-
Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) Apr 2023In equine stables and their surroundings, a large number of insects are present that can be a nuisance to their equine hosts. Previous studies about dipterans... (Review)
Review
In equine stables and their surroundings, a large number of insects are present that can be a nuisance to their equine hosts. Previous studies about dipterans transmitting infectious agents to Equidae have largely focused on Nematocera. For the preparation of this systematic review, the existing literature (until February 2022) was systematically screened for various infectious agents transmitted to Equidae via insects of the suborder Brachycera, including Tabanidae, Muscidae, Glossinidae and Hippoboscidae, acting as pests or potential vectors. The PRISMA statement 2020 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines for systematic reviews were followed. The two concepts, Brachycera and Equidae, were combined for the search that was carried out in three languages (English, German and French) using four different search engines. In total, 38 articles investigating Brachycera as vectors for viral, bacterial and parasitic infections or as pests of equids were identified. Only 7 of the 14 investigated pathogens in the 38 reports extracted from the literature were shown to be transmitted by Brachycera. This review clearly shows that further studies are needed to investigate the role of Brachycera as vectors for pathogens relevant to equine health.
PubMed: 37111454
DOI: 10.3390/pathogens12040568 -
Parasites & Vectors Jan 2016To assess the extent to which climate may affect the abundance of Musca sorbens, a putative vector of trachoma. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
To assess the extent to which climate may affect the abundance of Musca sorbens, a putative vector of trachoma.
DATA SOURCES
Studies were identified by systematically searching online databases including CAB abstracts, Embase, Global Health, Medline, Web of Science and BIOS Online, references from key articles, and the websites of relevant international agencies.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted of field and laboratory studies that reported the impact of climate factors (e.g., temperature, humidity) on the synanthropic fly Musca sorbens. Data were systematically extracted and studies assessed for quality by two readers. Study results were reported narratively.
RESULTS
A total of 16 studies met the inclusion criteria but only three evaluated associations between climatic/abiotic factors and M. sorbens. Limited evidence indicates that M. sorbens abundance has an optimal temperature and humidity range. Thirteen studies reported seasonal patterns but no consistent pattern was found between season and the abundance of M. sorbens.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence base regarding the effect of climatic factors on M. sorbens is limited, so it is difficult to construct a biological model driven by climate for this species. A multivariate statistical approach based on the climate of sites where M. sorbens is found may better capture its complex relationship with climatic factors as well as aid in mapping the global range of M. sorbens.
Topics: Animals; Behavior, Animal; Chlamydia trachomatis; Climate; Female; Geography; Insect Vectors; Muscidae; Seasons; Temperature; Trachoma
PubMed: 26817815
DOI: 10.1186/s13071-016-1330-y -
BMC Public Health Aug 2018The synanthropic house fly, Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae), is a mechanical vector of pathogens (bacteria, fungi, viruses, and parasites), some of which cause... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The synanthropic house fly, Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae), is a mechanical vector of pathogens (bacteria, fungi, viruses, and parasites), some of which cause serious diseases in humans and domestic animals. In the present study, a systematic review was done on the types and prevalence of human pathogens carried by the house fly.
METHODS
Major health-related electronic databases including PubMed, PubMed Central, Google Scholar, and Science Direct were searched (Last update 31/11/2017) for relevant literature on pathogens that have been isolated from the house fly.
RESULTS
Of the 1718 titles produced by bibliographic search, 99 were included in the review. Among the titles included, 69, 15, 3, 4, 1 and 7 described bacterial, fungi, bacteria+fungi, parasites, parasite+bacteria, and viral pathogens, respectively. Most of the house flies were captured in/around human habitation and animal farms. Pathogens were frequently isolated from body surfaces of the flies. Over 130 pathogens, predominantly bacteria (including some serious and life-threatening species) were identified from the house flies. Numerous publications also reported antimicrobial resistant bacteria and fungi isolated from house flies.
CONCLUSIONS
This review showed that house flies carry a large number of pathogens which can cause serious infections in humans and animals. More studies are needed to identify new pathogens carried by the house fly.
Topics: Animals; Houseflies; Humans; Insect Vectors
PubMed: 30134910
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-018-5934-3 -
Veterinary Medicine and Science Mar 2022Housefly (Musca domestica) is an excellent candidate for the distribution of susceptible and resistant bacterial strains that potentially threaten public health. To... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Housefly (Musca domestica) is an excellent candidate for the distribution of susceptible and resistant bacterial strains that potentially threaten public health. To date, there is a paucity of information on the global distribution of pathogenic bacteria of medical and veterinary importance from diverse environmental settings. Therefore, this study was undertaken to conduct a systemic review and meta-analysis to estimate occurrence of various bacterial species of medical and veterinary importance harboured by houseflies around the world. Published articles from 1980 to 2020 were retrieved from electronic databases and assessed for eligibility according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Seventy-eight studies were included in the review with only 44 studies being eligible for meta-analysis. Results indicated that eligible studies used in this review were from four continents, i.e., Asia (47.4%) America (23.1%), Africa (20.5%) and Europe (8.9%). The majority of the studies (56.4%) used the culture method for the identification of bacterial pathogens, while 30.7% used both culture and PCR techniques. For meta-analysis, we focused on five pathogenic bacterial species including Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecium, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus. High heterogeneity was found among studies investigating different pathogens including E. coli (Q = 10,739.55; I = 99.60; Q-p 0.0001), E. faecium (Q = 317.61; I = 86.46; Q-p < 0.0001), K. pneumonia (Q = 1,576.61; I = 97.27; Q-p < 0.0001), S. aureus (Q = 2,439.12; I = 98.24; Q-p < 0.0001) and P. aeruginosa (Q = 1,283.0; I = 96.65; Q-p < 0.0001). Furthermore, it was observed that houseflies carried a considerable number of susceptible and antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains that pose considerable threats to public health. Findings from this study have provided more insight on the vectoral potential of houseflies in the transmission of significant bacterial pathogens from different regions across the world. Further investigation is required to quantify the bacterial contamination and dissemination by houseflies.
Topics: Animals; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacteria; Escherichia coli; Houseflies; Humans; Staphylococcus aureus
PubMed: 33955703
DOI: 10.1002/vms3.496 -
Parasites & Vectors Jan 2023Non-biting flies such as the house fly (Musca domestica), the Australian sheep blowfly (Lucilia cuprina) and the oriental latrine fly (Chrysomya megacephala) may carry... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Non-biting flies such as the house fly (Musca domestica), the Australian sheep blowfly (Lucilia cuprina) and the oriental latrine fly (Chrysomya megacephala) may carry many parasites. In the present study, we performed a systematic overview of the different species of parasites carried by non-biting flies, as well as of isolation methods, different geographical distribution, seasonality and risk assessment.
METHODS
A meta-analysis was carried out with the aim to review the global prevalence of parasite transmission in non-biting flies. A total sample size of 28,718 non-biting flies reported in studies worldwide satisfied the predetermined selection criteria and was included in the quantitative analysis.
RESULTS
The global prevalence of parasites in non-biting flies was 42.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 31.9-53.2%; n = 15,888/28,718), with the highest prevalence found for non-biting flies in Africa (58.3%; 95% CI 47.4-69.3%; n = 9144/13,366). A total of 43% (95% CI 32.1-54.4%; n = 7234/15,282) of house flies (M. domestica), the fly species considered to be the most closely associated with humans and animals, were found with parasites. The prevalence of parasites in the intestine of non-biting flies was 37.1% (95% CI 22.7-51.5%; n = 1045/3817), which was significantly higher than the prevalence of parasites isolated from the body surface (35.1%; 95% CI 20.8-49.4%; n = 1199/3649; P < 0.01). Of the 27 reported parasites, a total of 20 known zoonotic parasites were identified, with an infection rate of 38.1% (95% CI 28.2-48.0%; n = 13,572/28,494).
CONCLUSIONS
This study provides a theoretical basis for the public health and ecological significance of parasites transmitted by non-biting flies.
Topics: Humans; Animals; Parasites; Prevalence; Australia; Diptera; Houseflies; Calliphoridae
PubMed: 36691084
DOI: 10.1186/s13071-023-05650-2