This Month in Blastocystis Research (SEP 2014)

Before leaving for Venice and Padova to introduce Blastocystis to the XXX National Congress of The Italian Society of Protistology (ONLUS), allow me to kick in just a few words for the September issue of 'This Month in Blastocystis Research'.

I will highlight two papers.

The first is a study from the US (Yes, - US data! How rare is that?). The team investigated the prevalence and subtype distribution of Blastocystis among client-owned and shelter-resident cats and dogs. Studies of Blastocystis in companion animals are actually quite rare. The authors used nested PCR for detection, followed by sequencing of PCR products. Interestingly, Blastocystis was not detected in any of the >100 fecal samples from client-owned animals. By comparison, Blastocystis was detected in 10/103 (9.7%) shelter-resident canines, and 12/103 (11.65%) shelter-resident felines. There was no significant difference in Blastocystis spp. carriage rates between the shelter-resident dogs and cats. It is likely that differences in diet and other types of exposure account for Blastocystis being found in shelter-resident animals and not in domestic animals. As for cats and dogs, we don't really know much about what to expect subtype-wise. These animals harboured ST10 mostly, a subtype that has only been found in artiodactyls, NHPs, and lemurs, so far, and - taking these new data into account - with little apparent host preference.

Viktor - an avid fox hunter (in 2007).

Other subtypes included ST1 and one case of ST3, and one case of what was most likely a new subtype - maybe! But then, few animals were positive, and given the different data on subtypes in cats and dogs, it's much too early to speculate on host specific subtypes... for now, it appears that there are none, and that maybe cats and dogs are not really natural hosts? A study by Wang and colleagues identified a plethora of subtypes in dogs: Among 22 positive dogs, most of which were from India, ST1, ST2, ST4, ST5, and ST6 were found. Again, nested PCR was used, and I might have a slight concern that this type of PCR approach is so sensitive that it will pick up the smallest quantity of Blastocystis, maybe even dead Blastocystis or other stages of Blastocystis not necessarily colonising the host (contamination, etc.). But I don't know. The authors of the US study noted that Blastocystis was unlikely to be associated with disease of the animals and were unable to establish a reservoir for human colonisation/infection in these animals.

I never got around to checking Viktor (our cat, pictured above) for Blastocystis. Now it's too late.

I would like to move on to another study. This time the data is from a paper that has just appeared in press in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. We  analysed faecal DNAs from patients diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome and healthy individuals. The reason for doing this was due to the fact that intestinal parasite have been speculated to play a role in the development of IBS, a disease affecting about 16% of the adult Danish population. And so we thought that the prevalence of common parasites such as Blastocystis and Dientamoeba fragilis might be higher in IBS patients than in healthy individuals. The study was led by Dr Laura R Krogsgaard, who took a quite unusual approach to collecting questionnaires and faecal samples, namely by collaborating with the company YouGov Zapera.  
We obtained faecal samples from 483 individuals, of whom 186 were cases – ie. patients with IBS – and 297 were healthy controls. DNA was extracted directly from the stool using the easyMag protocol, and the faecal DNAs were submitted to real-time PCR based screening for Blastocystis, Dientamoeba, Entamoeba histolytica and E. dispar, Cryptosporidium, and Giardia.

Above you see the results of the various analyses. Blue columns represent healthy individuals, and orange columns represent IBS patients. Fifty percent of the healthy controls were positive for one or more parasites, while this proportion was significantly lower in IBS patients, 36%. Also for each individual parasite, the number of positive cases was higher among controls than among patients with IBS. Dientamoeba was the most common parasite among healthy controls and IBS patients. In terms of Blastocystis subtypes, the distribution of subtypes between the two groups was non-significant (data not shown).We ended up by concluding that our findings indicated that these parasites are not likely to play a direct role in the pathogenesis of IBS. Longitudinal studies are required to understand their role in gastrointestinal health. 

Still, the role of Blastocystis in human health and disease remains ambiguous, although lots of interesting data is emerging. In order to try and understand the theories behind Blastocystis' potential able to generate disease, I would like to point the readers' attention to a new review, developed by Ivan Wawrzyniak and his prolific colleauges.

Ciao!

References

Krogsgaard LR, Engsbro AL, Stensvold CR, Vedel Nielsen H, & Bytzer P (2014). The Prevalence of Intestinal Parasites is not Greater Among Individuals with IBS: a Population-Based Case-Control Study. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association PMID: 25229421

Krogsgaard LR, Engsbro AL, & Bytzer P (2013). The epidemiology of irritable bowel syndrome in Denmark. A population-based survey in adults ≤50 years of age. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, 48 (5), 523-9 PMID: 23506174

Ruaux CG, & Stang BV (2014). Prevalence of Blastocystis in Shelter-Resident and Client-Owned Companion Animals in the US Pacific Northwest. PloS One, 9 (9) PMID: 25226285  

