Next Article in Journal
Complete Genome Analysis of Rhodococcus opacus S8 Capable of Degrading Alkanes and Producing Biosurfactant Reveals Its Genetic Adaptation for Crude Oil Decomposition
Next Article in Special Issue
Comparative Evaluation of Real-Time Screening PCR Assays for Giardia duodenalis and of Assays Discriminating the Assemblages A and B
Previous Article in Journal
Estimation of Carbon Metabolism in Saccharomyces cerevisiae Acclimatized to Glycerol Assimilation with Quantitative PCR
Previous Article in Special Issue
Vaccination against Tick-Borne Encephalitis (TBE) in Italy: Still a Long Way to Go
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Detection of Cryptosporidium spp. and Giardia spp. in Environmental Water Samples: A Journey into the Past and New Perspectives

1
Institut de Biologie Intégrative et des Systèmes (IBIS), Université Laval, Québec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
2
Département de Biochimie, de Microbiologie et de Bio-Informatique, Faculté des Sciences et Génie, Université Laval, Québec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
3
Centre de Recherche en Aménagement et Développement du Territoire (CRAD), Université Laval, Québec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
4
Groupe de Recherche en Écologie Buccale (GREB), Faculté de Médecine Dentaire, Université Laval, Québec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
5
Centre de Recherche de l’Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Québec, Québec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2022, 10(6), 1175; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10061175
Submission received: 24 May 2022 / Revised: 3 June 2022 / Accepted: 4 June 2022 / Published: 7 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Molecular Epidemiology and Diagnosis of Parasitic Zoonosis)

Abstract

:
Among the major issues linked with producing safe water for consumption is the presence of the parasitic protozoa Cryptosporidium spp. and Giardia spp. Since they are both responsible for gastrointestinal illnesses that can be waterborne, their monitoring is crucial, especially in water sources feeding treatment plants. Although their discovery was made in the early 1900s and even before, it was only in 1999 that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a standardized protocol for the detection of these parasites, modified and named today the U.S. EPA 1623.1 Method. It involves the flow-through filtration of a large volume of the water of interest, the elution of the biological material retained on the filter, the purification of the (oo)cysts, and the detection by immunofluorescence of the target parasites. Since the 1990s, several molecular-biology-based techniques were also developed to detect Cryptosporidium and Giardia cells from environmental or clinical samples. The application of U.S. EPA 1623.1 as well as numerous biomolecular methods are reviewed in this article, and their advantages and disadvantages are discussed guiding the readers, such as graduate students, researchers, drinking water managers, epidemiologists, and public health specialists, through the ever-expanding number of techniques available in the literature for the detection of Cryptosporidium spp. and Giardia spp. in water.

1. Introduction

The production of drinkable water requires the monitoring of several key parameters, such as the presence of chemical compounds, humic acid concentration, turbidity, and microbial content in raw water. To reduce the presence of waterborne pathogenic agents below a tolerable risk level, a series of treatments are applied to the raw water entering the treatment plant to either eliminate or inactivate them. Although the sequence of procedures used is treatment plant-dependent, a general pattern emerges that can be taken as a guideline [1].
First, the water is roughly screened to get rid of macroscopical debris (ex.: branches, aquatic animals, etc.). Secondly, several chemical products (coagulants and flocculants) are added to modify surface electrophysical charges on the particle and attract them to stick to one another, creating denser flocs. Thirdly, these flocs are left to sink to the bottom of large water pools, where they are collected. The water free of flocs is then filtered on a layered granular medium of progressively smaller pore sizes to collect residual matter. Once out of the filters, the water is then disinfected either chemically (ex.: free-chlorine, combined chlorine, chlorine dioxide, ozone) and/or physically (ex.: ultraviolet rays). Once these steps have been completed, the water is then considered potable and is delivered through pipes to customers [1].
Among the microorganisms under surveillance in water treatment, the most famous is likely Escherichia coli, a Gram-negative coccobacillus which is a strong indicator of fecal pollution. In order to monitor the abundance of E. coli in water samples, several methods are currently used, such as the filtering-membrane protocol or the commercialized Colilert kit [2]. These methods are standardized to be used in environmental analysis laboratories and are quite user-friendly to apply.
Although basic treatments applied at water treatment plants have proven to be effective against common waterborne pathogens such as bacteria and viruses, they do not work as efficiently against cyst-forming protozoa. Their ability to form cysts grants them an increased resistance to stress and to chlorine-based treatments in particular [3]. In fact, previous experiments have demonstrated that ozone and ultraviolet treatments tend to be the most efficient ways to inactivate them, while filtration on a granular medium eliminates significant quantities of cysts [3,4,5]. The most common examples in this category are Cryptosporidium spp. and Giardia spp., two parasitic protozoa responsible for gastrointestinal symptoms in humans as well as in several animal genera such as cattle [6,7,8,9,10,11], birds [12,13,14], deer [15,16], rodents [17,18,19,20], cats [21,22], dogs [22], snakes [23,24] and other mammals [25].
Throughout their life cycle, these two protozoa can form cyst conformations (oocyst for Cryptosporidium and cyst for Giardia) as a way of transmitting themselves from one host to the next. The cyst is ingested by the host either through contaminated water and food or by a fecal-oral transmission [26,27,28,29,30]. Once the cyst meets the specific physicochemical conditions of the small intestine, it ruptures to free infectious particles called sporozoites for Cryptosporidium and trophozoites for Giardia. Giardia’s trophozoites bind to the host epithelial cells to proliferate. During the infection, Cryptosporidium binds to the host cells and form a parasitic vacuole with the cell membrane [31]. A Cryptosporidium oocyst contains four sporozoites, each of which contains one copy of the genome [32,33]. Giardia’s cyst holds two undivided trophozoites that split once the cyst has opened. Each trophozoite possesses two identical nuclei with an amount of genome copies reported between four and twelve [34]. Once inside the host’s cell, Cryptosporidium sporozoites reproduce asexually then sexually before producing new oocysts [35]. Giardia trophozoites reproduce asexually while still bound to the intestinal cell line and ultimately produces new cysts. When physicochemical conditions change, (oo)cysts are excreted via feces into the environment and stay dormant until ingested by the next host. For both parasites, an average of 10 (oo)cysts ingested is required to provoke disease in a human individual [36,37].
Among the data available, it is documented that between 2011 and 2016, approximately 239 outbreaks were caused by Cryptosporidium spp. worldwide. [38]. In the United States, the etiological agent in 30,000 cases per year is attributed to either Cryptosporidium spp. or Giardia spp. [38]. Their illnesses (called cryptosporidiosis and Giardiasis, respectively) are generally characterized by watery stools, dehydration, nausea, vomiting and abdominal cramps, but they can also be asymptomatic in some individuals [39,40]. Although the diseases caused by these organisms are mostly self-healing, the severity and length of these diseases are known to be influenced by the fitness of the host’s immune system [41,42]. For immunocompromised or vulnerable populations, these infections can become chronic or life-threatening [39,40]. Both microorganisms are capable of zoonotic transmission, depending on the host species and parasites involved [43,44]. Therefore, in environments where wildlife and/or livestock can interact with water sources, events of zoonosis could be a major issue if the water is not sufficiently treated before distribution [45].
The fact that little can be done to reduce the contamination of water sources with Cryptosporidium spp. or Giardia spp. highlights the importance of taking steps to maximize inactivation during treatment, leading to the production of potable water. However, to apply effective and sufficient treatments, it is essential to have a reliable and extensive knowledge of their abundance, identity, viability, and infectivity in raw water sources. Up to now, several methods have been developed to determine these variables, each with its advantages and disadvantages.
First, this review will present the current standard method for the detection of Cryptosporidium spp. and Giardia spp. from water sources, known as U.S. EPA Method 1623.1. Secondly, other promising methods developed to detect and/or quantify Cryptosporidium spp. and Giardia spp. from water samples will be reviewed with a strong emphasis on the most recent molecular techniques. Finally, the pros and cons of each of these approaches (Method 1623.1 and molecular methods) will be discussed and compared.

2. U.S. EPA Method 1623.1

2.1. What Is the U.S. EPA Method 1623.1?

The U.S. EPA Method 1623.1 takes place in four major steps (summarized at Figure 1): the filtration of the water sample, the elution of the biological matter collected on the filter, the concentration of the cysts by immunomagnetic separation (IMS), and the microscopic analysis of the concentrated material. Each of these steps will be described briefly below. For a more detailed description of the protocol, refer to the original U.S. EPA protocol [46].
First, the choice of the sampling site must be made depending on the target of the study (e.g., raw water entering a treatment plant, water exiting a wastewater treatment plant, etc.). But, whatever the sampling site, it must be kept in mind that the following criteria must always be met during sample collection: a continuous flow of 2 L/min, appropriate fittings to plug the filtration apparatus, and a water input of a sufficient volume (from 10 to 50 L).
Once the sampling site has been chosen and the flow rate has been adjusted to 2 L/min, the tubes used for the filtration must be rinsed with a volume of at least 25 L of the sample to clear potential clumps. Then, a U.S. EPA-approved filtration apparatus (ex: an EnviroChek 1 µm pore-size filtration capsule by Pall Corporation, New York, NY, USA) is attached to the conditioned tubes before filtration is initiated. Approximately 50 L is expected to pass through the filter, but care must be taken to monitor the pressure inside the filtration capsule to avoid breakage (must be below 30 psi). Also, it is important to monitor the water flow throughout the period of filtration to keep it as close to the standardized flow rate as possible. Once the filter is clogged, the apparatus can be unplugged, and the capsule is kept cold (2–8 °C) until further processing at the appropriate facility.
The material retained on the filters is eluted by the addition of an elution solution that is dependent on the composition of the filter recommended by the manufacturer (ex: Laureth-12 10% in the case of the EnviroChek 1 µm pore-size filtration cartridge) and agitation of the filtration capsule with a laboratory shaker (Pall Corporation, New York, NY, USA) approved by the U.S. EPA. The elution may also be preceded by a pre-elution step with sodium hexametaphosphate 5% (w/v) that acts as a chemical dispersant by modifying the surface charge of the filter [47]. Also, a second elution step is suggested to maximize recovery of the biological material from the filter. The eluate is then transferred into a conical tube and centrifuged at 1500× g for 15 min. The pellet is recovered, resuspended in 5 mL of ultrapure water (or phosphate-buffered saline with a detergent such as Tween80) per 0.5 mL of pellet and transferred in a Leighton tube for the next step.
Following the elution from the filter, immunomagnetic separation is done using a kit such as the Dynabeads™ GC-Combo (Applied Biosystems, Waltham, MA, USA). Magnetic beads are added to the Leighton tubes. These beads are linked to antibodies recognizing either a Cryptosporidium or Giardia surface antigen. After a contact time of about an hour, the Leighton tube is placed on a concentrator (such as Dynabeads™ MPC™-1, Applied Biosystems, MA, USA), which is essentially a magnet to separate the metallic beads from the rest of the eluate. The beads attracted to the magnet are transferred into a 1.5 mL microtube, where the dissociation of the beads from the parasites is performed. Briefly, HCl 0.1 N is added to the microtube, which is vortexed and then placed in a second concentrator (such as Dynabeads™ MPC™-S, Applied Biosystems, MA, USA). After a short reaction time (12 min), the magnetic strip of the concentrator is adjusted to recover the beads (freed from the parasites) on the side of the microtube. NaOH 1 N is then added to neutralize the pH of the solution containing the (oo)cysts. The complete volume of liquid at the bottom of the microtube (approximately 75 µL) is transferred onto a glass slide for microscopic observation and the slide is left to dry at 37 °C.
As soon as the slides are dried, absolute methanol is pipetted onto each slide. Then, antibodies tagged to fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC) fluorochrome is added to the slides, left to react for 15 min and the excess solution removed. Fixing buffer (from the Dynabeads kit) is added, left to react for 2 min and the excess solution is also removed. The same thing is done with the 4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI) fluorochrome solution before adding more of the fixing buffer. Finally, the mounting medium is added, and the slides are sealed with nail polish. Microscopy must be performed on the slides within seven days after their preparation. Slides can be stored in a humid, dark room at 2–8 °C between observations. First, to identify (oo)cysts, a search for FITC fluorochrome-stained for round/ovoid apple-green brilliant structures (5–18 µm in diameter for Giardia and 4–6 µm for Cryptosporidium) is done at a magnification of 200×. Cells that meet these first criteria are then examined with DAPI fluorochrome at 400× to determine whether nuclei are present (up to four nuclei in both protozoa). It is important to note that the absence of nuclei does not necessarily exclude a positive identification of either parasite. At last, the slides are observed with Differential Interference Contrast at 1000× to determine if the particle examined belongs to either genus of the target protozoa. An example of both protozoa in fluorescence microscopy and in Differential Interference Contrast can be found at Figure 2. As an additional validation of the identification of a cell as a Giardia or a Cryptosporidium (oo)cyst, a positive control such as ColorSeed™ (BioPoint, Sydney, Australia) can be used for comparison, which are inactivated (oo)cysts stained with red fluorescence (Texas Red). Since the fluorescence of the control (oo)cysts is red, controls and sample cells, which are fluorescent green (FITC) or blue (DAPI), can be easily distinguished.

2.2. Pros and Cons of Using U.S. EPA Method 1623.1

A synthesized version of these pros and cons is presented in Table S1.

2.2.1. Pros

Using this standard method for water analyses has several advantages including the possibility of concentrating large volumes of water (up to 100 L). Being able to filter such a large sample volume and then concentrate it with the use of immunomagnetic separation grants a superior collection power. This permits the user to analyze a bigger volume of the water entering the treatment plant, which results in a better assessment of the concentration of Cryptosporidium and Giardia (oo)cysts. Moreover, one of the strong points of the U.S. EPA Method is its detection limit of one oocyst per 100 L. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), in order to stay below the risk assessment level of 10−6 disability-adjusted life years for these protozoa, raw water should contain approximately 10–30 (oo)cysts per 100 L and achieve at least a 3-log reduction at the water treatment plant [48,49]. Therefore, being able to detect such a low number of (oo)cysts from water samples with the U.S. EPA 1623.1 allows compliance with this guideline. The use of microscopy for quantification avoids the biases associated with PCR amplification. Also, the use of several fluorescent dyes simultaneously gives more confidence in the identification. With this approach, the examiner can thus evaluate whether an object is an (oo)cyst and quantify the number of positive cells on each slide.

