ABSTRACT
Cats have an important and different place due to their close relationships with humans. Since most of the parasites they carry are zoonotic, it is important to detect them. According to the research, Dipylidium caninum, Joyeuxiella pasqualei, Toxocara spp., Toxascaris leonina, Giardia spp., Isospora spp., and Toxoplasma sp. were found to be higher in cats compared to other parasites. It has been determined that scabies and flea infestations are common as ectoparasites. This review aims to present the reported parasites and their prevalence rates in cats in Türkiye.
Keywords: Cat, helminth, ectoparasite, protozoan, Türkiye
INTRODUCTION
Many historical findings regarding the domestication of cats have been recorded. Although it has yet to be determined periodically, it is estimated that it reached the period when agriculture started 9.500 years ago. Looking at the 5.300-year-old cat fossils found in China, it was seen that cats were more common in agricultural areas. Based on these findings, it is suggested that farmers cooperate with cats to protect their fields from pests such as mice (1,2).
According to the findings obtained in a recent study, a cat’s bone was found next to a human skeleton in Cyprus and showed that these cats have adapted to human lives since ancient times (3).
Cats have become integral to human life and are considered family members. These animals, which have developed an emotional bond with us, are considered harmless and cute, even if they are looked after and fed on the streets. However, such coexistence paves the way for the transmission of many diseases. Parasitic diseases cover many of the conditions found in cats. They are essential for public health because some are zoonotic, and some parasites carry pathogenic agents with zoonotic properties.
Doğanay (4) made a similar review on cat parasites in Türkiye in the intervening 30 years, but many new studies have been conducted from that time to today, and new parasites have been recorded. Therefore, this compilation has been made to provide up-to-date information, and the parasites seen in cats in Türkiye are given in Tables (1-5).
METHODS
References used in this review article; were obtained by searching the archive data of various journals and publications in electronic media such as PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Communication was made with the relevant publishing houses for all the articles whose full text could not be reached.
While searching the literature, general terms such as cat, helminth, parasite, protozoan, and ectoparasite were used, and then the research was deepened by using more specific words.
This review was written using the articles cited in the references.
CONCLUSION
To date, 68 parasite species have been reported in cats, including 13 ectoparasites, 33 helminths, and 22 protozoan species in Türkiye. Parasites and the diseases they cause are a point to be considered for public health since some have zoonotic properties (marked with an asterisk).
The most common parasites are Dipylidium caninum in Bursa and Elazığ; Joyeuxiella pasqualei in Konya and Hatay; Toxocara spp. in Ankara, and Hatay; Toxascaris leonina in Van, and İstanbul; Giardia spp. in Central Anatolia; Isospora spp. in Van, and Ankara; Toxoplasma sp. in Ankara, Sivas, Kırıkkale, and Kars were found to be high in provinces. As ectoparasitic, scabies agents and flea infestations were more common in Van, Antalya, İstanbul, and Hatay provinces. This evaluation does not have a meta-analysis feature and is based on reporting existing data.
Since there are veterinary faculties in all of the provinces with parasitic density, the research may have been concentrated in these regions. For this purpose, if it is desired to create a table throughout Türkiye, conducting studies in the regions outside these provinces will be important.
As a result, this review will facilitate the studies to be carried out to determine the parasitic fauna in cats in Türkiye and also to find the prevalence rates collectively. At the same time, by specifying the methods of parasite detection, it compares different results in different examination methods.
* Ethics
Peer-review: Internally peer-reviewed.
* Authorship Contributions
Concept: Ö.B., T.T., E.B.G.T., Ş.U., Design: Ö.B., T.T., E.B.G.T., Ş.U., Data Collection or Processing: Ö.B., T.T., E.B.G.T., Ş.U., Analysis or Interpretation: Ö.B., T.T., E.B.G.T., Ş.U., Literature Search: Ö.B., T.T., E.B.G.T., Ş.U., Writing: Ö.B., T.T., E.B.G.T., Ş.U.
Conflict of Interest: No conflict of interest was declared by the authors.
Financial Disclosure: The authors declared that this study received no financial support.