Wang W, Cuttell L, Bielefeldt-Ohmann H, Inpankaew T, Owen H, & Traub RJ (2013). Diversity of Blastocystis subtypes in dogs in different geographical settings. Parasites & Vectors, 6 PMID: 23883734

Wawrzyniak I, Poirier P, Viscogliosi E, Dionigia M, Texier C, Delbac F, & Alaoui HE (2013). Blastocystis, an unrecognized parasite: an overview of pathogenesis and diagnosis. Therapeutic Advances in Infectious Disease, 1 (5), 167-78 PMID: 25165551 

This Month in Blastocystis Research (JUN 2014) - IMECs Edition

In June there was a paper out in Frontiers in Microbiology by Laura W Parfrey and co-workers identifying the diversity of intestinal microbial eukaryotic communities (IMECs) in humans and other mammals. It's probably one of the most interesting papers I've read for a long time; maybe because it expands on many of the things I've been blogging about - or at least intended to blog about (!) - over the past two years.

What the team did was to do comprehensive analysis of IMECs in both humans and mammals using broad specificity primers for PCR and next generation sequencing technology-based sequencing of the PCR products. While I'm not in a position to validate the analysis of the data, I'd just want to highlight the importance of the approach. It is very rare to see this type of analysis, despite the fact that it's probably the best currently available approach to studying the ecology, homeostasis and public health significance of IMECs. Some of these euks have probably co-evolved with humans and other animals over thousands and thousands of years and therefore may constitute part of the habitual/commensal flora; and so a current working hypothesis (Hygiene Theory) is that losing IMECs ('defaunation' due to Western life style (excessive hygiene and changes in diet)) may prove detrimental to human health and may be one of the most important reasons why we develop for instance allergies and other autoimmune diseases.

Blastocystis virtually obligate finding in Malawi citizens?

And indeed, what the authors found was that among 23 study individuals residing in agrarian communities in Malawi, Blastocystis and Entamoeba were almost obligate findings (not found in two infants, but apart from that almost a consistent finding), while none of the 13 (somewhat age-matched) study individuals from Boulder, Colorado, were infected with Blastocystis, and only two individuals had Entamoeba coli. I was surprised to read that Dientamoeba was not detected in any of the populations; it appears that there is a strong geographical component to the distribution of this parasite, but as the authors mention, specific tools are needed to confirm the absence.

The funny thing is that although this is not a paper specifically on Blastocystis, it is probably the most interesting surveys on Blastocystis coming from the US and a very valuable Blastocystis. Data on Blastocystis in this country is really scarce, but if the prevalence of the parasite is really as low as indicated in this study, then it's maybe quite understandable! And maybe (and this is a highly presumptuous 'maybe', I know) Blastocystis might even therefore an emerging pathogen in the US? When was the US experiencing the great IMECs wipe out? Can it be confirmed? Is there - within the US - also a strong geographical compoenent to the prevalence of IMECs?

Anyway, there are many interesting observations in the paper - and please visit the supporting files. Blastocystis ST11 was confirmed in an elephant (which also hosted Entamoeba moshkovskii! Probably first report of this parasite in an animal). ST13 was found in a Gazelle; not surprisingly, but nice to see independent data confirming what few researchers have found until now. ST4 was found in a sheep and in Okapis; when it comes to ST4, I'm hardly surprised about anything; it appears to be such a sporadic finding in a diversity of non-human hosts (i.e. low host specificity and incidental); one sheep also had ST8, a subtype almost exclusively seen in non-human primates (even South American monkeys rather than for instance African monkeys and apes), so this was surprising too. ST8 was moreover found in two kangaroos (not the first time), in an okapi (different from two first ones) which also hosted ST12, and in an armadillo!

Take home messages include:

1) The study is one of the first to virtually survey IMECs in human and non-human faecal samples using NGS tools.
2) The study confirms a very high prevalence of Blastocystis in some sub-Saharan African communities (for more on this, see a previous blog post), and interestingly, the prevalence and co-infection rate of (up to four species of) Entamoeba was comparably high.
3) Data suggest that IMECs in Western populations are highly reduced compared to rural African populations, but we still need to know more about the relative distribution of for instance fungi and whether these fungi are actually colonising the gut or just carry over from ingested food; right now, it seems as if there might be an inverse relationship between fungal and non-fungal IMECs... something that we can hopefully soon gather sufficient data on for publishing.
4) For those interested in Blastocystis subtype data, including host specificity and geographical distribution, there is a lot to look at in the paper (including supplementary files).

There's a lot more to be said about this paper, but I will sort of leave it here. But please go and read it!

Reference:

Parfrey, L., Walters, W., Lauber, C., Clemente, J., Berg-Lyons, D., Teiling, C., Kodira, C., Mohiuddin, M., Brunelle, J., Driscoll, M., Fierer, N., Gilbert, J., & Knight, R. (2014). Communities of microbial eukaryotes in the mammalian gut within the context of environmental eukaryotic diversity Frontiers in Microbiology, 5 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2014.00298