2.2.2. Cons

Several aspects of the U.S. EPA Method 1623.1 make it a non-optimal technique. The first disadvantage, especially when considering the monitoring of water quality of municipalities with limited resources, is its high cost (approximately 1000$ per sample). Many apparatuses and reagents are required to perform the U.S. EPA protocol correctly. It also requires a significant amount of time. Therefore, several towns and cities may choose not to use this method but rather rely on the concentration of indicator microorganisms (ex: coliform bacteria) to infer the presence of these parasites. This leads to incomplete monitoring of these protozoa across large territories and could ultimately result in many people being vulnerable to infection.
The second well-documented disadvantage of Method 1623.1 is the low recovery of (oo)cysts [50]. It has been shown that the recovery rate can be as low as 50% [51], which makes it unreliable. It was documented that from 8 to 14% of parasites were lost following the centrifugation step of this protocol when compared with samples of the same composition submitted only to IMS and fluorescence microscopy [52]. The same study also found a loss of 29 to 34% of parasites attributable to the filtration and elution protocol by comparison with identical samples but submitted to centrifugation, IMS and fluorescence microscopy. It is also important to underline that although the immunomagnetic separation protocol is useful in removing a large proportion of the non-target biological material, this process can result in cross-reaction, especially with other eukaryotic organisms such as algae, yeast, ciliates and with cellular debris [53,54]. Cross-reaction can also happen during staining with fluorescent dyes such as FITC [53]. Therefore, since many of these organisms have a morphology similar to that of Cryptosporidium and Giardia cysts, the identification by microscopy can be more difficult even with IMS and the addition of the fluorescent dyes mentioned earlier. Thus, the low recovery rate and the cross-reaction of the method may make the results less reliable.
The third inconvenience of this method is that it ultimately renders little information for the time and the money that it requires. After filtration of up to 100 L of water, concentrating it, and finally analysing the recovered material by microscopy for potentially many hours, the only information it can give is whether structures similar to (oo)cysts have been observed. Because of the possibility of cross-reaction as mentioned earlier, structures with the same shape as the targets are easily misidentified as (oo)cysts, potentially leading to an inaccurate count [53]. Finally, the method is limited to determining the presence/absence of (oo)cysts, and is incapable of producing essential data such as the species of the protozoa, their viability, etc. Therefore, improvements could be made by generating more information from the samples analyzed.

3. Review of the Molecular Experiments Targeting Cryptosporidium spp. and Giardia spp. from Environmental Water Samples

3.1. Literature Review Process

With the objective of being as thorough as possible, articles were reviewed from the discovery of either parasite (approximately 1910s for both). The keywords Cryptosporidium and Giardia were used respectively on Web of Science to find as many articles as possible on either microorganism. A total of 5700 articles were selected for Cryptosporidium and 5200 for Giardia based on the content of their abstract and the keywords chosen by the authors. Of those, 2300 articles for Cryptosporidium and 1600 for Giardia were read for their potential interest regarding detection of these parasites from various matrices and/or from different hosts. Finally, 166 articles for Cryptosporidium and 111 for Giardia were analyzed in greater detail, since these studies included water samples that were processed with biomolecular techniques. Detailed analysis of these articles can be found in Supplementary Material (Table S2).

3.2. Description of the Techniques

3.2.1. Pre-Biomolecular Era (Until 1990)

The Cryptosporidium genus was first mentioned in 1907 but was more explicitly described in 1910 [19,55]. From the moment this new genus was discovered, it attracted the attention of several research groups who tried to observe it with a variety of approaches such as differential interface contrast microscopy, transmission electronic microscopy and light microscopy coupled with several slide staining methods (ex.: Giemsa, Ziehl-Neelsen, hematoxylin and eosin, periodic acid-Schiff, phloxine tartrazine) [6,56,57,58,59,60]. Most of these studies were centered around the analysis of animal feces, as different groups of researchers raced to discover Cryptosporidium oocysts in new host animal species [14,16,20,24,61,62,63]. But it was only in 1983 that it was established that Cryptosporidium could indeed infect humans by zoonosis [64]. Cryptosporidiosis was first considered a disease that infected mostly immunocompromised individuals. However, later studies showed that immunocompetent individuals were also susceptible. A few years later, Cryptosporidium was officially classified a waterborne parasite just like Giardia spp. [65,66]. At this point it was clear that a method was necessary to detect Cryptosporidium as well as Giardia spp. (oo)cysts from water sources to limit the health risks to consumers. The first step was to develop a diagnostic analysis for water samples based on the fundamental studies performed on animal and human feces. Since Cryptosporidium and Giardia are difficult to culture and are found at low concentrations in water samples, conventional methods used to monitor fecal or total coliforms could not be applied. In the optic of concentrating (oo)cysts from samples, a process that used either a filtration capsule or a filtration membrane was coupled with microscopy to increase the chances of detection [67,68]. Since conventional staining techniques often lack sensitivity, a new approach was considered: fluorescent and immunofluorescent dyes. Even today, the most common method used today is DAPI and antibodies tagged with FITC. The use of fluorescence increased the strength of the signal emitted and the use of antibodies recognizing specific epitopes on cells allowed a significant increase in specificity.
Giardia was discovered much earlier than Cryptosporidium, although the first articles still available on Web of Science were published in the 1910s [69]. A well-known anecdote is that Antoni van Leeuwenhoek himself in the process of testing the magnification power of his microscope with his own fecal samples produced a sketch of what was later identified as a vegetative Giardia cell [70]. History reveals another epidemic of Giardiasis when soldiers in 1915 came back from two major battlefields, Flanders and Gallipoli (now found in Belgium and Turkey, respectively) with hard-to-treat gastrointestinal symptoms [71,72]. But the pathogenic nature of Giardia was finally agreed upon after epidemics exploded in English nurseries in the 1940s that affected young children as well as their caretakers [73,74]. At that time, the only means of diagnosing Giardia infection was via the examination of patients’ feces by microscopy as well as some procedures based on staining such as with Gram’s iodine [73,75]. Before being acknowledged as a waterborne agent, it was first recognized as the cause of venereal disease [76,77] and as a pathogen capable of zoonosis [71,78,79]. It was in the 1970s and 1980s that the scientific community concluded that Giardia could be transmitted through water [80,81,82]. From then, there were many studies investigating how to eliminate Giardia cysts in water [83,84,85,86]. But in these years, the main method for detection of the cysts from water samples remained based on filtration and microscopy [87]. The 1980s marked the beginning of the use of immunofluorescence for the detection of this protozoan, first for clinical samples but later on for water samples as well [88,89,90]. This was soon complemented with other methods such as ELISAs (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays) and Enzyme-immunoassays (EIA) [91,92,93,94]. It is also important to specify that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency authorized the first version of a detection method of Giardia cysts in water samples in 1976 [95]. However, it was quickly discovered that the performance and cyst recovery of most of these methods, even the U.S. EPA one, were very low [95,96,97]. Improvement was required to ensure reliable data.

3.2.2. Biomolecular Era (From 1990)

Table S2 provides a detailed, yet non-exhaustive, list of research articles using molecular biology to detect, quantify and/or identify species of Cryptosporidium and Giardia from water samples (environmental water samples, treated water samples, wastewater samples, etc.). This table represents the data that was compiled in the other tables and figures presented below. For simplicity’s sake in the table, complete titles such as the small-subunit gene and 18S rRNA gene were abbreviated to the 18S rRNA gene in the table. Also, because most studies used Sanger technology, the heading ‘’sequencing’’ used in this table refers to this technique. Next generation sequencing is specifically mentioned when it was used. It is important to explain that the limits of detection specified in this table are the ones clearly stated in the article itself. Any limit of detection present in Supplementary data or mentioned in a previous article was not considered and classified as “Data not available” along with the other articles not presenting a limit of detection value.
Also, the origin of the water samples in these biomolecular studies was analyzed and sorted according to the parasite of interest as well as the continent (Figure 3). It was found that samples predominantly came from Europe and Asia, followed by North America. Among the aspects to explain the distribution of these frequencies, outbreaks are likely to be a major investigation trigger (ex.: Cryptosporidium waterborne outbreak of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in 1993 [98] and in Swindon and Oxfordshire, United Kingdom in 1991 [99]). Increasing numbers of HIV/AIDS cases worldwide since the 1980s may also have brought concerns toward parasitosis, since people suffering from this infection are immunocompromised and, therefore, more vulnerable to pathogens [100]. As can be seen in Figure 3, some regions of the world are still underrepresented in the genotyping of these parasites from water samples, particularly Central and South America. Several factors may be responsible for this disparity, such as the high costs relative to molecular biology applications, especially in low-income regions, or the preference to use traditional detection techniques such as microscopy for which expertise was previously developed. Unfortunately, this lack of information may prevent us from getting a much more complete picture of the presence of these parasites and of their genotypes/species throughout the world, especially in underdeveloped regions that are strongly affected by these organisms.

Techniques Used

During our literature review, the molecular biology techniques used to detect Cryptosporidium and Giardia from water samples were extracted and the number of times each was presented in the literature for that purpose was compiled. Also, the highest and lowest limit of detection achieved for each technique was determined. The results of this compilation can be found at Table 1.
The use of molecular biology to detect Cryptosporidium and Giardia became more common beginning in the 1990s, starting first with classical methods such as DNA hybridization (e.g., Southern Blot), and dot blot. But soon PCR took over as the main means of detection in combination with either gel electrophoresis or membrane-transferring techniques for the separation and visualization of amplified products. This method is based on the annealing of short oligonucleotides called primers that recognize the flanking regions of the sequence targeted for amplification. A DNA polymerase, directed by the primers, binds to the target sequence and uses it as a template to synthesize a copy. This is repeated many times through an exponential process, and the PCR products are then detected by migration on an agarose gel. Variants of this PCR approach were quickly adopted such as nested PCR, semi-nested PCR or RFLP-PCR to improve sensitivity. Nested PCR consists of a succession of two PCR reactions, the first with external primers and the second with internal primers creating a shorter amplicon within the first PCR’s amplification products. Semi-nested PCR is when one of the external primers is reused in the second round of PCR. RFLP-PCR (restriction fragment length polymorphism) is the combination of a PCR protocol with a restriction digestion to cut PCR amplicons into smaller fragments. In several studies, RAPD-PCR (random amplified polymorphic DNA PCR) or AP-PCR (arbitrarily primed PCR) were also used to increase the yield of genetic information. With these techniques, primers are randomly generated among genome sequences of the organism to allow typing based on the pattern obtained by gel electrophoresis. As the years went by, other questions arose, such as whether there were Cryptosporidium or Giardia present in samples, and if so, how many there were and whether they were still viable. To answer these additional questions, real-time PCR and reverse transcription PCR (mostly the TaqMan option) were widely used. These techniques allow the quantification of a DNA target and the study of gene transcription. Also, as other parasitic organisms were found to cause disease in animals and/or humans, multiplex-PCR was developed, a technique that allows the detection of more than one target at the same time from a single sample. As the final version of the U.S. EPA Method 1623 was published in January 1999, several research studies chose to add an immunomagnetic separation step to the preparation of their samples destined for molecular biology, making it one of the most popular concentration methods used for the detection of Cryptosporidium and Giardia from water samples. Around the 2000s, DNA sequencing also became a very popular technique to use to gain more information about these protozoa, with a preference for the ABI 3730 technology. Finally, Notomi and collaborators’ developed a Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) technique in the year 2000 [103] which became one of the more commonly used methods for the detection of these organisms [104,105,106,107]. This process is also based on DNA amplification mediated by primer annealing, but uses at least two pairs of primers and a DNA polymerase with a strand-displacement activity [103].

Most Frequent Genetic Targets

Depending on the objectives of the study, different genetic targets were chosen to detect, quantify or identify Cryptosporidium and Giardia from water samples (see Table 2 for more details). However, for Cryptosporidium, the most common targets were the 18S rRNA gene and genes coding for oocyst cell wall proteins (like the Cryptosporidium oocyst wall protein (COWP) gene), Heat-shock protein 70, thrombospondin related adhesive protein genes (TRAP-C1 and TRAP-C2), glycoprotein-60, S-adenosyl-methionine synthetase-1 and the DNA-J-like protein. For Giardia, the most common targets for biomolecular techniques were the 18S rRNA gene (see Box 1 below on 16S vs. 18S rRNA gene in Giardia) and genes coding for giardins (like the β-giardin gene), triose phosphate isomerase, glutamate dehydrogenase and elongation factor alpha-1.
Box 1. 16S or 18S rRNA gene in Giardia: are they the same gene?
Several articles cited in this review mentioned that they targeted the 16S rRNA gene in Giardia such as [48,108,109,110,111,112]. The usage of the two terms, 18S rRNA gene and 16S rRNA gene, raised a questioning about the validity of using either of these names. To solve this issue, we decided to select the sequences available in the NCBI database under the names of 16S rRNA gene and 18S rRNA gene belonging to Giardia spp. and to align them bioinformatically with the Clustal Omega software. The alignment was visualised with Jalview and it turned out that these two labels correspond to the same gene in the Giardia genus. Therefore, since Giardia is a eukaryotic organism, the authors suggest that the 18S rRNA gene label be used for future studies to avoid further confusion.

3.3. Pros and Cons of Biomolecular Methods

A synthesized version of these pros and cons is presented at Table S1.

3.3.1. Pros of Biomolecular Methods

Since biomolecular methods target DNA instead of entire cells, it does not require the growth of the organism of interest for detection. This is quite a significant advantage when targeting Cryptosporidium and Giardia, since both are parasites and therefore require nutrients provided by the host to proliferate. Also, the targeting of nucleic acids does not require the collection of intact or even whole cells to do the analysis, which might be tricky for certain types of detection methods such as those based on microscopy. Molecular methods can thus be relatively more sensitive because both intact (oo)cysts and fragments of (oo)cysts can be detected.
Furthermore, compared to microscopy-based assays, molecular methods are globally more reliable since they do not depend on the skills of the microscopist to distinguish an (oo)cyst from any other cell with a similar appearance. Consequently, the biomolecular process is shorter to do, not only in the preparation of the samples but also for the analysis of the results, which tend to be less subjective than with microscopy.
Finally, the molecular biology techniques have the capacity to push the analysis of these microorganisms a step further by finding complementary information. For example, with appropriate primers, identification to the genus level can be achieved. Also, real-time PCR allows a more precise quantification of the amount of a genetic target, and therefore the organism, in the sample [113,114]. Assessment of the (oo)cyst viability is possible with techniques such as reverse transcription real-time PCR, which allows the determination of whether a target gene is transcribed within the organism or not, which has been shown to correlate with viability [115]. The sequencing of nucleic acids can help identify the species of Cryptosporidium and Giardia found in a sample, and since not all species are necessarily found in the same type of environment, it can give insight into the source of the contamination of the water by these parasites. The complementary information gained with biomolecular techniques allows research teams and environmental analysis laboratories to get more from their precious samples and to learn more from their study site when compared to microscopy-based approaches.

3.3.2. Cons of Biomolecular Methods

DNA-based approaches also have disadvantages. Because DNA is not only contained in cells but can also be found freely in the environment, every step of the process, from sampling to the acquisition of the results, is susceptible to contamination by external sources of DNA such as the manipulators, the container used, etc. However, Cryptosporidium and Giardia are generally not among the most abundant microorganisms found in environmental samples, so this source of contamination is likely to be minimal. It is also important to consider that distinguishing DNA coming from a living cell versus DNA from a dead one can be a difficult task to do, which can lead to an overestimation of the risks associated with the presence of these parasites in a sample when using biomolecular methods.
Also, another issue to keep in mind is that since they are eukaryotic cells, just like for the handlers of the samples and other macroorganisms, extreme care must be taken when choosing the genetic targets and designing the primers to avoid amplifying DNA from another source than the two parasites of interest. Some techniques can be quite powerful with very low limits of detection (one or two copies of the target gene) such as LAMP. However, if the primers used have even a small resemblance to contaminant DNA, it can give a positive signal with a strong intensity with background DNA material, which can be misleading. This raises another issue concerning the detection of Cryptosporidium and Giardia by molecular means, which is the absence of a standardized methodology. Many studies that were done in the past focused on the detection of these organisms (see Table S2). As mentioned earlier, many different targets and primers can be used depending on the ultimate goals of the project. Since every one of them has different specificities, comparing their performance is a difficult, if not impossible, task. The U.S. EPA 1623.1 method has the advantage of being the standard procedure which allows comparison between studies, something biomolecular techniques presently do not do.
Also, several elements can undermine the efficiency of the biomolecular technique used. First, since these organisms’ DNA is not only inside the cells but also contained in rigid (oo)cysts, care must be taken with the cell lysis protocol used. Insufficient cell lysis can lead to less genetic target to amplify by PCR and consequently bias the data [116]. Similarly, nucleic acid amplification techniques tend to be sensitive to the presence of various compounds in environmental samples like humic acids, clay, etc. that act as inhibitors of the amplification process [117,118]. DNA extracts obtained from samples must be as pure as possible to avoid getting false negatives.
Finally, since the detection of Cryptosporidium and Giardia have historically been done by microscopy and that molecular biology is an ever-evolving domain, many diagnostic laboratories may not possess the instruments required to amplify DNA. Costly purchases might be necessary to implement these techniques, which might raise some concerns, especially since no standardized molecular technique has been agreed upon. Laboratories with fewer resources may not be able to buy these instruments and reagents and might prefer to continue to rely on the microscopic methods for the detection of these parasites. In the long run, biomolecular techniques may be more profitable (money-wise and information-wise), but the transition from one means of detection to the next may be a leap not every laboratory can afford.

