Next Article in Journal
Phytochemical Profiling, Antioxidant and Antibacterial Activities of Persicaria odorata Ethanolic Leaf Extract and Evaluation of Growth Performance, Disease Resistance, and Gene Expression in Labeo chrysophekadion (Bleeker, 1849)
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation on Broilers’ Health and Meat Quality—Systematic Review
Previous Article in Special Issue
Absence of Host-Specific Hemotropic Mycoplasmas in Horses and Donkeys from Croatia: First Systematic Survey in Southeastern Europe
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 16
Issue 5
10.3390/ani16050847
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Anuran amphibian Hemoparasites over the Last Century: Advances, Challenges, and Future Prospects: A Systematic Review

by
Paula Andrea Yepes
1,
Lucas S. Barrientos
1,* and
Adriana Pulido-Villamarín
2
1
Unit of Ecology and Systematics (UNESIS), Department of Biology, Faculty of Sciences, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá 110911, Colombia
2
Unit of Agricultural Research (UNIDIA), Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Sciences, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá 110911, Colombia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2026, 16(5), 847; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16050847
Submission received: 28 October 2025 / Revised: 18 December 2025 / Accepted: 19 December 2025 / Published: 8 March 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Wild and Domestic Animal Hemoparasites)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Simple Summary

Over the last century, scientists have reported blood parasites in frogs and toads, but we still lack a clear picture of how common they are, where they occur, and what they mean for wildlife’s health. We reviewed 83 studies published between 1924 and 2024 to bring together what is known. Scientific activity has increased since the 2000s and has been concentrated in North and South America. Most studies used microscopy to search for and identify parasites in blood smears, and far fewer combined microscopy with DNA methods that improve detection. The parasites most often reported include protozoans in the groups Hepatozoon and Trypanosoma, as well as microfilariae. On the host side, studies focused on a few Anuran amphibians. Large gaps persist in tropical regions with high biodiversity, such as parts of Africa, Asia, and the Andes–Amazon area. Filling these gaps is important because these parasites can affect the health, survival, and reproduction of amphibians, which are key to healthy ecosystems. Our work highlights practical steps—strengthening local capacities, expanding sampling, and sharing clear methods—to monitor these infections and support conservation and environmental monitoring.

Abstract

Hemoparasites are intracellular organisms that affect groups of vertebrates, including amphibians, yet their diversity, distribution, and ecological effects remain partially understood. This systematic review analyzed advances over the past one hundred years in the study of hemoparasites in anurans, emphasizing: (1) the geographical distribution of studies, (2) the diagnostic techniques employed, and (3) the diversity of parasites and hosts involved. To this end, 83 scientific articles published between 1924 and 2024 were reviewed, following PRISMA guidelines and within an adapted PICO framework. The results reveal a notable increase in publications since the 2000s, with a concentration in North and South America. Morphological studies predominated (69.9%), while only 22.9% combined morphological and molecular techniques and 9.6% used only molecular techniques. Protozoan genera such as Hepatozoon and Trypanosoma, as well as nematodes (microfilariae) of the family Filaroidea, were frequently reported (69.7%); on the host side, the most studied anuran families were Ranidae (34.6%), Hylidae (6.9%), and Bufonidae (21.5%). Important methodological gaps were evident, particularly biodiverse tropical regions such as Central Africa, Southeast Asia, the Andean-Amazon, and Central America. These findings underscore the need to strengthen local research capacities, expand sampling efforts, and standardize diagnostic protocols to advance knowledge of hemoparasite diversity, ecology, and their role in ecosystem health.

1. Introduction

Amphibians play fundamental roles in ecosystems, serving as bioindicators of environmental change and regulating invertebrate populations [1,2]. Despite their ecological importance, amphibian populations have experienced rapid global declines, driven by habitat destruction, climate change, and the emergence of infectious diseases [3,4]. While some diseases, such as chytridiomycosis and ranavirosis, have been extensively investigated, others—such as hemoparasitic infections—have received comparatively less attention, despite their potential to increase host vulnerability [5,6].
Hemoparasitism in amphibians is caused by a broad diversity of microorganisms, including protozoa of the genera Trypanosoma and Plasmodium, as well as bacteria of the genus Rickettsia [7,8]. These infections can negatively affect their hosts by altering homeostasis, weakening immune responses, and compromising reproductive success and survival [9,10]. Nevertheless, research has largely focused on the taxonomic identification of parasites, often overlooking questions of prevalence, diversity, and ecological significance [11,12]. This lack of an integrative perspective has limited our understanding of the role hemoparasites may play in amphibian population dynamics and in the transmission of diseases within wild communities.
Over the past century, studies on amphibian hemoparasites have evolved from early morphological descriptions to the adoption of molecular approaches. However, most investigations continue to rely on traditional morphological techniques such as blood smear analysis, which, although useful, are limited in sensitivity and specificity [13]. These methods depend heavily on the expertise of the observer for accurate identification and for detecting immature parasite stages [12]. In recent decades, molecular tools have enabled more precise and reliable detection of these organisms [14]. Yet, their application to amphibians remains limited, and standardized protocols for cross-regional and cross-species comparisons are still lacking [6].
In light of fragmented knowledge and the absence of a comprehensive synthesis, a unified framework is needed to consolidate available information and guide future research. Here, we present a systematic review of the literature on amphibian hemoparasites spanning the past 100 years, following PRISMA guidelines [15] and using the PICO framework (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) as a structural basis. Specifically, we address three key aspects: (1) the global distribution of amphibian hemoparasite research, (2) the diagnostic methods employed and their limitations, and (3) the diversity of parasite and host species recorded. By synthesizing the state of knowledge and identifying critical gaps, this review establishes a foundation for advancing our understanding of the ecological and epidemiological roles of hemoparasites while also highlighting priorities for future research under scenarios of biodiversity loss and emerging infectious diseases.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

This work is a systematic review of the literature published between 1924 and 2024, following the guidelines of the PRISMA methodology (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) [15]. The PICO framework (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) was used to structure the research question and to define inclusion and eligibility criteria. The population of interest (P) consisted of amphibians; the intervention (I) was the presence of hemoparasites; the comparisons (C) included diagnostic technique (morphological or molecular), publication year, and country of study; and the outcomes (O) encompassed reported prevalence, parasite types, and diagnostic approaches.

2.2. Search Strategy

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in three scientific databases: Web of Science, Scopus, and SciELO. The search equation was designed using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and keywords related to hemoparasites and amphibians, in English, Portuguese, and Spanish. The full search string was:
(Hemopar?sit* OR Trypanosome OR Tr*panos?oma OR “Par?sito d* la sang*e” OR “Blood parasite” OR Plasm?di* OR Rickettsia OR Filaria OR Hepatozoon OR Hemogregarin*s OR Trophozo?t* OR Microfilaria OR Apicomplexa OR Gamet* OR Dact*losoma OR Inclus* bacteri* OR Gamet?c* OR Meront* OR “Inclusi?n en globulo rojo” OR “Red blood cell inclusion” OR “Inclus?o em gl?bulo vermelho” OR Merozo? OR Intrac?toplasm?tic* OR “Inclus* citoplasm?tic*” OR “Cytoplasmic inclusion*” OR Protozo* OR Parasitemia)
AND
(Rana OR Frog OR Sapo OR Toad OR Anf?bi* OR Amphibia* OR Herpetolog* OR Salamand* OR Lagarto OR Lizard OR Bufonidae OR Lithobates OR Hylidae OR Dendrobatidae OR Leptodactylidae OR Ranidae OR Rhinella OR Phyllomedusidae)
AND NOT
(bird* OR p?jaro* OR human* OR mammal* OR mam?fero*)
The search was restricted to studies published between 1924 and 2024. Publications that did not meet inclusion criteria—such as those focused on birds, humans, or other mammals—were excluded.

