What is Dr. Zubair Khalid's research focus?

Dr. Zubair Khalid specializes in molecular virology, mRNA vaccine development, and computational biology, with a focus on avian pathogens like IBDV and Avian Reovirus.

Where is Dr. Zubair Khalid currently working?

Dr. Zubair Khalid is a Postdoctoral Research Associate at the University of Maryland (UMD), specifically within the Department of Animal and Avian Sciences.

Fasciolosis in Cattle and Sheep: Liver Fluke Diagnosis via Coproantigen ELISA, Pooled PCR, and Anthelmintic Resistance to Triclabendazole

Introduction

Fasciolosis, caused by the trematode Fasciola hepatica, represents a major parasitic disease of grazing livestock worldwide, leading to substantial economic losses through reduced weight gain, decreased milk production, liver condemnation at slaughter, and mortality in acute cases [1, 2]. The disease is endemic in temperate and subtropical regions, with prevalence rates in cattle and sheep herds often exceeding 50% in high-risk areas [3]. Diagnosis of subclinical and chronic infections remains challenging, as traditional fecal egg count (FEC) methods lack sensitivity during early infection and in animals with low patency [4]. Over the past two decades, coproantigen enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) based methods have emerged as superior alternatives, offering higher analytical sensitivity and the ability to detect prepatent infections [5, 6]. Concurrently, widespread reliance on the flukicide triclabendazole (TCBZ) has driven the emergence of resistant F. hepatica populations, necessitating molecular surveillance tools that target resistance-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in beta-tubulin genes [7, 8]. This article provides an exhaustive technical review of these diagnostic and resistance detection strategies, focusing on their biophysical principles, diagnostic cutoffs, and practical implementation in cattle and sheep.

Lifecycle of Fasciola hepatica and Host Interactions

F. hepatica follows a complex indirect lifecycle involving a molluscan intermediate host, typically snails of the genus Galba [9]. Adult flukes reside in the bile ducts of the definitive host (cattle, sheep, and other ruminants), where they produce operculated eggs that are passed in feces. Eggs embryonate in the environment, releasing miracidia that infect aquatic snails. Within the snail, development proceeds through sporocysts, rediae, and finally cercariae, which are shed into water and encyst on vegetation as metacercariae [10]. Ingestion of metacercariae by grazing animals initiates infection: excystation occurs in the small intestine, and juvenile flukes penetrate the intestinal wall, migrate across the peritoneal cavity, and penetrate the liver capsule. Over 5–7 weeks, the immature flukes tunnel through the hepatic parenchyma, causing acute hepatitis and hemorrhage, before entering the bile ducts where they mature and begin egg production approximately 8–12 weeks post-infection [11].

The biophysical interaction between migrating flukes and host tissues involves secretion of cysteine proteases (e.g., cathepsin L and B) that degrade extracellular matrix components, facilitating tissue penetration and immune evasion [12]. Chronic infection is characterized by bile duct hyperplasia, fibrosis, and cholangitis, driven by persistent antigenic stimulation from adult fluke excretory-secretory products [13]. The host humoral response, particularly IgG1 and IgG2 antibodies, is detectable from 2–4 weeks post-infection and forms the basis for serological diagnostics, although coproantigen detection offers a more direct measure of current infection [14].

Diagnostic Approaches

Coproantigen ELISA

Coproantigen ELISA detects F. hepatica excretory-secretory antigens in fecal samples, providing a direct indicator of active infection. The assay employs polyclonal or monoclonal antibodies raised against adult fluke somatic or excretory-secretory antigens, often targeting cathepsin L1 or other immunodominant proteins [15]. The diagnostic principle involves capture of soluble antigens from homogenized feces, followed by detection using enzyme-conjugated secondary antibodies and chromogenic substrates. Optical density (OD) values are compared to predefined cutoffs derived from known negative populations.

Diagnostic cutoff determination is critical for specificity. In cattle, a typical cutoff is set at mean OD of negative controls plus 3 standard deviations (SD), yielding specificity above 95% [16]. In sheep, due to lower background reactivity, cutoffs may be set at a lower threshold (mean + 2 SD) to maximize sensitivity, often exceeding 98% [17]. Coproantigen ELISA detects infections from 2 weeks post-infection, well before patency, and sensitivity remains high (90–95%) during chronic stages [18]. The assay outperforms FEC in low-burden infections, where egg shedding is intermittent or absent [19]. Importantly, coproantigen levels correlate with fluke burden, allowing semiquantitative estimation of infection intensity [20].

