An Evaluation of Molecular Diagnostic Tools for the Detection and Differentiation of Human‐Pathogenic <i>Cryptosporidium</i> spp.

Abstract

ABSTRACT: The performance of 10 commonly used genotyping tools in the detection and differentiation of 7 human‐pathogenic Cryptosporidium spp. ( C. hominis, C. parvum, C. meleagridis, C. felis, C. canis, C. muris and Cryptosporidium pig genotype I) was evaluated. All 3 SU rRNA gene‐based tools could amplify the DNA of 7 Cryptosporidium spp. efficiently. However, the tools based on the antigens TRAP‐C1, TRAP‐C2 and COWP genes, the housekeeping genes HSP70 and DHFR, or a genomic sequence, failed to detect the DNA of C. felis, C. canis, Cryptosporidium pig genotype I, and C. metris. With the exception of 1 tool based on the TRAP‐C2 gene, the PCR‐RFLP or the PCR sequencing tools evaluated in this study could differentiate C. hominis, C. parvum and C. meleagridis from each other, and 2 SSU rRNA genebased tools could differentiate all 7 Cryptosporidium spp. Thus, a thorough understanding of the strength and weakness of each technique is needed when using molecular diagnostic tool in epidemiological investigations of human cryptosporidiosis.