Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-18T20:37:38.579Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Differential detection of Entamoeba histolytica, Entamoeba dispar and Entamoeba moshkovskii in faecal samples using nested multiplex PCR in west of Iran

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2019

Fares Bahrami
Affiliation:
Zoonoses Research Center, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran Department of Medical Parasitology and Mycology, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Ali Haghighi
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Parasitology and Mycology, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Ghasem Zamini*
Affiliation:
Department of Parasitology and Mycology, Faculty of Medicine, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran
Mohammadbagher Khademerfan
Affiliation:
Department of Parasitology and Mycology, Faculty of Medicine, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran Cellular and Molecular Research Center, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran
*
Author for correspondence: Ghasem Zamini, E-mail: kurdistan_parasitologist@yahoo.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study aimed to determine the prevalence of Entamoeba histolytica, Entamoeba dispar and Entamoeba moshkovskii (collectively referred to as Entamoeba complex), using microscopic and molecular methods in Kurdistan Province, northwest of Iran. The relationship between positive Entamoeba species and clinical symptoms was also investigated. Eight positive Entamoeba complex, as well as four Entamoeba complex-like isolates, were detected by microscopic stool examination. DNA was extracted from all positive and from 55 randomly selected negative stool samples. PCR was performed using species-specific 18S rRNA primers for the Entamoeba complex. All positive PCR samples were sequenced. In total, 14 (1.01%) out of 1383 isolates, i.e. 12 microscopy-positive and Entamoeba complex-like isolates and two out of 55 microscopy-negative isolates, were identified via PCR and sequencing. Overall, 0.58% (8/1383) of the isolates were E. dispar, 0.14% (2/1383) E. histolytica, 0.07% (1/1383) E. moshkovskii and 0.22% (3/1383) were mixed of E. histolytica and E. dispar. Based on our findings, the prevalence of E. dispar is greater than that of E. histoltyica. On the other hand, a case of E. moshkovskii was reported for the first time in this region. It seems that some gastrointestinal symptoms may be attributed to Entamoeba species.

Type
Original Paper
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - SA
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the same Creative Commons licence is included and the original work is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2019

Introduction

Amoebiasis, an infection caused by Entamoeba histolytica, is a neglected re-emerging disease, causing serious morbidity and mortality in humans [Reference Ximénez1, Reference Watanabe and Petri2]. This infection is manifested as either commensal or pathogenic forms of intestinal parasite [Reference Ximénez1]. Although E. histolytica, E. dispar and E. moshkovskii are morphologically identical, the pathogenicity of E. dispar and E. moshkovskii remains unclear [Reference Fotedar3, Reference Fotedar4].

According to reports from different parts of the world, most cases of amoebiasis are asymptomatic [5]. However, there are controversies regarding the pathogenesis of this disease. Some researchers believe that the species and strain of the parasite are involved in the pathogenesis, while some suggest that the severity of infection and host conditions can intensify the clinical symptoms [Reference MacFarlane and Singh6Reference Ravdin and Guerrant8].

Traditionally, laboratory detection of Entamoeba species in human faeces was dependent on the microscopic examination of stool samples. However, this method cannot differentiate pathogenic E. histolytica, commensal E. dispar and ubiquitous E. moshkovskii. Also, researchers have recently identified a new species in humans, called E. bangladeshi, which is highly similar to other members of the Entamoeba complex [Reference Royer9]. Therefore, molecular methods are necessary for differentiating these amoebae [Reference Ayed10, Reference Anuar11].

Molecular investigations revealed that the prevalence of E. dispar is 10 times higher than that of E. histolytica worldwide [5]. So far, most molecular studies on Entamoeba species have used single polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays to detect E. histolytica and E. dispar, while detection of E. moshkovskii has been disregarded [Reference Anuar12]. Therefore, nested multiplex PCR assay has been developed for the rapid detection and identification of these three Entamoeba species [Reference Khairnar and Parija13].

According to recent studies, gastrointestinal disorders (GIDs) are caused by E. moshkovskii, and humans may be proper hosts for this Entamoeba [Reference Fotedar4, Reference Ali14]. In addition, previous studies have indicated an association between E. dispar and clinical symptoms [Reference Herbinger15, Reference Ximénez16]. Therefore, we designed and implemented the present study to assess the prevalence of E. histolytica, E. dispar and E. moshkovskii in Sanandaj, capital of Kurdistan Province in west of Iran, using nested multiplex PCR and to investigate the relationship between these Entamoba species and clinical symptoms.