Pooled PCR for Fecal Detection

Molecular detection of F. hepatica DNA in feces has become a valuable adjunct to coproantigen testing, particularly for confirming species identity and detecting mixed infections. Pooled PCR, in which multiple individual fecal samples are combined prior to DNA extraction and amplification, offers a cost-effective strategy for herd-level screening [21]. The most commonly targeted genetic locus is the internal transcribed spacer 2 (ITS2) region of ribosomal DNA, which provides species-specific amplicons and allows differentiation from other trematodes such as Fascioloides magna or Paramphistomum species [22].

The analytical sensitivity of ITS2-PCR is high: a single egg in a 200 mg fecal sample is detectable using conventional PCR, while real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) can detect DNA equivalent to 0.1 eggs per reaction [23]. For pooled samples, simulation studies indicate that pools of up to 10 individual samples retain sensitivity if infection prevalence exceeds 10% [24]. Pooled PCR reduces reagent costs and labor, facilitating large-scale surveillance. A typical protocol involves bead-beating homogenization of pooled feces (e.g., 1 g total from 10 animals), silica column-based DNA extraction, and PCR with primers targeting the ITS2 region (e.g., forward: 5'-GTGAACCTGCGGAAGGATCATT-3'; reverse: 5'-TCGATGGAACGATCTGGTGCT-3') [25]. Amplification products of approximately 450–500 base pairs are visualized on agarose gels or via melting curve analysis in qPCR.

ITS2-PCR for Egg Identification

Individual egg identification via ITS2-PCR is the gold standard when morphological examination is inconclusive. F. hepatica eggs are operculated, oval, and measure 130–150 µm by 60–90 µm, but overlap in size with other trematode eggs, especially Fascioloides magna and Paramphistomum spp. [26]. Molecular confirmation is achieved by extracting DNA from a single egg isolated from fecal sedimentation, followed by ITS2 amplification and sequencing. The ITS2 region exhibits sufficient interspecific variation to permit unambiguous identification through restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis or Sanger sequencing [27]. This approach is particularly useful in mixed grazing systems where multiple fluke species circulate.

Anthelmintic Resistance to Triclabendazole

Mechanisms and Molecular Markers

Triclabendazole (TCBZ) is a benzimidazole derivative that exerts flukicidal activity by binding to beta-tubulin monomers, inhibiting microtubule polymerization in the parasite's intestinal cells and tegument [28]. Resistance in F. hepatica has been reported extensively in sheep and cattle in endemic regions, with field isolates exhibiting reduced efficacy after repeated TCBZ use [29]. Molecular resistance mechanisms primarily involve point mutations in the beta-tubulin gene, particularly at codon 198 (Phe to Tyr) and codon 200 (Phe to Tyr), which are homologous to benzimidazole resistance mutations in nematodes [30]. Additional SNPs at codon 167 (Phe to Tyr) have been described in some isolates [31]. These mutations reduce TCBZ binding affinity, allowing microtubule assembly to proceed even in the presence of the drug.

Detection of resistance markers is performed via PCR amplification of beta-tubulin gene fragments (e.g., a 450 bp region encompassing codons 167–200) followed by allele-specific PCR, pyrosequencing, or next-generation sequencing [32]. For field surveillance, pooled fecal samples or adult flukes collected at slaughter are analyzed. The frequency of mutant alleles above a threshold (e.g., >10%) correlates with treatment failure in vivo [33]. It is important to note that resistance mechanisms may also involve enhanced drug efflux via P-glycoprotein transporters, though genetic markers for this pathway are less well-characterized [34].

Implications for Diagnosis and Control

The emergence of TCBZ resistance necessitates integrated diagnostic strategies that combine coproantigen ELISA or PCR with resistance genotyping. For example, a herd with positive coproantigen results post-treatment warrants investigation for resistant F. hepatica populations. In such cases, fecal samples are subjected to pooled ITS2-PCR to confirm species, and beta-tubulin genotyping is performed on the same DNA extracts [35]. This workflow allows simultaneous detection of infection and resistance status, guiding anthelmintic selection. Salicylanilide flukicides (e.g., closantel) or clorsulon may be used as alternatives in confirmed resistance cases, though cross-resistance patterns require monitoring [36].

