Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 20, 2026

A Noninvasive Hair Sampling Technique to Obtain High Quality DNA from Elusive Small Mammals
Published on: March 13, 2011
Specific detection of Echinococcus spp. from the Tibetan fox (Vulpes ferrilata) and the red fox (V. vulpes) using
Weibin Jiang1, Nan Liu, Gaotian Zhang
1School of Life Sciences, East China Normal University, No. 3663 North Zhongshan road, Shanghai 200062, People's Republic of China.
Abstract:
There are three Echinococcus species, Echinococcus granulosus, E. multilocularis, and E. shiquicus, which are distributed on the vast area of pastureland on the eastern Tibetan plateau in China. Tibetan foxes (Vulpes ferrilata) have been determined to be the main wild definitive host of E. multilocularis and E. shiquicus, but little information is available on the prevalence of these two parasites in Tibetan foxes. Consequently, the copro-prevalence of these parasites in foxes from the eastern Tibetan plateau was evaluated in this study. For each copro-DNA sample extracted from fox feces, a 133-bp segment of EgG1 Hae III was used to screen for infection with E. granulosus. Multiplex nested polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis was used to target an 874-bp segment of the mitochondrial COI gene to distinguish E. multilocularis and E. shiquicus. Among 184 fecal samples, 120 were from Tibetan foxes and six from red foxes (Vulpes vulpes). Of the fecal samples from Tibetan foxes, 74 (giving a copro-prevalence of 62%) showed the presence of Echinococcus spp.: 23 (19%) were found to contain E. multilocularis, 32 (27%) E. shiquicus, and 19 (16%) showed mixed infection with both E. multilocularis and E. shiquicus. Two fecal samples from red foxes were found to be infected with E. multilocularis. No fox feces were found to be infected with E. granulosus. Tests on zinc finger protein genes and a 105-bp fragment of the Sry gene found no significant difference in the prevalence of the two parasites between sexes. The efficiency of our multiplex nested PCR methods were compared with previous polymerase chain reaction-based restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) methods and some problems associated with the copro-PCR were discussed.