2.3. Inclusion and Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion criteria were defined following the PICO framework (Table 1):
All types of publications (original articles, reviews, theses, and book chapters) meeting these criteria were included. Studies that did not provide methodological details or that focused on non-amphibian taxa were excluded.

2.4. Study Selection and Data Extraction

Records retrieved were imported into Mendeley Reference Manager (version 2.130.2) to remove duplicates. Titles and abstracts were screened to identify potentially relevant studies, and selected papers were assessed in full text for eligibility. No formal quality assessment scale was applied, as the aim of this review was to integrate all available evidence that fulfilled the inclusion criteria.
Data were extracted using a standardized template including the following variables:
  • Author(s) and year of publication
  • Geographic location of the study (continent and country)
  • Amphibian species examined
  • Hemoparasite taxa identified
  • Diagnostic techniques employed (morphological or molecular)
  • Reported prevalence of hemoparasitism
  • Genes and primers evaluated

2.5. Data Analysis

Extracted data were compiled into a structured database and analyzed using descriptive and exploratory approaches. Frequencies were calculated for hemoparasite taxa, diagnostic techniques, and the geographic distribution of published studies. Temporal trends in amphibian hemoparasite research between 1924 and 2024 were assessed to identify changes in research intensity over time. Taxonomic nomenclature of amphibian hosts was updated and standardized following Frost (2023) [16]. All analyses and graphical visualizations were conducted in R (version 4.4.1), ensuring reproducibility and consistency across datasets.

3. Results

3.1. Database Search and Screening

The systematic search in Web of Science, Scopus, and SciELO yielded a total of 1344 potentially relevant records between 1924 and 2024. The distribution of records by database is shown in Figure 1. Most records originated from Web of Science (63.6%), followed by Scopus (34.4%) and SciELO (1.9%).

3.2. Publications by Year and Geographic Distribution

No studies were retrieved prior to 1960. From that year onwards, publications became more frequent, with clear peaks in 2008 and 2021, when five articles were published in each year (5.9%). In contrast, only one article was published in 2024, the last year analyzed. Canada accounted for the highest proportion of studies (20.9%), followed in South America by Brazil (17.6%) (Figure 2 and Figure 3) (see Supplementary Materials).
Each dot represents an individual study published in the corresponding year. Publications were identified using the PICO strategy described in the flow diagram outlining the selection process of amphibian hemoparasite studies conducted between 1924 and 2024.

3.3. Diagnostic Techniques

Traditional morphological approaches predominated, being employed in 69.9% (58/83) of the studies, whereas molecular tools were used in only 9.6% (8/83). A smaller proportion of studies (22.9%; 19/83) combined both approaches. Morphological methods mainly relied on Romanowsky-based stains, particularly Giemsa, applied to blood smears fixed with methanol, followed by morphometric comparisons with previous descriptions. This enabled the identification and diagnosis of the principal hemoparasite genera reported (Figure 4). By contrast, molecular methods involved the amplification of specific DNA fragments via PCR, using primers targeting conserved regions of genes such as 18S rRNA (e.g., HepF300 and HepR900; see Supplementary Materials).

3.4. Hemoparasite Diversity and Amphibian Hosts

The most frequently reported hemoparasite genera were Trypanosoma (43%; 142/330), Hepatozoon (27.6%; 91/330), and Lankesterella (11.5%; 38/330). These parasites were most detected in amphibians of the genera Lithobates, Leptodactylus and Rhinella, which emerged as the most frequently reported hosts in the reviewed literature (Figure 5 and Figure 6). The study by Gonzales et al. (2021) [17] was not considered in this analysis because the supplementary annexes required for data extraction were unavailable (see Supplementary Materials).
To avoid confusion, it is important to clarify that this number refers to the total parasite–host associations extracted from the 83 articles included in the review. Many studies reported multiple hemoparasite species and several infected host taxa within a single publication; therefore, the number of parasite records (330) is higher than the number of articles (83). These associations formed the basis for our quantitative analyses of parasite diversity and host representation.

3.5. Additional Relevant Literature Published in 2025

After our systematic search had been closed (December 2024), six additional publications on amphibian blood parasites were released in 2025 and were identified [18,19,20,21,22,23] using the same search equation and scientific databases. Four of them are research articles [18,19,20,21]: Matta et al. 2025 [18] introduced the giant toad Rhinella horribilis as an emerging model for experimental studies of amphibian blood parasites; Votýpka et al. (2025) [19] and Sigl et al. (2025) [20] described previously unrecognized diversity and host–parasite patterns of Trypanosoma spp. in Neotropical frogs and in frog-biting midges (Corethrella spp.), respectively; and Bilhalva et al. (2025) [21] examined the potential interference of EDTA with the detection of anuran trypanosomes using Woo’s technique. In addition, two review papers were retrieved that synthesize parasite records associated with bullfrog aquaculture [22] and Egyptian amphibians [23]. Since all six articles were published after the predefined search period (1924–2024), the original dataset and analyses were not updated, and these contributions are reported here in a brief descriptive manner.