4. Recommendations on Biomolecular Techniques

Based on the information gathered from the literature, here are some recommendations that we can provide to fellow colleagues facing a dilemma on which technique to choose. Although a perfect method that applies to all scenarios does not exist, it is possible to determine the most appropriate one based on several aspects like the aim of the experiment (presence/absence, quantification, viability assessment, etc.), the concentration of parasites expected in the type of sample (ex.: generally, there are more (oo)cysts in wastewater samples than groundwater samples) and the likelihood of the sample containing PCR inhibitory compounds.
Based on the results from previous studies, the best choice for a presence-absence study seems to be the LAMP method, not only for Giardia but for Cryptosporidium as well. It has been found to be very efficient in the detection of bacteria, viruses and other eukaryotes [119,120,121]. This technique is documented to be the least sensitive to PCR inhibitory substances. Therefore, it should be favored in situations where few (oo)cysts are expected, like with environmental water samples where the method has been shown to successfully detect the target in as little as femtograms worth of DNA per reaction (see Table 2 for more details). It can also be used in wastewater samples where the concentration of PCR inhibitory compounds is likely to be high, since it is the least sensitive technique to this problem. However, pairing LAMP with fluorescent DNA-intercalating dye can be complex when accurate quantification of the copy number is desired. Therefore, we suggest that LAMP should be used primarily when the determination of presence/absence is the objective.
In a situation where quantification of (oo)cysts is required, quantitative PCR is the standard technique. A lot of variability was noticed among studies relative to the sensitivity obtained. Therefore, we strongly suggest testing different primer pairs, when possible, to select the most sensitive ones. If PCR inhibitors are also an issue in the study context, adding anti-inhibitory compounds like bovine serum albumin, polyvinylpolypyrrolidone (PVPP) or betaine to the samples should be tested. Also, some extra purification steps can be applied to reduce the concentration of inhibitors [118]. New techniques such as droplet digital PCR should also be considered for quantification purposes, but these processes can be quite costly.
When assessing the viability of (oo)cysts is necessary, RNA extraction and a reverse transcription step before a DNA amplification technique such as LAMP or PCR seems to be the best option. It allows the investigator to determine whether a target gene was expressed in the (oo)cysts, indicating that the cell was metabolically active. It is also important to remember that infectiousness and viability are two different concepts, and that as of now, the best technique to determine the infectiousness involves an animal model [108].

5. Conclusions

  • Cryptosporidium and Giardia are parasitic protozoa that can transmit waterborne diseases, especially if not adequately monitored in water sources.
  • The U.S. EPA developed Method 1623.1 to detect these protozoa from water samples. Briefly, this protocol consists of the filtration of 100 L of the sample onto a 1 µm filter, the elution of the biological material from the filter, the concentration of (oo)cysts by immunomagnetic separation and the detection of whole cells by fluorescent microscopy with FITC and DAPI stains.
  • Historically, Cryptosporidium and Giardia were primarily detected by microscopy until the 1990s, when molecular biology emerged. Since then, a multitude of PCR protocols, PCR variants, real-time techniques, isothermal protocols and sequencing-based protocols were designed to improve the detection and characterization of these protozoa in aquatic samples. These techniques continue to evolve and improve.
  • U.S. EPA Method 1623.1 and biomolecular techniques both have specific advantages and limitations that must be taken into consideration with the objectives of the study before deciding which method is most appropriate to use.
  • The present review article aims to provide useful insights and perhaps even trigger new ideas, for researchers, drinking water managers, epidemiologists, and public health specialists for the improvement of the monitoring of Cryptosporidium and Giardia spp. in water sources.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/microorganisms10061175/s1, Table S1. Recapitulation of the pros and cons of the techniques used to detect Cryptosporidium spp. and Giardia spp. from water samples; Table S2: Complete description of biomolecular studies targeting Cryptosporidium spp. and Giardia spp. in water samples. (The [122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,196,197,198,199,200,201,202,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213,214,215,216,217,218,219,220,221,222,223,224,225,226,227,228,229,230,231,232,233,234,235,236,237,238,239,240,241,242,243,244,245,246,247,248,249,250,251,252,253,254,255,256,257,258,259,260,261,262,263,264,265,266,267,268,269,270,271,272,273,274,275,276,277,278,279,280,281,282,283,284,285,286,287,288,289,290,291,292,293,294,295,296,297,298,299,300,301,302,303,304,305,306,307] are cited only in supplementary materials but are part of the literature review made for this publication).

Author Contributions

M.-S.F. completed the literature review, compiled the information and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. S.J.C. and A.I.C. made revisions of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research project was supported by scholarships to MSF from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) [ESD3–547356–2020] and Fonds de recherche du Québec–Nature et technologies [B2X–270698–2019–2020].