The following Mermaid diagram illustrates a diagnostic and resistance surveillance decision tree for fasciolosis in cattle and sheep.

flowchart TD
    A[Clinical suspicion or routine screening], > B{Individual fecal sampling}
    B, > C[Coproantigen ELISA on individual or pooled feces]
    C, >|OD above cutoff| D[Positive for active infection]
    C, >|OD below cutoff| E[Negative: no current infection or early prepatent?]
    E, > F[Consider repeat testing or ITS2-PCR if high suspicion]
    D, > G{Confirmation and species identification}
    G, > H[Pooled ITS2-PCR on fecal DNA]
    H, > I[Amplicon sequencing or RFLP for species ID]
    I, > J[F. hepatica confirmed]
    J, > K{Evaluate treatment history}
    K, > L[No recent TCBZ use: treat with TCBZ]
    K, > M[Recent TCBZ treatment with poor response]
    M, > N[Beta-tubulin genotyping from fluke DNA]
    N, > O[Detect SNP at codons 167, 198, 200]
    O, > P[Mutant allele frequency >10%?]
    P, >|Yes| Q[TCBZ resistance confirmed: switch to alternative flukicide]
    P, >|No| R[Resistance less likely: consider other causes of treatment failure]
    Q, > S[Monitor efficacy with post-treatment coproantigen ELISA 4-6 weeks later]
    R, > S
    S, > T[If still positive: reassess resistance or reinfection]

Conclusion

Effective control of fasciolosis in cattle and sheep requires a diagnostic toolkit that combines high-sensitivity antigen detection with molecular confirmation and resistance surveillance. Coproantigen ELISA provides a practical, sensitive, and specific method for identifying active infections in individual animals or herds, with cutoff values validated for both species. Pooled ITS2-PCR offers a cost-effective herd-level screening alternative and enables species differentiation. The incorporation of beta-tubulin genotyping for TCBZ resistance markers is essential to preserve the efficacy of this critical flukicide. As field data on resistance mutations accumulate, computational models incorporating allele frequencies and treatment history will further refine decision support for veterinarians. Integration of these methods into routine herd health programs will reduce economic losses and slow the spread of anthelmintic resistance.

References

[1] Torgerson PR, Macpherson CNL. The socioeconomic burden of parasitic zoonoses: global trends. Vet Parasitol. 2011;182(1):79-95.

[2] Schweizer G, Braun U, Deplazes P, Torgerson PR. Estimating the financial losses due to bovine fasciolosis in Switzerland. Vet Rec. 2005;157(7):188-193.

[3] Bennema SC, Ducheyne E, Vercruysse J, et al. Relative importance of management, meteorological and environmental factors in the distribution of Fasciola hepatica in cattle in Europe. Int J Parasitol. 2011;41(5):561-569.

[4] Rapsch C, Schweizer G, Grimm F, et al. Estimating the true prevalence of Fasciola hepatica in cattle slaughtered in Switzerland in the absence of an absolute diagnostic test. Int J Parasitol. 2006;36(10-11):1153-1158.

[5] Mezo M, González-Warleta M, Carro C, Ubeira FM. An ultrasensitive capture ELISA for detection of Fasciola hepatica coproantigens in sheep and cattle using a new monoclonal antibody (MM3). J Parasitol. 2004;90(5):1026-1031.

[6] Martínez-Sernández V, Orbegozo-Medina RA, González-Warleta M, et al. Comparison of coproantigen ELISA and sedimentation techniques for the diagnosis of Fasciola hepatica in sheep. Vet Parasitol. 2011;181(2-4):160-165.

[7] Brennan GP, Fairweather I, Trudgett A, et al. Understanding triclabendazole resistance. Exp Mol Pathol. 2007;82(2):104-109.

[8] Walker SM, Hoey E, Fletcher H, Brennan G, Fairweather I, Trudgett A. Stage-specific differences in fecundity and egg production of Fasciola hepatica in triclabendazole-resistant and susceptible strains. Vet Parasitol. 2006;139(1-3):228-235.

[9] Kendall SB, Ollerenshaw CB. The effect of nutrition on the growth of Fasciola hepatica in its snail host. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1963;158:527-543.

[10] Andrews SJ. The life cycle of Fasciola hepatica. In: Dalton JP, ed. Fasciolosis. CAB International; 1999:1-29.

[11] Behm CA, Sangster NC. Pathology, pathophysiology and clinical aspects. In: Dalton JP, ed. Fasciolosis. CAB International; 1999:185-224.

[12] Dalton JP, Neill SO, Stack C, et al. Fasciola hepatica cathepsin L-like proteases: biology, function, and potential in the development of first generation liver fluke vaccines. Int J Parasitol. 2003;33(11):1173-1181.

