Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-05T20:27:05.836Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Assessing the zoonotic potential of Ascaris suum and Trichuris suis: looking to the future from an analysis of the past

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 March 2012

P. Nejsum*
Affiliation:
Danish Centre for Experimental Parasitology, Department of Veterinary Disease Biology, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark Genetics and Bioinformatics, Department of Basic Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences, Copenhagen University
M. Betson
Affiliation:
Disease Control Strategy Group, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK
R.P. Bendall
Affiliation:
Royal Cornwall Hospital, Clinical Microbiology, Truro, UK
S.M. Thamsborg
Affiliation:
Danish Centre for Experimental Parasitology, Department of Veterinary Disease Biology, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
J.R. Stothard
Affiliation:
Disease Control Strategy Group, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK
*
*Fax: +45 35282774 E-mail: pn@life.ku.dk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The two geohelminths, Ascaris lumbricoides and Trichuris trichiura, infect more than a billion people worldwide but are only reported sporadically in the developed part of the world. In contrast, the closely related species A. suum and T. suis in pigs have a truly global distribution, with infected pigs found in most production systems. In areas where pigs and humans live in close proximity or where pig manure is used as fertilizer on vegetables for human consumption, there is a potential risk of cross-infections. We therefore review this relationship between Ascaris and Trichuris in the human and pig host, with special focus on recent evidence concerning the zoonotic potential of these parasites, and identify some open questions for future research.

Type
Research Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Introduction

Nematode worms of the genera Ascaris and Trichuris are the most prevalent helminth infections in humans and pigs worldwide (Holland & Boes, Reference Holland, Boes, Holland and Kennedy2002). In both cases, the worms that infect pigs and humans are closely related and difficult to distinguish morphologically owing to a lack of discrete characters. The life cycle is direct and worms do not multiply directly within the definitive host. In order to complete the life cycle for both genera, oral ingestion of faecally excreted ova is required but eggs are only infectious after a period of environmental maturation. This life cycle makes it possible for worms of porcine origin to infect humans and (possibly) vice versa (Crompton, Reference Crompton2001).

In order to implement appropriate control programmes for Ascaris and Trichuris in both hosts and to identify the source of the infection, a greater understanding of the transmission dynamics and host specificity of the parasites is needed. There has been an ongoing debate in the literature as to whether Ascaris and Trichuris are zoonotic infections and the precise levels of actual cross-over. Here, we review briefly the relationship between Ascaris and Trichuris in humans and pigs, with special focus on recent evidence concerning the zoonotic potential of these parasites.

Burden of infection

An estimated 1.2 billion humans are infected with A. lumbricoides and 600–800 million with T. trichiura, mainly in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and Asia, although sporadic cases are reported in developed countries (Chan, Reference Chan1997; De Silva et al., Reference De Silva, Brooker, Hotez, Montresor, Engels and Savioli2003; Hotez et al., Reference Hotez, Brindley, Bethony, King, Pearce and Jacobson2008). Human infections are associated with diarrhoea, malnutrition, impaired growth and development, and can lead to death (De Silva et al., Reference De Silva, Chan and Bundy1997; Bethony et al., Reference Bethony, Brooker, Albonico, Geiger, Loukas, Diemert and Hotez2006; Hall et al., Reference Hall, Hewitt, Tuffrey and de Silva2008; Dold & Holland, Reference Dold and Holland2011). The burden of these two helminth infections has been estimated at around 17 million disability-adjusted life years (DALY), which is half the estimate for malaria (Chan, Reference Chan1997), but there are substantial difficulties in generating DALY estimates due to the non-specific and insidious nature of much of the morbidity associated with intestinal helminth infections and uncertainty about the numbers of individuals infected (Brooker, Reference Brooker2010).

According to farming practices, A. suum and T. suis are present worldwide in pigs but their distributions are highly influenced by host environment (including management practices and hygiene) and geographical region (reviewed by Nansen & Roepstorff, Reference Nansen and Roepstorff1999). In the Nordic countries, the mean prevalence of A. suum is 21.5% in fatteners and 11.3% in sows (Roepstorff et al., Reference Roepstorff, Nilsson, Oksanen, Gjerde, Richter, Ortenberg, Christensson, Martinsson, Bartlett, Nansen, Eriksen, Helle, Nikander and Larsen1998), whereas T. suis is found sporadically under these indoor conditions (Roepstorff & Jorsal, Reference Roepstorff and Jorsal1989; Roepstorff et al., Reference Roepstorff, Nilsson, Oksanen, Gjerde, Richter, Ortenberg, Christensson, Martinsson, Bartlett, Nansen, Eriksen, Helle, Nikander and Larsen1998). In contrast, free range or organic systems seem to favour higher prevalences as 9 out of 10 outdoor (organic) farms were positive for T. suis in Denmark and 37.5% were positive in The Netherlands (Carstensen et al., Reference Carstensen, Vaarst and Roepstorff2002; Eijck & Borgsteede, Reference Eijck and Borgsteede2005). Likewise, in rural communities in China and Uganda prevalences of around 16% were reported for T. suis and 40% for A. suum (Boes et al., Reference Boes, Willingham, Fuhui, Hu, Eriksen, Nansen and Stewart2000; Nissen et al., Reference Nissen, Poulsen, Nejsum, Olsen, Roepstorff, Rubaire-Akiiki and Thamsborg2011).

Focus on ascariasis

Biology

Ingested infective Ascaris eggs hatch in the intestine, releasing L3 larvae which undertake a hepato-tracheal migration to end up in the small intestine where they mature. Adult males and females mate and eggs can be found in the faeces around 7 weeks after infection (e.g. Roepstorff et al., Reference Roepstorff, Eriksen, Slotved and Nansen1997).

Ascaris has an enormous reproductive potential and it has been estimated that a single female may produce more than 1 million eggs per day (Kelley & Smith, Reference Kelley and Smith1956; Olsen et al., Reference Olsen, Kelley and Sen1958). This suggests that a single infected host may rapidly contaminate the environment, or that contamination might take place if faecal matter is used as fertilizer. The resistant nature of the eggs adds to this problem. Ascaris eggs have been shown to remain viable in the soil for at least 6 years (Muller, Reference Muller1953) and up to 9 years (Krasnonos, Reference Krasnonos1978; Roepstorff et al., Reference Roepstorff, Mejer, Nejsum and Thamsborg2011), resulting in a long-lasting health risk.