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Alain Champagne and all his team of the environmental water analysis laboratory of the Charles-J.-Des Baillets water treatment plant in the city of Montreal for providing us vital information about the U.S. EPA Method 1623 and allowing us to visit their installations. Also, we would like to thank Daniel Verreault, Manuela Villion and the technical staff from the Ministère du Développement Durable, de l’Environnement et de la Lutte contre les Changements climatiques du Québec and Manuel J. Rodriguez and Caetano C. Dorea from the Drinking Water Chair of Laval University for their advice and their technical support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Crittenden, J.C.; Trussell, R.R.; Hand, D.W.; Howe, K.J.; Tchobanoglous, G. Chapter 4: Water Quality Management Strategies; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012; ISBN 9781118131473. [Google Scholar]
  2. Maheux, A.F.; Dion-Dupont, V.; Bisson, M.A.; Bouchard, S.; Rodriguez, M.J. Detection of Escherichia Coli Colonies on Confluent Plates of Chromogenic Media Used in Membrane Filtration. J. Microbiol. Methods 2014, 97, 51–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Rennecker, J.L.; Mariñas, B.J.; Owens, J.H.; Rice, E.W. Inactivation of Cryptosporidium Parvum Oocysts with Ozone. Water Res. 1999, 33, 2481–2488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Chapman, P.A.; Rush, B.A. Efficiency of Sand Filtration for Removing Cryptosporidium Oocysts from Water. J. Med. Microbiol. 1990, 32, 243–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Korich, D.G.; Mead, J.R.; Madore, M.S.; Sinclair, N.A.; Sterling, C.R. Effects of Ozone, Chlorine Dioxide, Chlorine, and Monochloramine on Cryptosporidium Parvum Oocyst Viability. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1990, 56, 1423–1428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Angus, K.W.; Tzipori, S.; Gray, E.W. Intestinal Lesions in Specific-Pathogen-Free Lambs Associated with a Cryptosporidium from Calves with Diarrhea. Vet. Pathol. 1982, 19, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Cacciò, S.M.; Thompson, R.C.A.; McLauchlin, J.; Smith, H.v. Unravelling Cryptosporidium and Giardia Epidemiology. Trends Parasitol. 2005, 21, 430–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Barker, I.K.; Carbonell, P.L. Cryptosporidium Agni Sp.n. from Lambs, and Cryptosporidium Bovis Sp.n. from a Calf, with Observations on the Oocyst. Z. Parasitenkd. 1974, 44, 289–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Jerrett, I.V.; Snodgrass, D.R. Cryptosporidia Associated with Outbreaks of Neonatal Calf Diarrhoea. Aust. Vet. J. 1981, 57, 434–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Moon, H.W.; Bemrick, W.J. Fecal Transmission of Calf Cryptosporidia between Calves and Pigs. Vet. Pathol. 1981, 18, 248–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Tzipori, S.; Angus, K.W.; Campbell, I.; Clerihew, L.W. Diarrhea Due to Cryptosporidium Infection in Artificially Reared Lambs. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1981, 14, 100–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Doster, A.R.; Mahaffey, E.A.; McClearen, J.R. Cryptosporidia in the Cloacal Coprodeum of Red-Lored Parrots (Amazona Autumnalis). JSTOR 1979, 23, 654–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Plutzer, J.; Tomor, B. The Role of Aquatic Birds in the Environmental Dissemination of Human Pathogenic Giardia Duodenalis Cysts and Cryptosporidium Oocysts in Hungary. Parasitol. Int. 2009, 58, 227–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Proctor, S.J.; Kemp, R.L. Cryptosporidium anserinum Sp. n. (Sporozoa) in a Domestic Goose Anser Anser L., from Iowa. J. Protozool. 1974, 21, 664–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Paziewska, A.; Bednarska, M.; Niewęgłowski, H.; Karbowiak, G.; Bajer, A. Distribution of Cryptosporidium and Giardia Spp. in Selected Species of Protected and Game Mammals from North-Eastern Poland. J. S. Afr. Stud. 2007, 14, 265–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Tzipori, S.; Angus, K.W.; Campbell, I.; Sherwood, D. Diarrhea in Young Red Deer Associated with Infection with Cryptosporidium. J. Infect. Dis. 1981, 144, 170–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Kubota, R.; Matsubara, K.; Tamukai, K.; Ike, K.; Tokiwa, T. Molecular and Histopathological Features of Cryptosporidium Ubiquitum Infection in Imported Chinchillas Chinchilla Lanigera in Japan. Parasitol. Int. 2019, 68, 9–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Thompson, R.C.A.; Ash, A. Molecular Epidemiology of Giardia and Cryptosporidium Infections. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2016, 40, 315–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Tyzzer, E.E. An Extracellular Coccidium, Cryptosporidium Muris (Gen. Et Sp. Nov.), of the Gastric Glands of the Common Mouse. J. Med. Res. 1910, 23, 487–511. [Google Scholar]
  20. Vetterling, J.M.; Jervis, H.R.; Merrill, T.G.; Sprinz, H. Cryptosporidium wrairi Sp. n. from the Guinea Pig Cavia porcellus, with an Emendation of the Genus. J. Protozool. 1971, 18, 243–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lewis, I.J.; Hart, C.A.; Baxby, D. Diarrhoea Due to Cryptosporidium in Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia. Arch. Dis. Child. 1985, 60, 60–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Thompson, R.C.A. Giardiasis as a Re-Emerging Infectious Disease and Its Zoonitc Potential. Int. J. Parasitol. 2000, 30, 1259–1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Brownstein, D.G.; Strandberg, J.D.; Montali, R.J.; Bush, M.; Fortner, J. Cryptosporidium in Snakes with Hypertrophic Gastritis. Vet. Pathol. 1977, 14, 606–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. McKenzie, R.A.; Green, P.E.; Hartley, W.J.; Pollitt, C.C. Cryptosporidium in a Red-Bellied Black Snake (Pseudechis Porphyriacus). Aust. Vet. J. 1978, 54, 365–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Wang, G.; Wang, G.P.; Li, X.P.; Ma, L.Q.; Karanis, G.; Christodoulou-Vafeiadou, E.; Karanis, P. Detection of Giardia Duodenalis Assemblage E Infections at the Tibetan Plateau Area: Yaks Are Suitable Hosts. Acta Trop. 2017, 169, 157–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Gallas-Lindemann, C.; Sotiriadou, I.; Plutzer, J.; Noack, M.J.; Mahmoudi, M.R.; Karanis, P. Giardia and Cryptosporidium Spp. Dissemination during Wastewater Treatment and Comparative Detection via Immunofluorescence Assay (IFA), Nested Polymerase Chain Reaction (Nested PCR) and Loop Mediated Isothermal Amplification (LAMP). Acta Trop. 2016, 158, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Hoskin, J.C.; Wright, R.E. Cryptosporidium: An Emerging Concern for the Food Industry. J. Food Prot. 1991, 54, 53–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Roach, P.D.; Olson, M.E.; Whitley, G.; Wallis, P.M. Waterborne Giardia Cysts and Cryptosporidium Oocysts in the Yukon, Canada. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1993, 59, 67–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Torgerson, P.R.; Devleesschauwer, B.; Praet, N.; Speybroeck, N.; Willingham, A.L.; Kasuga, F.; Rokni, M.B.; Zhou, X.N.; Fèvre, E.M.; Sripa, B.; et al. World Health Organization Estimates of the Global and Regional Disease Burden of 11 Foodborne Parasitic Diseases, 2010: A Data Synthesis. PLoS Med. 2015, 12, e1001920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Xiao, L.; Herd, R.P.; Rings, D.M. Concurrent Infections of Giardia and Cryptosporidium on Two Ohio Farms with Calf Diarrhea. Vet. Parasitol. 1993, 51, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yu, X.; Guo, F.; Mouneimne, R.B.; Zhu, G. Cryptosporidium Parvum Elongation Factor 1α Participates in the Formation of Base Structure at the Infection Site during Invasion. J. Infect. Dis. 2020, 221, 1816–1825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. le Blancq, S.M.; Khramtsov, N.v.; Zamani, F.; Upton, S.J.; Wu, T.W. Ribosomal RNA Gene Organization in Cryptosporidium Parvum. Mol. Biochem. Parasitol. 1997, 90, 463–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Li, N.; Neumann, N.F.; Ruecker, N.J.; Alderisio, K.A.; Sturbaum, G.D.; Villegas, E.N.; Chalmers, R.M.; Monis, P.; Feng, Y.; Xiao, L. Development and Evaluation of Three Real-Time PCR Assays for Genotyping and Source Tracking Cryptosporidium Spp. in Water. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2015, 81, 5845–5854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Adam, R.D. The Giardia Lamblia Genome. Int. J. Parasitol. 2000, 30, 475–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Koloren, Z.; Ayaz, E. Genotyping of Cryptosporidium Spp. in Environmental Water in Turkey. Acta Parasitol. 2016, 61, 671–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Muhsen, K.; Levine, M.M. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Association between Giardia Lamblia and Endemic Pediatric Diarrhea in Developing Countries. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2012, 55, S271–S293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. O’Hara, S.P.; Chen, X.M. The Cell Biology of Cryptosporidium Infection. Microbes Infect. 2011, 13, 721–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Efstratiou, A.; Ongerth, J.E.; Karanis, P. Waterborne Transmission of Protozoan Parasites: Review of Worldwide Outbreaks—An Update 2011–2016. Water Res. 2017, 114, 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cryptosporidiosis (Cryptosporidium spp.)—A CDC Review. J. Environ. Health 2004, 67, 52. [Google Scholar]
  40. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Parasites—Giardia. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/Giardia/pathogen.html (accessed on 16 January 2018).
  41. Blumberg, R.S.; Kelsey, P.; Perrone, T.; Dickersin, R.; Laquaglia, M.; Ferruci, J. Cytomegalovirus- and Cryptosporidium-Associated Acalculous Gangrenous Cholecystitis. Am. J. Med. 1984, 76, 1118–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Parasites—Cryptosporidium (Also Known as “Crypto”): Treatment. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/crypto/treatment.html (accessed on 11 February 2019).
  43. Ankarklev, J. Inter and Intra-Assemblage Characterizations of Giardia Intestinalis—From Clinic to Genome; Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: Uppsala, Sweden, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  44. Ruecker, N.J.; Neumann, N.F. Re-Assessing the Public Health Risk Associated with the Waterborne Transmission of Cryptosporidium spp. Rev. Med. Microbiol. 2006, 17, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Mackenzie, W.R.; Hoxie, N.J.; Proctor, M.E.; Gradus, M.S.; Blair, K.A.; Peterson, D.E.; Kazmierczak, J.J.; Addiss, D.G.; Fox, K.R.; Rose, J.B.; et al. A Massive Outbreak in Milwaukee of Cryptosporidium Infection Transmitted through the Public Water Supply. N. Engl. J. Med. 1994, 331, 161–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Method 1623.1: Cryptosporidium and Giardia in Water by Filtration/IMS/FA; United States Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
  47. Dasgupta, S.; Chavali, R.; Gunda, N.S.K.; Mitra, S.K. Hollow Fiber Concentrator for Water Quality Monitoring: Role of Surfactant Based Elution Fluids. RSC Adv. 2015, 5, 62439–62448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Health Canada. Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document—Enteric Protozoa: Giardia and Cryptosporidium; Health Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2012.
  49. Wallis, P.M.; Erlandsen, S.L.; Isaac-Renton, J.L.; Olson, M.E.; Robertson, W.J.; van Keulen, H. Prevalence of Giardia Cysts and Cryptosporidium Oocysts and Characterization of Giardia Spp Isolated from Drinking Water in Canada. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1996, 62, 2789–2797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  50. Hu, J.; Feng, Y.; Ong, S.L.; Ng, W.J.; Song, L.; Tan, X.; Chu, X. Improvement of Recoveries for the Determination of Protozoa Cryptosporidium and Giardia in Water Using Method 1623. J. Microbiol. Methods 2004, 58, 321–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. MDDELCC Bilan de La Qualité de l’Eau Potable Au Québec: 2010–2014. Available online: http://www.mddelcc.gouv.qc.ca/eau/potable/bilans/bilan-qualite2010-2014.pdf (accessed on 6 June 2017).
  52. Kim, K.J.; Jung, H.H.; Lee, K. Evaluation of Cyst Loss in Standard Procedural Steps for Detecting of Giardia Lamblia and Cryptosporidium Parvum in Water. Biotechnol. Bioprocess Eng. 2006, 11, 368–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rodgers, M.R.; Flanigan, D.J.; Jakubowski, W. Identification of Algae Which Interfere with the Detection of Giardia Cysts and Cryptosporidium Oocysts and a Method for Alleviating This Interference. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1995, 61, 3759–3763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Kothavade, R.J. Potential Molecular Tools for Assessing the Public Health Risk Associated with Waterborne Cryptosporidium Oocysts. J. Med. Microbiol. 2012, 61, 1039–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Tyzzer, E.E. A Sporozoan Found in the Peptic Glands of the Common Mouse. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 1907, 5, 12–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Baxby, D.; Blundell, N.; Hart, C.A. The Development and Performance of a Simple, Sensitive Method for the Detection of Cryptosporidium Oocysts in Faeces. J. Hyg. 1984, 93, 317–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Baxby, D.; Blundell, N. Sensitive, Rapid, Simple Methods for Detecting Cryptosporidium in Faeces. Lancet 1983, 322, 1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Casemore, D.P.; Armstrong, M.U.; Jackson, B. Screening for Cryptosporidium in Stools. Lancet 1984, 1, 734–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Reduker, D.W.; Speer, C.A.; Blixt, J.A. Ultrastructural Changes in the Oocyst Wall during Excystation of Cryptosporidium parvum (Apicomplexa; Eucoccidiorida). Can. J. Zool. 1985, 63, 1892–1896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Vetterling, J.M.; Taweuch, A.; Madden, P.A. Ultrastructure of Cryptosporidium wrairi from the Guinea Pig. J. Protozool. 1970, 91, 262–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Azevedo, C. Ultrastructural Observations of Cryptosporidium Sp. Parasite of Ruditapes decussatus (Mollusca, Bivalvia). J. Invertebr. Pathol. 1989, 54, 23–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Heine, J.; Moon, H.W.; Woodmansee, D.B.; Pohlenz, J.F.L. Experimental Tracheal and Conjonctival Infections with Cryptosporidium sp. in Pigs. Vet. Parasitol. 1984, 17, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ryan, M.J.; Sundberg, J.P.; Sauerschell, R.J.; Todd, K.S. Cryptosporidium in a Wild Cottontail Rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus). J. Wildl. Dis. 1986, 22, 267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Blagburn, B.L.; Current, W.L. Accidental Infection of a Researcher with Human Cryptosporidium. J. Infect. Dis. 1983, 148, 772–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Badenoch, J. Cryptosporidium—A Water-Borne Hazard. Letters 1990, 11, 269–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Lechevallier, M.W.; Norton, W.D.; Lee, R.G. Drinking Water Supplies. In The Drinking Water Handbook, 2nd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2012; Volume 57, pp. 59–66. [Google Scholar]
  67. Madore, M.S.; Rose, J.B.; Gerba, C.P.; Arrowood, M.J.; Sterling, C.R. Occurrence of Cryptosporidium Oocysts in Sewage Effluents and Selected Surface Waters. J. Parasitol. 1987, 73, 702–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ongerth, J.E.; Stibbs, H.H. Identification of Cryptosporidium Oocysts in River Water. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1987, 53, 672–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Atwood Kofoid, C.; Christiansen, E.B. On the Life-History of Giardia. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1915, 1, 547–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  70. Boreham, P.F.L.; Upcroft, J.A.; Upcroft, P. Changing Approaches to the Study of Giardia Epidemiology: 1681–2000. Int. J. Parasitol. 1990, 20, 479–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Fantham, H.B.; Porter, A. The Pathogenicity of Giardia (Lamblia) Intestinalis to Men and to Experimental Animals. Br. Med. J. 1916, 2, 139–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  72. Porter, A. An Enumerative Study of the Cysts of Giardia (Lamblia) Intestinalis in Human Dysenteric Faeces. Lancet 1916, 1, 1166–1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Brown, E.H. Giardia lamblia: The Incidence and Results of Infestation of Children in Residential Nurseries. Arch. Dis. Child. 1948, 23, 119–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Ormiston, G.; Taylor, J.; Wilson, G.S. Enteritis in a Nursery Home Associated with Giardia lamblia. Br. Med. J. 1942, 1942, 151–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Webster, B.H. Human Infection with Giardia Lamblia. Am. J. Dig. Dis. 1958, 3, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kacker, P.P. A Case of Giardia lamblia Proctitis Presenting in a V.D. Clinic. Br. J. Vener. Dis. 1973, 49, 318–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Meyers, J.D.; Kuharic, H.A.; Holmes, K.K. Giardia Lamblia Infection in Homosexual Men. Br. J. Vener. Dis. 1977, 53, 54–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Lopez-Brea, M. Giardia lamblia: Incidence in Man and Dogs. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 1982, 76, 565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Smith, J.A. Enteritis Associated with Giardia lamblia. Br. Med. J. 1942, 1942, 261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Harter, L.; Frost, F.J.; Jakubowski, W. Giardia Prevalence among 1-to-3-Year-Old Children in Two Washington State Counties. Am. J. Public Health 1982, 72, 386–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  81. Mooney, B. Of Giardia Cysts and Sportsmen. West. J. Med. 1982, 136, 354. [Google Scholar]
  82. Rendtorff, R.C. Giardia in Water. Ann. Intern. Med. 1975, 82, 280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Jarroll, E.L.; Bingham, A.K.; Meyer, E.A. Inability of an Iodination Method to Destroy Completely Giardia in Cold Water. West. J. Med. 1980, 132, 567–569. [Google Scholar]