4. Discussion

This systematic review examined the progress made in the study of amphibian hemoparasites over the past century, focusing on three aspects: (1) the global distribution of studies, (2) the diagnostic techniques employed, and (3) the diversity of parasite and host species recorded. This approach provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge while also identifying critical gaps that must be addressed to better understand the ecological and epidemiological implications of these infections (see Supplementary Materials).
Most records retrieved were from Web of Science and Scopus, databases recognized for their broad coverage of high-impact scientific literature. In contrast, SciELO yielded relatively few studies, despite its focus on Latin American publications, which suggests a regional gap in the visibility of hemoparasite research.
The temporal analysis revealed a sharp increase in scientific interest in amphibian hemoparasites during the past two decades. Although the earliest studies date back to the mid-20th century, publication rates rose significantly after 2000, with marked growth in the 2010s. This increase is linked to advances in molecular diagnostics (including non-invasive PCR-based methods for parasite detection; [24]) and to the growing prominence of wildlife disease ecology within conservation biology [25,26,27]. Recent reviews have highlighted parasites as indicators of ecosystem health in the context of global change, reflecting this conceptual shift [28].
Beyond methodological improvements alone, the temporal increase in publications can also be understood within a broader scientific and historical context. The early 2000s marked a period of rapid technological expansion—particularly in PCR availability, sequencing platforms, and digital imaging—that transformed wildlife parasitology and enabled more precise detection of intracellular organisms. At the same time, herpetology experienced significant disciplinary growth, with expanding networks of researchers and improved natural history collections contributing to greater capacity for disease-related studies. Importantly, the global amphibian decline crisis brought unprecedented attention to amphibian health, catalyzing research programs focused on emerging infectious diseases and elevating parasites as components of conservation concern. These dynamics coincided with the rise of disease ecology and the adoption of the One Health framework, which emphasize parasites as indicators of ecosystem processes and as sentinels in wildlife–environment interactions. Increased funding opportunities targeting biodiversity loss, pathogen surveillance, and ecosystem health further stimulated research in regions with existing infrastructure. Collectively, these scientific, technological, and conceptual developments help explain the pronounced growth in hemoparasite studies observed over the last two decades.
As a result, hemoparasites have transitioned from being organisms of interest primarily to parasitologists to becoming emerging bioindicators, sensitive to factors such as climate change, habitat fragmentation, and the introduction of invasive species [29]. The increase in publications since 2008 thus reflects not only improved diagnostic capacity in terms of sensitivity and specificity but also a redefinition of hemoparasitism as an integral component of ecosystem and conservation health.
Despite this recent growth, significant geographic gaps remain. North and South America together account for more than 60% of publications, with Canada (20.9%), Brazil (17.6%), and the United States (12.1%) leading. Europe contributed approximately 17%. In contrast, highly biodiverse tropical regions—such as Central Africa, Southeast Asia, the Andes–Amazon transition, and Central America—remain underrepresented. For example, in Mexico, helminth studies cover only ~17% of amphibian species, with marked concentration in certain provinces (e.g., Veracruz, Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt), while other regions lack any hemoparasite data [29]. Similar global biases in parasitology have been reported, with sampling effort skewed toward accessible regions with better infrastructure, leaving biogeographic corridors such as the Andes–Amazon largely overlooked [30,31]. This underrepresentation limits baseline data for monitoring emerging wildlife diseases, thereby affecting conservation and ecosystem health decision-making. However, these patterns are not merely the result of uneven sampling effort but instead reflect deeper structural and institutional limitations that shape global research capacity.
Beyond the numerical imbalance in publications, several structural factors help explain why these geographic biases persist. In many countries across Africa, Asia, and parts of Latin America, access to microscopy facilities, molecular diagnostic tools, and long-term research infrastructure remains limited, constraining the ability to detect and characterize hemoparasites with adequate resolution. These limitations are compounded by institutional barriers such as reduced funding stability, fewer specialized parasitology or wildlife disease programs, and limited laboratory capacity, all of which restrict research output despite the exceptionally high biodiversity of these regions. Language and training biases also contribute to underrepresentation: much of the available parasitological expertise is concentrated in North America and Europe, where collaborations between herpetologists and parasitologists are more established, while studies conducted in non-English-speaking countries are less frequently published in indexed journals. Moreover, the scarcity of researchers trained simultaneously in herpetology and parasitology in tropical regions results in overlooked or misidentified infections. Funding asymmetries further reinforce these disparities, as North America and Europe benefit from long-standing investment in wildlife health and disease ecology, enabling sustained sampling efforts. Finally, the prevalence of urban and peri-urban sampling—driven by proximity to universities and accessible field sites—means that remote and highly diverse ecosystems remain chronically undersampled. Together, these structural, linguistic, and institutional asymmetries offer a more complete explanation for the strong geographic biases observed in global hemoparasite literature.
From a methodological perspective, most studies rely on traditional morphological techniques. Approximately 60–70% of amphibian hemoparasite investigations were based solely on microscopy [32], while a smaller percentage used molecular tools in isolation. Only ~20% combined morphology and molecular data, yet such integrative approaches provide superior taxonomic resolution and reveal cryptic diversity that would otherwise go undetected [33].
Regarding parasite diversity, protozoans such as Hepatozoon, Lankesterella, and Trypanosoma, together with filarial nematodes, were the most frequently reported. Although studies on hemoparasites in other hosts (e.g., mammals, birds, reptiles) have been more common, these also tend to rely on blood smears, often limited to genus-level identification (e.g., microfilariae and Hepatozoon spp. in caimans and boas from Ecuador; [34]. Many amphibian records remain restricted to generic designations (“sp.”) or higher taxonomic levels, reflecting a lack of taxonomic resolution and underscoring the need for additional studies to clarify hemoparasite diversity in wild hosts.
While morphological techniques remain the “gold standard” for hemoparasite diagnosis [34], their limitations hinder robust phylogenetic analyses and restrict evaluations of ecological impacts in amphibian populations [35]. The slow adoption of molecular methods, despite their advantages in sensitivity, specificity, and phylogenetic traceability [36], may be explained by logistical, financial, or training limitations in many regions [32,33].
In terms of host representation, Ranidae, Hylidae, Bufonidae, and Leptodactylidae were the families most frequently studied, likely reflecting their broad distribution and availability as model organisms. By contrast, highly diverse families such as Craugastoridae, Strabomantidae, and Centrolenidae were underrepresented, partly due to their occurrence in tropical regions where hemoparasite research has been limited. This taxonomic and geographic bias emphasizes the need to expand sampling and characterization in poorly studied amphibian lineages, many of which may harbor undescribed parasites with important ecological or health implications.
Overall, this review highlights the urgency of promoting research in megadiverse yet underrepresented regions. This will require strengthening local capacities in parasitology and molecular biology, establishing standardized sampling and diagnostic protocols, and fostering international collaboration networks. Only through a coordinated expansion of research can existing gaps be filled, providing a more accurate picture of hemoparasite diversity and distribution while also anticipating potential impacts on ecosystem health. In countries such as Colombia—where only a handful of studies have been published over the past century—this task represents not only an academic debt but also a strategic priority for biodiversity conservation.

5. Conclusions

This systematic review reveals a fragmented and uneven research landscape. Most studies are concentrated in a limited number of countries in the Northern Hemisphere and South America, while vast megadiverse regions—particularly in Africa, Asia, and Central America—remain largely unexplored. Such geographic gaps limit our ability to understand global patterns of parasite diversity, host susceptibility, and emerging wildlife disease risks.
Morphological studies predominated (69.9%), while only 22.9% combined morphological and molecular techniques. Protozoan genera such as Hepatozoon and Trypanosoma, as well as nematodes (microfilariae) of the family Filaroidea, were frequently reported (69.7%). However, it is important to mention that this persistent reliance on morphological methods has restricted accurate identification of hemoparasites, limiting understanding of their diversity, ecology, and potential health implications. Although molecular tools are increasingly accessible, their implementation in amphibian hemoparasite studies remains marginal. This methodological lag underscores the urgent need for standardized protocols and strengthening local research capacities in molecular parasitology.
Host representation also remains biased. Certain anuran families have been studied more frequently due to their wide distribution and abundance, such as Ranidae 52 (34.6%), Hylidae (6.9%), and Bufonidae (21.5%), whereas endemic or range-restricted lineages—often located in tropical regions—have been systematically neglected. This omission prevents a realistic assessment of host–parasite interactions and hinders the identification of species with potential relevance or key ecological roles, as well as for identifying species with potential ecological or health relevance.
Moving forward, global research priorities should focus on (1) expanding sampling efforts in megadiverse but understudied regions; (2) implementing integrative morphological–molecular diagnostics; (3) establishing standardized and comparable parasite detection protocols; and (4) building long-term institutional capacity in parasitology and molecular diagnostics. Strengthening these priorities will improve our understanding of amphibian hemoparasitism, enhance wildlife disease surveillance, and contribute to the conservation of biodiversity, particularly in tropical ecosystems where research remains critically scarce.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ani16050847/s1, Table S1: Publications by Country, Table S2: Primers, Table S3: Amphibian Family-Hemoparasite, Table S4: Amphibian Genus-Hemoparasite, Table S5: PICO, Table S6: Bibliography screened, Table S7: PRISMA check-list, Text File S8: Graphs R code. References [7,17,32,33,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115] are cited in Supplementary Materials.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.S.B. and A.P.-V.; methodology, L.S.B., P.A.Y. and A.P.-V.; software, L.S.B. and P.A.Y.; validation L.S.B. and A.P.-V.; formal analysis, P.A.Y., L.S.B. and A.P.-V.; investigation, P.A.Y., L.S.B. and A.P.-V.; resources, L.S.B. and A.P.-V.; data curation, P.A.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, P.A.Y., L.S.B. and A.P.-V.; writing—review and editing, P.A.Y., L.S.B. and A.P.-V.; visualization, L.S.B. and P.A.Y.; supervision, L.S.B. and A.P.-V.; project administration, L.S.B. and A.P.-V.; funding acquisition, L.S.B. and A.P.-V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by Pontificia Universidad Javeriana Bogotá.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article and Supplementary Materials. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors express their gratitude to the Biblioteca Alfonso Borrero Cabal, S.J. of the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana for its continuous support in facilitating access to scientific information throughout this research. We extend special thanks to Carolina Junco, Professional in the Natural Sciences Area of the Library, for her invaluable guidance and assistance during the literature search and reference management process. We also acknowledge the Research Groups “Semillero de Enfermedades Infecciosas Veterinarias y Zoonosis” and “Semillero de Evolución y Ecología de Anfibios y Reptiles” for their collaboration and academic support during the development of this article. Finally, this work was supported by the Vicerrectoría de Investigación of the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana through the calls Apoyo a la publicación de artículos de investigación de alta calidad (VRI01-2026), ID: 22028, and Apoyo a proyectos de investigación básica o fundamental (VRI23-2025), ID: 21659.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Stuart, S.N.; Chanson, J.S.; Cox, N.A.; Young, B.E.; Rodrigues, A.S.L.; Fischman, D.L.; Waller, R.W. Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 2004, 306, 1783–1786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Wake, D.B.; Vredenburg, V.T. Are we in the midst of the sixth mass extinction? A view from the world of amphibians. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 11466–11473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Collins, J.P.; Storfer, A. Global amphibian declines: Sorting the hypotheses. Divers. Distrib. 2003, 9, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Blaustein, A.R.; Han, B.A.; Relyea, R.A.; Johnson, P.T.J.; Buck, J.C.; Gervasi, S.S.; Kats, L.B. The complexity of amphibian population declines: Understanding the role of cofactors in driving amphibian losses. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2011, 1223, 108–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Daszak, P.; Cunningham, A.A.; Hyatt, A.D. Infectious disease and amphibian population declines. Divers. Distrib. 2003, 9, 141–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Johnson, P.T.J.; Preston, D.L.; Hoverman, J.T.; Richgels, K.L.D. Diversity, decoys and the dilution effect: How ecological communities affect disease risk. J. Exp. Biol. 2013, 216, 961–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Barta, J.R.; Desser, S.S. Blood parasites of amphibians from Algonquin Park, Ontario. J. Wildl. Dis. 1984, 20, 180–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Davies, A.J.; Johnston, M.R.L. The biology of some intraerythrocytic parasites of fishes, amphibia and reptiles. Adv. Parasitol. 2000, 45, 1–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Schall, J.J. Parasite virulence. In The Behavioural Ecology of Parasites; Lewis, E.E., Campbell, J.F., Sukhdeo, M.V.K., Eds.; CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UK, 2002; pp. 283–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tompkins, D.M.; Dunn, A.M.; Smith, M.J.; Telfer, S. Wildlife diseases: From individuals to ecosystems. J. Anim. Ecol. 2011, 80, 19–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Poynton, S.L.; Whitaker, B.R. Protozoa and metazoa infecting amphibians. In Amphibian Medicine and Captive Husbandry; Wright, K.M., Whitaker, B.R., Eds.; Krieger Publishing Company: Malabar, FL, USA, 2001; pp. 193–221. [Google Scholar]
  12. Telford, S.R. Hemoparasites of the Reptilia: Color Atlas and Text; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Valkiūnas, G. Avian Malaria Parasites and Other Haemosporidia; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Pérez-Tris, J.; Hellgren, O.; Križanauskienė, A.; Waldenström, J.; Secondi, J.; Bonneaud, C.; Fjeldså, J.; Hasselquist, D.; Bensch, S. Within-host speciation of malaria parasites. PLoS ONE 2007, 2, e235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Moher, D. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Frost, D.R. Amphibian Species of the World: An Online Reference; Version 6.2; American Museum of Natural History: New York, NY, USA, 2023; Available online: https://amphibiansoftheworld.amnh.org (accessed on 5 April 2025).