Diagnosis

Microscopic detection of eggs in faecal samples remains the ‘gold standard’ for diagnosis, requiring specialized equipment and training, which is often lacking in developing countries. Most larvae are expelled from pig (and probably also human) hosts at an early stage, when they are too small to be observed by the naked eye (Roepstorff et al., Reference Roepstorff, Eriksen, Slotved and Nansen1997; Nejsum et al., Reference Nejsum, Thamsborg, Petersen, Kringel, Fredholm and Roepstorff2009). Macroscopic Ascaris worms in faeces are seen only in a minority of cases. Thus diagnosis of infection is poor and prevalence is probably underestimated in medical and veterinary practice. A serological study has shown that 8% of Dutch primary schoolchildren and 7% of Swedish adults have antibodies to Ascaris even though ascariasis was rare (Van Knapen et al., Reference Van Knapen, Buijs, Kortbeek and Ljungstrom1992). A similar prevalence (7%) has more recently been observed in 4-year-old children (n = 629) living in The Netherlands (Pinelli et al., Reference Pinelli, Willers, Hoek, Smit, Kortbeek, Hoekstra, de Jongste, van Knapen, Postma, Kerkhof, Aalberse, van der Giessen and Brunekreef2009), suggesting no change in Ascaris exposure over the years (Pinelli et al., Reference Pinelli, Herremans, Harms, Hoek and Kortbeek2011). In a recent study from The Netherlands, 2838 serum samples were collected over a 12-year period from patients suspected to have visceral or ocular larva migrans and were analysed for the presence of Ascaris antibodies (Pinelli et al., Reference Pinelli, Herremans, Harms, Hoek and Kortbeek2011). An average prevalence of 33% was found, with the lowest (19%) in the youngest age group (0–10 years) and the highest (50%) in the oldest age group (70+ years). Interestingly, in those patients suspected of visceral larva migrans the prevalence was four times higher for Ascaris than for Toxocara. Even though the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) assay cannot discriminate between A. suum and A. lumbricoides infections, these studies suggest that Ascaris in humans is more common in the developed world than previously thought, and the high prevalence indicates that at least some cases might be of pig origin.

Zoonotic ascariasis

Ascaris infection is generally thought to be uncommon in humans in developed countries and associated with previous residence in, or travel to, endemic areas (Maguire, Reference Maguire, Mandell, Bennett and Dolin2005) or due to foodborne infection (Räisänen et al., Reference Räisänen, Ruuskanen and Nyman1985). However, sporadic cases of human ascariasis in areas with low incidence have been reported and have been explained by working with infective A. suum eggs or contact with pig manure (Jaskoski, Reference Jaskoski1961; Phillipson & Race, Reference Phillipson and Race1967; Crewe & Smith, Reference Crewe and Smith1971; Lord & Bullock, Reference Lord and Bullock1982). For example, in Denmark, pig manure was used as fertilizer in the vegetable gardens of a kindergarten and a small commune. In both cases, children subsequently expelled large adult Ascaris and analysis of soil samples revealed numerous infective eggs (Roepstorff et al., Reference Roepstorff, Mejer, Nejsum and Thamsborg2011). These cases, together with the ELISA results discussed above (Van Knapen et al., Reference Van Knapen, Buijs, Kortbeek and Ljungstrom1992; Pinelli et al., Reference Pinelli, Willers, Hoek, Smit, Kortbeek, Hoekstra, de Jongste, van Knapen, Postma, Kerkhof, Aalberse, van der Giessen and Brunekreef2009, Reference Pinelli, Herremans, Harms, Hoek and Kortbeek2011), suggest that pig Ascaris may cause zoonotic infections.

The taxonomic status and relationship between Ascaris in pigs and humans have been explored for decades. Both types of worms were shown to be capable of cross-infection (Takata, Reference Takata1951; Galvin, Reference Galvin1968) but these studies also indicated that Ascaris is more adapted to its ‘appropriate’ host, implying that some speciation between pig and human worms has taken place. Morphological studies revealed subtle differences in denticle morphology and lip shape between Ascaris worms from the two hosts (Sprent, Reference Sprent1952; Ansel & Thibaut, Reference Ansel and Thibaut1973; Maung, Reference Maung1973). Subsequently, immunological and biochemical methods were applied to the problem (Kennedy et al., Reference Kennedy, Qureshi, Haswell-Elkins and Elkins1987; Nadler, Reference Nadler1987; Hawley & Peanasky, Reference Hawley and Peanasky1992). More recently Abebe et al. (Reference Abebe, Tsuji, Kasuga-Aoki, Miyoshi, Isobe, Arakawa, Matsumoto and Yoshihara2002b) used two-dimensional electrophoresis to identify species-specific proteins in extracts from adult worms from pig and human hosts. Using the same technique on lung-stage larvae, one major protein specific for each of the two parasites was detected (Abebe et al., Reference Abebe, Tsuji, Kasuga-Aoki, Miyoshi, Isobe, Arakawa, Matsumoto and Yoshihara2002a). However, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions from these studies, as either the methods used did not have high-enough resolution to detect differences between Ascaris from the two hosts, or sympatric worms were not compared. Thus, the differences detected could be due to geographical and/or intrinsic variability in the Ascaris populations and not related to host specificity.

Molecular characterization of Ascaris

Sympatric areas in developing countries

Anderson et al. (Reference Anderson, Romero-Abal and Jaenike1993) were the first to apply molecular methods (in this case polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-linked restriction fragment length polymorphism, PCR-RFLP) to sympatric Ascaris populations in order to explore transmission cycles/epidemiology in an area where humans and pigs lived in close proximity. This work was later supplemented with more worms (n = 265) and more detailed genetic analysis. It was concluded that Ascaris in humans and pigs in Guatemala represented two different reproductive populations with little or no gene flow between them, implying that A. suum is not a zoonosis in this region (Anderson et al., Reference Anderson, Romero-Abal and Jaenike1993; Anderson & Jaenike, Reference Anderson and Jaenike1997). Application of a similar molecular approach to 115 sympatric worms obtained from humans and pigs in China (Peng et al., Reference Peng, Anderson, Zhou and Kennedy1998) led to an analogous conclusion. This was later confirmed by the use of single-strand conformation polymorphism (SSCP) to detect nucleotide variation in the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region and mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 (cox1) and NADH dehydrogenase subunit 1 (nad1) genes of 486 and 329 worms from humans and pigs, respectively, collected from six provinces in China (Peng et al., Reference Peng, Yuan, Zhou, Hu, El Osta and Gasser2003, Reference Peng, Yuan, Hu, Zhou and Gasser2005). Even though no fixed genetic differences were identified (i.e. diagnostic markers) between worms from the two hosts in any of the above-mentioned studies, the data suggest that A. lumbricoides and A. suum are different species based on the criterion of reproductive isolation in sympatry (Mayr, Reference Mayr1963).