  84. Logsdon, G.S.; Symons, J.M.; Hoye, R.L.; Arozarena, M.M. Alternative Filtration Methods for Removal of Giardia Cysts and Cyst Models. J.-Am. Water Works Assoc. 1981, 73, 111–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Rice, E.W.; Hoff, J.C.; Schaefer, F.W. Inactivation of Giardia Cysts by Chlorine. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1982, 43, 250–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Rice, E.W.; Hoff, J.C. Inactivation of Giardia-Lamblia Cysts by Ultraviolet-Irradiation. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1981, 42, 546–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Spaulding, J.J.; Pacha, R.E.; Clark, G.W. Quantitation of Giardia Cysts by Membrane Filtration. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1983, 18, 713–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Riggs, J.L.; Dupuis, K.W.; Nakamura, K.; Spath, D.P. Detection of Giardia lamblia by Immunofluorescence. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1983, 45, 698–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Sauch, J.F. Use of Immunofluorescence and Phase-Contrast Microscopy for Detection and Identification of Giardia Cysts in Water Samples. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1985, 50, 1434–1438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  90. Visvesvara, G.S. Axenic Growth of Giardia lamblia in Diamond’s TPS-1 Medium. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 1980, 74, 213–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Fleck, S.L.; Hames, S.E.; Warhurst, D.C. Detection of Giardia in Human Jejunum by the Immunoperoxidase Method. Specific and Non-Specific Results. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 1985, 79, 110–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Green, E.L.; Miles, M.A.; Warhurst, D.C. Immunodiagnostic Detection of Giardia Antigen in Feces by a Rapid Visual Enzyme-Linked-Immunosorbent Assay. Lancet 1985, 2, 691–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Stibbs, H.H.; Samadpour, M.; Manning, J.F. Enzyme Immunoassay for Detection of Giardia lamblia Cyst Antigens in Formalin-Fixed and Unfixed Human Stool. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1988, 26, 1665–1669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Ungar, B.L.P.; Yolken, R.H.; Nash, T.E.; Quinn, T.C. Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay for the Detection of Giardia lamblia in Fecal Specimens. J. Infect. Dis. 1984, 149, 90–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Sorenson, S.K.; Riggs, J.L.; Dileanis, P.D.; Suk, T.J. Isolation and Detection of Giardia Cysts from Water Using Direct Immunofluorescence. Water Resour. Bull. 1986, 22, 843–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Isaac-Renton, J.L.; Fung, C.P.J.; Lochan, A. Evaluation of a Tangential-Flow Multiple-Filter Technique for Detection of Giardia lamblia Cysts in Water. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1986, 52, 400–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Merrill, E.P. Concentration of Glardia Cysts from Water by a Centrifugal Cream Separator. J. Food Prot. 1986, 49, 891–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Solo-Gabriele, H.; Neumeister, S. US Outbreaks of Cryptosporidiosis. J.-Am. Water Works Assoc. 1996, 88, 76–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Richardson, A.J.; Frankenberg, R.A.; Buck, A.C.; Selkon, J.B.; Colbourne, J.S.; Parsons, J.W.; Mayonwhite, R.T. An Outbreak of Waterborne Cryptosporidiosis in Swindon and Oxfordshire. Epidemiol. Infect. 1991, 107, 485–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  100. Pedersen, C.; Danner, S.; Lazzarin, A.; Glauser, M.P.; Weber, R.; Katlama, C.; Barton, S.E.; Lundgren, J.D.; AIDS in Europe Study Group. Epidemiology of Cryptosporidiosis among European AIDS Patients. Genitourin. Med. 1996, 72, 128–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Guy, R.A.; Payment, P.; Krull, U.J.; Paul, A.; Horgen, P.A. Real-Time PCR for Quantification of Giardia and Cryptosporidium in Environmental Water Samples and Sewage. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2003, 69, 5178–5185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  102. Schuurman, T.; Lankamp, P.; van Belkum, A.; Kooistra-Smid, M.; van Zwet, A. Comparison of Microscopy, Real-Time PCR and a Rapid Immunoassay for the Detection of Giardia lamblia in Human Stool Specimens. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2007, 13, 1187–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Notomi, T.; Okayama, H.; Masubuchi, H.; Yonekawa, T.; Watanabe, K.; Amino, N.; Hase, T. Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification of DNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000, 28, e63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Inomata, A.; Kishida, N.; Momoda, T.; Akiba, M.; Izumiyama, S.; Yagita, K.; Endo, T. Development and Evaluation of a Reverse Transcription-Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification Assay for Rapid and High-Sensitive Detection of Cryptosporidium in Water Samples. Water Sci. Technol. 2009, 60, 2167–2172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Koloren, Z.; Sotiriadou, I.; Karanis, P. Investigations and Comparative Detection of Cryptosporidium Species by Microscopy, Nested PCR and LAMP in Water Supplies of Ordu, Middle Black Sea, Turkey. Ann. Trop. Med. Parasitol. 2011, 105, 607–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  106. Lass, A.; Karanis, P.; Korzeniewski, K. First Detection and Genotyping of Giardia intestinalis in Stool Samples Collected from Children in Ghazni Province, Eastern Afghanistan and Evaluation of the PCR Assay in Formalin-Fixed Specimens. Parasitol. Res. 2017, 116, 2255–2264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Mahmoudi, M.R.; Kazemi, B.; Mohammadiha, A.; Mirzaei, A.; Karanis, P. Detection of Cryptosporidium and Giardia (Oo) Cysts by IFA, PCR and LAMP in Surface Water from Rasht, Iran. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2013, 107, 511–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Rousseau, A.; la Carbona, S.; Dumètre, A.; Robertson, L.J.; Gargala, G.; Escotte-Binet, S.; Favennec, L.; Villena, I.; Gérard, C.; Aubert, D. Assessing Viability and Infectivity of Foodborne and Waterborne Stages (Cysts/Oocysts) of Giardia duodenalis, Cryptosporidium Spp., and Toxoplasma gondii: A Review of Methods. Parasite 2018, 25, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Abbaszadegan, M.; Gerba, C.P.; Rose, J.B. Detection of Giardia Cysts with a CDNA Probe and Applications to Water Samples. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1991, 57, 927–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  110. Erlandsen, S.L.; Jarroll, E.L.; Wallis, P.; van Keulen, H. Development of Species-Specific RDNA Probes for Giardia by Multiple Fluorescent in Situ Hybridization Combined with Immunocytochemical Identification of Cyst Wall Antigens. J. Histochem. Cytochem. 2005, 53, 917–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  111. van Keulen, H.; Feely, D.E.; Macechko, P.T.; Jarroll, E.L.; Erlandsen, S.L. The Sequence of Giardia Small Subunit RRNA Shows That Voles and Muskrats Are Parasitized by a Unique Species Giardia Microti. J. Parasitol. 1998, 84, 294–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Yang, C.Y.; Zhou, H.; Luo, J.; Qu, L.H. Identification of 20 SnoRNA-like RNAs from the Primitive Eukaryote, Giardia lamblia. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2005, 328, 1224–1231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Alonso, J.L.; Amorós, I.; Cañigral, I. Development and Evaluation of a Real-Time PCR Assay for Quantification of Giardia and Cryptosporidium in Sewage Samples. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2011, 89, 1203–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Baque, R.H.; Gilliam, A.O.; Robles, L.D.; Jakubowski, W.; Slifko, T.R. A Real-Time RT-PCR Method to Detect Viable Giardia lamblia Cysts in Environmental Waters. Water Res. 2011, 45, 3175–3184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Abbaszadegan, M.; Huber, M.S.; Gerba, C.P.; Pepper, I.L. Detection of Viable Giardia Cysts by Amplification of Heat Shock- Induced MRNA. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1997, 63, 324–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  116. Nichols, R.A.B.; Smith, H.v. Optimization of DNA Extraction and Molecular Detection of Cryptosporidium Oocysts in Natural Mineral Water Sources. J. Food Prot. 2004, 67, 524–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Jiang, J.; Alderisio, K.A.; Singh, A.; Xiao, L. Development of Procedures for Direct Extraction of Cryptosporidium DNA from Water Concentrates and for Relief of PCR Inhibitors. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2005, 71, 1135–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  118. Schrader, C.; Schielke, A.; Ellerbroek, L.; Johne, R. PCR Inhibitors—Occurrence, Properties and Removal. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2012, 113, 1014–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Si Ammour, M.; Bilodeau, G.J.; Tremblay, D.M.; van der Heyden, H.; Yaseen, T.; Varvaro, L.; Carisse, O. Development of Real-Time Isothermal Amplification Assays for on-Site Detection of Phytophthora infestans in Potato Leaves. Plant Dis. 2017, 101, 1269–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  120. Yu, L.; Wu, S.; Hao, X.; Dong, X.; Mao, L.; Pelechano, V.; Chen, W.H.; Yin, X. Rapid Detection of COVID-19 Coronavirus Using a Reverse Transcriptional Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (RT-LAMP) Diagnostic Platform. Clin. Chem. 2020, 66, 975–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Othman, S.; Lee, P.Y.; Lam, J.Y.; Philip, N.; Azhari, N.N.; Affendy, N.B.; Masri, S.N.; Neela, V.K.; Mohd-Taib, F.S.; Chee, H.Y. A Versatile Isothermal Amplification Assay for the Detection of Leptospires from Various Sample Types. PeerJ 2022, 10, e12850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Mahbubani, M.H.; Bej, A.K.; Perlin, M.H.; Schaefer, F.W.; Jakubowski, W.; Atlas, R.M. Differentiation of Giardia duodenalis from other Giardia spp. by using polymerase chain reaction and gene probes. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1992, 30, 74–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  123. Johnson, D.W.; Pieniazek, N.J.; Rose, J.B. DNA probe hybridization and PCR detection of Cryptosporidium compared to immunofluorescence assay. Water Sci. Technol. 1993, 27, 77–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Johnson, D.W.; Pieniazek, N.J.; Griffin, D.W.; Misener, L.; Rose, J.B. Development of a PCR protocol for sensitive detection of Cryptosporidium oocysts in water samples. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1995, 61, 3849–3855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  125. Laberge, I.; Ibrahim, A.; Barta, J.R.; Griffiths, M.W. Detection of Cryptosporidium parvum in raw milk by PCR and oligonucleotide probe hybridization. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1996, 62, 3259–3264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  126. Mayer, C.L.; Palmer, C.J. Evaluation of PCR, nested PCR, and fluorescent antibodies for detection of Giardia and Cryptosporidium species in wastewater. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1996, 62, 2081–2085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  127. Stinear, T.; Matusan, A.; Hines, K.; Sandery, M. Detection of a single viable Cryptosporidium parvum oocyst in environmental water concentrates by reverse transcription-PCR. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1996, 62, 3385–3390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  128. Rochelle, P.A.; De Leon, R.; Stewart, M.H.; Wolfe, R.L. Comparison of primers and optimization of PCR conditions for detection of Cryptosporidium parvum and Giardia lamblia in water. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1997, 63, 106–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  129. Sluter, S.D.; Tzipori, S.; Widmer, G. Parameters affecting polymerase chain reaction detection of waterborne Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 1997, 48, 325–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Chung, E.; Aldom, J.; Chagla, A.; Kostrzynska, M.; Lee, H.; Palmateer, G.; Trevors, J.; Unger, S.; De Grandis, S. Detection of Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts in municipal water samples by the polymerase chain reaction. J. Microbiol. Methods 1998, 33, 171–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Deng, M.Q.; Cliver, D.O. Differentiation of Cryptosporidium parvum isolates by a simplified randomly amplified polymorphic DNA technique. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1998, 64, 1954–1957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  132. Gibbons, C.L.; Rigi, F.M.; Awad El-Kariem, F.M. Detection of Cryptosporidium parvum and C. muris Oocysts in Spiked Backwash Water using Three PCR-Based Protocols. Protist 1998, 149, 127–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Kaucner, C.; Stinear, T. Sensitive and rapid detection of viable Giardia cysts and Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts in large-volume water samples with wound fiberglass cartridge filters and reverse transcription-PCR. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1998, 64, 1743–1749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  134. Chung, E.; Aldom, J.; Carreno, R.; Chagla, A.; Kostrzynska, M.; Lee, H.; Palmateer, G.; Trevors, J.; Unger, S.; Xu, R.; et al. PCR-based quantitation of Cryptosporidium parvum in municipal water samples. J. Microbiol. Methods 1999, 38, 119–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Di Giovanni, G.D.; Hashemi, F.H.; Shaw, N.J.; Abrams, F.A.; LeChevallier, M.W.; Abbaszadegan, M. Detection of infectious Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts in surface and filter backwash water samples by immunomagnetic separation and integrated cell culture-PCR. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1999, 65, 3427–3432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  136. Hallier-Soulier, S.; Guillot, E. An immunomagnetic separation polymerase chain reaction assay for rapid and ultra-sensitive detection of Cryptosporidium parvum in drinking water. FEMS Microbiol. Lett 1999, 176, 285–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  137. Kostrzynska, M.; Sankey, M.; Haack, E.; Power, C.; Aldom, J.; Chagla, A.; Unger, S.; Palmateer, G.; Lee, H.; Trevors, J.; et al. Three sample preparation protocols for polymerase chain reaction based detection of Cryptosporidium parvum in environmental samples. J. Microbiol. Methods 1999, 35, 65–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Hallier-Soulier, S.; Guillot, E. Detection of cryptosporidia and Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts in environmental water samples by immunomagnetic separation-polymerase chain reaction. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2000, 89, 5–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  139. Lowery, C.; Moore, J.; Millar, B.; Burke, D.; McCorry, K.J.; Crothers, E.; Dooley, J.G. Detection and speciation of Cryptosporidium spp. in environmental water samples by immunomagnetic separation, PCR and endonuclease restriction. J. Med. Microbiol. 2000, 49, 779–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  140. Mcintyre, L.; Hoang, L.; Ong, C.S.L.; Lee, P.; Isaac-Renton, J.L. Evaluation of Molecular Techniques to Biotype Giardia duodenalis Collected During an Outbreak. J. Parasitol. 2000, 86, 172–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Udeh, P.; Veenstra, J.; Abraham, A.J.; John, G.H. Quantitative polymerase chain (QPCR) reaction using the MIMIC approach to estimate Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts, an intestinal pathogen, in municipal water treatment sludge samples. Mol. Cell Probes 2000, 14, 121–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. Xiao, L.; Alderisio, K.; Limor, J.; Royer, M.; Lal, A.A. Identification of species and sources of Cryptosporidium oocysts in storm waters with a small-subunit rRNA-based diagnostic and genotyping tool. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2000, 66, 5492–5498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  143. Lowery, C.; Moore, J.; Millar, B.; McCorry, K.; Xu, J.; Rooney, P.; Dooley, J. Occurrence and molecular genotyping of Cryptosporidium spp. in surface waters in Northern Ireland. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2001, 91, 774–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  144. Lowery, C.J.; Nugent, P.; Moore, J.E.; Millar, B.C.; Xiru, X.; Dooley, J.S.G. PCR–IMS detection and molecular typing of Cryptosporidium parvum recovered from a recreational river source and an associated mussel (Mytilus edulis) bed in Northern Ireland. Epidemiol. Infect. 2001, 127, 545–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Ono, K.; Tsuji, H.; Rai, S.K.; Yamamoto, A.; Masuda, K.; Endo, T.; Hotta, H.; Kawamura, T.; Uga, S. Contamination of River Water by Cryptosporidium parvum Oocysts in Western Japan. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2001, 67, 3832–3836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  146. Rimhanen-Finne, R.; Ronkainen, P.; Hänninen, M.L. Simultaneous detection of Cryptosporidium parvum and Giardia in sewage sludge by IC-PCR. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2001, 91, 1030–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Xiao, L.; Singh, A.; Limor, J.; Graczyk, T.K.; Gradus, S.; Lal, A.A. Molecular Characterization of Cryptosporidium Oocysts in Samples of Raw Surface Water and Wastewater. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2001, 67, 1097–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  148. Heitman, T.L.; Frederick, L.M.; Viste, J.R.; Guselle, N.J.; Morgan, U.M.; Thompson, R.C.; Olson, E.M. Prevalence of Giardia and Cryptosporidium and characterization of Cryptosporidium spp. isolated from wildlife, human, and agricultural sources in the North Saskatchewan River Basin in Alberta, Canada. Can. J. Microbiol. 2002, 48, 530–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Jellison, K.L.; Hemond, H.F.; Schauer, D.B. Sources and species of Cryptosporidium oocysts in the Wachusett Reservoir watershed. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2002, 68, 569–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  150. Rimhanen-Finne, R.; Hörman, A.; Ronkainen, P.; Hänninen, M.L. An IC-PCR method for detection of Cryptosporidium and Giardia in natural surface waters in Finland. J. Microbiol. Methods 2002, 50, 299–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Sturbaum, G.D.; Klonicki, P.T.; Marshall, M.M.; Jost, B.H.; Clay, B.L.; Sterling, C.R. Immunomagnetic separation (IMS)-fluorescent antibody detection and IMS-PCR detection of seeded Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts in natural waters and their limitations. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2002, 68, 2991–2996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  152. Van Keulen, H.; Macechko, P.T.; Wade, S.; Schaaf, S.; Wallis, P.M.; Erlandsen, S.L. Presence of human Giardia in domestic, farm and wild animals, and environmental samples suggests a zoonotic potential for Giardiasis. Vet. Parasitol. 2002, 108, 97–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Ward, P.I.; Deplazes, P.; Regli, W.; Rinder, H.; Mathis, A. Detection of eight Cryptosporidium genotypes in surface and waste waters in Europe. Parasitology 2002, 124, 359–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Cacciò, S.M.; De Giacomo, M.; Aulicino, F.A.; Pozio, E. Giardia cysts in wastewater treatment plants in Italy. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2003, 69, 3393–3398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  155. Hallier-Soulier, S.; Guillot, E. An immunomagnetic separation-reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (IMS-RT-PCR) test for sensitive and rapid detection of viable waterborne Cryptosporidium parvum. Environ. Microbiol. 2003, 5, 592–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Higgins, J.A.; Trout, J.M.; Fayer, R.; Shelton, D.R.; Jenkins, M.C. Recovery and detection of Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts from water samples using continuous flow centrifugation. Water Res. 2003, 37, 3551–3560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Lechevallier, M.W.; Di Giovanni, G.D.; Bukhari, Z.; Bukhari, S.; Rosen, J.S.; Sobrinho, J.; Frey, M.M.; Frey, M.M. Comparison of Method 1623 and Cell Culture-PCR for Detection of Cryptosporidium spp. in Source Waters. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2003, 69, 971–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  158. Quintero-Betancourt, W.; Gennaccaro, A.L.; Scott, T.M.; Rose, J.B. Assessment of methods for detection of infectious Cryptosporidium oocysts and Giardia cysts in reclaimed effluents. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2003, 69, 5380–5388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  159. Tsuchihashi, R.; Loge, F.J.; Darby, J.L. Detection of Cryptosporidium parvum in Secondary Effluents Using a Most Probable Number-Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay. Water Environ. Res. 2003, 75, 292–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  160. Ali, M.A.; Al-Herrawy, A.Z.; El-Hawaary, S.E. Detection of enteric viruses, Giardia and Cryptosporidium in two different types of drinking water treatment facilities. Water Res. 2004, 38, 3931–3939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  161. Bertrand, I.; Gantzer, C.; Chesnot, T.; Schwartzbrod, J. Improved specificity for Giardia lamblia cyst quantification in wastewater by development of a real-time PCR method. J. Microbiol. Methods 2004, 57, 41–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  162. Hörman, A.; Rimhanen-Finne, R.; Maunula, L.; von Bonsdorff, C.-H.; Torvela, N.; Heikinheimo, A.; Hänninen, M.-L. Campylobacter spp., Giardia spp., Cryptosporidium spp., Noroviruses, and Indicator Organisms in Surface Water in Southwestern Finland, 2000–2001. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2004, 70, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  163. Sulaiman, I.M.; Jiang, J.; Singh, A.; Xiao, L. Distribution of Giardia duodenalis genotypes and subgenotypes in raw urban wastewater in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2004, 70, 3776–3780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  164. Hänninen, M.-L.; Hörman, A.; Rimhanen-Finne, R.; Vahtera, H.; Malmberg, S.; Herve, S.; Lahti, K. Monitoring of Cryptosporidium and Giardia in the Vantaa river basin, southern Finland. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2005, 208, 163–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Ryan, U.; Read, C.; Hawkins, P.; Warnecke, M.; Swanson, P.; Griffith, M.; Deere, D.; Cunningham, M.; Cox, P. Genotypes of Cryptosporidium from Sydney water catchment areas. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2005, 98, 1221–1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Carey, C.M.; Lee, H.; Trevors, J.T. Comparison of most probable number-PCR and most probable number-foci detection method for quantifying infectious Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts in environmental samples. J. Microbiol. Methods 2006, 67, 363–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Hashimoto, A.; Sugimoto, H.; Morita, S.; Hirata, T. Genotyping of single Cryptosporidium oocysts in sewage by semi-nested PCR and direct sequencing. Water Res. 2006, 40, 2527–2532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Hirata, T.; Hashimoto, A. Genotyping of single Cryptosporidium oocysts isolated from sewage and river water. Water Sci. Technol. 2006, 54, 197–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  169. Lonigro, A.; Pollice, A.; Spinelli, R.; Berrilli, F.; Di Cave, D.; D’Orazi, C.; Cavallo, P.; Brandonisio, O. Giardia cysts and Cryptosporidium oocysts in membrane-filtered municipal wastewater used for irrigation. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2006, 72, 7916–7918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  170. Masago, Y.; Oguma, K.; Katayama, H.; Ohgaki, S. Quantification and genotyping of Cryptosporidium spp. in river water by quenching probe PCR and denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis. Water Sci. Technol. 2006, 54, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  171. Robertson, L.J.; Hermansen, L.; Gjerde, B.K. Occurrence of Cryptosporidium oocysts and Giardia cysts in sewage in Norway. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2006, 72, 5297–5303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  172. Robertson, L.J.; Hermansen, L.; Gjerde, B.K.; Strand, E.; Alvsvåg, J.O.; Langeland, N. Application of genotyping during an extensive outbreak of waterborne Giardiasis in Bergen, Norway, during autumn and winter 2004. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2006, 72, 2212–2217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  173. Xiao, L.; Alderisio, K.A.; Jiang, J. Detection of Cryptosporidium oocysts in water: Effect of the number of samples and analytic replicates on test results. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2006, 72, 5942–5947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  174. Anceno, A.J.; Katayama, H.; Houpt, E.R.; Chavalitshewinkoon-Petmitr, P.; Chuluun, B.; Shipin, O.V. IMS-free DNA extraction for the PCR-based quantification of Cryptosporidium parvum and Giardia lamblia in surface and waste water. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 2007, 17, 297–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  175. Bertrand, I.; Schwartzbrod, J. Detection and genotyping of Giardia duodenalis in wastewater: Relation between assemblages and faecal contamination origin. Water Res. 2007, 41, 3675–3682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  176. Ahmed, W.; Huygens, F.; Goonetilleke, A.; Gardner, T. Real-time PCR detection of pathogenic microorganisms in roof-harvested rainwater in Southeast Queensland, Australia. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2008, 74, 5490–5496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  177. Castro-Hermida, J.A.; García-Presedo, I.; Almeida, A.; González-Warleta, M.; Correia Da Costa, J.M.; Mezo, M. Presence of Cryptosporidium spp. and Giardia duodenalis through drinking water. Sci. Total Environ. 2008, 405, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Keeley, A.; Faulkner, B.R. Influence of land use and watershed characteristics on protozoa contamination in a potential drinking water resources reservoir. Water Res. 2008, 42, 2803–2813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Plutzer, J.; Karanis, P.; Domokos, K.; Törökné, A.; Márialigeti, K. Detection and characterisation of Giardia and Cryptosporidium in Hungarian raw, surface and sewage water samples by IFT, PCR and sequence analysis of the SSUrRNA and GDH genes. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2008, 211, 524–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  180. Yang, W.; Chen, P.; Villegas, E.N.; Landy, R.B.; Kanetsky, C.; Cama, V.; Dearen, T.; Schultz, C.L.; Orndorff, K.G.; Prelewicz, G.J.; et al. Cryptosporidium source tracking in the potomac river watershed. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2008, 74, 6495–6504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  181. Castro-Hermida, J.A.; García-Presedo, I.; Almeida, A.; González-Warleta, M.; Correia Da Costa, J.M.; Mezo, M. Detection of Cryptosporidium spp. and Giardia duodenalis in surface water: A health risk for humans and animals. Water Res. 2009, 43, 4133–4142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Feng, Y.; Li, N.; Duan, L.; Xiao, L. Cryptosporidium genotype and subtype distribution in raw wastewater in Shanghai, China: Evidence for possible unique Cryptosporidium hominis transmission. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2009, 47, 153–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  183. Lobo, M.L.; Xiao, L.; Antunes, F.; Matos, O. Occurrence of Cryptosporidium and Giardia genotypes and subtypes in raw and treated water in Portugal. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2009, 48, 732–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  184. Alonso, J.L.; Amorós, I.; Cuesta, G. LNA probes in a real-time TaqMan PCR assay for genotyping of Giardia duodenalis in wastewaters. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2010, 108, 1594–1601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Almeida, A.; Moreira, M.J.; Soares, S.; Delgado, M.D.L.; Figueiredo, J.; Magalhães, E.S.; Castro, A.; Da Costa, A.V.; Da Costa, J.M.C. Biological and genetic characterization of Cryptosporidium spp. and Giardia duodenalis isolates from five hydrographical basins in northern Portugal. Korean J. Parasitol. 2010, 48, 105–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  186. Almeida, A.; Moreira, M.J.; Soares, S.; Delgado, M.D.L.; Figueiredo, J.; Silva, E.; Castro, A.; Da Cosa, J.M.C. Presence of Cryptosporidium spp. and Giardia duodenalis in drinking water samples in the North of Portugal. Korean J. Parasitol. 2010, 48, 43–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  187. Betancourt, W.Q.; Querales, L.; Sulbaran, Y.F.; Rodriguez-Diaz, J.; Caraballo, L.; Pujol, F.H. Molecular characterization of sewage-borne pathogens and detection of sewage markers in an urban stream in Caracas, Venezuela. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2010, 76, 2023–2026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  188. Dungeni, M.; Momba, M.N.B. The abundance of Cryptosporidium and Giardia spp. in treated effluents produced by four wastewater treatment plants in the Gauteng Province of South Africa. Water 2010, 36, 425–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  189. Jenkins, M.B.; Liotta, J.L.; Lucio-Forster, A.; Bowman, D.D. Concentrations, viability, and distribution of Cryptosporidium genotypes in lagoons of swine facilities in the southern Piedmont and in coastal plain watersheds of Georgia. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2010, 76, 5757–5763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  190. Khouja, L.B.A.; Cama, V.A.; Xiao, L. Parasitic contamination in wastewater and sludge samples in Tunisia using three different detection techniques. Parasitol. Res. 2010, 107, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  191. Lee, D.Y.; Seto, P.; Korczak, R. DNA microarray-based detection and identification of waterborne protozoan pathogens. J. Microbiol. Methods 2010, 80, 129–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  192. Naeini, K.M.; Asadi, M.; Chaleshtori, M.H. Detection and Molecular Characterization of Cryptosporidium species in Recreational Waters of Chaharmahal va Bakhtiyari Province of Iran using nested-PCR-RFLP. Iran J. Parasitol. 2010, 6, 20–27. [Google Scholar]
  193. Nichols, R.A.B.; Connelly, L.; Sullivan, C.B.; Smith, H.V. Identification of Cryptosporidium species and genotypes in Scottish raw and drinking waters during a one-year monitoring period. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2010, 76, 5977–5986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  194. Santos, S.F.O.; Silva, H.D.; Souza Júnior, E.S.; Anunciação, C.E.; Silveira-Lacerda, E.P.; Vilanova-Costa, C.A.S.T.; Garcíazapata, M.T.A. Environmental Monitoring of Opportunistic Protozoa in Rivers and Lakes in the Neotropics Based on Yearly Monitoring. Water Qual. Expo. Health 2010, 2, 97–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Araújo, R.S.; Dropa, M.; Fernandes, L.N.; Carvalho, T.T.; Sato, M.I.Z.; Soares, R.M.; Matté, G.R.; Matté, M.H. Genotypic Characterization of Cryptosporidium hominis from Water Samples in São Paulo, Brazil. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2011, 85, 834–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  196. Feng, Y.; Zhao, X.; Chen, J.; Jin, W.; Zhou, X.; Li, N.; Wang, L.; Xiao, L. Occurrence, source, and human infection potential of Cryptosporidium and Giardia spp. in source and tap water in Shanghai, China. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2011, 77, 3609–3616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  197. Fernandes, L.N.; De Souza, P.P.; Araujo, R.; Razzolini, M.T.P.; Soares, R.M.; Sato, M.I.Z.; Hachich, E.M.; Cutolo, S.A.; Matté, G.R.; Matté, M.H. Detection of assemblages A and B of Giardia duodenalis in water and sewage from São Paulo state, Brazil. J. Water Health 2011, 9, 361–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Helmi, K.; Skraber, S.; Burnet, J.B.; Leblanc, L.; Hoffmann, L.; Cauchie, H.M. Two-year monitoring of Cryptosporidium parvum and Giardia lamblia occurrence in a recreational and drinking water reservoir using standard microscopic and molecular biology techniques. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2011, 179, 163–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Liu, A.; Ji, H.; Wang, E.; Liu, J.; Xiao, L.; Shen, Y.; Li, Y.; Zhang, W.; Ling, H. Molecular identification and distribution of Cryptosporidium and Giardia duodenalis in raw urban wastewater in Harbin, China. Parasitol. Res. 2011, 109, 913–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  200. Mahmoudi; Ashrafi, K.; Abedinzadeh, H.; Tahvildar-Bideruni, F.; Haghighi, A.; Bandehpour, M.; Lailabadi, N.T.; Kazemi, B. Development of Sensitive Detection of Cryptosporidium and Giardia from Surface Water in Iran. Iran J. Parasitol. 2011, 6, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  201. Ajonina, C.; Buzie, C.; Ajonina, I.U.; Basner, A.; Reinhardt, H.; Gulyas, H.; Liebau, E.; Otterpohl, R. Occurrence of Cryptosporidium in a wastewater treatment plant in north Germany. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health-Part A Curr. Issues 2012, 75, 1351–1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  202. Ayed, L.B.; Yang, W.; Widmer, G.; Cama, V.A.; Ortega, Y.; Xiao, L. Survey and genetic characterization of wastewater in Tunisia for Cryptosporidium spp., Giardia duodenalis, Enterocytozoon bieneusi, Cyclospora cayetanensis and Eimeria spp. J. Water Health 2012, 10, 431–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  203. Budu-Amoako, E.; Greenwood, S.J.; Dixon, B.R.; Barkema, H.W.; McClure, J.T. Occurrence of Cryptosporidium and Giardia on beef farms and water sources within the vicinity of the farms on Prince Edward Island, Canada. Vet. Parasitol. 2012, 184, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Dungan, R.S.; Klein, M.; Leytem, A.B. Quantification of bacterial indicators and zoonotic pathogens in dairy wastewater ponds. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2012, 78, 8089–8095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  205. Füchslin, H.P.; Koẗzsch, S.; Egli, T. Cryptosporidium spp. in drinking water: Samples from rural sites in Switzerland. Swiss Med. Wkly. 2012, 142, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Haramoto, E.; Katayama, H.; Asami, M.; Akiba, M. Development of a novel method for simultaneous concentration of viruses and protozoa from a single water sample. J. Virol. Methods 2012, 182, 62–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Keserue, H.-A.; Füchslin, H.P.; Wittwer, M.; Nguyen-Viet, H.; Nguyen, T.T.; Surinkul, N.; Koottatep, T.; Schürch, N.; Egli, T. Comparison of rapid methods for detection of Giardia spp. and Cryptosporidium spp. (Oo)cysts using transportable instrumentation in a field deployment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 8952–8959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Kishida, N.; Miyata, R.; Furuta, A.; Izumiyama, S.; Tsuneda, S.; Sekiguchi, Y.; Noda, N.; Akiba, M. Quantitative detection of Cryptosporidium oocyst in water source based on 18S rRNA by alternately binding probe competitive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (ABC-RT-PCR). Water Res. 2012, 46, 187–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Li, N.; Xiao, L.; Wang, L.; Zhao, S.; Zhao, X.; Duan, L.; Guo, M.; Liu, L.; Feng, Y. Molecular Surveillance of Cryptosporidium spp., Giardia duodenalis, and Enterocytozoon bieneusi by Genotyping and Subtyping Parasites in Wastewater. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2012, 6, e1809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  210. Liang, Z.; Keeley, A. Comparison of propidium monoazide-quantitative PCR and reverse transcription quantitative PCR for viability detection of fresh Cryptosporidium oocysts following disinfection and after long-term storage in water samples. Water Res. 2012, 46, 5941–5953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  211. Loganthan, S.; Yang, R.; Bath, A.; Gordon, C.; Ryan, U.M. Prevalence of Cryptosporidium species in recreational versus non-recreational water sources. Exp. Parasitol. 2012, 131, 399–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  212. Rodríguez, D.C.; Pino, N.; Peñuela, G. Microbiological quality indicators in waters of dairy farms: Detection of pathogens by PCR in real time. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 427–428, 314–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  213. Ruecker, N.J.; Matsune, J.C.; Wilkes, G.; Lapen, D.R.; Topp, E.; Edge, T.A.; Sensen, C.W.; Xiao, L.; Neumann, N.F. Molecular and phylogenetic approaches for assessing sources of Cryptosporidium contamination in water. Water Res. 2012, 46, 5135–5150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Van Dyke, M.I.; Ong, C.S.L.; Prystajecky, N.A.; Isaac-Renton, J.L.; Huck, P.M. Identifying host sources, humanhealth risk and indicators of Cryptosporidium and Giardia in a Canadian watershed influenced by urban and rural activities. J. Water Health 2012, 10, 311–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  215. Xiao, S.; An, W.; Chen, Z.; Zhang, D.; Yu, J.; Yang, M. Occurrences and genotypes of Cryptosporidium oocysts in river network of southern-eastern China. Parasitol. Res. 2012, 110, 1701–1709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Damiani, C.; Balthazard-Accou, K.; Clervil, E.; Diallo, A.; Da Costa, C.; Emmanuel, E.; Totet, A.; Agnamey, P. Cryptosporidiosis in Haiti: Surprisingly low level of species diversity revealed by molecular characterization of Cryptosporidium oocysts from surface water and groundwater. Parasite 2013, 20, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  217. Edge, T.A.; Khan, I.U.H.; Bouchard, R.; Guo, J.; Hill, S.; Locas, A.; Moore, L.; Neumann, N.; Nowak, E.; Payment, P.; et al. Occurrence of waterborne pathogens and Escherichia coli at offshore drinking water intakes in lake Ontario. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2013, 79, 5799–5813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  218. Osaki, S.C.; Soccol, V.T.; Costa, A.O.; Oliveira-Silva, M.B.; Pereira, J.T.; Procópio, A.E. Polymerase chain reaction and nested-PCR approaches for detecting Cryptosporidium in water catchments of water treatment plants in Curitiba, State of Paraná, Brazil. Rev. Soc. Bras. Med. Trop. 2013, 46, 270–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Ruecker, N.J.; Matsune, J.C.; Lapen, D.R.; Topp, E.; Edge, T.A.; Neumann, N.F. The detection of Cryptosporidium and the resolution of mixtures of species and genotypes from water. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2013, 15, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  220. Sroka, J.; Stojecki, K.; Zdybel, J.; Karamon, J.; Cencek, T.; Dutkiewicz, J. Occurrence of Cryptosporidium oocysts and Giardia cysts in effluent from sewage treatment plant from eastern Poland. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2013, 1, 57–62. [Google Scholar]
