In diagnostic laboratories,
Cryptosporidium oocysts are reported based on the results of one of the two different microscopic methods, acid-fast stain or IFA (
2). In the two past decades, the PCR/RFLP technique has developed to detect and distinguish
C. hominis from
C. parvum. Nested-PCR considerably increases the amplification sensitivity of
Cryptosporidium DNA extracted from water, whole faces and fecal smears. Further improvements in molecular detection of parasites would reduce the amplification time and their PCR products (
8). In the present study, we performed PCR/RFLP and IFA for human faecal samples. Our study showed that PCR/RFLP was 2.1% more sensitive than IFA.
Cryptosporidium oocysts PCR has been a useful tool for detecting pathogens in environmental samples, offering more sensitive and specific detection (
14). Some researchers have described that a common drawback of PCR is lack of viability determination, which is in contrast with the currently accepted IFA (
5). This study revealed that 10 (90.9%) of 46 smears were PCR-positive and 9 (81.8%) were IFA-positive. Although, In statistical analysis, IFA had 81.8% sensitivity with PPV of 81.8%, but the specificity was as low as 0.97%. However, sensitivity of IFA has a very high importance. Although, other studies explained that PCR analysis identified 100% sensitivity, while microscopic procedures (acid-fast stain) had 83.7% sensitivity (
6).
PCR amplification can be an obvious choice for improving the
Cryptosporidium detection from feces (
6). In one study, PCR was compared with IF for detection of
Cryptosporidium, and due to a number of problems, including inhibition, PCR was no more sensitive than IF (
6,
15). However, our findings showed that IFA is less sensitive than PCR, but easy and inexpensive. On the other hand, knowledge and experience of the microscopist are critical in scanning the oocysts as considerable issues in IFA, whereas inhibitors and contaminant agents are effective in PCR assay. Other researchers compared PCR with both auramine phenol and IF staining in bovine feces, and reported that the immunomagnetic separation used to purify the oocysts was more sensitive than conventional techniques (
6,
16).
In this study, PCR was more accurate and diagnosed more human faecal oocysts. Some studies illustrated that while a simple inexpensive morphology-based identification can be used to detect
Cryptosporidium in stool samples, only molecular approaches guarantee the identification to the species level (
3). However, other studies found discrepancies comparing PCR and IFA for
Cryptosporidium detection (
6,
15). Our study indicated a difference between PCR and IFA, as PCR was more sensitive than IFA. In addition, the reproducibility of DNA extracted from faecal smears was 90.9%. Some studies have recovered DNA from faecal smears, about 85.3% that may be occurred a co-extraction of inhibitors of the PCR or of DNA from the faecal microflora (
8).
Since oocysts were rarely detected via IFA, it lacks sensitivity (
2). on the other hand, some researcher suggested that they could be IFA staining method is unexpectedly high (
17). One of the faecal smears was IFA-positive; in contrast, its PCR was negative. It is possible that there have been PCR inhibitors in faecal specimens. A study revealed that faecal constituents such as bilirubin, bile salts and complex polysaccharides inhibit PCR, even at low concentrations (
13). Human acids affect PCR, as DNA may not be replicated in some or all aliquots from a single sample. Based on PCR genotyping,
C. parvum bovine genotype and
C. hominis from human faecal specimens were detected as 500 and 650 bp. Among
Cryptosporidium species,
C. parvum and
C. hominis are associated with massive outbreaks worldwide (
9).
In this study,
C. hominis, infecting mainly humans, and
C. parvum as the most prevalent zoonotic species of the genus
Cryptosporidium, can be involved with a large number of animal species and humans. Our result confirmed that PCR using 18S rRNA gene primers, could provide more sensitivity than IFA. PCR-based analyses using 18S rRNA gene primers have been useful for genotyping and IFA has been beneficial for laboratory and environmental samples diagnoses. However, important usefulness factors of IFA include being time consuming and the necessity for an expert personnel. Most of the investigations suggested PCR as the most effective purification method for
C. parvum oocyst detection (
18). Findings of this study indicated that PCR was more accurate than IF antibody test (IFAT), but unable to detect more less than one oocyst in faecal specimens, whereas IFAT can be exhibited by an expert parasitologist and with experienced workers to numerate the oocysts under the microscope.
PCR has been a molecular approach for finding the Cryptosporidium oocysts DNAs. PCR has shown more sensitivity than IFA for tracking Cryptosporidium oocysts and detecting its genotypes in faecal human specimens. Likewise, IFA has been suitable and faecal specimens should be examined by an experienced parasitologist. PCR was the golden standard in our study.