Methods

Study setting and sampling

This cross-sectional study was conducted from June 2015 to November 2016 on 1383 individuals, attended to 14 medical laboratories in Kurdistan Province, Iran. After collecting faecal samples from the medical laboratories and completing the questionnaires, the samples were directly transferred to the Research Laboratory of the Department of Parasitology and Mycology (School of Medicine, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran) for daily microscopic examinations.

Questionnaire

A structured questionnaire was used to collect information on the following causes of referral: (i) routine evaluation (i.e. check-up and receiving a health certificate); (ii) diagnosing agents of GIDs (i.e. diarrhoea, abdominal pain, weight loss, loss of appetite, vomiting, nausea, etc.); and (iii) detecting diseases other than GIDs (e.g. cancer, diabetes, autoimmune diseases, immunodeficiency disorders, etc.).

Microscopic examination

All faecal samples were examined to detect Entamoeba cysts or trophozoites, using direct wet mount examination and formalin–ether sedimentation technique under microscopic observation (Zeiss, Germany, 40× magnification). Following that, trichrome staining was performed for determining and confirming Entamoeba samples under high-power microscopic observation (Zeiss, 100× magnification).

All microscopy-positive isolates and those resembling the Entamoeba complex, in addition to 55 microscopy-positive isolates for Entamoeba coli, Endolimax nana and/or negative stool samples, were kept in 70% alcohol at 4 °C for DNA extraction and molecular analysis.

Molecular investigations were conducted in the Department of Parasitology and Mycology, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences (Tehran, Iran). However, due to funding limitations, we were unable to perform PCR assays for all the samples.

Genomic DNA extraction

Almost 300 µl of faecal specimens were washed three times with triple-distilled water through centrifugation to remove any traces of alcohol. Then, genomic DNA was extracted directly from the samples, using FavorPrep® Stool DNA Isolation Mini Kit (YTA, FavorGen, Cat. No YT9032, Taiwan) with slight modifications. After adding a glass milk matrix and 1 ml of lysis buffer, the samples were frozen in liquid nitrogen and thawed at 90 °C in a water bath. The genomic DNA was then eluted in 50 µl of elution buffer and stored at −20 °C until PCR amplification.

DNA amplification by PCR

A nested multiplex PCR assay using species-specific primers was performed to amplify the region of 18S rRNA gene for the Entamoeba complex. The sensitivity and specificity of this method for the detection of the Entamoeba complex have been examined in the literature [Reference Khairnar and Parija13]. The first pair of primers, E-1 (5′-TAAGATGCACGAGAGCGAAA-3′) and E-2 (5′-GTACAAAGGGCAGGGACGTA-3′), was used to amplify about 900 bp of 18S rRNA gene. For the second round of nested multiplex PCR, the reaction conditions were optimised for amplifying species-specific product sizes (439, 553 and 174 bp for E. histolytica, E. moshkovskii and E. dispar, respectively).

The PCR assay was performed in a multiplex reaction mixture under similar conditions by combining three pairs of primers: EH-1 (5′-AAGCATTGTTTCTAGATCTGAG-3′) and EH-2 (5′-AAGAGGTCTAACCGAAATTAG-3′); Mos-1 (5′-GAAACCAAGAGTTTCACAAC-3′) and Mos-2 (5′CAATATAAGGCTTGGATGAT-3′); and ED-1 (5′-TCTAATTTCGATTAGAACTCT-3′) and ED-2 (5′-TCCCTACCTATTAGACATAGC-3′). The primer sequences were examined for specificity by conducting Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST) searches in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). The primers were synthesised using the Macrogen® system (South Korea). For confirmation of the multiplex PCR, single-round PCR was also carried out using the described primers. The PCR assay was repeated four times in the samples (twice by multiplex-nested PCR and twice by single-nested PCR) under similar conditions.

