanen-Finne R, Enemark HL, Kolehmainen J, Toropainen P, Hanninen ML. Evaluation of immunofluorescence microscopy and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in detection of Cryptosporidium and Giardia infections in asymptomatic dogs. Vet Parasitol. 2007;145:345–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Rosoff JD, Sanders CA, Sonnad SS, Delay PR, Hadley WK, Vincenzi FF, et al. Stool diagnosis of giardiasis using a commercially available enzyme-immunoassay to detect giardia-specific antigen-65 (Gsa 65). J Clin Microbiol. 1989;27:1997–2002.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Garcia LS, Shimizu RY. Evaluation of nine immunoassay kits (enzyme immunoassay and direct fluorescence) for detection of Giardia lamblia and Cryptosporidium parvum in human fecal specimens. J Clin Microbiol. 1997;35:1526–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Uehlinger FD, Naqvi SA, Greenwood SJ, McClure JT, Conboy G, O’Handley R, et al. Comparison of five diagnostic tests for Giardia duodenalis in fecal samples from young dogs. Vet Parasitol. 2017;244:91–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Koehler AV, Jex AR, Haydon SR, Stevens MA, Gasser RB. Giardia/giardiasis—a perspective on diagnostic and analytical tools. Biotechnol Adv. 2014;32:280–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Hopkins RM, Meloni BP, Groth DM, Wetherall JD, Reynoldson JA, Thompson RCA. Ribosomal RNA sequencing reveals differences between the genotypes of Giardia isolates recovered from humans and dogs living in the same locality. J Parasitol. 1997;83:44–51.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Berrilli F, Di Cave D, De Liberato C, Franco A, Scaramozzino P, Orecchia P. Genotype characterisation of Giardia duodenalis isolates from domestic and farm animals by SSU-rRNA gene sequencing. Vet Parasitol. 2004;122:193–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Ndao M. Diagnosis of parasitic diseases: old and new approaches. Interdiscip Perspect Infect Dis. 2009;2009:278246.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Ndao M. Diagnosis of parasitic diseases: old and new approaches. Interdiscip Perspect Infect Dis. 2010;106:1127–34.

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Faust E, Sawitz W, Tobie J, Odom V, Peres C. Comparative efficiency of various technics for the diagnosis of protozoa and helminths in feces. J Parasitol. 1938;25:241–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Taylor MA, Coop RL, Wall RL. Veterinary parasitology. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Foreyt W. Veterinary parasitology: reference manual. 5th ed. Ames: Iowa State University Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Zajac AM, Conboy GA. Veterinary clinical parasitology. 8th ed. West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Decock C, Cadiergues MC, Larcher M, Vermot S, Franc M. Comparison of two techniques for diagnosis of giardiasis in dogs. Parasite. 2003;10:69–72.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Cirak VY, Bauer C. Comparison of conventional coproscopical methods and commercial coproantigen ELISA kits for the detection of Giardia and Cryptosporidium infections in dogs and cats. Berl Munch Tierarztl. 2004;117:410–3.

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Dryden MW, Payne PA, Smith V. Accurate diagnosis of Giardia spp. and proper fecal examination procedures. Vet Ther. 2006;7:4–14.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Geurden T, Berkvens D, Casaert S, Vercruysse J, Claerebout E. A Bayesian evaluation of three diagnostic assays for the detection of Giardia duodenalis in symptomatic and asymptomatic dogs. Vet Parasitol. 2008;157:14–20.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Traub RJ, Inpankaew T, Reid SA, Sutthikornchai C, Sukthana Y, Robertson ID, et al. Transmission cycles of Giardia duodenalis in dogs and humans in Temple communities in Bangkok—a critical evaluation of its prevalence using three diagnostic tests in the field in the absence of a gold standard. Acta Trop. 2009;111:125–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Costa M, Clarke C, Mitchell S, Papasouliotis K. Diagnostic accuracy of two point-of-care kits for the diagnosis of Giardia species infection in dogs. J Small Anim Pract. 2016;57:318–22.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Uiterwijk M, Nijsse R, Kooyman FNJ, Wagenaar JA, Mughini-Gras L, Koop G, Ploeger HW. Comparing four diagnostic tests for Giardia duodenalis in dogs using latent class analysis. Parasit Vectors. 2018;11:439.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    McGlade TR, Robertson ID, Elliot AD, Read C, Thompson RC. Gastrointestinal parasites of domestic cats in Perth, Western Australia. Vet Parasitol. 2003;117:251–62.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Scaramozzino P, Di Cave D, Berrilli F, D’Orazi C, Spaziani A, Mazzanti S, et al. A study of the prevalence and genotypes of Giardia duodenalis infecting kennelled dogs. Vet J. 2009;182:231–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    El-Badry A, Al-Ali A, Mahrous A. Molecular identification & prevalence of Giardia lamblia & Cryptosporidium in duodenal aspirate in Al-Madinah. J Med Biomed Sci. 2010;1:47–52.

    Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Kehl KS, Cicirello H, Havens PL. Comparison of four different methods for detection of Cryptosporidium species. J Clin Microbiol. 1995;33:416–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Zimmerman SK, Needham CA. Comparison of conventional stool concentration and preserved-smear methods with Merifluor Cryptosporidium/Giardia direct immunofluorescence assay and ProSpecT Giardia EZ Microplate Assay for detection of Giardia lamblia. J Clin Microbiol. 1995;33:1942–3.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Chapman PA, Rush BA, McLauchlin J. An enzyme immunoassay for detecting Cryptosporidium in faecal and environmental samples. J Med Microbiol. 1990;32:233–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Aldeen WE, Carroll K, Robison A, Morrison M, Hale D. Comparison of nine commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for detection of Giardia lamblia in fecal specimens. J Clin Microbiol. 1998;36:1338–40.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Maraha B, Buiting AGM. Evaluation of four enzyme immunoassays for the detection of Giardia lamblia antigen in stool specimens. Eur J Clin Microbiol. 2000;19:485–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Hanson KL, Cartwright CP. Use of an enzyme immunoassay does not eliminate the need to analyze multiple stool specimens for sensitive detection of Giardia lamblia. J Clin Microbiol. 2001;39:474–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Strand EA, Robertson LJ, Hanevik K, Alvsvag JO, Morch K, Langeland N. Sensitivity of a Giardia antigen test in persistent giardiasis following an extensive outbreak. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2008;14:1069–71.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Mekaru SR, Marks SL, Felley AJ, Chouicha N, Kass PH. Comparison of direct immunofluorescence, immunoassays, and fecal flotation for detection of Cryptosporidium spp. and Giardia spp. in naturally exposed cats in 4 northern California animal shelters. J Vet Intern Med. 2007;21:959–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Rishniw M, Liotta J, Bellosa M, Bowman D, Simpson KW. Comparison of 4 Giardia diagnostic tests in diagnosis of naturally acquired canine chronic subclinical giardiasis. J Vet Intern Med. 2010;24:293–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Leib MS, Zajac AM. Giardiasis in dogs and cats. Vet Pract. 1999;94:793–802.

    Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Saleh MN, Heptinstall JR, Johnson EM, Ballweber LR, Lindsay DS, Werre S, Herbein JF, Zajac AM. Comparison of diagnostic techniques for detection of Giardia duodenalis in dogs and cats. J Vet Intern Med. 2019;33:1272–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Hooshyar H, Rostamkhani P, Arbabi M, Delavari M. Giardia lamblia infection: review of current diagnostic strategies. Gastrenterol Hepatol Bed Bench. 2019;12:3–12.

    Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Uchoa FFM, Sudre AP, Macieira DB, Almosny NRP. The influence of serial fecal sampling on the diagnosis of giardiasis in humans, dogs, and cats. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo. 2017;59:e61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Uchoa FFD, Sudre AP, Campos SDE, Almosny NRP. Assessment of the diagnostic performance of four methods for the detection of Giardia duodenalis in fecal samples from human, canine and feline carriers. J Microbiol Meth. 2018;145:73–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Vidal AM, Catapani WR. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) immunoassaying versus microscopy: advantages and drawbacks for diagnosing giardiasis. Sao Paulo Med J. 2005;123:282–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Ali SA, Hill DR. Giardia intestinalis. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2003;16:453–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Garcia LS, Shimizu RY, Novak S, Carroll M, Chan F. Commercial assay for detection of Giardia lamblia and Cryptosporidium parvum antigens in human fecal specimens by rapid solid-phase qualitative immunochromatography. J Clin Microbiol. 2003;41:209–12.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Johnston SP, Ballard MM, Beach MJ, Causer L, Wilkins PP. Evaluation of three commercial assays for detection of Giardia and Cryptosporidium organisms in fecal specimens. J Clin Microbiol. 2003;41:623–6.

  76. 76.

    Sharp SE, Suarez CA, Duran Y, Poppiti RJ. Evaluation of the triage micro parasite panel for detection of Giardia lamblia, Entamoeba histolytica/Entamoeba dispar, and Cryptosporidium parvum in patient stool specimens. J Clin Microbiol. 2001;39:332–4.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Oster N, Gehrig-Feistel H, Jung H, Kammer J, McLean JE, Lanzer M. Evaluation of the immunochromatographic CORIS Giardia-strip test for rapid diagnosis of Giardia lamblia. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2006;25:112–5.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Weitzel T, Dittrich S, Mohl I, Adusu E, Jelinek T. Evaluation of seven commercial antigen detection tests for Giardia and Cryptosporidium in stool samples. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2006;12:656–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Abdel Hameed DM, Elwakil HS, Ahmed MA. A single-step immunochromatographic lateral-flow assay for detection of Giardia lamblia and Cryptosporidium parvum antigens in human fecal samples. J Egypt Soc Parasitol. 2008;38:797–804.

    Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Goni P, Martin B, Villacampa M, Garcia A, Seral C, Castillo FJ, et al. Evaluation of an immunochromatographic dip strip test for simultaneous detection of Cryptosporidium spp., Giardia duodenalis, and Entamoeba histolytica antigens in human faecal samples. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2012;31:2077–82.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Minak J, Kabir M, Mahmud I, Liu Y, Liu L, Haque R, et al. Evaluation of rapid antigen point-of-care tests for detection of Giardia and Cryptosporidium species in human fecal specimens. J Clin Microbiol. 2012;50:154–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Verweij JJ, Pit DSS, van Lieshout L, Baeta SM, Dery GD, Gasser RB, et al. Determining the prevalence of Oesophagostomum bifurcum and Necator americanus infections using specific PCR amplification of DNA from faecal samples. Trop Med Int Health. 2001;6:726–31.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Nunes CM, Lima LG, Manoel CS, Pereira RN, Nakano MM, Garcia JF. Fecal specimens preparation methods for PCR diagnosis of human taeniosis. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo. 2006;48:45–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Nantavisai K, Mungthin M, Tan-ariya P, Rangsin R, Naaglor T, Leelayoova S. Evaluation of the sensitivities of DNA extraction and PCR methods for detection of Giardia duodenalis in stool specimens. J Clin Microbiol. 2007;45:581–3.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Babaei Z, Oormazdi H, Rezaie S, Rezaeian M, Razmjou E. Giardia intestinalis: DNA extraction approaches to improve PCR results. Exp Parasitol. 2011;128:159–62.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    David EB, Coradi ST, Oliveira-Sequeira TCG, Ribolla PEM, Katagiri S, Guimaraes S. Diagnosis of Giardia infections by PCR-based methods in children of an endemic area. J Venom Anim Toxins. 2011;17:209–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Rochelle PA, De Leon R, Stewart MH, Wolfe RL. Comparison of primers and optimization of PCR conditions for detection of Cryptosporidium parvum and Giardia lamblia in water. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1997;63:106–14.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Boothroyd JC, Wang A, Campbell DA, Wang CC. An unusually compact ribosomal DNA repeat in the protozoan Giardia lamblia. Nucleic Acids Res. 1987;15:4065–84.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Sil AK, Das P, Bhattacharyya S, Ghosh S, Chattopadhyay DJ. Cloning of ribosomal RNA genes from an Indian isolate of Giardia lamblia and the use of intergenic nontranscribing spacer regions in the differentiation of Giardia from other enteric pathogens. J Biosci. 1998;23:557–64.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Bianciardi P, Papini R, Giuliani G, Cardini G. Prevalence of Giardia antigen in stool samples from dogs and cats. Revue Méd Vét. 2004;155:417–21.

    Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Lorenz TC. Polymerase chain reaction: Basic protocol plus troubleshooting and optimization strategies. J Vis Exp. 2012;63:3998.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to Virbac for partly supporting the study financially.

Funding

The study was partially funded by Virbac (cost of consumables and publication fees).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

IS performed the study design, parasitological, immunological and molecular methods and preparation of the manuscript. AIG performed the study design, statistical analyses and preparation of the manuscript. ANM conducted the molecular analysis. AA carried out the parasitological and molecular studies. KVA carried out the parasitological and immunological studies. SL and EP developed the study design and critical reviewed the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elias Papadopoulos.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was conducted in compliance with the national animal welfare regulations, i.e. the Presidential Decree 56/13 “Bringing Greek legislation into line with Directive 2010/63/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22nd September 2010 (L 276/33/20.10.2010) regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes”. The applied diagnostic veterinary procedures are not within the context of relevant EU legislation for animal experimentations (Directive 86/609/EC) and may be performed in order to diagnose animal diseases and improve animal welfare. No suffering was caused during sample collection. Consent was ensured by owners or registered veterinarians (private, public or municipality, depending per case).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

SL is an employee of Virbac. IS, AIG, ANM, AA, KVA and EP declare that they have have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Supplementary information

Additional file 1: Table S1.

Excel dataset for 100 samples.

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

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Symeonidou, I., Gelasakis, A.Ι., Miliotou, A.N. et al. Rapid on-site diagnosis of canine giardiosis: time versus performance. Parasites Vectors 13, 544 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-020-04422-6

Download citation

Κeywords

  • Giardia spp.
  • Dogs
  • Diagnosis
  • SpeedTMGiardia
  • Microscopy
  • PCR