More recently, detailed genetic analysis (23 microsatellite loci) identified 4 and 7% of worms from China and Guatemala, respectively, as being hybrids (Criscione et al., Reference Criscione, Anderson, Sudimack, Peng, Jha, Williams-Blangero and Anderson2007), suggesting that cross-infections and interbreeding can take place between the pig and human worm populations in areas where humans and pigs live in close proximity. Even though this study only included a limited number of worms (n = 129), more research applying fine-scale genetic analysis to sympatric Ascaris populations is warranted in order to illuminate the zoonotic potential of A. suum in these settings. It is possible that previous studies might simply have lacked power to detect cross-transmission and hybridization due to the use of single/few markers.

Developed world

Molecular evidence for zoonotic Ascaris infections was first reported in North America by Anderson (Reference Anderson1995), using PCR-RFLP on the ITS region, and identified ten worms from nine patients as pig worms. Nejsum et al. (Reference Nejsum, Parker, Frydenberg, Roepstorff, Boes, Haque, Astrup, Prag and Sørensen2005) used amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) to genetically compare worms obtained from humans in Denmark with Ascaris from the two hosts from worldwide locations. They concluded that all examined Danish human worms (32) were due to cross-infections from pig. This route of transmission has also been described in the UK using cox1 sequencing and PCR-RFLP (Bendall et al., Reference Bendall, Barlow, Betson, Stothard and Nejsum2011). Here all 11 human UK worms were found to have genetic profiles resembling pig worms when compared with Ascaris obtained from humans (n = 20) and pigs (n = 35) from several geographical locations. The molecular results were supported by epidemiological evidence for both the UK and Denmark, since use of pig manure as a fertilizer in vegetable gardens, living in the countryside or close to pig farms, and being under 5 years of age were found to be risk factors for ascariasis (Nejsum et al., Reference Nejsum, Parker, Frydenberg, Roepstorff, Boes, Haque, Astrup, Prag and Sørensen2005; Bendall et al., Reference Bendall, Barlow, Betson, Stothard and Nejsum2011). These studies suggest that cross-infections from pigs are the most likely source of the infection in industrialized parts of the world. However, this may not always be the case since Arizono et al. (Reference Arizono, Yoshimura, Tohzaka, Yamada, Tegoshi, Onishi and Uchikawa2010) found that humans in Japan most likely were infected with both A. lumbricoides and A. suum. Thus molecular methods supplemented with epidemiology are needed for proper identification of the source of infection.

The close phylogeny between Ascaris in humans and pigs may reflect the complex evolutionary history of Ascaris (Loreille & Bouchet, Reference Loreille and Bouchet2003) and may be due to multiple host colonization events, as suggested by Criscione et al. (Reference Criscione, Anderson, Sudimack, Peng, Jha, Williams-Blangero and Anderson2007) who found that worms assort first by geography (Nepal, China and Guatemala) and then by host origin. Sequence analysis of the cox1 gene (mitochondrial) indicates that Ascaris does not assort into two different monophyletic groups based on host origin, but instead splits into three or more groups, all but one of which include worms from both hosts (Nejsum et al., Reference Nejsum, Bertelsen, Betson, Stothard and Murrell2010; Betson et al., Reference Betson, Halstead, Nejsum, Imison, Khamis, Sousa-Figueiredo, Rollinson and Stothard2011; Zhou et al., Reference Zhou, Li, Yuan, Hu and Peng2011). This likewise suggests a complex evolutionary history and might be the reason why a single diagnostic marker is presently hard or impossible to find, which is further supported by the recent published complete mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) genomes of A. suum and A. lumbricoides (Liu et al., Reference Liu, Wu, Song, Wei, Xu, Lin, Zhao, Huang and Zhu2012a).

Ascaris infections in other animals

Ascariasis has also been detected in chimpanzees in Copenhagen Zoo and a permanent transmission cycle appears to have been established there (Nejsum et al., Reference Nejsum, Bertelsen, Betson, Stothard and Murrell2010). Interestingly, molecular analysis showed that the worms expelled by the chimpanzees mainly clustered phylogenetically with Ascaris from pigs rather than Ascaris from humans. The fact that A. suum is able to establish in primates may have implications for human infection and could serve as a model. Worms obtained from lambs that had been grazing on pastures that previously had been used for A. suum infection studies in pigs were AFLP genotyped and found to be of pig origin (Nejsum, unpublished data). Other studies also report on Ascaris in lambs with affected livers (Sauvageau & Frechette, Reference Sauvageau and Frechette1980) and lungs (Clark et al., Reference Clark, Vondewitz and Acompanado1989) due to migrating worms, all suspected to be of pig origin, and patent infections have been obtained after experimental A. suum infection (Pedersen et al., Reference Pedersen, Monrad, Henriksen, Bindseil, Nielsen, Jensen and Knold1992). Likewise, calves have repeatedly been reported to be infected with Ascaris from pigs (McCraw & Lautenslager, Reference McCraw and Lautenslager1971; Roneus & Christensson, Reference Roneus and Christensson1977) and the above-mentioned studies provide further evidence that A. suum is not specific in its host preference.

Focus on trichuriasis

Biology

Infective Trichuris eggs hatch in the intestine releasing L1 larvae which enter the crypts of Lieberkühn in the caecum and upper part of colon (Beer, Reference Beer1973). The larvae grow and undergo four moults and, as adults, the thick posterior ends are free in the lumen whereas the anterior part is attached and forms a tunnel within the epithelium (Tilney et al., Reference Tilney, Connelly, Guild, Vranich and Artis2005). Eggs can be found in the faeces 7 weeks after infection (e.g. Kringel & Roepstorff, Reference Kringel and Roepstorff2006). A Trichuris female may produce 2–20,000 eggs/day (Bundy & Cooper, Reference Bundy and Cooper1989). In pigs, Pedersen & Saeed (Reference Pedersen and Saeed2000) have estimated a ratio between faecal egg count (eggs/g) and number of worms to be around 10, where similar estimates are ~2–400 in humans (Bundy & Cooper, Reference Bundy and Cooper1989). Once excreted T. suis ova remain viable for at least 11 years (Hill, Reference Hill1957; Burden et al., Reference Burden, Hammet and Brookes1987).

