6 Studies on House Fly Diseases
These 6 studies show how common house flies carry and transmit bacteria and diseases and how houses fly diseases are spread.
Musca domestica as a mechanical carrier of bacteria in Chiang Mai, north Thailand.
Sukontason K1, Bunchoo M, Khantawa B, Sukontason K, Piangjai S, Choochote W.
Abstract
The common house fly, Musca domestica L., was assessed for its potential as a mechanical carrier of bacteria in urban areas of Chiang Mai province, north Thailand. Sixty-one specimens (61.0%) were found to carry bacteria, with each harboring 1-5 bacteria. No significant difference between the sex of flies for carrying bacteria was found. A total of 21 bacteria was isolated, of which the most common was coagulase negative staphylococci (n = 38), followed by Viridans streptococci (n = 9). The highest bacterial load for all bacteria isolated was 10(3)-10(4) (67%), followed by > 10(4) (26%) colonies per fly. It is recommended that fly control management measures, including sanitation improvement, should be implemented.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10925804
Bacteria fauna from the house fly, Musca domestica (L.).
Nazni WA1, Seleena B, Lee HL, Jeffery J, T Rogayah TA, Sofian MA.
Abstract
The house fly, Musca domestica has long been considered a potential agent for disease transmission ever since its existence. The general truth of this assertion remains undisputed till the present day in spite of increasing awareness toward an improved sanitation and better hygiene. The habitual movement of house fly from filthy substrata such as human faeces, animal excreta, carcasses, garbage, etc. makes them ideal candidates for disease transmission such as cholera, shigellosis, salmonellosis and others when settling on food. Fly as a potential mechanical vector of pathogenic bacteria was elucidated in this study by examining flies from various breeding sites such as food courts, dumping ground, food processing areas and poultry farm in Peninsular Malaysia. The flies were baited with 10% sugar solution on a glass slide in the field. All materials used for collection of samples were sterile. Bacteria from fly sample were isolated using the normal isolation technique. Bacillus sp., Coccobacillus sp., Staphylococcus sp., Microccus sp., Streptococcus sp., Acinetobacter sp., Enterobacter sp., Proteus sp., Escherichia sp., Klebsiella sp. and yeast cells were isolated from feaces, vomitus, external surfaces and internal organs of house fly. Newly emerged house fly did not harbour any bacteria.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16883292
Phylogenetic characterization of bacteria in the gut of house flies (Musca domestica L.).
Gupta AK1, Nayduch D, Verma P, Shah B, Ghate HV, Patole MS, Shouche YS.
Abstract
House flies (Musca domestica L.) are cosmopolitan, ubiquitous, synanthropic insects that serve as mechanical or biological vectors for various microorganisms. To fully assess the role of house flies in the epidemiology of human diseases, it is essential to understand the diversity of microbiota harbored by natural fly populations. This study aimed to identify the diversity of house fly gut bacteria by both culture-dependent and culture-independent approaches. A total of 102 bacterial strains were isolated from the gut of 65 house flies collected from various public places including a garden, public park, garbage/dump area, public toilet, hospital, restaurant/canteen, mutton shop/market, and house/human habitation. Molecular phylogenetic analyses placed these isolates into 22 different genera. The majority of bacteria identified were known potential pathogens of the genera Klebsiella, Aeromonas, Shigella, Morganella, Providencia, and Staphylococcus. Culture-independent methods involved the construction of a 16S rRNA gene clone library, and sequence analyses supported culture recovery results. However, additional bacterial taxa not determined via culture recovery were revealed using this methodology and included members of the classes Alphaproteobacteria, Deltaproteobacteria, and the phylum Bacteroidetes. Here, we show that the house fly gut is an environmental reservoir for a vast number of bacterial species, which may have impacts on vector potential and pathogen transmission.
© 2011 Federation of European Microbiological Societies. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22092755
H4>Carriage by the housefly (Musca domestica) of multiple-antibiotic-resistant bacteria that are potentially pathogenic to humans, in hospital and other urban environments in Misurata, Libya.
Rahuma N1, Ghenghesh KS, Ben Aissa R, Elamaari A.