[13] Hillyer GV, Galan M. Immunity to Fasciola hepatica in cattle: humoral and cellular responses. Vet Parasitol. 1988;28(4):285-296.

[14] Cornelissen JB, Gaasenbeek CP, Boersema JH, Borgsteede FH. Use of a monoclonal antibody-based sandwich ELISA to detect Fasciola hepatica antigens in the sera of sheep and cattle. Res Vet Sci. 1992;52(3):302-307.

[15] Mezo M, González-Warleta M, Ubeira FM. The use of MM3 monoclonal antibodies for the early immunodiagnosis of ovine fasciolosis. J Parasitol. 2007;93(1):65-72.

[16] Charlier J, De Meulemeester L, Claerebout E, Williams D, Vercruysse J. Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of coprological and serological techniques for the diagnosis of fasciolosis in cattle. Vet Parasitol. 2008;153(1-2):79-84.

[17] Flanagan A, Edgar HW, Gordon A, Hanna RE, Brennan GP, Fairweather I. Comparison of two assays, a faecal egg count reduction test (FECRT) and a coproantigen reduction test (CRT), for the diagnosis of resistance to triclabendazole in Fasciola hepatica in sheep. Vet Parasitol. 2011;176(2-3):170-176.

[18] Palmer DG, Lyon J, Palmer MA, Davey RE, Stangeland M. Evaluation of a coproantigen ELISA to detect Fasciola hepatica infection in sheep, cattle and goats. Aust Vet J. 1996;73(1):28-31.

[19] Gordon DK, Zadoks RN, Skuce PJ, Sargison ND. Confirmation of triclabendazole resistance in Fasciola hepatica in sheep flocks with a history of treatment failure. Vet Rec. 2012;171(2):45.

[20] Brockwell YM, Spithill TW, Anderson GR, Smith D, Kopp SR, Clarke R. Confirmation of Fasciola hepatica resistant to triclabendazole in Australia. Aust Vet J. 2014;92(7):259-263.

[21] Calvani NED, Windsor PA, Bush RD, Šlapeta J. Scoping review on the diagnosis of Fasciola hepatica infections in cattle and sheep: are we moving beyond faecal egg counting? Vet Parasitol. 2019;267:52-63.

[22] Ai L, Li C, Elsheikha HM, et al. Genetic characterization and molecular phylogeny of Fasciola species in China based on ITS-2 sequences. Infect Genet Evol. 2011;11(7):1715-1720.

[23] Martínez-Valladares M, Rojo-Vázquez FA. Molecular detection of Fasciola hepatica in sheep and cattle of Central Spain using PCR assays. Vet Parasitol. 2016;218:25-29.

[24] Robles-Pérez D, Martínez-Pérez JM, Rojo-Vázquez FA, Martínez-Valladares M. A pooled fecal study for the detection of Fasciola hepatica in sheep: a diagnostic tool for herd level diagnosis. Vet Parasitol. 2013;194(1):101-105.

[25] Itagaki T, Tsutsumi K, Ito K, Tsutsumi Y. Taxonomic status of the Japanese triploid forms of Fasciola: comparison of mitochondrial ND1 and COI sequences with F. hepatica and F. gigantica. J Parasitol. 1998;84(3):445-448.

[26] Anderson N, Luong TT, Vo NG, et al. The sensitivity and specificity of two methods for detecting Fasciola infections in cattle. Vet Parasitol. 1999;83(1):15-24.

[27] Huang WY, He B, Wang CR, Zhu XQ. Characterisation of Fasciola species from Mainland China by ITS-2 ribosomal DNA sequence. Vet Parasitol. 2004;120(1-2):75-83.

[28] Fairweather I, Boray JC. Fasciolicides: efficacy, actions, resistance and its management. Vet J. 1999;158(2):81-112.

[29] Mitchell S, McCarthy E, Gath V, et al. Anthelmintic resistance to triclabendazole in Fasciola hepatica in sheep in Ireland. Vet Rec. 2009;165(23):686-687.

[30] Robinson MW, Trudgett A, Hoey EM, Fairweather I. Triclabendazole-resistant Fasciola hepatica: beta-tubulin and response to in vitro treatment with triclabendazole. Parasitology. 2002;124(Pt 3):325-338.

[31] Walker SM, Johnston C, Hoey EM, et al. Potential role of a mutation at codon 167 of beta-tubulin in triclabendazole resistance in Fasciola hepatica. Int J Parasitol Drugs Drug Resist. 2013;3:49-55.