In contrast to Ascaris the relationship between Trichuris in humans and pigs has not been given much attention, suggesting that their taxonomic status is settled (i.e. T. trichiura in humans and T. suis in pigs). This, together with close similarity in egg morphology, which means that cases of cross-infections are undetected by standard methods, might be the reason why the zoonotic potential of T. suis has been ignored to date. In contrast, the larger eggs of the dog whipworm, T. vulpis are more easily identified and several cases of humans cross-infected by T. vulpis have been described, even though most of these cases have not been properly evaluated (reviewed by Traversa, Reference Traversa2011). Recently Areekul et al. (Reference Areekul, Putaporntip, Pattanawong, Sitthicharoenchai and Jongwutiwes2010) used molecular methods and found that 11% of the Trichuris-positive children in Thailand had T. vulpis eggs in their faeces, suggesting that this parasite should be considered a zoonosis in this area. Trichuris suis is a more obvious candidate than T. vulpis since it is phylogenetically more closely related to T. trichiura (e.g. Areekul et al., Reference Areekul, Putaporntip, Pattanawong, Sitthicharoenchai and Jongwutiwes2010); yet it has received very little attention to date. Below we highlight some of the studies on the relationship between Trichuris in humans and pigs in order to shed light on the taxonomic status of these parasites and the zoonotic potential of T. suis.

It has proven difficult or impossible to discriminate between Trichuris from human or pig hosts by morphology, whether examining adult worms, larvae or eggs (Beer, Reference Beer1976; Soulsby, Reference Soulsby1982). Even though a range of different morphometric characters has been measured, most show overlapping ranges (Beer, Reference Beer1976; Ooi et al., Reference Ooi, Tenora, Itoh and Kamiya1993; Spakulova, Reference Spakulova1994; Cutillas et al., Reference Cutillas, Callejon, de Rojas, Tewes, Ubeda, Ariza and Guevara2009). Although spicule length seemed to hold the most promise as a discriminating characteristic, contrasting results have been reported (Spakulova, Reference Spakulova1994; Cutillas et al., Reference Cutillas, Callejon, de Rojas, Tewes, Ubeda, Ariza and Guevara2009). This suggests that morphometric measures should be interpreted with care, since the phenotype of the worm may be shaped by host species, e.g. as a reflection of differences in host physiology. In this way, Cutillas et al. (Reference Cutillas, Callejon, de Rojas, Tewes, Ubeda, Ariza and Guevara2009) found the opposite trend with respect to worm size and spicule length to Spakulova (Reference Spakulova1994) and Nissen et al. (Reference Nissen, Al-Jubury, Hansen, Olsen, Christensen, Thamsborg and Nejsum2012). Likewise, Knight (Reference Knight1984) found that anterior length of T. ovis was influenced by its development in lambs, goats or calves. Of course, if sympatric material is not included, differences might simply reflect geographic variation and not be related to host species.

Beer (Reference Beer1976) has reported on two patent T. suis infections in humans, with egg excretion 40 and 60 days postinfection, respectively. These eggs were subsequently embryonated and used to produce patent infections in pigs. In a human receiving T. suis egg therapy, worms have also been observed (Kradin et al., Reference Kradin, Badizadegan, Auluck, Korzenik and Lauwers2006) but other means of infection could not be ruled out. Even though adult worms might develop only exceptionally in these cases, the beneficial immuno-modulatory effects with this kind of egg therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease or other immune-related disorders suggest that T. suis worms can establish, at least temporarily, in humans (e.g. Summers et al., Reference Summers, Elliott, Urban, Thompson and Weinstock2005). These findings may not, however, be applicable in ‘natural’ settings. Trichuris trichiura can be established in pigs but, so far, most of the worms do not persist (Beer, Reference Beer1976). Overall, these reports show that humans can become cross-infected with T. suis under experimental conditions, but also indicate that T. suis and T. trichiura are more adapted to their ‘appropriate’ hosts.

Molecular characterization of Trichuris

Cuttilas et al. (Reference Cutillas, Callejon, de Rojas, Tewes, Ubeda, Ariza and Guevara2009) have performed sequence analysis of the ITS-2 region of Trichuris eggs from non-human primates (Colobus guereza kikuyensis and Nomascus gabriellae) and worms from pigs in Spain. These data suggested that Trichuris in the two hosts belonged to two different species, but it is not clear whether the monkeys in the zoo were infected with T. trichiura or another trichurid. Using a similar sequence analysis of the ITS-2 region followed by PCR-RFLP on sympatric worm material from Uganda, Nissen et al. (Reference Nissen, Al-Jubury, Hansen, Olsen, Christensen, Thamsborg and Nejsum2012) showed that worms from the two hosts primarily belonged to two different populations (i.e. are two different species) but also suggested that 3 out of 29 (10%) human worms were of pig origin. This study examined a limited number of worms and further studies on the transmission dynamics of Trichuris are needed to unravel the zoonotic potential of T. suis and to further develop molecular tools that can be used to trace the source of the infection.

Some future perspectives

For both Ascaris and Trichuris the extent to which pig-associated and human-associated worms represent different species is difficult to assess because conventional morphological or biometric criteria does not seem to be useful for differentiation between worms in the two hosts. Only molecular methods have shown the ability to discriminate between these closely related parasites and, even here, great caution should be exercised not to reach premature conclusions. Ideally, both nuclear and mitochondrial markers should be used in molecular characterization (Anderson, Reference Anderson2001) or at least several multilocus markers such as microsatellites, also with a general ‘global’ appraisal of the diversity in such markers before more focused application and interpretation in selected epidemiological settings. As the biodiversity of worms may not be evenly partitioned across the transmission landscape, according to phylogeographic processes, and the monophyly of ‘species’ as we recognize them today is contentious, some recourse to inspection of genetic variation in other related Ascaridid worms is needed. It may well be that either species is a local chimera of polyphyletic origins. The recent publication of the A. suum genome may lead to identification of further markers that can be used to distinguish between pig-associated and human-associated worms (Jex et al., Reference Jex, Liu, Li, Young, Hall, Li, Yang, Zeng, Xu, Xiong, Chen, Wu, Zhang, Fang, Kang, Anderson, Harris, Campbell, Vlaminck, Wang, Cantacessi, Schwarz, Ranganathan, Geldhof, Nejsum, Sternberg, Yang, Wang, Wang and Gasser2011).