Abstract
Using standard microbiological procedures, bacteria that are potentially pathogenic to humans were isolated from 150 houseflies collected in the Libyan city of Misurata (50 flies each from the Central Hospital, streets and abattoir). Salmonella spp., Yersinia enterocolitica and Edwardsiella tarda were isolated from flies collected on the streets and in the abattoir but not from those collected in the hospital. Shigella sonnei was detected in just one fly, which was collected in the abattoir. Of the flies collected in the hospital, streets and abattor, 42%, 42% and 32% were positive for Escherichia coli, 70%, 50% and 62% for Klebsiella spp., 2%, 20% and 10% for Aeromonas spp., 96%, 36% and 34% for Pseudomonas spp., 20%, 12% and 16% for Staphylococcus spp., and 24%, 22% and 18% for Streptococcus spp., respectively. When the antibiotic susceptibilities of the fly isolates were investigated, the Enterobacteria isolated from the houseflies collected in the hospital were found to be resistant to significantly more of the commonly used antibiotics that were tested than the Enterobacteria isolated from the flies caught in the streets or abattoir. Whatever the source of the flies from which they were collected, the Pseudomonas isolates frequently showed resistance to multiple antibiotics, with >50% each being resistant to at least 10 antimicrobial agents. Two isolates of Sta. aureus (both from flies collected in the hospital) were resistant to methicillin. The present study supports the belief that the housefly is a potential vector of multiple-antibiotic-resistant, pathogenic bacteria, including methicillin-resistant Sta. aureus, in the hospital environment. Given their mobility, it seems likely that houseflies carry such pathogens from hospitals to surrounding communities, and vice versa.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16297293
The housefly (Musca domestica) as a carrier of pathogenic microorganisms in a hospital environment.
Fotedar R1, Banerjee U, Singh S, Shriniwas, Verma AK.
Abstract
Houseflies have long been regarded as potential carriers of microorganisms. Since pathogenic microorganisms are widespread in the hospital environment, there is abundant opportunity for flies to become contaminated and, in turn, to contaminate the patient environment. In the present study, an attempt was made to isolate and identify pathogenic bacteria, fungi and parasites from the housefly Musca domestica collected in the surgical ward of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Hospital and also in a remote residential area located 5 km from the hospital. A total of 113 flies were collected: 65 from a surgical ward (test) and 48 from a residential area for comparison. Ten genera of bacteria were isolated from the test group of flies compared with nine from the control group. In primary isolations, it was observed that the load of bacteria carried by the test group of flies was significantly more (P less than 0.001) than for the control flies. Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterococcus faecalis and viridans streptococci were isolated only from the test flies. The isolation rate of Staphylococcus aureus was significantly higher (P less than 0.001) in test houseflies than in the control houseflies. There was no significant difference in isolation of parasitic ova and cysts from test and control houseflies. Candida spp. were isolated in almost equal numbers from both groups of houseflies, yet none of these was Candida albicans. Houseflies therefore may act as vectors of potentially pathogenic bacteria in a hospital environment.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1348776
Wings of the common house fly (Musca domestica L.): importance in mechanical transmission of Vibrio cholerae.
Yap KL1, Kalpana M, Lee HL.
Abstract
The importance of house fly (Musca domestica L) wings in mechanical transmission of bacteria was studied. A droplet of phosphate-buffered saline containing Vibrio cholerae was rolled along one wing of each house fly. None adhered to the wings but small proportions of the bacterium were isolated from about half the wings. Vibrio cholerae was spread onto the ventral wing surfaces of each unconscious house fly which then was placed inside a bottle. When it regained consciousness, the types of activity it performed over five minutes were noted before the house fly was killed and the bacteria on its wings numerated. Control were house flies killed before inoculation. The proportion of house flies with bacteria on their wings and the mean number of bacteria remaining were significantly less on live house flies than killed controls. Among the live house flies, bacteria were detected on fewer house flies which flew (25%) than those which did not fly (81%). In addition, the mean number of bacteria on the former was significantly less than the latter (5 against 780 colonies). However, both these parameters were not significantly different between the group which performed and the group which did not perform wing grooming; takeoff and alighting over short distances, and somersaulting. Wings of unconscious house flies tethered by their thoraxes were inoculated with V. cholerae. After regaining consciousness, the house flies were allowed to move their wings in flight motions for up to 30 seconds. Small proportions of bacteria remained on all the house flies. House flies were placed in a chamber containing a liquid bait spiked with V. cholerae. After two hours, 10 were removed sequentially and cultured for V. cholerae. The bacterium was isolated from four house flies: two from the legs, and two others from their bodies minus legs and wings. In conclusion, house fly wings do not play an important role in mechanical transmission of bacteria suspended in a non-adhering liquid medium because of the low transfer rate of the bacteria to the wings and poor retention of bacteria on the wings during normal house fly activities.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18600198