The first PCR reaction was performed in a final volume of 25 µl, containing 12.5 µl of 2X PCR kit master mix (Ampliqon ApS, Literbuen 11, DK-2740 Skovlunde, Denmark), 15 ρM of each primer and 10 ng of extracted DNA. The second PCR reaction was performed in a final volume of 30 µl, containing 15 µl of 2X PCR master mix, 15 ρM of each primer and 10 ng of the first PCR product. The reaction conditions for the second PCR were optimised to combine the primers of E. histolytica (EH-1 and EH-2) with E. dispar (ED-1 and ED-2) and E. moshkovskii (Mos-1 and Mos-2) primers in a single reaction mixture under the same conditions.

For the first PCR assay, amplification was carried out in a thermocycler (Techne Ltd., Cambridge, UK) at 95 °C for 5 min; followed by 30 cycles at 94 °C for 30 s, at 58 °C for 30 s and at 72 °C for 30 s; and a final extension at 72 °C for 5 min. In addition, nested amplification included 35 cycles at 94 °C for 30 s, at 55 °C for 30 s and at 72 °C for 30 s under identical conditions for the initial denaturation and final extension.

Both positive and negative controls were included in each round of PCR to validate the results. Then, 3 µl of PCR products was electrophoresed on agarose gel 1.5%, stained with ethidium bromide and visualised under UV light. The positive control DNA was collected from axenically grown E. histolytica HM-1:IMSS, E. dispar SAW760 and E. moshkovskii Laredo strains. All positive control DNAs were provided by Dr Seiki Kobayashi (Department of Tropical Medicine and Parasitology, School of Medicine, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan) for A. Haghighi.

Sequencing of PCR products

The PCR-amplified products were subjected to direct sequencing, using a BigDye Terminator Cycle Sequencing Kit (PE Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA) and a genetic analyser (3130 × 1; ABI Prism). The sequence chromatograms were observed using Chromas Version 1.0 (Technelysium Pty Ltd, Unit 406, 8 Cordelia St, South Brisbane QLD 4101, Australia). The nucleotide sequences were manually edited, and the sequence representatives for each identified species were submitted to the GenBank/EMBL/DDBJ database under accession numbers KY884295 and KY823418 to KY823428.

Statistical analysis

Data were entered in Microsoft Excel and analysed in STATA version 12.0 (StataCorp LP). The proportion percentage was measured to describe the characteristics of the participants, including the frequency of Entamoeba complex infection according to variables including age, sex, etc. The χ 2 test or Fisher's exact test was used to analyse the association between the Entamoeba complex and different subgroups. The odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were also determined, based on the binary logistic regression analysis to identify the potential contribution of each variable to the acquisition of Entamoeba complex infection. P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Microscopic analysis

Using microscopic methods, the Entamoeba complex cysts were detected in 0.58% (8/1383) of the isolates. Four (0.29%) isolates were also considered similar to the Entamoeba complex cysts (e.g. E. hartmanni).

PCR assay

Based on the nested multiplex PCR, all 12 microscopy-positive and Entamoeba complex-like isolates were considered positive for the Entamoeba complex. Additionally, among 55 microscopy-negative Entamoeba complex isolates, which were positive for other amoebae (e.g. E. coli and/or E. nana), two were detected as E. dispar and mixed of E. histolytica and E. dispar (Table 1).

Table 1. Distribution of Entamoeba complex according to the multiplex PCR

a Only cysts form were seen under microscopy.

Prevalence and differential detection

Out of 1383 studied samples, 14 (1.01%) Entamoeba-positive isolates were identified. Two (14.28%) out of 14 samples were E. histolytica, eight (57.14%) were E. dispar, one (7.14%) was E. moshkovskii and three (21.43%) mixed E. histolytica and E. dispar (Table 1).

Relationship between clinical symptoms and Entamoba species

Table 2 presents the relationship between the clinical symptoms and Entamoba species. All infected patients with E. histolytica, E. moshkovskii, or had both E. histolytica and E. dispar showed GIDs, including abdominal pain, diarrhoea and chronic dysentery. It should be noted that one E. histolytica-positive patient and one mixed infected patient were immunocompromised. However, only three (21.43%) patients, infected with E. dispar, had abdominal symptoms and chronic diarrhoea.