It seems that A. suum is a zoonotic infection in developed countries, since expelled worms from humans in this area of the world are mainly of pig origin, based on genetic characterization of the worms as reviewed above, although some cases of ascariasis in this region of the world might be ‘imported’ once in a while (i.e. A. lumbricoides). In contrast, in developing countries most studies suggest that cross-infections are a very rare event, except for recent work by Criscione et al. (Reference Criscione, Anderson, Sudimack, Peng, Jha, Williams-Blangero and Anderson2007). This discrepancy could reflect different transmission routes in different populations, but is more likely related to the methodology used, or more subtle local geographical structuring of parasite populations. The use of 23 microsatellite markers by Criscione et al. (Reference Criscione, Anderson, Sudimack, Peng, Jha, Williams-Blangero and Anderson2007) allows more fine-scale genetic mapping, and future molecular studies on sympatric Ascaris should include the use of microsatellite markers.

Since expulsion of adult worms is a very poor indicator of the actual A. suum exposure in the developed part of the world, the analysis of serum samples, as conducted in The Netherlands (Pinelli et al., Reference Pinelli, Willers, Hoek, Smit, Kortbeek, Hoekstra, de Jongste, van Knapen, Postma, Kerkhof, Aalberse, van der Giessen and Brunekreef2009), is needed in order to estimate how many are exposed to infective eggs. However, identification of specific molecules that can be used in an ELISA for unequivocal discrimination of Ascaris and Toxocara infections is needed. Here the use of recombinant antigens may be very useful and, with the advancement of transcriptomics, this technology could help us to identify molecules that would ideally allow us to differentiate not only between Ascaris and Toxocara but also between T. canis and T. cati, with the latter most often ignored as a zoonosis (Fisher, Reference Fisher2003; Lee et al., Reference Lee, Schantz, Kazacos, Montgomery and Bowman2010), and at some stage it might even be possible to differentiate between A. suum and A. lumbricoides on the basis of antigenicity.

The migratory pattern of A. suum in humans is, for obvious reasons, poorly understood. For example, does A. suum typically cause visceral larva migrans, i.e. migration into organs other than the liver or lungs, as is the case for Toxocara? It has been described to cause encephalopathy (Inatomi et al., Reference Inatomi, Murakami, Tokunaga, Ishiwata, Nawa and Uchino1999) but is this the exception rather than the rule? It is possible that A. suum migrates normally in the human host but that the main difference in comparison with A. lumbricoides is reduced ability to establish in the small intestine, so it is expelled, as is the fate for most larvae after the hepato-tracheal migration in the pig host (Roepstorff et al., Reference Roepstorff, Eriksen, Slotved and Nansen1997). More work is required to determine the range of pathological effects caused by A. suum infection in humans.

Since it is most likely that expelled T. suis from humans in developed parts of the world will pass undetected, an estimation of the prevalence is only possible by detecting specific antibodies in serum. But as the prevalence of T. suis in most conventional pig production systems is much lower compared to that of A. suum, the potential zoonotic problem is not so big for this parasite in this region of the world. It could, however, be very interesting to explore, and might be relevant due to the beneficial immuno-modulating property of T. suis in humans, as has been the case in The Netherlands where Pinelli et al. (Reference Pinelli, Willers, Hoek, Smit, Kortbeek, Hoekstra, de Jongste, van Knapen, Postma, Kerkhof, Aalberse, van der Giessen and Brunekreef2009) tested for an association between human seropositivity for Ascaris antibodies and allergy.

In sympatric areas there is an urgent need to investigate the transmission dynamics of Trichuris in humans and pigs and to explore the zoonotic potential of T. suis. However, this might not be an easy task as it is notoriously difficult to expel and collect T. trichiura from humans (Olsen et al., Reference Olsen, Namwanje, Nejsum, Roepstorff and Thamsborg2009). Alternatively, eggs from faeces can be used for genotyping. If this approach is used, at least two things need to be borne in mind. First, eggs passed in faeces do not necessarily correspond to worms in the host but might be ingested eggs just passively passing through the host. Second, even if a human is cross-infected with T. suis, this might not lead to eggs, due to a mating barrier or the possibility that eggs of T. suis might be ‘outnumbered’ by T. trichiura and therefore not detected by the method. The impending publication of the human and pig Trichuris mitochondrial genome sequences could provide important insights into the relationship between T. trichiura and T. suis (Liu et al., Reference Liu, Gasser, Su, Nejsum, Wei, Peng, Lin, Li and Zhu2012b).

Conclusion

Though the debate still continues as to whether Ascaris in pigs and humans represents the same or two distinct species, it is clear that A. suum is indeed a zoonosis in developed countries, and maybe also to some degree in developing countries. This implies that in communities where access to pig manure or bedding material is common, or pig manure is used as fertilizer, simple public health measures should be encouraged, including thorough handwashing with soap (particularly for children) and rinsing and cooking of vegetables. The data on the zoonotic potential of Trichuris is far sparser and further research is required to determine whether T. suis presents a risk to human health in the developed and developing world. With greater disease surveillance and molecular epidemiological investigations the extent of zoonotic transmission could soon be quantified.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the British Society for Parasitology for sponsoring this short symposium on zoonotic infections. We especially thank Professor John Lewis for assistance in redaction of this manuscript.