  17. González, L.P.; Vargas-León, C.M.; Fuentes-Rodríguez, G.A.; Calderón-Espinosa, M.L.; Matta, N.E. Do blood parasites increase immature erythrocytes and mitosis in amphibians? Rev. Biol. Trop. 2021, 69, 615–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Matta, N.E.; Gamboa-Suárez, B.A.; Ospina-Rios, A.T.; Fuentes-Rodriguez, G.A.; Jimenez, M.N. From Field to Lab: Giant Toad (Rhinella horribilis) as an Emerging Model for the Study of Amphibian Blood Parasites. Integr. Zool. 2025; ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Votýpka, J.; Jirků, M.; Spodareva, V.; Režnarová, J.; Poloprutská, K.; Pajer, P.; Milner, D.; Richards, T.; Yurchenko, V.; Ibáñez, R.; et al. Trypanosomes in Neotropical frogs: Unveiling hidden megadiversity and complex host–parasite patterns. Open Biol. 2025, 15, 250190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sigl, M.; Virgo, J.; Grafe, U.; Henske, J.; Schweinsberg, M.; Eltz, T. Uninvited guests: Diversity and specificity of Trypanosoma infections in frog-biting midges (Corethrella spp.). Parasites Vectors 2025, 18, 348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bilhalva, L.C.; Peres, L.S.; Soares, J.F.; Santos, A.P.; Dallegrave, E.; Valle, S.d.F. EDTA as a potential obstacle to the detection of trypanosomes in anuran blood samples using Woo’s technique. Vet. Parasitol. Reg. Stud. Rep. 2025, 66, 101386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Weng, M.; Liu, X.; Zhang, C.; Shu, R.; Wang, A.; Zhang, H.; Wang, X.; Yang, H.; Zhang, J. A Global Review of the Zoonotic Potential and Disease Risks of Amphibian Parasites in Bullfrog Aquaculture. Rev. Aquac. 2025, 17, e70030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mostafa, O.M.; Morsy, K.; Bin Dajem, S.; Fedda, M.H. A review of parasitic fauna of Egyptian amphibia. Afr. J. Herpetol. 2025, 74, 173–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Huggins, L.G.; Michaels, C.J.; Cruickshank, S.M.; Preziosi, R.F.; Else, K.J. A novel copro-diagnostic molecular method for qualitative detection and identification of parasitic nematodes in amphibians and reptiles. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0185151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Cunningham, A.A.; Daszak, P.; Wood, J.L.N. One Health, emerging infectious diseases and wildlife: Two decades of progress? Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 2017, 372, 20160167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. DeCandia, A.L.; Dobson, A.P.; vonHoldt, B.M. Toward an integrative molecular approach to wildlife disease. Conserv. Biol. 2018, 32, 798–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Bienentreu, J.-F.; Lesbarrères, D. Amphibian disease ecology: Are we just scratching the surface? Herpetologica 2020, 76, 153–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bower, D.S.; Brannelly, L.A.; McDonald, C.A.; Webb, R.J.; Greenspan, S.E.; Vickers, M.; Gardner, M.G.; Greenlees, M.J. A review of the role of parasites in the ecology of reptiles and amphibians. Austral Ecol. 2019, 44, 433–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Cabrera-Guzmán, E.; Sánchez-Montes, S.; Parra-Olea, G. Research on helminths from Mexican amphibians: Gaps, trends and biases. J. Helminthol. 2021, 95, e81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Carlson, C.J.; Dallas, T.A.; Alexander, L.W.; Phelan, A.L.; Phillips, A.J.; Poisot, T. What would it take to describe the global diversity of parasites? Proc. R. Soc. B 2020, 287, 20201841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ellison, G.T.H.; Warner, J.; Robinson, M.W.; Cable, J. Taxonomic and geographic bias in 50 years of research on parasites. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0261379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Isaak-Delgado, A.B.; López-Díaz, O.; Romero-Callejas, E.; Martínez-Hernández, F.; Muñoz-García, C.I.; Villalobos, G.; Rendón-Franco, E. Morphological and molecular characteristics of hemoparasites in Vaillant’s frogs (Lithobates vaillanti). Parasitol. Res. 2020, 119, 1891–1901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Spodareva, V.V.; Grybchuk-Ieremenko, A.; Losev, A.; Votýpka, J.; Lukeš, J.; Yurchenko, V. Diversity and evolution of anuran trypanosomes: Insights from the study of European species. Parasites Vectors 2018, 11, 447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Diaz, E.; Hidalgo, A.; Villamarin, C.; Donoso, G.; Barragan, V. Vector-borne zoonotic blood parasites in wildlife from Ecuador: A report and systematic review. Vet. World 2021, 14, 1935–1945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Pacheco, M.A.; Escalante, A.A. Origin and diversity of malaria parasites and other Haemosporida. Trends Parasitol. 2023, 39, 501–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. O’Donoghue, P. Haemoprotozoa: Making biological sense of molecular and morphological data. Int. J. Parasitol. Parasites Wildl. 2017, 6, 241–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Schmittner, S.M.; McGhee, R.B. The Intra-erythrocytic Development of Babesiosoma stableri n. sp. in Rana Pipiens pipiens. J. Protozool. 1961, 8, 381–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Manwell, R.D. The Genus Dactylosoma. J. Protozool. 1964, 11, 526–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Mohammed, A.H.H.; Mansour, N.S. Development of Haemogregarina boueti in the toad Bufo regularis. J. Protozool. 1966, 13, 259–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Stehbens, W.E. Observations on Lankesterella hylae. J. Protozool. 1966, 13, 59–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mansour, N.S.; Mohammed, A.H.H. Development of Haemogregarina pestanae in the toad Bufo regularis. J. Protozool. 1966, 13, 265–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mansour, N.S.; Mohammed, A.H.H. Haemogregarina faiyumensis n. sp. in the toad Bufo regularis in Egypt. J. Protozool. 1966, 13, 269–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Baker, J.R.; Lainson, R. The Fine Structure of the Gametocytes of an Adeleine Haemogregarine. J. Protozool. 1967, 14, 233–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bardsley, J.E.; Harmsen, R. The trypanosomes of Ranidae. II. The effects of excitation and adrenalin on the peripheral parasitaemia in the bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana Shaw). Can. J. Zool. 1970, 48, 1317–1319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bardsley, J.E.; Harmsen, R. The Trypanosomes of Anura. Adv. Parasitol. 1973, 11, 1–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Desser, S.S.; Weller, I. Structure, Cytochemistry, and Locomotion of Haemogregarina sp. from Rana berlandieri. J. Protozool. 1973, 20, 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Levine, N.D.; Nye, R.R. A Survey of Blood and Other Tissue Parasites of Leopard Frogs Rana pipiens in the United States. J. Wildl. Dis. 1977, 13, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Woo, P.T.K. Sensitivity of Diagnostic Techniques in Determining the Prevalence of Anuran Trypanosomes. J. Wildl. Dis. 1983, 19, 24–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Barta, J.R.; Desser, S.S. Light and Electron Microscopic Observations on the Intraerythrocytic Development of Babesiosoma stableri (Apicomplexa, Dactylosomatidae) in Frogs from Algonquin Park, Ontario. J. Protozool. 1986, 33, 359–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Desser, S.S.; Barta, J.R. The Morphological Features of Aegyptianella bacterifera: An Intraerythrocytic Rickettsia of Frogs from Corsica. J. Wildl. Dis. 1989, 25, 313–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Barta, J.R.; Desser, S.S. Development of Babesiosoma stableri (Dactylosomatidae; Adeleida; Apicomplexa) in its Leech Vector (Batracobdella picta) and the Relationship of the Dactylosomatids to the Piroplasms of Higher Vertebrates. J. Protozool. 1989, 36, 241–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Delvinquier, B.L.J. Occurrence of the Protozoans, Lankesterella hylae and Haemogregarina sp., in the Blood of the Green Tree Frog, Litoria caerulea; Memoirs of the Queensland Museum: South Brisbane, Australia, 1989.