Table 2. Frequency of Entamoeba complex isolated from symptomatic and asymptomatic attended individuals

a Only cysts form were seen under microscopy.

b All Entamoeba complex isolates except five of E. dispar were associated with clinical symptoms.

c Two patients were found immunocompromised, one with E. histolytica and another with mixed E. histolytica/E. dispar.

Sequencing analysis of PCR products

Twelve out of 14 positive samples, including one E. moshkovskii, five E. histolytica and six E. dispar samples, were sequenced with species-specific primers in forward directions, using an ABI 3730XL sequencer (Macrogen® Corp., Seoul, South Korea). The BLAST analysis showed that sequences of six E. dispar amplicons under accession numbers KY823418 to KY823423 were 100% identical to the available GenBank sequences for E. dispar with the accession number KP722600.1. On the other hand, five E. histolytica sequences, with accession numbers KY823424 to KY823427 and KY884295, showed high homology (99–100%) to the GenBank sequences of E. histolytica under accession number KP233840.1. The only detected isolate of E. moshkovskii amplicon, under accession number KY823428, showed 100% homology to the sequences of E. moshkovskii under GenBank accession number KP722605.1.

Risk factors for Entamoeba complex infection

The results of single-variable logistic regression analysis for the evaluation of risk factors for Entamoeba complex infection and socio-demographic characteristics are presented in Table 3. According to Table 3, among the studied factors, none showed a significant relationship with Entamoeba complex infection.

Table 3. Univariate analysis of risk factors associated with Entamoeba complex infection among individuals attended to the medical laboratories in Sanandaj County, Kurdistan, Northwest Iran(n = 1383)

N, number; OR, odds ratio; Reference, the subgroup is considered as baseline.

a Symptoms of gastrointestinal discomfort also occurred.

Discussion

Amoebiasis is one of the most common infections among humans worldwide [5]. The three studied species are morphologically similar, despite genetic and pathogenic differences [Reference Khairnar and Parija13]. E. histolytica is generally considered a pathogenic species, while other Entamoeba species are classified as non-virulent [Reference Anuar12, Reference Ali14]; therefore, distinguishing of these species is of great significance.

Microscopic methods, as well as molecular approaches, were used in this study for the detection of Entamoeba species and differentiation of E. histolytica, E. dispar and E. moshkovskii. In the medical laboratories of many countries, including our region, detection of Entamoeba is based on the microscopic identification of cysts or trophozoites. These methods are usually accompanied by misdiagnosis, and it is impossible to differentiate between the isolates of Entamoeba complex [Reference Tanyuksel and Petri17]. Therefore, molecular approaches have been developed to differentiate and detect Entamoeba species in faecal samples.

To the best of our knowledge, this study was the first to distinguish Entamobea species and to assess the prevalence of E. histolytica, E. dispar and E. moshkovskii in Kurdistan Province in west of Iran. Furthermore, we described the association of Entamoeba species with clinical symptoms among individuals, attended to 14 medical laboratories. The results of molecular studies showed that E. dispar, E. histolytica and E. moshkovskii infections are present in the study area. However, the prevalence of these amoebae and other parasites has dramatically decreased in recent years, similar to other regions of Iran.

According to the WHO/PAHO/UNESCO report and many conducted studies, the prevalence of E. dispar is greater than that of E. histoltyica and E. moshkovskii [5, Reference Anuar12]. Our findings also demonstrated that 78% (11/14) of the samples were attributed to E. dispar (eight samples with single infections and three samples containing both E. dispar and E. histolytica). The prevalence of E. dispar in the present study is close to most previous studies carried out in northern, central and southern Iran [Reference Hooshyar18], Khoramabad [Reference Kheirandish19], Gonabad [Reference Nejad20], Zahedan [Reference Haghighi21], Ahvaz and Hamidieh [Reference Rezaeian and Houshyar22] and Miandoab [Reference Fallah23], as well as studies from Malaysia [Reference Anuar12], Northern Ghana [Reference Verweij24], South Africa [Reference Samie25], Australia [Reference Fotedar3], Northwest Ethiopia [Reference Seong-Choon26] and the Netherlands [Reference Vreden27]. However, studies from Saqqez, Iran [Reference Mohammadzadeh28], south-west of Iran [Reference Pestehchian29], United Arab Emirates [Reference ElBakri30] and Gaza Strip [Reference Al-Hindi31] reported different results in areas where E. histolytica was more prevalent.