References

Abebe, W., Tsuji, N., Kasuga-Aoki, H., Miyoshi, T., Isobe, T., Arakawa, T., Matsumoto, Y. & Yoshihara, S. (2002a) Lung-stage protein profile and antigenic relationship between Ascaris lumbricoides and Ascaris suum. Journal for Parasitology 88, 826828.Google Scholar
Abebe, W., Tsuji, N., Kasuga-Aoki, H., Miyoshi, T., Isobe, T., Arakawa, T., Matsumoto, Y. & Yoshihara, S. (2002b) Species-specific proteins identified in Ascaris lumbricoides and Ascaris suum using two-dimensional electrophoresis. Parasitology Research 88, 868871.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, T.J.C. (1995) Ascaris infections in humans from North America: molecular evidence for cross-infection. Parasitology 110, 215219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, T.J.C. (2001) The dangers of using single locus markers in parasite epidemiology: Ascaris as a case study. Trends in Parasitology 17, 183188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, T.J.C. & Jaenike, J. (1997) Host specificity, evolutionary relationships and macrogeographic differentiation among Ascaris populations from humans and pigs. Parasitology 115, 325342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, T.J.C., Romero-Abal, M.E. & Jaenike, J. (1993) Genetic structure and epidemiology of Ascaris populations: patterns of host affiliation in Guatemala. Parasitology 107, 319334.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ansel, M. & Thibaut, M. (1973) Value of the specific distinction between Ascaris lumbricoides Linne 1758 and Ascaris suum Goeze 1782. International Journal for Parasitology 3, 317319.Google Scholar
Areekul, P., Putaporntip, C., Pattanawong, U., Sitthicharoenchai, P. & Jongwutiwes, S. (2010) Trichuris vulpis and T. trichiura infections among schoolchildren of a rural community in northwestern Thailand: the possible role of dogs in disease transmission. Asian Biomedicine 4, 4960.Google Scholar
Arizono, N., Yoshimura, Y., Tohzaka, N., Yamada, M., Tegoshi, T., Onishi, K. & Uchikawa, R. (2010) Ascariasis in Japan: is pig-derived Ascaris infecting humans? Japanese Journal of Infectious Diseases 63, 447448.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beer, R.J.S. (1973) Studies on the biology of the life-cycle of Trichuris suis Schrank, 1788. Parasitology 67, 253262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beer, R.J.S. (1976) Relationship between Trichuris trichiura (Linnaeus 1758) of man and Trichuris suis (Schrank 1788) of pig. Research in Veterinary Science 20, 4754.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bendall, R.P., Barlow, M., Betson, M., Stothard, J.R. & Nejsum, P. (2011) Zoonotic ascariasis. United Kingdom. Emerging Infectious Diseases 17, 19641966.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bethony, J., Brooker, S., Albonico, M., Geiger, S.M., Loukas, A., Diemert, D. & Hotez, P.J. (2006) Soil-transmitted helminth infections: ascariasis, trichuriasis, and hookworm. Lancet 367, 15211532.Google Scholar
Betson, M., Halstead, F.D., Nejsum, P., Imison, E., Khamis, I.S., Sousa-Figueiredo, J.C., Rollinson, D. & Stothard, J.R. (2011) A molecular epidemiological investigation of Ascaris on Unguja, Zanzibar using isoenyzme analysis, DNA barcoding and microsatellite DNA profiling. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 105, 370379.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boes, J., Willingham, A.L., Fuhui, S., Hu, X.G., Eriksen, L., Nansen, P. & Stewart, T.B. (2000) Prevalence and distribution of pig helminths in the Dongting Lake Region (Hunan Province) of the People's Republic of China. Journal of Helminthology 74, 4552.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brooker, S. (2010) Estimating the global distribution and disease burden of intestinal nematode infections: Adding up the numbers - a review. International Journal for Parasitology 40, 11371144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bundy, D.A.P. & Cooper, E.S. (1989) Trichuris and Trichuriasis in humans. Advances in Parasitology 28, 107173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burden, D.J., Hammet, N.C. & Brookes, P.A. (1987) Field observations on the longevity of Trichuris suis ova. Veterinary Record 121, 43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carstensen, L., Vaarst, M. & Roepstorff, A. (2002) Helminth infections in Danish organic swine herds. Veterinary Parasitology 106, 253264.Google Scholar
Chan, M.S. (1997) The global burden of intestinal nematode infections – fifty years on. Parasitology Today 13, 438443.Google Scholar
Clark, E.G., Vondewitz, A. & Acompanado, G. (1989) Spurious Ascaris suum Infection in lambs. Canadian Veterinary Journal 30, 903.Google ScholarPubMed
Crewe, W. & Smith, D.H. (1971) Human infection with pig Ascaris (A. suum). Annals of Tropical Medicine and Parasitology 65, 85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Criscione, C.D., Anderson, J.D., Sudimack, D., Peng, W., Jha, B., Williams-Blangero, S. & Anderson, T.J.C. (2007) Disentangling hybridization and host colonization in parasitic roundworms of humans and pigs. Proceedings of the Royal Society Biological Sciences 274, 26692677.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crompton, D.W. (2001) Ascaris and ascariasis. Advances in Parasitology 48, 285375.Google Scholar
Cutillas, C., Callejon, R., de Rojas, M., Tewes, B., Ubeda, J.M., Ariza, C. & Guevara, D.C. (2009) Trichuris suis and Trichuris trichiura are different nematode species. Acta Tropica 111, 299307.Google Scholar
De Silva, N.R., Chan, M.S. & Bundy, D.A.P. (1997) Morbidity and mortality due to ascariasis: re-estimation and sensitivity analysis of global numbers at risk. Tropical Medicine & International Health 2, 519528.Google Scholar
De Silva, N.R., Brooker, S., Hotez, P.J., Montresor, A., Engels, D. & Savioli, L. (2003) Soil-transmitted helminth infections: updating the global picture. Trends in Parasitology 19, 547551.Google Scholar
Dold, C. & Holland, C.V. (2011) Ascaris and ascariasis. Microbes Infections 13, 632637.Google Scholar
Eijck, I.A.J.M. & Borgsteede, F.H.M. (2005) A survey of gastrointestinal pig parasites on free-range, organic and conventional pig farms in The Netherlands. Veterinary Research Communications 29, 407414.Google Scholar