  53. Desser, S.S.; Siddall, M.E.; Barta, J.R. Ultrastructural Observations on the Developmental Stages of Lankesterella minima (Apicomplexa) in Experimentally Infected Rana catesbeiana Tadpoles. J. Parasitol. 1990, 76, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Werner, J.K. Blood Parasites of Amphibians from Sichuan Province, People’s Republic of China. J. Parasitol. 1993, 79, 356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Smith, T.G.; Desser, S.S.; Martin, D.S. The development of Hepatozoon sipedon sp. nov. (Apicomplexa: Adeleina: Hepatozoidae) in its natural host, the Northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon sipedon), in the culicine vectors Culex pipiens and C. territans, and in an intermediate host, the Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens). Parasitol. Res. 1994, 80, 559–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Desser, S.S.; Hong, H.; Martin, D.S. The Life History, Ultrastructure, and Experimental Transmission of Hepatozoon catesbianae n. comb., an Apicomplexan Parasite of the Bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana and the Mosquito, Culex territans in Algonquin Park, Ontario. J. Parasitol. 1995, 81, 212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Clark, C.G.; Martin, D.S.; Diamond, L.S. Phylogenetic Relationships Among Anuran Trypanosomes as Revealed by Riboprinting. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 1995, 42, 92–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Herzenberg, A.M.; Barta, J.R.; Desser, S.S. Monoclonal Antibodies Raised against Coccidia and Malarial Parasites Recognize Antigenic Epitopes Found in Lankesterellid and Adeleorin Parasites. J. Parasitol. 1995, 81, 543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Kim, B.; Smith, T.G.; Desser, S.S. The Life History and Host Specificity of Hepatozoon clamatae (Apicomplexa: Adeleorina) and ITS-1 Nucleotide Sequence Variation of Hepatozoon Species of Frogs and Mosquitoes from Ontario. J. Parasitol. 1998, 84, 789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Smith, T.G.; Desser, S.S. Ultrastructural Features of Cystic and Merogonic Stages of Hepatozoon sipedon (Apicomplexa: Adeleorina) in Northern Leopard Frogs (Rana pipiens) and Northern Water Snakes (Nerodia sipedon) from Ontario, Canada. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 1998, 45, 419–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Smith, T.G.; Kim, B.; Desser, S.S. Phylogenetic relationships among Hepatozoon species from snakes, frogs and mosquitoes of Ontario, Canada, determined by ITS-1 nucleotide sequences and life-cycle, morphological and developmental characteristics. Int. J. Parasitol. 1999, 29, 293–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Smith, T.G.; Kim, B.; Hong, H.; Desser, S.S. Intraerythrocytic Development of Species of Hepatozoon Infecting Ranid Frogs: Evidence for Convergence of Life Cycle Characteristics among Apicomplexans. J. Parasitol. 2000, 86, 451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Paperna, I.; Martin, C. The development and fine structure of Lankesterella cf. dicroglossi (Apicomplexa: Lankesterellidae) infecting frogs in Niger, West Africa. Folia Parasitol. 2001, 48, 178–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Boulard, Y.; Paperna, I.; Petit, G.; Landau, I. Ultrastructure of developmental stages of Hemolivia stellata (Apicomplexa: Haemogregarinidae) in the cane toad Bufo marinus and in its vector tick Amblyomma rotondatum. Parasitol. Res. 2001, 87, 598–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Desser, S.S. The Blood Parasites of Anurans from Costa Rica with Reflections on the Taxonomy of Their Trypanosomes. J. Parasitol. 2001, 87, 152–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Lainson, R.; Paperna, I.; Naiff, R.D. Development of Hepatozoon caimani (Carini, 1909) Pessôa, De Biasi & De Souza, 1972 in the Caiman Caiman c. crocodilus, the frog Rana catesbeiana and the mosquito Culex fatigans. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 2003, 98, 103–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Chang, L.T.; Tsai, S.S.; Tung, M.C. Observations of Hepatozoon (Apicomplexa: Adelenia) in blood of the Taiwan anuran Rana rugulosa Weigmann, 1835. Bull. Eur. Ass. Fish Pathol. 2003, 23, 143. [Google Scholar]
  68. Ferreira, R.C.; Campaner, M.; Viola, L.B.; Takata, C.S.A.; Takeda, G.F.; Teixeira, M.M.G. Morphological and molecular diversity and phylogenetic relationships among anuran trypanosomes from the Amazonia, Atlantic Forest and Pantanal biomes in Brazil. Parasitology 2007, 134, 1623–1638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Boulianne, B.; Evans, R.C.; Smith, T.G. Phylogenetic analysis of Hepatozoon species (Apicomplexa: Adeleorina) infecting frogs of Nova Scotia, Canada, determined by ITS-1 sequences. J. Parasitol. 2007, 93, 1435–1441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Stenberg, P.L.; Bowerman, W.J. Hemoparasites in Oregon Spotted Frogs (Rana pretiosa) from Central Oregon, USA. J. Wildl. Dis. 2008, 44, 464–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. McKenzie, V.J.; Starks, H.A. Blood Parasites of Two Costa Rican Amphibians with Comments on Detection and Microfilaria Density Associated with Adult Filarial Worm Intensity. J. Parasitol. 2008, 94, 824–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lemos, M.; Morais, D.H.; Carvalho, V.T.; D’Agosto, M. First Record of Trypanosoma chattoni in Brazil and Occurrence of Other Trypanosoma Species in Brazilian Frogs (Anura, Leptodactylidae). J. Parasitol. 2008, 94, 148–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Wahab, A.R.; Andy, T.W.A.; Intan, S. On the parasitic fauna of two species of anurans collected from Sungai Pinang, Penang Island, Malaysia. Trop. Biomed. 2008, 25, 160–165. [Google Scholar]
  74. Ferreira, R.C.; De Souza, A.A.; Freitas, R.A.; Campaner, M.; Takata, C.S.A.; Barrett, T.V.; Teixeira, M.M.G. A Phylogenetic Lineage of Closely Related Trypanosomes (Trypanosomatidae, Kinetoplastida) of Anurans and Sand Flies (Psychodidae, Diptera) Sharing the Same Ecotopes in Brazilian Amazonia. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 2008, 55, 427–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Leal, D.D.M.; O’dwyer, L.H.; Ribeiro, V.C.; Silva, R.J.; Ferreira, V.L.; Rodrigues, R.B. Hemoparasites of the genus Trypanosoma (Kinetoplastida: Trypanosomatidae) and hemogregarines in Anurans of the São Paulo and Mato Grosso do Sul States—Brazil. Anais Acad. Bras. Ciênc. 2009, 81, 199–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Schotthoefer, A.M.; Bolek, M.G.; Cole, R.A.; Beasley, V.R. Parasites of the Mink Frog (Rana septentrionalis) from Minnesota, USA. Comp. Parasitol. 2009, 76, 240–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Shutler, D.; Smith, T.G.; Robinson, S.R. Relationships between leukocytes and Hepatozoon spp. in green frogs, Rana clamitans. J. Wildl. Dis. 2009, 45, 67–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Stenberg, P.L.; Bowerman, W.J. First report of Hepatozoon sp. in the Oregon Spotted Frog, Rana pretiosa. J. Wildl. Dis. 2010, 46, 956–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Readel, A.M.; Goldberg, T.L. Blood Parasites of Frogs From an Equatorial African Montane Forest in Western Uganda. J. Parasitol. 