Experimental and field investigation of non-biting flies as potential mechanical vectors of Echinococcus granulosus eggs

Presence of Echinococcus eggs in the environment and food: a review of current data and future prospects

Cystic and alveolar echinococcosis are considered the second and third most significant foodborne parasitic diseases worldwide. The microscopic eggs excreted in the feces of the definitive host are the only source of contamination for intermediate and dead-end hosts, including humans. However, estimating the respective contribution of the environment, fomites, animals or food in the transmission of Echinococcus eggs is still challenging. Echinococcus granulosus and E. multilocularis seem to have a similar survival capacity regarding temperature under laboratory conditions. In addition, field experiments have reported that the eggs can survive several weeks to years outdoors, with confirmation of the relative susceptibility of Echinococcus eggs to desiccation. Bad weather (such as rain and wind), invertebrates and birds help scatter Echinococcus eggs in the environment and may thus impact human exposure. Contamination of food and the environment by taeniid eggs has been the subject of renewed interest in the past decade. Various matrices from endemic regions have been found to be contaminated by Echinococcus eggs. These include water, soil, vegetables and berries, with heterogeneous rates highlighting the need to acquire more robust data so as to obtain an accurate assessment of the risk of human infection. In this context, it is essential to use efficient methods of detection and to develop methods for evaluating the viability of eggs in the environment and food.

Performance evaluation of protocols for Taenia saginata and Ascaris suum egg recovery from the house fly's gastrointestinal tract and exoskeleton

BACKGROUND

The synanthropic house fly (Musca domestica) can potentially contribute to the mechanical spread of eggs of Taenia and Ascaris spp. in the environment and between hosts. However, the absence of validated protocols to recover eggs hampers an in-depth analysis of the house fly's role in parasite egg transmission.

METHODS

The gastrointestinal tract and exoskeleton of euthanized house flies were spiked with Taenia saginata eggs. The performance of several recovery protocols, in terms of both the recovery rate and ease-of-use, was (microscopically) evaluated and compared. These protocols employed steps such as washing, maceration, filtration, flotation and both passive and centrifugal sedimentation. The final validated protocols were subsequently evaluated for the recovery of Ascaris suum eggs.

RESULTS

The final protocol validated for the recovery of T. saginata eggs from the house fly's gastrointestinal tract involved homogenization in phosphate-buffered saline and centrifugation at 2000 g for 2 min, yielding a recovery rate of 79.7%. This protocol required 6.5 min to perform (which included 1.5 min of hands-on time) and removed large debris particles that could hinder the differentiation of eggs from debris. Similarly, the final protocol validated for the recovery of T. saginata eggs from the fly's exoskeleton involved washing by vortexing for 2 min in Tween 80 (0.05%), 15 min of passive sedimentation and centrifugation at 2000 g for 2 min, yielding a recovery rate of 77.4%. This protocol required 20.5 min to perform (which included 3.5 min of hands-on time) and successfully removed debris. The same protocols yielded recovery rates of 74.2% and 91.5% for the recovery of A. suum eggs from the fly's gastrointestinal tract and exoskeleton, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Effective, simple and easy-to-use protocols were developed and validated for the recovery of T. saginata and A. suum eggs from the house fly's gastrointestinal tract and exoskeleton. These protocols can be applied to investigate the importance of flies as parasite egg transmitters in laboratory and field settings.

The global prevalence of parasites in non-biting flies as vectors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Non-biting flies such as the house fly (Musca domestica), the Australian sheep blowfly (Lucilia cuprina) and the oriental latrine fly (Chrysomya megacephala) may carry many parasites. In the present study, we performed a systematic overview of the different species of parasites carried by non-biting flies, as well as of isolation methods, different geographical distribution, seasonality and risk assessment.

METHODS

A meta-analysis was carried out with the aim to review the global prevalence of parasite transmission in non-biting flies. A total sample size of 28,718 non-biting flies reported in studies worldwide satisfied the predetermined selection criteria and was included in the quantitative analysis.

