-
Global prevalence of free-living amoebae in solid matrices - A systematic review with meta-analysis.Acta Tropica Nov 2023The ubiquitous free-living amoebae (FLA) are microorganisms of significant medical, sanitary, and ecological importance. However, their characterization within solid... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The ubiquitous free-living amoebae (FLA) are microorganisms of significant medical, sanitary, and ecological importance. However, their characterization within solid matrices such as soil, dust, sediment, mud, sludge, and compost remain to be systematized. In this study, we conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to explore the global distribution of FLA in solid matrices. From the analysis of 104 out of 4,414 scientific articles retrieved from different databases, it was found that the general global prevalence of FLA in solid matrices was of 55.13% (95% confidence interval (CI) 49.32-60.94). Specifically, FLA prevalence was high in soil (72.40%, 95% CI 69.08-75.73), sediment (57.91%, 95% CI 50.01-65.81), mud (52.90%, 95% CI 24.01-81.78), dust (48.60%, 95% CI 43.00-54.19), and sewage sludge (40.19%, 95% CI 30.68-49.70). In aerosols it was comparatively lower (17.21%, 95% CI 12.76-21.66). Acanthamoeba spp. (52.23%) and Hartmanella/Vermamoeba spp. (36.06%) were found to be more prevalent, whereas Naegleria spp. (34.98%) and Balamuthia spp. (27.32%) were less prevalent. The distribution of the highest global prevalence values for species of Acanthamoeba spp., considering different publication periods of the studies, is as follows: A. hatchetti (51.46%), A. rhysodes (47.49%), A. polyphaga (36.37%), A. culbertsoni (34.31%), A. castellanii (34.21%), and A. lenticulata (32.82%). For other FLA species, the distribution is: Hartmannella/Vermamoeba vermiformis (91.57%), Naegleria fowleri (42.32%), Naegleria gruberi (32.39%), and Balamuthia mandrillaris (25%). The most prevalent Acanthamoeba genotypes were T4 (33.38%) and T3 (23.94%). Overall, the global prevalence of FLA in solid matrices is as high as or greater than that reported in water by previous systematic reviews. Thus, actions aimed at reducing exposure to FLA or exploring their ecological dynamics should consider not only water but also the various solid matrices. The finding outlined here can provide valuable insights for such actions, e.g., informing on the level of exposure to FLA, or on the microbial biodiversity of specific environmental compartments.
Topics: Animals; Amoeba; Prevalence; Sewage; Acanthamoeba; Coleoptera; Dust; Soil; Water
PubMed: 37633571
DOI: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2023.107006 -
Scientific Reports Jul 2020Multinuclearity is a widespread phenomenon across the living world, yet how it is achieved, and the potential related advantages, are not systematically understood. In...
Multinuclearity is a widespread phenomenon across the living world, yet how it is achieved, and the potential related advantages, are not systematically understood. In this study, we investigate multinuclearity in amoebae. We observe that non-adherent amoebae are giant multinucleate cells compared to adherent ones. The cells solve their multinuclearity by a stretchy cytokinesis process with cytosolic bridge formation when adherence resumes. After initial adhesion to a new substrate, the progeny of the multinucleate cells is more numerous than the sibling cells generated from uninucleate amoebae. Hence, multinucleate amoebae show an advantage for population growth when the number of cells is quantified over time. Multiple nuclei per cell are observed in different amoeba species, and the lack of adhesion induces multinuclearity in diverse protists such as Acanthamoeba castellanii, Vermamoeba vermiformis, Naegleria gruberi and Hartmannella rhysodes. In this study, we observe that agitation induces a cytokinesis delay, which promotes multinuclearity. Hence, we propose the hypothesis that multinuclearity represents a physiological adaptation under non-adherent conditions that can lead to biologically relevant advantages.
Topics: Acanthamoeba castellanii; Cell Culture Techniques; Cell Nucleus; Cytokinesis; Microscopy, Electron, Scanning
PubMed: 32694508
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-68694-9