2010, 96, 448–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Harkness, L.M.; Drohan, A.E.; Dickson, C.M.; Smith, T.G. Experimental Transmission of Hepatozoon clamatae (Apicomplexa: Adeleida) to the Wood Frog, Rana sylvatica, and to the Mosquito Culex pipiens. J. Parasitol. 2010, 96, 434–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Gericota, B.; Garner, M.M.; Barr, B.; Nordhausen, R.; Larsen, R.S.; Lowenstine, L.J.; Murphy, B.G. Morphologic, Immunohistochemical, and Molecular Characterization of a Novel Lankesterella Protozoan in Two White’s Tree Frogs (Litoria caerulea). J. Zoo Wildl. Med. 2010, 41, 242–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Cabagna Zenklusen, M.C.; Lajmanovich, R.C.; Attademo, A.M.; Peltzer, P.M.; Junges, C.M.; Fiorenza Biancucci, G.; Bassó, A. Hematología y citoquímica de las células sanguíneas de Rhinella fernandezae (Anura: Bufonidae) en Espinal y Delta-Islas del río Paraná, Argentina. Rev. De Biol. Trop. 2011, 59, 17–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Shutler, D.; Marcogliese, D.J. Leukocyte Profiles of Northern Leopard Frogs, Lithobates pipiens, Exposed to Pesticides and Hematozoa in Agricultural Wetlands. Copeia 2011, 2011, 301–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Sailasuta, A.; Satetasit, J.; Chutmongkonkul, M. Pathological Study of Blood Parasites in Rice Field Frogs, Hoplobatrachus rugulosus (Wiegmann, 1834). Vet. Med. Int. 2011, 2011, 850568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Young, S.; Warner, J.; Speare, R.; Berger, L.; Skerratt, L.F.; Muller, R. Hematologic and plasma biochemical reference intervals for health monitoring of wild Australian tree frogs. Vet. Clin. Pathol. 2012, 41, 478–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Viana, L.A.; Soares, P.; Silva, J.E.; Paiva, F.; Coutinho, M.E. Anurans as paratenic hosts in the transmission of Hepatozoon caimani to caimans Caiman yacare and Caiman latirostris. Parasitol. Res. 2011, 110, 883–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Gupta, D.K.; Gupta, N.; Gangwar, R. Infectivity of Bufo melanostictus (Amphibia: Bufonidae) to Two New Species of Haematozoan Parasites from Rohilkhand, India. Proc. Zool. Soc. 2012, 65, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Lemos, M.; Souza, C.S.F.; da Costa, S.C.G.; Souto-Padrón, T.; D’Agosto, M. Isolation and In Vitro Culture of Trypanosomes From Leptodactylus ocellatus From the Atlantic Forest in a New Experimental Culture Medium. J. Parasitol. 2013, 99, 164–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Davis, A.K.; Hopkins, W.A. Widespread trypanosome infections in a population of eastern hellbenders (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis) in Virginia, USA. Parasitol. Res. 2012, 112, 453–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Netherlands, E.C.; Cook, C.A.; Smit, N.J. Hepatozoon species (Adeleorina: Hepatozoidae) of African bufonids, with morphological description and molecular diagnosis of Hepatozoon ixoxo sp. nov. parasitising three Amietophrynus species (Anura: Bufonidae). Parasites Vectors 2014, 7, 552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Leveille, A.; Ogedengbe, M.E.; Hafeez, M.A.; Tu, H.-H.; Barta, J.R. The Complete Mitochondrial Genome Sequence of Hepatozoon catesbianae (Apicomplexa: Coccidia: Adeleorina), a Blood Parasite of the Green Frog, Lithobates (Formerly Rana) clamitans. J. Parasitol. 2014, 100, 651–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Harris, D.J.; Damas-Moreira, I.; Maia, J.P.M.C.; Perera, A. First Report of Hepatozoon(Apicomplexa: Adeleorina) in Caecilians, with Description of a New Species. J. Parasitol. 2014, 100, 117–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Netherlands, E.C.; Cook, C.A.; Smit, N.J.; Du Preez, L.H. Redescription and Molecular Diagnosis of Hepatozoon theileri (Laveran, 1905) (Apicomplexa: Adeleorina: Hepatozoidae), Infecting Amietia quecketti (Anura: Pyxicephalidae). Folia Parasitol. 2014, 61, 293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Menezes Leal, D.D.; Dreyer, C.S.; da Silva, R.J.; Ribolla, P.E.M.; dos Santos Paduan, K.; Bianchi, I.; O’Dwyer, L.H. Characterization of Hepatozoon spp. in Leptodactylus chaquensis and Leptodactylus podicipinus from Two Regions of the Pantanal, State of Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil. Parasitol. Res. 2015, 114, 1541–1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Seabra-Babo, J.; Maia, J.P.; Harris, D.J. Scanning for Apicomplexan Parasites (Suborder Adeleorina) in Five Holarctic Anuran Species. Herpetozoa 2015, 27, 168–172. [Google Scholar]
  96. Aisien, M.S.O.; Aigbirior, P.O.; Ovwah, E.; Edo-Taiwo, O. Blood Parasites of Some Anurans from Southern Nigeria. Trop. Biomed. 2015, 32, 598–607. [Google Scholar]
  97. Ferreira, J.I.G.d.S.; da Costa, A.P.; Ramirez, D.; Roldan, J.A.M.; Saraiva, D.; Founier, G.F.R.d.S.; Sue, A.; Zambelli, E.R.; Minervino, A.H.H.; Verdade, V.K.; et al. Anuran Trypanosomes: Phylogenetic Evidence for New Clades in Brazil. Syst. Parasitol. 2015, 91, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Attias, M.; Sato, L.H.; Ferreira, R.C.; Takata, C.S.A.; Campaner, M.; Camargo, E.P.; de Souza, W. Developmental and Ultrastructural Characterization and Phylogenetic Analysis of Trypanosoma herthameyerin sp. of Brazilian Leptodactylidae Frogs. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 2016, 63, 610–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Bernal, X.E.; Pinto, C.M. Sexual Differences in Prevalence of a New Species of Trypanosome Infecting Túngara Frogs. Int. J. Parasitol. Parasites Wildl. 2016, 5, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Conradie, R.; Cook, C.A.; du Preez, L.H.; Jordaan, A.; Netherlands, E.C. Ultrastructural Comparison of Hepatozoon ixoxo and Hepatozoon theileri (Adeleorina: Hepatozoidae), Parasitising South African Anurans. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 2016, 64, 193–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Netherlands, E.C.; Cook, C.A.; Du Preez, L.H.; Vanhove, M.P.M.; Brendonck, L.; Smit, N.J. Monophyly of the Species of Hepatozoon (Adeleorina: Hepatozoidae) Parasitizing African Anurans, with the Description of Three New Species from Hyperoliid Frogs in South Africa. Parasitology 2017, 145, 1039–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Al-Khamesi, M.B.; Salman, I.S.; Abid, S.A.; Ibrahim, S.M. Study Prevalence and Effect of Internal Parasites and Histopathological Changes on Common Frogs at Baghdad City. Iraqi J. Agric. Sci. 2018, 49, 445–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Netherlands, E.C.; Cook, C.A.; Du Preez, L.H.; Vanhove, M.P.M.; Brendonck, L.; Smit, N.J. An Overview of the Dactylosomatidae (Apicomplexa: Adeleorina: Dactylosomatidae), with the Description of Dactylosoma kermiti n. sp. Parasitising ptychadena anchietae and Sclerophrys gutturalis from South Africa. Int. J. Parasitol. Parasites Wildl. 2020, 11, 246–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Úngari, L.P.; Netherlands, E.C.; Santos, A.L.Q.; de Alcantara, E.P.; Emmerich, E.; da Silva, R.J.; O’Dwyer, L.H. A New Species, Dactylosoma piperis n. sp. (Apicomplexa, Dactylosomatidae), from the Pepper Frog Leptodactylus labyrinthicus (Anura, Leptodactylidae) from Mato Grosso State, Brazil. Parasite 2020, 27, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. De Abreu Reis Ferreira, D.; Perles, L.; Machado, R.Z.; Prado, C.P.A.; André, M.R. Molecular Detection of Apicomplexan Hemoparasites in Anurans from Brazil. Parasitol. Res. 2020, 119, 3469–3479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Coêlho, T.A.; Souza, D.C.; Kawashita-Ribeiro, R.A.; Corrêa, L.L. First Record of Trypanosoma sp. (Kinetoplastea: Trypanosomatidae) Parasitizing Rhinella major in the Brazilian Amazon. An. Acad. Bras. Ciênc. 2021, 93, e20190467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Úngari, L.P.; Netherlands, E.C.; Quagliatto Santos, A.L.; Paulino de Alcantara, E.; Emmerich, E.; da Silva, R.J.; O’Dwyer, L.H. New Insights on the Diversity of Brazilian Anuran Blood Parasites: With the Description of Three New Species of Hepatozoon (Apicomplexa: Hepatozoidae) from Leptodactylidae Anurans. Int. J. Parasitol. Parasites Wildl. 2021, 14, 190–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Agustar, H.K.; Jansar, K.M.; Ali, A.H.; Ghani, N.F.A. Abundance of Anuran Parasites and Pesticide Pollution from Lowland and Highland Golf Courses. J. Environ. Biol. 2021, 42, 789–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Coêlho, T.A.; De Souza, D.C.; da Costa Oliveira, E.; Correa, L.L.; Viana, L.A.; Kawashita-Ribeiro, R.A. Haemogregarine of Genus Dactylosoma (Adeleorina: Dactylosomatidae) in Species of Rhinella (Anura: Bufonidae) from the Brazilian Amazon. Acta Parasitol. 2021, 66, 1574–1580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Shangi, N.E.; Gardner, K.M.; Mennill, D.J.; Doucet, S.M. Is Color Related to Parasite Load in a Sexually Dichromatic Neotropical Toad? Herpetologica 2022, 78, 235–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Úngari, L.P.; Netherlands, E.C.; Santos, A.L.Q.; de Alcantara, E.P.; Emmerich, E.; da Silva, R.J.; O’dWyer, L.H. Diversity of Haemogregarine Parasites Infecting Brazilian Anurans, with a Description of New Species of Dactylosoma (Apicomplexa: Adeleorina: Dactylosomatidae). Acta Parasitol. 2022, 67, 1740–1755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Pollo, F.; Salinas, Z.; Baraquet, M.; Otero, M.A.; Grenat, P.R.; Salas, N.; Martino, A.L.; Sinsch, U. Hemoparasites Do Not Affect Life-History Traits and Cellular Immune Response in Treefrog Hosts Boana cordobae. Animals 2023, 13, 3566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Jordaan, B.J.; du Preez, L.H.; Netherlands, E.C. Taxonomic Re-Evaluation of African Anuran Trypanosomes with the Redescription and Molecular Diagnosis of Trypanosoma (Trypanosoma) nelspruitense Laveran, 1904 and Trypanosoma (Haematomonas) grandicolor Pienaar, 1962. Parasitology 2023, 150, 477–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Isaak-Delgado, A.B.; Zavala-Norzagaray, A.A.; Espinoza-Romo, B.A.; Ortega-Anaya, J.G.; Ley-Quiñonez, C.P.; Aguirre, A.; Rendón-Franco, E. Hematologic Parameters and the Effect of Hemoparasites of Wild Anurans in Northern Sinaloa, Mexico. Vet. Clin. Pathol. 2023, 52, 386–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Pavľáková, B.; Pipová, N.; Balogová, M.; Majláth, I.; Mikulíček, P.; Majláthová, V. Blood Parasites of Water Frogs (Pelophylax esculentus Complex) from the Danube Delta, Romania. Parasitol. Int. 2024, 102, 102920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Animals 16 00847 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA [15] flow diagram showing the selection of Anuran amphibian hemoparasite studies between 1924 and 2024.
Figure 1. PRISMA [15] flow diagram showing the selection of Anuran amphibian hemoparasite studies between 1924 and 2024.
Animals 16 00847 g001
Animals 16 00847 g002
Figure 2. Number of publications on anuran amphibian hemoparasites per year (1960–2024).
Figure 2. Number of publications on anuran amphibian hemoparasites per year (1960–2024).
Animals 16 00847 g002
Animals 16 00847 g003
Figure 3. Percentage distribution of publications on Anuran amphibian hemoparasites by country over the past 100 years.
Figure 3. Percentage distribution of publications on Anuran amphibian hemoparasites by country over the past 100 years.
Animals 16 00847 g003
Animals 16 00847 g004
Figure 4. Number of studies per year according to the diagnostic technique employed (morphological, molecular, or combined).
Figure 4. Number of studies per year according to the diagnostic technique employed (morphological, molecular, or combined).
Animals 16 00847 g004
Animals 16 00847 g005
Figure 5. Bipartite network illustrating associations between amphibian host genera (left) and hemoparasite genera (right) reported in the literature documented between 1924 and 202. The width of each ribbon is proportional to the number of host species involved in a given association. Hemoparasite genera are color-coded according to their major taxonomic groups (Apicomplexa, Kinetoplastida, and Other/NA). Host genera are shown in black. All taxonomic names are presented at the genus level.
Figure 5. Bipartite network illustrating associations between amphibian host genera (left) and hemoparasite genera (right) reported in the literature documented between 1924 and 202. The width of each ribbon is proportional to the number of host species involved in a given association. Hemoparasite genera are color-coded according to their major taxonomic groups (Apicomplexa, Kinetoplastida, and Other/NA). Host genera are shown in black. All taxonomic names are presented at the genus level.
Animals 16 00847 g005
Animals 16 00847 g006
Figure 6. Heat map showing the frequency of reported associations between the ten most represented anuran amphibian genera and hemoparasite genera documented between 1924 and 2024. Cell values indicate the number of published records for each host–parasite association.
Figure 6. Heat map showing the frequency of reported associations between the ten most represented anuran amphibian genera and hemoparasite genera documented between 1924 and 2024. Cell values indicate the number of published records for each host–parasite association.
Animals 16 00847 g006
Table 1. PICO framework and inclusion criteria applied in the systematic review.
Table 1. PICO framework and inclusion criteria applied in the systematic review.
ComponentDefinitionApplication in This Study
Population (P)Target populationAmphibians (orders Anura, Caudata, and Gymnophiona)
Intervention (I)Exposure/condition of interestPresence of hemoparasites identified by morphological or molecular techniques 1
Comparison (C)Factors of comparisonYear of publication, country/region, diagnostic method (morphological vs. molecular)
Outcomes (O)Expected resultsReported prevalence, parasite taxa identified, diagnostic methods used
1 Serological studies excluded.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yepes, P.A.; Barrientos, L.S.; Pulido-Villamarín, A. Anuran amphibian Hemoparasites over the Last Century: Advances, Challenges, and Future Prospects: A Systematic Review. Animals 2026, 16, 847. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16050847

AMA Style

Yepes PA, Barrientos LS, Pulido-Villamarín A. Anuran amphibian Hemoparasites over the Last Century: Advances, Challenges, and Future Prospects: A Systematic Review. Animals. 2026; 16(5):847. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16050847

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yepes, Paula Andrea, Lucas S. Barrientos, and Adriana Pulido-Villamarín. 2026. "Anuran amphibian Hemoparasites over the Last Century: Advances, Challenges, and Future Prospects: A Systematic Review" Animals 16, no. 5: 847. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16050847

APA Style

Yepes, P. A., Barrientos, L. S., & Pulido-Villamarín, A. (2026). Anuran amphibian Hemoparasites over the Last Century: Advances, Challenges, and Future Prospects: A Systematic Review. Animals, 16(5), 847. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16050847

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