RESULTS

The global prevalence of parasites in non-biting flies was 42.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 31.9-53.2%; n = 15,888/28,718), with the highest prevalence found for non-biting flies in Africa (58.3%; 95% CI 47.4-69.3%; n = 9144/13,366). A total of 43% (95% CI 32.1-54.4%; n = 7234/15,282) of house flies (M. domestica), the fly species considered to be the most closely associated with humans and animals, were found with parasites. The prevalence of parasites in the intestine of non-biting flies was 37.1% (95% CI 22.7-51.5%; n = 1045/3817), which was significantly higher than the prevalence of parasites isolated from the body surface (35.1%; 95% CI 20.8-49.4%; n = 1199/3649; P < 0.01). Of the 27 reported parasites, a total of 20 known zoonotic parasites were identified, with an infection rate of 38.1% (95% CI 28.2-48.0%; n = 13,572/28,494).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a theoretical basis for the public health and ecological significance of parasites transmitted by non-biting flies.

A Systematic Review of Zoonotic Enteric Parasites Carried by Flies, Cockroaches, and Dung Beetles

Filth flies, cockroaches, and dung beetles have been close neighbors with humans and animals throughout our joint histories. However, these insects can also serve as vectors for many zoonotic enteric parasites (ZEPs). Zoonoses by ZEPs remain a paramount public health threat due to our close contact with animals, combined with poor water, sanitation, and hygiene access, services, and behaviors in many global regions. Our objective in this systematic review was to determine which ZEPs have been documented in these vectors, to identify risk factors associated with their transmission, and to provide effectual One Health recommendations for curbing their spread. Using PRISMA guidelines, a total of 85 articles published from 1926 to 2021 were reviewed and included in this study. Qualitative analysis revealed that the most common parasites associated with these insects included, but were not limited to: Ascaris spp., Trichuris spp., Entamoeba spp., and Cryptosporidium spp. Additionally, prominent risk factors discovered in the review, such as poor household and community WASH services, unsafe food handling, and exposure to domestic animals and wildlife, significantly increase parasitic transmission and zoonoses. The risk of insect vector transmission in our shared environments makes it critically important to implement a One Health approach in reducing ZEP transmission.

Insects dispersing taeniid eggs: Who and how?

Taeniosis/cysticercosis and echinococcosis are neglected zoonotic helminth infections with high disease burden caused by tapeworms which circulate between definitive and intermediate host reflecting a predator-prey interaction. Taeniid eggs can remain vital for months, allowing arthropods to mechanically transport them to intermediate hosts. However, the multiple routes that arthropods provide as carriers of taeniid eggs are still often unregarded or not considered. This review focuses on the prevalence and importance of arthropods as carriers and spreaders of taeniid eggs in the epidemiology of taeniosis/cysticercosis and echinococcosis. Current scientific knowledge showed a relevant role of houseflies (Muscidae), blowflies (Calliphoridae), dung beetles (Scarabaeoidea), darkling beetles (Tenebrionidae), ground beetles (Carabidae) and skin beetles (Dermestidae) in the spread of taeniid eggs in the environment, which may favor the infection of new hosts through the direct ingestion of an insect or of contaminated food and water. At last, key research challenges are highlighted, illustrating that further knowledge on the topic is needed to develop and improve guidelines and actions to prevent taeniid infections worldwide.

Impact of landfill garbage on insect ecology and human health

The landfill garbage includes organic and inorganic matter. The organic matter covers more than 50% of the total waste material. Due to improper management of landfill garbage, it causes serious risks to human health directly by the emission of toxic gasses. On the other hand, landfill sites are the natural habitat of several microbes and arthropods. The present discussion illustrates the impact of landfill garbage on insect ecology and human health. Here, we highlighted the arthropod density as well as diversity. Moreover, the population of insect vectors of various diseases, insect scavengers as well as pollinators has been pinpointed. It shows that landfill sites and adjacent areas are hotspots for a wide variety of arthropods. The proper management of landfill sites could reduce the population dynamics of various insect pests, and health risks could be decreased in low-and middle-income countries.