Distribution Patterns of the Haplotypes of Sarcoptes scabiei Related to Sarcoptic Mange in Wild Animals in South Korea
Le résumé fourni par la source
The study examined the distribution patterns of the genotypes of the ectoparasite Sarcoptes scabiei related to sarcoptic mange in wild animals in South Korea. We obtained mitochondrial cytochrome c oxydase I (cox-I) gene sequences from the skin tissues of sarcoptic mange isolated from the infested animals. After combining the newly obtained sequences and those previously reported, a total of forty-three cox-I haplotypes (SSC01-SSC43) were identified. Among those, SSC01 has already been recorded in various mammals including raccoon dog, marten and wallaby so far from many countries around the world, but the other three haplotypes SSC06, SSC14 and SSC43 have been newly detected in this study. SSC01 was observed in raccoon dogs, red foxes and a long-tailed goral, and ranged widely from northern to southern provinces in South Korea. Haplotypes SSC14 and SSC43 were found in one raccoon dog from Hongseong-si, Chungcheongnam-do, and one raccoon dog from Dong-gu, Ulsan-si, respectively. The SSC06 was only observed in a long-tailed goral from Yangyang-gun, Gangwon-do. Geographic distribution patterns were habitat-related parasitic infestation rather than host-specific infestation. Our findings showing that sympatric species can be infested by parasites with the same genotype, suggest that interspecific cross-infestation may be possible through interactions between sympatric species within the same habitat.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Distribution Patterns of the Haplotypes of Sarcoptes scabiei Related to Sarcoptic Mange in Wild Animals in South Korea
- Date Crossref
- 30/06/2024
- Éditeur
- Docuhut Publishing
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.