In 1997, WHO reported that most cases of E. histolytica may be in fact E. dispar, which is known to be non-pathogenic [5]. However, cases of E. histolytica infection have been reported in patients without symptoms. For instance, in studies from the Philippines [Reference Rivera, Tachibana and Kanbara32] and Japan [Reference Tachibana33], most positive cases of E. histolytica were considered asymptomatic. The prevalence of E. histolytica (single and mixed infections) in our population was 0.36% (5/1383). GIDs, including abdominal pain and chronic diarrhoea, were reported in all cases infected with E. histolytica (single and mixed infections). This finding is consistent with several reports from Pakistan [Reference Yakoob34] and South Africa [Reference Samie25], which showed that E. histolytica commonly produces clinical symptoms in patients.

It is commonly believed that E. dispar is a non-virulent species [Reference Ximénez1]. In this regard, Espinosa et al. reported that E. dispar is non-virulent under in vivo conditions [Reference Espinosa, Castañón and Martínez-Palomo35]. In addition, Oliveira et al. found that E. dispar was commensal and non-pathogenic to humans [Reference Oliveira36]. Dvorak et al. also suggested that E. dispar (SAW760 and SAW1734) strains are non-virulent [Reference Dvorak37]. These reports are in contrast with a study by Herbinger et al., which showed that most E. dispar isolates were associated with GIDs in returning travellers [Reference Herbinger15]. According to some studies, the Brazilian strain of E. dispar is pathogenic and can produce amoebic liver abscess under in vivo conditions [Reference Shibayama38]. Based on our findings, eight out of 11 patients with E. dispar had single infection, while three cases showed GIDs including abdominal pain.

It was initially hypothesised that E. moshkovskii is a non-virulent and free-living Entamoeba species [Reference Clark and Diamond39]. However, this is inconsistent with our findings, as gastroenteritis symptoms, such as abdominal pain and chronic diarrhoea, were observed in one patient infected with E. moshkovskii. Similarly, four studies from Australia, Tunisia, Malaysia and Bangladesh showed that humans can be true hosts for this species [Reference Fotedar3, Reference Ayed10, Reference Anuar11, Reference Ali14]. Also, some studies from Australia, Malaysia and India linked E. moshkovskii infection to GIDs [Reference Fotedar4, Reference Anuar12, Reference Parija and Khairnar40]. A study from Malaysia recommended that further investigations are necessary to determine the relationship between E. moshkovskii and GIDs and to identify the possible pathogenicity of this species [Reference Anuar12].

In the present study, considering the low number of positive cases, besides practical and financial limitations, other probable factors, such as bacterial, fungal and viral infections, or other non-infectious diseases associated with gastroenteritis symptoms were not examined and cannot be ruled out. Therefore, we cannot confirm the association between clinical symptoms and Entamoeba complex infection, and future investigations are necessary in this area.

In conclusion, this study reported the presence of E. histolytica, E. dispar and E. moshkovskii in Kurdistan Province, especially among patients with GIDs, although these species were not commonly detected. Based on the findings, the prevalence of E. dispar is greater than E. histoltyica and E. moshkovskii. Only a few cases of E. moshkovskii have been reported in Iran, and a single isolate of this amoeba was detected for the first time in our study. Overall, we found that E. dispar and E. moshkovskii might be associated with GID symptoms.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268819000141.

Author ORCIDs

Ghasem Zamini, 0000-0002-7017-2647

Acknowledgements

We thank all technicians and personnel working in the medical laboratories, School of Medicine, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences and also those who work at the Department of Parasitology and Mycology, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences who contributed to the study.

Financial support

This work was a part of the Ph.D. thesis of Fares Bahrami under supervision of Professor Ali Haghighi and Dr Ghasem Zamini, which was supported financially by Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences (Grant No. 335) and Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences (Grant No. 6598).

Conflict of interest

None.

Ethical approval

The authors assert that all procedures contributing to this work comply with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki, revised in 2008. The trial was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences.

References

1.Ximénez, C et al. (2011) Novelties on amoebiasis: a neglected tropical disease. Journal of Global Infectious Diseases 3, 166.Google Scholar
2.Watanabe, K and Petri, WA Jr. (2015) Molecular biology research to benefit patients with Entamoeba histolytica infection. Molecular Microbiology 98, 208217.Google Scholar
3.Fotedar, R et al. (2007) PCR detection of Entamoeba histolytica, Entamoeba dispar, and Entamoeba moshkovskii in stool samples from Sydney, Australia. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 45, 10351037.Google Scholar
4.Fotedar, R et al. (2008) Entamoeba moshkovskii infections in Sydney, Australia. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases 27, 133137.Google Scholar
5.WPU report (1997) A consultation with experts on amoebiasis. Mexico City, Mexico 28–29 January, 1997. Epidemiological Bulletin 18, 1314.Google Scholar
6.MacFarlane, RC and Singh, U (2006) Identification of differentially expressed genes in virulent and nonvirulent Entamoeba species: potential implications for amebic pathogenesis. Infection and Immunity 74, 340351.Google Scholar
7.Moody, S et al. (1997) Virulent and avirulent Entamoeba histolytica and E. dispar differ in their cell surface phosphorylated glycolipids. Parasitology 114, 95104.Google Scholar
8.Ravdin, JI and Guerrant, RL (1982) A review of the parasite cellular mechanisms involved in the pathogenesis of amebiasis. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 4, 11851207.Google Scholar
9.Royer, TL et al. (2012) Entamoeba bangladeshi nov. sp., Bangladesh. Emerging Infectious Diseases 18, 1543.Google Scholar
10.Ayed, SB et al. (2008) First molecular identification of Entamoeba moshkovskii in human stool samples in Tunisia. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 79, 706707.Google Scholar
11.Anuar, TS et al. (2012) First molecular identification of Entamoeba moshkovskii in Malaysia. Parasitology 139, 15211525.Google Scholar
12.Anuar, TS et al. (2012) Molecular epidemiology of amoebiasis in Malaysia: highlighting the different risk factors of Entamoeba histolytica and Entamoeba dispar infections among Orang Asli communities. International Journal for Parasitology 42, 11651175.Google Scholar
13.Khairnar, K and Parija, SC (2007) A novel nested multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay for differential detection of Entamoeba histolytica, E. moshkovskii and E. dispar DNA in stool samples. BMC Microbiology 7, 47.Google Scholar
14.Ali, IKM et al. (2003) Entamoeba moshkovskii infections in children in Bangladesh. Emerging Infectious Diseases 9, 580.Google Scholar
15.Herbinger, K-H et al. (2011) Epidemiological, clinical, and diagnostic data on intestinal infections with Entamoeba histolytica and Entamoeba dispar among returning travelers. Infection 39, 527535.Google Scholar
16.Ximénez, C et al. (2010) Human amebiasis: breaking the paradigm? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 7, 11051120.Google Scholar
17.Tanyuksel, M and Petri, WA (2003) Laboratory diagnosis of amebiasis. Clinical Microbiology Reviews 16, 713729.Google Scholar
18.Hooshyar, H et al. (2004) The distribution of Entamoeba histolytica and Entamoeba dispar in northern, central, and southern Iran. Parasitology research 94, 96100.Google Scholar
19.Kheirandish, F et al. (2011) Differential diagnosis of Entamoeba spp. in gastrointestinal disorder patients in Khorramabad, Iran. African Journal of Microbiology Research 5, 28632866.Google Scholar
20.Nejad, MR et al. (2007) Prevalence of Entamoeba histolytica and Entamoeba dispar in Gonabad City, 2006, Iran. Iranian Journal of Parasitology 2, 4852.Google Scholar
21.Haghighi, A et al. (2009) Frequency of enteric protozoan parasites among patients with gastrointestinal complaints in medical centers of Zahedan, Iran. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 103, 452454.Google Scholar
22.Rezaeian, M and Houshyar, H (2007) Differential diagnosis of Entamoeba histolytica from Entamoeba dispar and a study on the intestinal parasites in rural areas of Ahwaz and Hamidieh. Journal of School of Public Health and Institute of Public Health Research 4, 3338.Google Scholar
23.Fallah, E et al. (2014) Differential detection of Entamoeba histolytica from Entamoeba dispar by parasitological and nested multiplex polymerase chain reaction methods. Journal of Analytical Research in Clinical Medicine 2, 2732.Google Scholar
24.Verweij, JJ et al. (2003) Prevalence of Entamoeba histolytica and Entamoeba dispar in northern Ghana. Tropical Medicine & International Health 8, 11531156.Google Scholar
25.Samie, A et al. (2006) Prevalence and species distribution of E. histolytica and E. dispar in the Venda region, Limpopo, South Africa. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 75, 565571.Google Scholar
26.Seong-Choon, C et al. (1996) Differentiation of Korean isolates of Entamoeba histolytica from Entamoeba dispar. The Korean Journal of Parasitology 34, 1520.Google Scholar
27.Vreden, S et al. (2000) Outbreak of amebiasis in a family in The Netherlands. Clinical Infectious Diseases 31, 11011104.Google Scholar
28.Mohammadzadeh, A et al. (2017) Gene migration for re-emerging amebiasis in Iran's northwest–Iraq borders: a microevolutionary scale for reflecting epidemiological drift of Entamoeba histolytica metapopulations. Parasitology Research 116, 217224.Google Scholar
29.Pestehchian, N et al. (2011) Frequency of Entamoeba histolytica and Entamoeba dispar prevalence among patients with gastrointestinal complaints in Chelgerd city, southwest of Iran. Journal of Research in Medical Sciences 16, 1436.Google Scholar
30.ElBakri, A et al. (2013) Differential detection of Entamoeba histolytica, Entamoeba dispar and Entamoeba moshkovskii in fecal samples by nested PCR in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Acta Parasitologica 58, 185190.Google Scholar
31.Al-Hindi, A et al. (2005) Entamoeba histolytica or Entamoeba dispar among children in Gaza, Gaza Strip? Journal of the Egyptian Society of Parasitology 35, 5968.Google Scholar
32.Rivera, WL, Tachibana, H and Kanbara, H (1998) Field study on the distribution of Entamoeba histolytica and Entamoeba dispar in the northern Philippines as detected by the polymerase chain reaction. The American Journal of tropical Medicine and Hygiene 59, 916921.Google Scholar
33.Tachibana, H et al. (2000) Asymptomatic cyst passers of Entamoeba histolytica but not Entamoeba dispar in institutions for the mentally retarded in Japan. Parasitology International 49, 3135.Google Scholar
34.Yakoob, J et al. (2012) Entamoeba species associated with chronic diarrhoea in Pakistan. Epidemiology & Infection 140, 323328.Google Scholar
35.Espinosa, MC, Castañón, GG and Martínez-Palomo, A (1997) In vivo pathogenesis of Entamoeba dispar. Archives of Medical Research 28, 204206.Google Scholar
36.Oliveira, FMS et al. (2015) Entamoeba dispar: could it be pathogenic. Tropical Parasitology 5, 9.Google Scholar
37.Dvorak, JA et al. (2003) Induction of permeability changes and death of vertebrate cells is modulated by the virulence of Entamoeba spp. isolates. Parasitology International 52, 169173.Google Scholar
38.Shibayama, M et al. (2007) A Brazilian species of Entamoeba dispar (ADO) produces amoebic liver abscess in hamsters. Annals of Hepatology 6, 117118.Google Scholar
39.Clark, CG and Diamond, LS (1997) Intraspecific variation and phylogenetic relationships in the genus Entamoeba as revealed by riboprinting. Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology 44, 142154.Google Scholar
40.Parija, SC and Khairnar, K (2005) Entamoeba moshkovskii and Entamoeba dispar-associated infections in Pondicherry, India. Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition 23, 292295.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Distribution of Entamoeba complex according to the multiplex PCR

Figure 1

Table 2. Frequency of Entamoeba complex isolated from symptomatic and asymptomatic attended individuals

Figure 2

Table 3. Univariate analysis of risk factors associated with Entamoeba complex infection among individuals attended to the medical laboratories in Sanandaj County, Kurdistan, Northwest Iran(n = 1383)

Supplementary material: File

Bahrami et al. supplementary material

Appendix 1

Download Bahrami et al. supplementary material(File)
File 43.4 KB