Fisher, M. (2003) Toxocara cati: an underestimated zoonotic agent. Trends in Parasitology 19, 167170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galvin, T.J. (1968) Development of human and pig Ascaris in the pig and rabbit. Journal for Parasitology 54, 10851091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, A., Hewitt, G., Tuffrey, V. & de Silva, N. (2008) A review and meta-analysis of the impact of intestinal worms on child growth and nutrition. Maternal and Child Nutrition 4 (Suppl. 1), 118236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawley, J.H. & Peanasky, R.J. (1992) Ascaris suum: are trypsin inhibitors involved in species specificity of Ascarid nematodes? Experimental Parasitology 75, 112118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, C.H. (1957) The survival of swine whipworm eggs in hog lots. Journal of Parasitology 43, 104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, C. & Boes, J. (2002) Distribution and predisposition: people and pigs. pp. 1–24 in Holland, C.V. & Kennedy, M.W. (Eds) The geohelminths: Ascaris, Trichuris and hookworm. World class parasite, vol. 2. Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hotez, P.J., Brindley, P.J., Bethony, J.M., King, C.H., Pearce, E.J. & Jacobson, J. (2008) Helminth infections: the great neglected tropical diseases. Journal of Clinical Investigation 118, 13111321.Google Scholar
Inatomi, Y., Murakami, T., Tokunaga, M., Ishiwata, K., Nawa, Y. & Uchino, M. (1999) Encephalopathy caused by visceral larva migrans due to Ascaris suum. Journal of the Neurological Sciences 164, 195199.Google Scholar
Jaskoski, B.J. (1961) An apparent swine Ascaris infection of man. Journal of the American Veterinary Association 138, 504505.Google ScholarPubMed
Jex, A.R., Liu, S., Li, B., Young, N.D., Hall, R.S., Li, Y., Yang, L., Zeng, N., Xu, X., Xiong, Z., Chen, F., Wu, X., Zhang, G., Fang, X., Kang, Y., Anderson, G.A., Harris, T.W., Campbell, B.E., Vlaminck, J., Wang, T., Cantacessi, C., Schwarz, E.M., Ranganathan, S., Geldhof, P., Nejsum, P., Sternberg, P.W., Yang, H., Wang, J., Wang, J. & Gasser, R.B. (2011) Ascaris suum draft genome. Nature 479, 529533.Google Scholar
Kelley, G.W. & Smith, L.J. (1956) The daily egg production of Ascaris suum and the inability of low levels of aureomycin to affect egg production and embryonation. Journal of Parasitology 42, 587.Google Scholar
Kennedy, M.W., Qureshi, F., Haswell-Elkins, M. & Elkins, D.B. (1987) Homology and heterology between the secreted antigens of the parasitic larval stages of Ascaris lumbricoides and Ascaris suum. Clinical and Experimental Immunology 67, 2030.Google ScholarPubMed
Knight, R.A. (1984) Morphological differences in Trichuris ovis associated with different host species. Journal of Parasitology 70, 842843.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kradin, R.L., Badizadegan, K., Auluck, P., Korzenik, J. & Lauwers, G.Y. (2006) Iatrogenic Trichuris suis infection in a patient with Crohn disease. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine 130, 718720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krasnonos, L. (1978) Prolonged survival of Ascaris lumbricoides L.,1758 ova in the soil in Samarkand. Meditsinskaya Parazitologiya i Parazitarnye Bolezni 47, 103105(in Russian).Google Scholar
Kringel, H. & Roepstorff, A. (2006) Trichuris suis population dynamics following a primary experimental infection. Veterinary Parasitology 139, 132139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, A.C., Schantz, P.M., Kazacos, K.R., Montgomery, S.P. & Bowman, D.D. (2010) Epidemiologic and zoonotic aspects of ascarid infections in dogs and cats. Trends in Parasitology 26, 155161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, G.H., Wu, C.Y., Song, H.Q., Wei, S.J., Xu, M.J., Lin, R.Q., Zhao, G.H., Huang, S.Y. & Zhu, X.Q. (2012a) Comparative analyses of the complete mitochondrial genomes of Ascaris lumbricoides and Ascaris suum from humans and pigs. Gene 15, 110116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, G.H., Gasser, R.B., Su, A., Nejsum, P., Wei, S.J., Peng, L., Lin, R.Q., Li, M.W. & Zhu, X.Q. (2012b) Clear genetic distinctiveness between human- and pig-derived Trichuris based on analyses of mitochondrial datasets. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 6, e1539.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lord, W.D. & Bullock, W.L. (1982) Swine Ascaris in humans. New England Journal of Medicine 306, 1113.Google Scholar
Loreille, O. & Bouchet, F. (2003) Evolution of ascariasis in humans and pigs: a multi-disciplinary approach. Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 98, 3946.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maguire, J. (2005) Intestinal roundworms. pp. 32603267in Mandell, G.L., Bennett, J.E. & Dolin, R. (Eds) Principles and practice of infectious diseases. 6th edn. Philadelphia, Elsevier.Google Scholar
Maung, M. (1973) Ascaris lumbricoides Linne, 1758 and Ascaris suum Goeze, 1782: morphological differences between specimens obtained from man and pig. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health 4, 4145.Google ScholarPubMed
Mayr, E. (1963) Animal species and evolution. Cambridge, Belknap Press.Google Scholar
McCraw, B.M. & Lautenslager, J.P. (1971) Pneumonia in calves associated with migrating Ascaris suum larvae. Canadian Veterinary Journal 12, 8790.Google ScholarPubMed
Muller, G. (1953) Untersuchungen über die Lebensdauer von Askarideneiern in Gartenerde. Zentrallblatt für Bakteriologie, Parasitenkunde, Infektionskrankheiten und Hygiene 159, 377379 (in German).Google Scholar
Nadler, S.A. (1987) Biochemical and immunological systematics of some ascaridoid nematodes: genetic divergence between congeners. Journal for Parasitology 73, 811816.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nansen, P. & Roepstorff, A. (1999) Parasitic helminths of the pig: factors influencing transmission and infection levels. International Journal for Parasitology 29, 877891.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nejsum, P., Parker, E.D., Frydenberg, J., Roepstorff, A., Boes, J., Haque, R., Astrup, I., Prag, J. & Sørensen, U.B.S. (2005) Ascariasis is a zoonosis in Denmark. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 43, 11421148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nejsum, P., Thamsborg, S.M., Petersen, H.H., Kringel, H., Fredholm, M. & Roepstorff, A. (2009) Population dynamics of Ascaris suum in trickle-infected pigs. Journal of Parasitology 95, 10481053.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nejsum, P., Bertelsen, M.F., Betson, M., Stothard, J.R. & Murrell, K.D. (2010) Molecular evidence for sustained transmission of zoonotic Ascaris suum among zoo chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Veterinary Parasitolology 171, 273276.Google Scholar
