Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-x2lbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T15:24:05.899Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Systematic detection and association of Entamoeba species in stool samples from selected sites in India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 April 2014

J. NATH
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, Gurucharan College, Silchar, Assam, India Department of Biotechnology, Assam University, Silchar, Assam, India
N. BANYAL
Affiliation:
School of Life Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India
D. S. GAUTAM
Affiliation:
School of Life Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India
S. K. GHOSH
Affiliation:
Department of Biotechnology, Assam University, Silchar, Assam, India
B. SINGHA
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, Gurucharan College, Silchar, Assam, India
J. PAUL*
Affiliation:
School of Life Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India
*
* Author for correspondence: Dr J. Paul, School of Life Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi 110067, India. (Email: jpaul33@hotmail.com)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

This study developed a fast and high throughput dot-blot technique to evaluate the presence of Entamoeba in stool samples (n = 643) followed by a PCR-based method to validate and differentiate the two species E. histolytica and E. dispar. The prevalence rate of the parasite has been detected in a cross-sectional study carried out in the population of the Eastern and Northern parts of India. Of the various demographic features, prevalence was highest in the monsoon season (P = 0·017), in the <15 years age group (P = 0·015). In HIV-positive individuals, the prevalence rate was significantly high (P = 0·008) in patients with a CD4 cell count <200 as well as in patients without antiretroviral therapy (ART) (P = 0·011). Our analysis further confirmed that risk factors such as toilet facilities, living conditions, hygienic practices, drinking water source, occupation and level of education are important predictors as they were found to contribute significantly in the prevalence of the parasite.

Information

Type
Original Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 
Figure 0

Table 1. Prevalence and association of E. histolytica and E. dispar according to HIV status and other demographic features

Figure 1

Table 2. Association between E. histolytica and E. dispar and the various risk factors

Figure 2

Fig. 1. Systematic approach for determination of the prevalence rate of Entamoeba spp. (E. histolytica and E. dispar).

Figure 3

Fig. 2. Diagram of screening of stool samples by dot-blot methods. (a) Linear map of EhR1 episome (24·5 kb) showing the position of the HMe probe (4·5 kb) common for both E. histolytica and E. dispar. (b) Diagram of dot-blot analysis of stool sample using the HMe probe. Rows 1–5 (columns A–D) represent spots of DNA from stool samples. Rows 7 and 8 are blank. Row 6, column A: E. histolytica HM1:IMSS genomic DNA as positive control; column B: E. dispar genomic DNA as positive control; column C: plasmid with cloned HMe as positive control; column D: negative stool DNA as negative control.

Figure 4

Fig. 3. Diagram showing identification of Entamoeba spp. (E. histolytica and E. dispar) by PCR methods. (a) Schematic representation of location of genus-specific primers. (b) Detection of both species of Entamoeba (E. histolytica and E. dispar) using genus-specific primers. Lane 1, E. histolytica genomic DNA used as positive control; lane 2, E. dispar genomic DNA used as positive control; lanes 3–6, stool DNA samples positive for E. histolytica or E. dispar; lane 7, E. coli genomic DNA used as negative control.

Figure 5

Table 3. List of primers and probes used in the study

Figure 6

Fig. 4. Diagram showing identification of species by PCR method. (a) Schematic representation of E. histolytica-specific primers located in the SINE2 (EhSINE2) element of E. histolytica. (b) Detection of E. histolytica in stool samples using E. histolytica-specific primers. Lane M, 100 bp marker; lane 1, E. histolytica genomic DNA as positive control; lanes 3, 5, 6, 8, stool genomic DNA positive for E. histolytica; lanes 2, 4, 7, stool genomic DNA negative for E. histolytica; lane 9, no template control. (c) Schematic representation of E. dispar-specific primers located on rDNA molecule. (d) Detection of E. dispar in stool samples using E. dispar-specific primers. Lane M, 1 kb marker; lane 1, E. dispar genomic DNA used as positive control; lanes 2, 3, 6, stool genomic DNA positive for E. dispar; lanes 4, 5, 7, stool genomic DNA negative for E. dispar; lane 8, no template control.

Figure 7

Table 4. Summary of mono and mixed infections of E. histolytica and E. dispar detected by PCR assay