  221. Staggs, S.E.; Beckman, E.M.; Keely, S.P.; Mackwan, R.; Ware, M.W.; Moyer, A.P.; Ferretti, J.A.; Sayed, A.; Xiao, L.; Villegas, E.N. The Applicability of TaqMan-Based Quantitative Real-Time PCR Assays for Detecting and Enumerating Cryptosporidium spp. Oocysts in the Environment. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e66562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  222. Wilkes, G.; Ruecker, N.J.; Neumann, N.F.; Gannon, V.P.J.; Jokinen, C.; Sunohara, M.; Topp, E.; Pintar, K.D.M.; Edge, T.A.; Lapen, D.R. Spatiotemporal analysis of Cryptosporidium species/genotypes and relationships with other zoonotic pathogens in surface water from mixed-use watersheds. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2013, 79, 434–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  223. Xiao, G.; Qiu, Z.; Qi, J.; Chen, J.-A.; Liu, F.; Liu, W.; Luo, J.; Shu, W. Occurrence and potential health risk of Cryptosporidium and Giardia in the Three Gorges Reservoir, China. Water Res. 2013, 47, 2431–2445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Alonso, J.L.; Amorós, I.; Guy, R.A. Quantification of viable Giardia cysts and Cryptosporidium oocysts in wastewater using propidium monoazide quantitative real-time PCR. Parasitol. Res. 2014, 113, 2671–2678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  225. Betancourt, W.Q.; Duarte, D.C.; Vásquez, R.C.; Gurian, P.L. Cryptosporidium and Giardia in tropical recreational marine waters contaminated with domestic sewage: Estimation of bathing-associated disease risks. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2014, 85, 268–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Dobrowsky, P.H.; De Kwaadsteniet, M.; Cloete, T.E.; Khan, W. Distribution of indigenous bacterial pathogens and potential pathogens associated with roof-harvested rainwater. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2014, 80, 2307–2316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  227. Dreelin, E.A.; Ives, R.L.; Molloy, S.; Rose, J.B. Cryptosporidium and Giardia in surface water: A case study from Michigan, USA to inform management of rural water systems. Int. J. Environ. Res Public Health 2014, 11, 10480–10503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  228. Durigan, M.; Abreu, A.G.; Zucchi, M.I.; Franco, R.M.B.; De Souza, A.P. Genetic diversity of Giardia duodenalis: Multilocus genotyping reveals zoonotic potential between clinical and environmental sources in a metropolitan region of Brazil. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e115489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  229. Galván, A.; Magnet, A.; Izquierdo, F.; Vadillo, C.F.; Peralta, R.; Angulo, S.; Fenoy, S.; del Aguila, C. A year-long study of Cryptosporidium species and subtypes in recreational, drinking and wastewater from the central area of Spain. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 468–469, 368–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  230. Hu, Y.; Feng, Y.Y.; Huang, C.; Xiao, L. Occurrence, source, and human infection potential of Cryptosporidium and Enterocytozoon bieneusi in drinking source water in Shanghai, China, during a pig carcass disposal incident. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 14219–14227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  231. Kitajima, M.; Haramoto, E.; Iker, B.C.; Gerba, C.P. Occurrence of Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and Cyclospora in influent and effluent water at wastewater treatment plants in Arizona. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 484, 129–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  232. Ma, L.; Sotiriadou, I.; Cai, Q.; Karanis, G.; Wang, G.; Wang, G.; Lu, Y.; Li, X.; Karanis, P. Detection of Cryptosporidium and Giardia in agricultural and water environments in the Qinghai area of China by IFT and PCR. Parasitol. Res 2014, 113, 3177–3184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  233. Moss, J.A.; Gordy, J.; Snyder, R.A. Effective Concentration and Detection of Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and the Microsporidia from Environmental Matrices. J. Pathog. 2014, 2014, 408204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  234. Prystajecky, N.A.; Huck, P.M.; Schreier, H.; Isaac-Renton, J.L. Assessment of Giardia and Cryptosporidium spp. as a microbial source tracking tool for surface water: Application in a mixed-use watershed. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2014, 80, 2328–2336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  235. Samie, A.; Ntekele, P. Genotypic detection and evaluation of the removal efficiency of Giardia duodenalis at municipal wastewater treatment plants in Northern South Africa. Trop. Biomed. 2014, 31, 122–133. [Google Scholar]
  236. Swaffer, B.A.; Vial, H.M.; King, B.J.; Daly, R.; Frizenschaf, J.; Monis, P.T. Investigating source water Cryptosporidium concentration, species and infectivity rates during rainfall-runoff in a multi-use catchment. Water Res. 2014, 67, 310–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  237. Widerström, M.; Schönning, C.; Lilja, M.; Lebbad, M.; Ljung, T.; Allestam, G.; Ferm, M.; Björkholm, B.; Hansen, A.; Hiltula, J.; et al. Large outbreak of Cryptosporidium hominis infection transmitted through the public water supply, Sweden. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2014, 20, 581–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  238. Adamska, M.; Sawczuk, M.; Kolodziejczyk, L.; Skotarczak, B. Assessment of molecular methods as a tool for detecting pathogenic protozoa isolated from water bodies. J. Water Health 2015, 13, 953–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  239. Almeida, J.C.; Martins, F.D.C.; Neto, J.M.F.; Dos Santos, M.M.; Garcia, J.L.; Navarro, I.T.; Kuroda, E.K.; Freire, R.L. Occurrence of Cryptosporidium spp. and Giardia spp. in a public water-treatment system, Paraná, Southern Brazil. Rev. Bras. Parasitol Veterinária 2015, 24, 303–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  240. Bonilla, J.A.; Bonilla, T.D.; Abdelzaher, A.M.; Scott, T.M.; Lukasik, J.; Solo-Gabriele, H.M.; Palmer, C.J. Quantification of protozoa and viruses from small water volumes. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 7118–7132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  241. Castro-Hermida, J.A.; González-Warleta, M.; Mezo, M. Cryptosporidium spp. and Giardia duodenalis as pathogenic contaminants of water in Galicia, Spain: The need for safe drinking water. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2015, 218, 132–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  242. Colli, C.M.; Bezagio, R.C.; Nishi, L.; Bignotto, T.S.; Ferreira, C.; Falavigna-Guilherme, A.L.; Gomes, M.L. Identical assemblage of Giardia duodenalis in humans, animals and vegetables in an urban area in Southern Brazil indicates a relationship among them. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0118065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  243. David, B.; Guimarães, S.; de Oliveira, A.P.; de Oliveira-Sequeira, T.C.G.; Bittencourt, G.N.; Nardi, A.R.M.; Ribolla, P.E.M.; Franco, R.M.B.; Branco, N.; Tosini, F.; et al. Molecular characterization of intestinal protozoa in two poor communities in the State of São Paulo, Brazil. Parasites Vectors 2015, 8, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  244. Ehsan, A.; Geurden, T.; Casaert, S.; Paulussen, J.; De Coster, L.; Schoemaker, T.; Chalmers, R.; Grit, G.; Vercruysse, J.; Claerebout, E. Occurrence and potential health risk of Cryptosporidium and Giardia in different water catchments in Belgium. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2015, 187, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  245. Ehsan, A.; Casaert, S.; Levecke, B.; Van Rooy, L.; Pelicaen, J.; Smis, A.; De Backer, J.; Vervaeke, B.; De Smedt, S.; Schoonbaert, F.; et al. Cryptosporidium and Giardia in recreational water in Belgium. J. Water Health 2015, 13, 870–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  246. Gertler, M.; Dürr, M.; Renner, P.; Poppert, S.; Askar, M.; Breidenbach, J.; Frank, C.; Preußel, K.; Schielke, A.; Werber, D.; et al. Outbreak of following river flooding in the city of Halle (Saale), Germany, August 2013. BMC Infect. Dis. 2015, 15, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  247. Hill, V.R.; Narayanan, J.; Gallen, R.R.; Ferdinand, K.L.; Cromeans, T.L.; Vinjé, J. Development of a nucleic acid extraction procedure for simultaneous recovery of DNA and RNA from diverse microbes in water. Pathogens 2015, 4, 335–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  248. Marangi, M.; Giangaspero, A.; Lacasella, V.; Lonigro, A.; Gasser, R.B. Multiplex PCR for the detection and quantification of zoonotic taxa of Giardia, Cryptosporidium and Toxoplasma in wastewater and mussels. Mol. Cell. Probes 2015, 29, 122–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  249. Parsons, M.B.; Travis, D.; Lonsdorf, E.V.; Lipende, I.; Roellig, D.M.A.; Kamenya, S.; Zhang, H.; Xiao, L.; Gillespie, T.R. Epidemiology and Molecular Characterization of Cryptosporidium spp. in Humans, Wild Primates, and Domesticated Animals in the Greater Gombe Ecosystem, Tanzania. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2015, 9, e0003529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  250. Pitkänen, T.; Juselius, T.; Isomäki, E.; Miettinen, I.T.; Valve, M.; Kivimäki, A.-L.; Lahti, K.; Hänninen, M.-L. Drinking water quality and occurrence of Giardia in finnish small groundwater supplies. Resources 2015, 4, 637–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  251. Prystajecky, N.; Tsui, C.K.-M.; Hsiao, W.W.L.; Uyaguari-Diaz, M.I.; Ho, J.; Tang, P.; Isaac-Renton, J. Giardia spp. are commonly found in mixed assemblages in surface water, as revealed by molecular and whole-genome characterization. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2015, 81, 4827–4834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  252. Shanan, S.; Abd, H.; Bayoumi, M.; Saeed, A.; Sandström, G. Prevalence of protozoa species in drinking and environmental water sources in Sudan. Biomed. Res. Int. 2015, 2015, 345619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  253. Spanakos, G.; Biba, A.; Mavridou, A.; Karanis, P. Occurrence of Cryptosporidium and Giardia in recycled waters used for irrigation and first description of Cryptosporidium parvum and C. muris in Greece. Parasitol. Res. 2015, 114, 1803–1810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  254. Wells, B.; Shaw, H.; Hotchkiss, E.; Gilray, J.; Ayton, R.; Green, J.; Katzer, F.; Wells, A.; Innes, E. Prevalence, species identification and genotyping Cryptosporidium from livestock and deer in a catchment in the Cairngorms with a history of a contaminated public water supply. Parasites Vectors 2015, 8, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  255. Koloren, Z.; Seferoğlu, O.; Karanis, P. Occurency of Giardia duodenalis assemblages in river water sources of Black Sea, Turkey. Acta Trop. 2016, 164, 337–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  256. Kumar, T.; Majid, M.A.A.; Onichandran, S.; Jaturas, N.; Andiappan, H.; Salibay, C.C.; Tabo, H.A.L.; Tabo, N.; Dungca, J.Z.; Tangpong, J.; et al. Presence of Cryptosporidium parvum and Giardia lamblia in water samples from Southeast Asia: Towards an integrated water detection system. Infect. Dis. Poverty 2016, 5, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  257. Lapen, D.; Schmidt, P.; Thomas, J.; Edge, T.; Flemming, C.; Keithlin, J.; Neumann, N.; Pollari, F.; Ruecker, N.; Simhon, A.; et al. Towards a more accurate quantitative assessment of seasonal Cryptosporidium infection risks in surface waters using species and genotype information. Water Res. 2016, 105, 625–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  258. Santos, S.F.O.; Silva, H.D.; Wosnjuk, L.A.C.; Anunciação, C.E.; Silveira-Lacerda, E.P.; Peralta, R.H.S.; Cunha, F.S.; Ferreira, T.D.-S.; García-Zapata, M.T.A. Occurrence and Evaluation of Methodologies to Detect Cryptosporidium spp. in Treated Water in the Central-West Region of Brazil. Expo. Health 2016, 8, 117–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  259. Triviño-Valencia, J.; Lora, F.; Zuluaga, J.D.; Gomez-Marin, J.E. Detection by PCR of pathogenic protozoa in raw and drinkable water samples in Colombia. Parasitol. Res. 2016, 115, 1789–1797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  260. Ulloa-Stanojlovic, F.M.; Aguiar, B.; Jara, L.M.; Sato, M.I.Z.; Guerrero, J.A.; Hachich, E.; Matté, G.R.; Dropa, M.; Matté, M.H.; Araujo, R. Occurrence of Giardia intestinalis and Cryptosporidium sp. in wastewater samples from São Paulo State, Brazil, and Lima, Peru. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 22197–22205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  261. Berglund, B.; Dienus, O.; Sokolova, E.; Berglind, E.; Matussek, A.; Pettersson, T.; Lindgren, P.-E. Occurrence and removal efficiency of parasitic protozoa in Swedish wastewater treatment plants. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 598, 821–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  262. Hatam-Nahavandi, K.; Mohebali, M.; Mahvi, A.-H.; Keshavarz, H.; Mirjalali, H.; Rezaei, S.; Meamar, A.-R.; Rezaeian, M. Subtype analysis of Giardia duodenalis isolates from municipal and domestic raw wastewaters in Iran. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 12740–12747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  263. Imre, K.; Sala, C.; Morar, A.; Ilie, M.S.; Plutzer, J.; Imre, M.; Hora, F.; Badea, C.; Herbei, M.V.; Dărăbuș, G. Giardia duodenalis and Cryptosporidium spp. as contaminant protozoa of the main rivers of western Romania: Genetic characterization and public health potential of the isolates. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 18672–18679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  264. Imre, K.; Morar, A.; Ilie, M.S.; Plutzer, J.; Imre, M.; Emil, T.; Herbei, M.V.; Dărăbuș, G. Survey of the Occurrence and Human Infective Potential of Giardia duodenalis and Cryptosporidium spp. in Wastewater and Different Surface Water Sources of Western Romania. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2017, 17, 685–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  265. Lass, A.; Szostakowska, B.; Korzeniewski, K.; Karanis, P. Detection of Giardia intestinalis in water samples collected from natural water reservoirs and wells in northern and north-eastern Poland using LAMP, real-time PCR and nested PCR. J. Water Health 2017, 15, 775–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  266. Ramo, A.; Del Cacho, E.; Sánchez-Acedo, C.; Quílez, J. Occurrence and genetic diversity of Cryptosporidium and Giardia in urban wastewater treatment plants in north-eastern Spain. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 598, 628–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  267. Ramo, A.; Del Cacho, E.; Sánchez-Acedo, C.; Quílez, J. Occurrence of Cryptosporidium and Giardia in raw and finished drinking water in north-eastern Spain. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 580, 1007–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  268. Xiao, S.; Yin, P.; Zhang, Y.; Hu, S. Occurrence of Cryptosporidium and Giardia and the relationship between protozoa and water quality indicators in swimming pools. Korean J. Parasitol. 2017, 55, 129–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  269. Bautista, M.; Bonatti, T.R.; Fiuza, V.R.D.S.; Terashima, A.; Canales-Ramos, M.; José, J.; Franco, R.M.B. Occurrence and molecular characterization of Giardia duodenalis cysts and Cryptosporidium oocysts in raw water samples from the Rímac River, Peru. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 11454–11467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  270. Daley, K.; Hansen, L.T.; Jamieson, R.C.; Hayward, J.L.; Piorkowski, G.S.; Krkosek, W.; Gagnon, G.A.; Castleden, H.; MacNeil, K.; Poltarowicz, J.; et al. Chemical and microbial characteristics of municipal drinking water supply systems in the Canadian Arctic. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 32926–32937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  271. De Araújo, R.S.; Aguiar, B.; Dropa, M.; Razzolini, M.T.P.; Sato, M.I.Z.; Lauretto, M.D.S.; Galvani, A.T.; Padula, J.A.; Matté, G.R.; Matté, M.H. Detection and molecular characterization of Cryptosporidium species and Giardia assemblages in two watersheds in the metropolitan region of São Paulo, Brazil. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 15191–15203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  272. Kalinová, J.; Valenčáková, A.; Hatalová, E.; Danišová, O.; Trungelová, M.; Hromada, R. Occurrence of Cryptosporidium in the water basins of nitra region, Slovakia. Acta Trop. 2018, 179, 36–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  273. Ladeia, W.A.; Martins, F.D.C.; Silva, C.F.R.E.; Freire, R.L. Molecular surveillance of Cryptosporidium and Giardia duodenalis in sludge and spent filter backwash water of a water treatment plant. J. Water Health 2018, 16, 857–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  274. Sánchez, C.; López, M.C.; Galeano, L.A.; Qvarnstrom, Y.; Houghton, K.; Ramírez, J.D. Molecular detection and genotyping of pathogenic protozoan parasites in raw and treated water samples from southwest Colombia. Parasites Vectors 2018, 11, 563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  275. Xiao, S.; Yin, P.; Zhang, Y.; Zhao, X.; Sun, L.; Yuan, H.; Lu, J.; Hu, S. Occurrence, genotyping, and health risk of Cryptosporidium and Giardia in recreational lakes in Tianjin, China. Water Res. 2018, 141, 46–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  276. Xiao, S.; Zhang, Y.; Zhao, X.; Sun, L.; Hu, S. Presence and molecular characterization of Cryptosporidium and Giardia in recreational lake water in Tianjin, China: A preliminary study. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 2353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  277. Zahedi, A.; Gofton, A.W.; Greay, T.; Monis, P.; Oskam, C.; Ball, A.; Bath, A.; Watkinson, A.; Robertson, I.; Ryan, U. Profiling the diversity of Cryptosporidium species and genotypes in wastewater treatment plants in Australia using next generation sequencing. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 644, 635–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  278. Andrade, R.C.; Bastos, R.K.X.; Bevilacqua, P.D.; Andrade, R.V. Cryptosporidium genotyping and land use mapping for hazard identification and source tracking in a small mixed rural–urban watershed in Southeastern Brazil. J. Water Health 2019, 17, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  279. Hamdy, D.; El-Badry, A.; El Wahab, W.A. Assessment of Giardia and Cryptosporidium assemblages/species and their viability in potable tap water in Beni-Suef, Egypt using nested PCR/RFLP and staining. Iran J. Parasitol. 2019, 14, 368–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  280. Ma, L.; Zhang, X.; Jian, Y.; Li, X.; Wang, G.; Hu, Y.; Karanis, P. Correction to: Detection of Cryptosporidium and Giardia in the slaughterhouse, sewage and river waters of the Qinghai Tibetan plateau area (QTPA), China. Parasitol. Res. 2019, 118, 3571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  281. Masina, S.; Shirley, J.; Allen, J.; Sargeant, J.M.; Guy, R.A.; Wallis, P.M.; Weese, J.S.; Cunsolo, A.; Bunce, A.; Harper, S.L. Weather, environmental conditions, and waterborne Giardia and Cryptosporidium in lqaluit, Nunavut. J. Water Health 2019, 17, 84–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  282. Pignata, C.; Bonetta, S.; Bonetta, S.; Cacciò, S.M.; Sannella, A.R.; Gilli, G.; Carraro, E. Cryptosporidium oocyst contamination in drinking water: A case study in Italy. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  283. Utaaker, K.S.; Joshi, H.; Kumar, A.; Chaudhary, S.; Robertson, L.J. Occurrence of Cryptosporidium and Giardia in potable water sources in Chandigarh, Northern India. J. Water Supply Res. Technol.-AQUA 2019, 68, 483–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  284. Abd El-Latif, N.F.; El-Taweel, H.A.; Gaballah, A.; Salem, A.I.; Abd El-Malek, A.H.M. Molecular Characterization of Giardia intestinalis Detected in Humans and Water Samples in Egypt. Acta Parasitol. 2020, 65, 482–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  285. Alhayali, N.S.; Al-Amery, A.M.; Hasan, M.H. Detection of Giardia intestinalis in human, calves and water supplies by traditional and molecular methods at Baghdad city, Iraq. Iraq. J. Agric. Sci. 2020, 51, 1428–1435. [Google Scholar]
  286. Benito, M.; Menacho, C.; Chueca, P.; Ormad, M.P.; Goñi, P. Seeking the reuse of effluents and sludge from conventional wastewater treatment plants: Analysis of the presence of intestinal protozoa and nematode eggs. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 261, 110268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  287. Brooks, Y.M.; Spirito, C.M.; Bae, J.S.; Hong, A.; Mosier, E.M.; Sausele, D.J.; Fernandez-Baca, C.P.; Epstein, J.L.; Shapley, D.J.; Goodman, L.B.; et al. Fecal indicator bacteria, fecal source tracking markers, and pathogens detected in two Hudson River tributaries. Water Res. 2020, 171, 115342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  288. Jiang, W.; Roellig, D.M.; Li, N.; Wang, L.; Guo, Y.; Feng, Y.; Xiao, L. Contribution of hospitals to the occurrence of enteric protists in urban wastewater. Parasitol. Res. 2020, 119, 3033–3040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  289. Ligda, P.; Claerebout, E.; Casaert, S.; Robertson, L.J.; Sotiraki, S. Investigations from Northern Greece on mussels cultivated in areas proximal to wastewaters discharges, as a potential source for human infection with Giardia and Cryptosporidium. Exp. Parasitol. 2020, 210, 107848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  290. Ligda, P.; Claerebout, E.; Kostopoulou, D.; Zdragas, A.; Casaert, S.; Robertson, L.J.; Sotiraki, S. Cryptosporidium and Giardia in surface water and drinking water: Animal sources and towards the use of a machine-learning approach as a tool for predicting contamination. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 264, 114766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  291. Rusiñol, M.; Martinez-Puchol, S.; Timoneda, N.; Fernández-Cassi, X.; Pérez-Cataluña, A.; Fernández-Bravo, A.; Moreno-Mesonero, L.; Moreno, Y.; Alonso, J.L.; Figueras, M.J.; et al. Metagenomic analysis of viruses, bacteria and protozoa in irrigation water. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2020, 224, 113440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  292. Stokdyk, J.P.; Firnstahl, A.D.; Walsh, J.F.; Spencer, S.K.; de Lambert, J.R.; Anderson, A.C.; Rezania, L.-I.W.; Kieke, B.A.; Borchardt, M.A. Viral, bacterial, and protozoan pathogens and fecal markers in wells supplying groundwater to public water systems in Minnesota, USA. Water Res. 2020, 178, 115814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  293. Atnafu, B.; Desta, A.; Assefa, F. Microbial Community Structure and Diversity in Drinking Water Supply, Distribution Systems as well as Household Point of Use Sites in Addis Ababa City, Ethiopia. Microb. Ecol. 2021, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  294. Barnes, A.N.; Davaasuren, A.; Baasandavga, U.; Lantos, P.M.; Gonchigoo, B.; Gray, G.C. Zoonotic enteric parasites in Mongolian people, animals, and the environment: Using One Health to address shared pathogens. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2021, 15, e0009543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  295. Bivins, A.; Lowry, S.; Wankhede, S.; Hajare, R.; Murphy, H.M.; Borchardt, M.; Labhasetwar, P.; Brown, J. Microbial water quality improvement associated with transitioning from intermittent to continuous water supply in Nagpur, India. Water Res. 2021, 201, 117301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  296. Cervero-Aragó, S.; Desvars-Larrive, A.; Lindner, G.; Sommer, R.; Häfeli, I.; Walochnik, J. Surface waters and urban brown rats as potential sources of human-infective Cryptosporidium and Giardia in Vienna, Austria. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 1596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  297. dela Peña, L.B.R.O.; Vejano, M.R.A.; Rivera, W.L. Molecular surveillance of Cryptosporidium spp. for microbial source tracking of fecal contamination in Laguna Lake, Philippines. J. Water Health 2021, 19, 534–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  298. Falohun, O.O.; Ayinmode, A.B.; Adejinmi, J.O. Molecular characterisation of Cryptosporidium isolates from rivers, water treatment plants and abattoirs in Ibadan, Nigeria. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2021, 74, 101577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  299. Fan, Y.; Wang, X.; Yang, R.; Zhao, W.; Li, N.; Guo, Y.; Xiao, L.; Feng, Y. Molecular characterization of the waterborne pathogens Cryptosporidium spp., Giardia duodenalis, Enterocytozoon bieneusi, Cyclospora cayetanensis and Eimeria spp. in wastewater and sewage in Guangzhou, China. Parasit Vectors 2021, 14, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  300. Fernández-Baca, C.P.; Spirito, C.M.; Bae, J.S.; Szegletes, Z.M.; Barott, N.; Sausele, D.J.; Brooks, Y.M.; Weller, D.L.; Richardson, R.E. Rapid qPCR-Based Water Quality Monitoring in New York State Recreational Waters. Front. Water 2021, 3, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  301. Keenum, I.; Medina, M.C.; Garner, E.; Pieper, K.J.; Blair, M.F.; Milligan, E.; Pruden, A.; Ramirez-Toro, G.; Rhoads, W.J. Source-to-Tap Assessment of Microbiological Water Quality in Small Rural Drinking Water Systems in Puerto Rico Six Months After Hurricane Maria. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 55, 3775–3785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  302. Liu, P.; Amin, N.; Miah, R.; Foster, T.; Raj, S.; Corpuz, M.J.B.; Rahman, M.; Willetts, J.; Moe, C.L. A method for correcting underestimation of enteric pathogen genome quantities in environmental samples. J. Microbiol. Methods 2021, 189, 106320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  303. Mphephu, M.G.; Ekwanzala, M.D.; Momba, M.N.B. Cryptosporidium species and subtypes in river water and riverbed sediment using next-generation sequencing. Int. J. Parasitol. 2021, 51, 339–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  304. Reiling, S.J.; Merks, H.; Zhu, S.; Boone, R.; Corneau, N.; Dixon, B.R. A cloth-based hybridization array system for rapid detection of the food- and waterborne protozoan parasites Giardia duodenalis, Cryptosporidium spp. and Toxoplasma gondii. Food Waterborne Parasitol. 2021, 24, e00130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  305. Sun, A.; Stanton, J.-A.L.; Bergquist, P.L.; Sunna, A. Universal Enzyme-Based Field Workflow for Rapid and Sensitive Quantification of Water Pathogens. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 2367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  306. Vejano, M.R.A.; dela Peña, L.B.R.O.; Rivera, W.L. Occurrence of Giardia duodenalis in selected stations and tributary rivers of Laguna Lake, Philippines. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2021, 193, 466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  307. Yanta, C.A.; Bessonov, K.; Robinson, G.; Troell, K.; Guy, R.A. CryptoGenotyper: A new bioinformatics tool for rapid Cryptosporidium identification. Food Waterborne Parasitol. 2021, 23, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Key steps of the U.S. EPA Method 1623.1. The main steps of the U.S. EPA Method 1623.1 are: (1) the filtration of up to 100 L of the sample with an approved apparatus by the U.S. EPA with a pore size of 1 µm, (2) the elution of the biological material from the filters with mechanical agitation and centrifugation, (3) the concentration of the (oo)cysts by immunomagnetic separation and (4) the observation of the samples by microscopy (DIC followed by fluorescence microscopy with fluorescent molecules DAPI and FITC).
Figure 1. Key steps of the U.S. EPA Method 1623.1. The main steps of the U.S. EPA Method 1623.1 are: (1) the filtration of up to 100 L of the sample with an approved apparatus by the U.S. EPA with a pore size of 1 µm, (2) the elution of the biological material from the filters with mechanical agitation and centrifugation, (3) the concentration of the (oo)cysts by immunomagnetic separation and (4) the observation of the samples by microscopy (DIC followed by fluorescence microscopy with fluorescent molecules DAPI and FITC).
Microorganisms 10 01175 g001
Figure 2. Microscopic observation of Cryptosporidium spp. and Giardia spp. Cells 4–6 µm in diameter in these pictures belong to the Cryptosporidium genus while cells 8–18 µm long by 5–15 µm wide are identified as Giardia spp. (A) A bright green fluorescence can be seen on the cells’ periphery with the use of two antibodies specific to each parasite linked to FITC. (B) The DAPI marker allows the identification of nuclei within the cells. Cryptosporidium spp. is known to possess four nuclei in its oocyst configuration. Giardia spp. cysts contain two cells that are still linked, each of which has two nuclei. Therefore, two to four nuclei are expected to be observed according to the orientation of the cyst. (C) Under differential interference contrast, Cryptosporidium spp. oocysts can be seen as spherical structures with rough edges. Giardia spp. cysts have an irregular shape most often perceived as ovoid.
Figure 2. Microscopic observation of Cryptosporidium spp. and Giardia spp. Cells 4–6 µm in diameter in these pictures belong to the Cryptosporidium genus while cells 8–18 µm long by 5–15 µm wide are identified as Giardia spp. (A) A bright green fluorescence can be seen on the cells’ periphery with the use of two antibodies specific to each parasite linked to FITC. (B) The DAPI marker allows the identification of nuclei within the cells. Cryptosporidium spp. is known to possess four nuclei in its oocyst configuration. Giardia spp. cysts contain two cells that are still linked, each of which has two nuclei. Therefore, two to four nuclei are expected to be observed according to the orientation of the cyst. (C) Under differential interference contrast, Cryptosporidium spp. oocysts can be seen as spherical structures with rough edges. Giardia spp. cysts have an irregular shape most often perceived as ovoid.
Microorganisms 10 01175 g002
Figure 3. Origin of the water samples from biomolecular studies reviewed according to the parasite of interest.
Figure 3. Origin of the water samples from biomolecular studies reviewed according to the parasite of interest.
Microorganisms 10 01175 g003
Table 1. Frequency of use of different biomolecular techniques and detection limits achieved. To compare the detection limits retrieved from the literature, the values were converted mathematically into (oo)cysts per microliter. When the detection limit was given in weight instead of in cells, the reference values of 40 fg of DNA per oocyst and of 313 fg of DNA per cyst were used for the conversion, as stated in [101,102]. Also, since Giardia is a polyploid organism and thus the number of genome copies varies between cells, one genome copy per nucleus (four copies per cyst) was assumed to simplify the conversion. Finally, to standardize the limits of detection, the volume of the reaction was systematically assumed to be of 1 µL for more simplicity.
Table 1. Frequency of use of different biomolecular techniques and detection limits achieved. To compare the detection limits retrieved from the literature, the values were converted mathematically into (oo)cysts per microliter. When the detection limit was given in weight instead of in cells, the reference values of 40 fg of DNA per oocyst and of 313 fg of DNA per cyst were used for the conversion, as stated in [101,102]. Also, since Giardia is a polyploid organism and thus the number of genome copies varies between cells, one genome copy per nucleus (four copies per cyst) was assumed to simplify the conversion. Finally, to standardize the limits of detection, the volume of the reaction was systematically assumed to be of 1 µL for more simplicity.
OrganismTechniqueFrequencyLower Detection LimitHigher Detection Limit
Giardia spp.DNA hybridization51–5 cysts/mL1000 copies/reaction
PCR and derivatives8110 cysts/100 L100 cysts/reaction
Real-time PCR275 cysts/L50 cysts/reaction
LAMP3100 fg of target DNA/mL100 fg of target DNA/mL
Cryptosporidium spp.DNA hybridization6Non applicable1000 copies/reaction
PCR and derivatives1391–5 oocysts/20 L0.13 ng of DNA per mL
Real-time PCR3110 oocysts/100 L 50 oocysts/reaction
LAMP4100 fg of target DNA/mL1.8 fg/reaction
Table 2. Frequency of use of different genetic targets by molecular biology studies.
Table 2. Frequency of use of different genetic targets by molecular biology studies.
OrganismGenetic TargetTime Used
Giardia spp.Giardin gene (ex. β-giardin)49
18S rRNA gene39
Glutamate dehydrogenase gene34
Triose phosphate isomerase gene31
Elongation factor gene (ex.EF1-α)4
Heat-shock gene2
Cryptosporidium spp.18S rRNA gene122
Glycoprotein-60 gene26
Oocyst cell wall protein gene25
Heat-shock protein gene19
Other genes11
Uncharacterized genomic sequences9
TRAP-C genes3
S-adenosyl-methionine synthetase-1 gene3
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fradette, M.-S.; Culley, A.I.; Charette, S.J. Detection of Cryptosporidium spp. and Giardia spp. in Environmental Water Samples: A Journey into the Past and New Perspectives. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 1175. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10061175

AMA Style

Fradette M-S, Culley AI, Charette SJ. Detection of Cryptosporidium spp. and Giardia spp. in Environmental Water Samples: A Journey into the Past and New Perspectives. Microorganisms. 2022; 10(6):1175. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10061175

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fradette, Marie-Stéphanie, Alexander I. Culley, and Steve J. Charette. 2022. "Detection of Cryptosporidium spp. and Giardia spp. in Environmental Water Samples: A Journey into the Past and New Perspectives" Microorganisms 10, no. 6: 1175. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10061175

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop