Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-7drmj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-04T08:56:57.133Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Species or local environment, what determines the infection of rodents by Toxoplasma gondii?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 October 2013

CÉCILE GOTTELAND*
Affiliation:
Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne, Laboratoire de Parasitologie-Mycologie, EA 3800, UFR de Médecine, SFR Cap Santé FED 4231, 51 rue Cognacq-Jay, F-51096 Reims, France Université Lyon 1, UMR CNRS 5558, Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie, 43 Bd du 11 novembre 1918, 69622, Villeurbanne, France
YANNICK CHAVAL
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR CBGP (INRA⁄IRD⁄Cirad⁄Montpellier SupAgro), Campus international de Baillarguet, CS 30016, F-34988 Montferrier-sur-Lez Cedex, France
ISABELLE VILLENA
Affiliation:
Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne, Laboratoire de Parasitologie-Mycologie, EA 3800, UFR de Médecine, SFR Cap Santé FED 4231, 51 rue Cognacq-Jay, F-51096 Reims, France
MAXIME GALAN
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR CBGP (INRA⁄IRD⁄Cirad⁄Montpellier SupAgro), Campus international de Baillarguet, CS 30016, F-34988 Montferrier-sur-Lez Cedex, France
RÉGINE GEERS
Affiliation:
Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne, Laboratoire de Parasitologie-Mycologie, EA 3800, UFR de Médecine, SFR Cap Santé FED 4231, 51 rue Cognacq-Jay, F-51096 Reims, France
DOMINIQUE AUBERT
Affiliation:
Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne, Laboratoire de Parasitologie-Mycologie, EA 3800, UFR de Médecine, SFR Cap Santé FED 4231, 51 rue Cognacq-Jay, F-51096 Reims, France
MARIE-LAZARINE POULLE
Affiliation:
Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne, Laboratoire de Parasitologie-Mycologie, EA 3800, UFR de Médecine, SFR Cap Santé FED 4231, 51 rue Cognacq-Jay, F-51096 Reims, France Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne, CERFE, 08240 Boult-aux-bois, France
NATHALIE CHARBONNEL
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR CBGP (INRA⁄IRD⁄Cirad⁄Montpellier SupAgro), Campus international de Baillarguet, CS 30016, F-34988 Montferrier-sur-Lez Cedex, France
EMMANUELLE GILOT-FROMONT
Affiliation:
Université Lyon 1, UMR CNRS 5558, Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie, 43 Bd du 11 novembre 1918, 69622, Villeurbanne, France Université de Lyon, VetAgro Sup, 1 Avenue Bourgelat, F-69280, Marcy l'Etoile, France
*
* Corresponding author. UMR-CNRS 5558, Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Evolutive, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Bâtiment Mendel, 1er étage, 43 Bd du 11 novembre 1918, 69622, Villeurbanne, France. E-mail: cecile.gotteland@univ-lyon1.fr
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Toxoplasmosis is largely present in rural areas but its spatial distribution in this environment remains poorly known. In particular, it is unclear if areas of high density of cats, the only hosts excreting Toxoplasma gondii, constitute foci of high prevalence. To improve our understanding of the spatial distribution of T. gondii in rural areas, we performed a serological survey in rodents from two villages in France. We trapped 710 rodents including commensal rats and meadow or forest voles and mice. The presence of T. gondii was examined using PCR, mice inoculation and modified agglutination test for antibodies (MAT). We conducted multivariate and discriminant analyses to identify biological, ecological or spatial variables that could explain T. gondii serology in rodents. We then used a logistic regression to assess the relative influence of each explanatory variable. Overall seroprevalence was 4·1%. Commensal-rats were more infected (12·5%) than non-commensal species (3·7%). However, the major determinant of the risk of infection was the distance to the nearest farm (OR = 0·75 for 100 m), which explained the risk in all species or non-commensal species only. We contrast the role of species characteristics and that of the local environment, and discuss the risk of environmental contamination for humans.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Distribution of T. gondii antibody (seropositive (white circles) and seronegative (white stars)) in samples taken from rodents in two villages of the French Ardennes. The map shows the localization of inhabited areas (black), gardens (white), meadows (grey), crop fields (white-hatched), hedges (fine black hatched) and forested areas (black double-hatched). Farm buildings are identified by white crosses.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Distribution of the proportion of each habitat within Boult-aux-bois (left) and Briquenay (right).

Figure 2

Table 1. Presence of T. gondii antibodies in rodents trapped in Ardennes, France. The number of positive individuals/total number of individuals trapped are given for each species and year

Figure 3

Table 2. Results of T. gondii isolation and PCR from rodents captured in both sites

Figure 4

Fig. 3. Factorial map of the Hill and Smith factorial analysis: first (x-axis) and second (y-axis).

Figure 5

Fig. 4. Proportion of positive rodents observed within each distance class of 100 m with 95% confidence interval calculated following Clopper and Pearson (1934). The probability to be seropositive for rodents, as predicted by the best model, is represented as a function of distance to the nearest farm (black line).

Figure 6

Table 3. Model selection results using Akaike information criterion. Each row represents a candidate model to explain T. gondii seroprevalence in rodents as a function of potential explanatory variables. For each model tested, the table indicates the number of degrees of freedom (d.f.), corrected quantitative AICc (QAICc) and corrected AIC (AICc). The model with the minimum AICc (denoted AICmin) was considered as the best model to explain the data; all others models were evaluated based on the difference from this minimum (Δi = AICi−AICmin). All these models have an ΔAIC<2. The Akaike weight (Wi) represents the relative likelihood for a given model to be the best among all other models. Akaike weight values which range from 0 to 1 can be interpreted as the probability for a model i to be the best model given the data and the numerous repetitions of the model selection exercise. The best model selected using this procedure is indicated in bold

Figure 7

Table 4. Model-averaged parameter estimate (β) with standard error (s.e.) and the odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI) for variables included in models with ΔAIC<2. The variable ‘species’ differentiates commensal and non-commensal species