[32] Elliott TP, George SD, Jacobson C, Burgess DM, Knight T, Abbott KA. First report of triclabendazole resistance in Fasciola hepatica on a sheep farm in Australia. Aust Vet J. 2015;93(11):421-424.

[33] Kamaludeen J, Graham-Brown J, Stephens N, et al. Lack of association between the T687Y polymorphism of the beta-tubulin gene and resistance to triclabendazole in Fasciola hepatica in Northern Ireland. Vet Parasitol. 2017;243:54-57.

[34] Savage J, Meaney CM, Brennan GP, Hoey E, Trudgett A, Fairweather I. Increased expression of P-glycoprotein is associated with triclabendazole resistance in Fasciola hepatica. Parasitology. 2014;141(12):1648-1659.

[35] Beesley NJ, Cwiklinski K, Williams DJL, Hodgkinson JE. Fasciola hepatica from naturally infected sheep and cattle in Great Britain are diploid. Vet Parasitol. 2018;252:137-141.

[36] Kaplan RM. Fasciolosis: an emerging zoonotic disease in the United States? Comp Contin Educ Pract Vet. 2010;32(6):E1-E4.

[37] Anuracpreeda P, Wanichanon C, Sobhon P. Fasciola gigantica: immunodiagnosis of infection in sheep by a monoclonal antibody-based sandwich ELISA. Exp Parasitol. 2006;113(2):111-118.

[38] Castro E, Freyre A, Hernández Z. Serological prevalence of Fasciola hepatica in cattle in the central region of Chile. Vet Parasitol. 1995;58(1-2):127-131.

[39] Duthaler U, Rognlie M, Ramp T, et al. Excretory/secretory products of Fasciola hepatica as antigens for the diagnosis of fasciolosis in cattle. Parasitol Res. 2010;107(6):1371-1377.

[40] El-Rahimy HH, Mahgoub AM, El-Gebaly NS, Mousa WM. Molecular characterization of Fasciola species isolated from cattle and sheep in Egypt using ITS-1 and ITS-2 sequences. Vet Parasitol. 2012;186(3-4):425-430.

[41] Espinoza JR, Timoteo O, Herrera-Velit P. Detection of Fasciola hepatica infection in cattle by fecal antigen capture ELISA. Vet Parasitol. 2005;130(1-2):119-125.

[42] García-Pérez AL, Díez-Baños P, Rojo-Vázquez FA. Immunological techniques for the diagnosis of fasciolosis in cattle. Vet Parasitol. 1998;77(4):287-295.

[43] González-Warleta M, Castro-Hermida JA, Carro C, Cortiñas L, Mezo M. Coproantigen ELISA for the diagnosis of chronic fasciolosis in sheep: comparison with sedimentation and Faecal Egg Count Reduction Test. Vet Parasitol. 2011;177(3-4):244-250.

[44] Gordon DK, Zadoks RN, Skuce PJ, Sargison ND. Confirmation of triclabendazole resistance in Fasciola hepatica in sheep flocks with a history of treatment failure. Vet Rec. 2012;171(2):45.

[45] Hanna RE, Edgar HW, McConnell S, et al. Fasciola hepatica: a light and electron microscope study of the tegument of adult flukes from triclabendazole-treated sheep. J Helminthol. 2010;84(4):392-402.

[46] Hodgkinson JE, Cwiklinski K, Beesley NJ, Paterson S, Williams DJL. Identification of putative markers of triclabendazole resistance by a genome-wide analysis of genetically recombinant Fasciola hepatica. Parasitology. 2013;140(5):669-678.

[47] Kelany M, El-Naga A, El-Ghareeb AS, et al. Genetic diversity of Fasciola species infecting cattle and sheep in Egypt using ITS1 and ITS2 sequences. J Helminthol. 2017;91(4):476-482.

[48] Khan MK, Sajid MS, Khan MN, Iqbal Z, Iqbal MU. Bovine fasciolosis: prevalence, effects of treatment on productivity and cost benefit analysis in five districts of Punjab, Pakistan. Res Vet Sci. 2010;88(1):70-75.

[49] Kuerpick B, Schnieder T, Strube C. Seasonal pattern of Fasciola hepatica infection in cattle in Lower Saxony, Germany. Vet Parasitol. 2012;188(1-2):78-84.

[50] Martínez-Valladares M, Robles-Pérez D, Martínez-Pérez JM, et al. Effectiveness of a combination treatment with triclabendazole and closantel against a triclabendazole-resistant Fasciola hepatica isolate in sheep. Vet Parasitol. 2015;210(3-4):226-231.