Nissen, S., Poulsen, I.H., Nejsum, P., Olsen, A., Roepstorff, A., Rubaire-Akiiki, C. & Thamsborg, S.M. (2011) Prevalence of gastrointestinal nematodes in growing pigs in Kabale District in Uganda. Tropical Animal Health and Production 43, 567572.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nissen, S., Al-Jubury, A., Hansen, T.V.A., Olsen, A., Christensen, H., Thamsborg, S.M. & Nejsum, P. (2012) Genetic analysis of Trichuris recovered from human and pigs in a sympatric setting in Uganda. Veterinary Parasitology accepted.Google Scholar
Olsen, A., Namwanje, H., Nejsum, P., Roepstorff, A. & Thamsborg, S.M. (2009) Albendazole and mebendazole have low efficacy against Trichuris trichiura in school-age children in Kabale District, Uganda. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 103, 443446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olsen, L.S., Kelley, G.W. & Sen, H.G. (1958) Longevity and egg-production of Ascaris suum. Transactions of the American Microscopy Society 77, 380383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ooi, H.K., Tenora, F., Itoh, K. & Kamiya, M. (1993) Comparative study of Trichuris trichiura from non-human primates and from man, and their difference with T. suis. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science 55, 363366.Google Scholar
Pedersen, K., Monrad, J., Henriksen, S.A., Bindseil, B., Nielsen, J.S., Jensen, E. & Knold, P. (1992) Infektion med svinets spolorm (Ascaris suum) hos lam. Dansk Veterinærtidsskrift 75, 170174.Google Scholar
Pedersen, S. & Saeed, I. (2000) Experimental infection of pigs with three dose levels of Trichuris suis. Parasite 7, 275281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peng, W., Anderson, T.J., Zhou, X. & Kennedy, M.W. (1998) Genetic variation in sympatric Ascaris populations from humans and pigs in China. Parasitology 117, 355361.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peng, W.D., Yuan, K., Zhou, X.M., Hu, M., El Osta, Y.G.A. & Gasser, R.B. (2003) Molecular epidemiological investigation of Ascaris genotypes in China based on single-strand conformation polymorphism analysis of ribosomal DNA. Electrophoresis 24, 23082315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peng, W.D., Yuan, K., Hu, M., Zhou, X.M. & Gasser, R.B. (2005) Mutation scanning-coupled analysis of haplotypic variability in mitochondrial DNA regions reveals low gene flow between human and porcine Ascaris in endemic regions of China. Electrophoresis 26, 43174326.Google Scholar
Phillipson, R.F. & Race, J.W. (1967) Human infection with porcine Ascaris. British Medical Journal 3, 865.Google Scholar
Pinelli, E., Willers, S.M., Hoek, D., Smit, H.A., Kortbeek, L.M., Hoekstra, M., de Jongste, J., van Knapen, F., Postma, D., Kerkhof, M., Aalberse, R., van der Giessen, J.W. & Brunekreef, B. (2009) Prevalence of antibodies against Ascaris suum and its association with allergic manifestations in 4-year-old children in The Netherlands: the PIAMA birth cohort study. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 28, 13271334.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinelli, E., Herremans, T., Harms, M.G., Hoek, D. & Kortbeek, L.M. (2011) Toxocara and Ascaris seropositivity among patients suspected of visceral and ocular larva migrans in the Netherlands: trends from 1998 to 2009. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 30, 873879.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Räisänen, S., Ruuskanen, L. & Nyman, S. (1985) Epidemic ascariasis – evidence of transmission by imported vegetables. Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care 3, 189191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roepstorff, A. & Jorsal, S.E. (1989) Prevalence of helminth infections in swine in Denmark. Veterinary Parasitology 33, 231239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roepstorff, A., Eriksen, L., Slotved, H.C. & Nansen, P. (1997) Experimental Ascaris suum infection in the pig: worm population kinetics following single inoculations with three doses of infective eggs. Parasitology 115, 443452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roepstorff, A., Nilsson, O., Oksanen, A., Gjerde, B., Richter, S.H., Ortenberg, E., Christensson, D., Martinsson, K.B., Bartlett, P.C., Nansen, P., Eriksen, L., Helle, O., Nikander, S. & Larsen, K. (1998) Intestinal parasites in swine in the Nordic countries: prevalence and geographical distribution. Veterinary Parasitology 76, 305319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roepstorff, A., Mejer, H., Nejsum, P. & Thamsborg, S.M. (2011) Helminth parasites in pigs: new challenges in pig production and current research highlights. Veterinary Parasitology 180, 7281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roneus, O. & Christensson, D. (1977) Mature Ascaris suum in naturally infected calves. Veterinary Parasitology 3, 371375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauvageau, R. & Frechette, J.L. (1980) Hepatic ascariasis in a lamb. Canadian Veterinary Journal 21, 66(in French).Google ScholarPubMed
Soulsby, E.J.L. (1982) Helminths, arthropods and protozoa of domesticated animals. 7th edn. London, Baillière Tindall.Google Scholar
Spakulova, M. (1994) Discriminant-analysis as a method for the numerical evaluation of taxonomic characters in male trichurid nematodes. Systematic Parasitology 29, 113119.Google Scholar
Sprent, J.F.A. (1952) Anatomical distinction between human and pig strains of Ascaris. Nature 170, 627628.Google Scholar
Summers, R.W., Elliott, D.E., Urban, J.F. Jr, Thompson, R.A. & Weinstock, J.V. (2005) Trichuris suis therapy for active ulcerative colitis: a randomized controlled trial. Gastroenterology 128, 825832.Google Scholar
Takata, I. (1951) Experimental infection of man with Ascaris of man and the pig. Kitasato Archives of Experimental Medicine 23, 4959.Google ScholarPubMed
Tilney, L.G., Connelly, P.S., Guild, G.M., Vranich, K.A. & Artis, D. (2005) Adaptation of a nematode parasite to living within the mammalian epithelium. Journal of Experimental Zoology. Part A, Comparative Experimental Biology 303, 927945.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Traversa, D. (2011) Are we paying too much attention to cardio-pulmonary nematodes and neglecting old-fashioned worms like Trichuris vulpis? Parasites and Vectors 4, 32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Knapen, F., Buijs, J., Kortbeek, L.M. & Ljungstrom, I. (1992) Larva migrans syndrome: Toxocara, Ascaris, or both? Lancet 340, 550551.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhou, C., Li, M., Yuan, K., Hu, N. & Peng, W. (2011) Phylogeography of Ascaris lumbricoides and A. suum from China. Parasitology Research 109, 329338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar