Next Article in Journal
An Epidemic of Drug Resistance: Tuberculosis in the Twenty-First Century
Next Article in Special Issue
Molecular Confirmation of Accipiter Birds of Prey as Definitive Hosts of Numerous Sarcocystis Species, including Sarcocystis sp., Closely Related to Pathogenic S. calchasi
Previous Article in Journal
A Review of the Current Status of G6PD Deficiency Testing to Guide Radical Cure Treatment for Vivax Malaria
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Rare Case of Strongyloides stercoralis Hyperinfection in a Diabetic Patient from Romania—Case Report and Review of the Literature
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Protozoan Parasites of Iranian Freshwater Fishes: Review, Composition, Classification, and Modeling Distribution

1
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Garmsar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Garmsar 3581631167, Iran
2
Department of Aquatic Animal Health and Disease, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord 8813733395, Iran
3
Gulbali Institute and School of Agricultural, Environmental and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2650, Australia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pathogens 2023, 12(5), 651; https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12050651
Submission received: 16 March 2023 / Revised: 12 April 2023 / Accepted: 19 April 2023 / Published: 27 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Novel Insights into Parasitic Infections and Diseases)

Abstract

:
This article investigates the occurrence and distribution of parasitic protozoa of Iranian freshwater fishes (both farmed and wild). Our search shows 26 known parasitic protozoan species were recorded from 52 freshwater fish species across different ecoregions of Iran. Most of these fish are edible. While none of the identified protozoan parasites are of zoonotic importance, our study does not exclude presence of zoonotic species in Iranian fishes. Present data suggest the northern and western regions of the country are the main macrohabitat of protozoa (35 parasitic records reported), with the greatest concentration of parasitic protozoa occurring in the Urmia basin in Iran’s northwest. The clustered distribution pattern of protozoa among freshwater fish was also more evident in the northern and western parts of the country. The gills and skin were the most infected microhabitats for parasitic protozoa. The highest number of parasites was observed in the fish family Cyprinidae with nine species found in the native fish, Capoeta capoeta. The most diverse host range was observed in the holotrich ciliate, Ichthyophthirius multifiliis isolated from 46 cyprinid species in 39 different locations. However, due to the great richness of fish and extreme habitat diversity, parts of the parasite fauna of Iranian freshwater fish are still poorly understood. Furthermore, current and future changes in climate and environmental parameters, and anthropogenic interventions are likely to affect fish hosts and their parasites.

1. Introduction

Protozoans are one of the major threats to fish health, causing diseases in both farming and wild systems [1]. Parasitic protozoa, particularly those with direct lifecycles and broad host specificity, can easily transmit within fish populations [2]. Parasitic invasion can adversely affect growth rate, cause weight loss, and suppress reproductive activities. Severe infection can lead to extant mortality and massive destruction of fish stock [3,4,5]. Some protozoa are ectoparasites that inhabit skin, fins, and/or gills, while others invade internal organs, such as the intestine.
Research on protozoan parasites of freshwater fish in Iran has been limited. A few studies, mainly on ectoparasitic protozoa, have examined the prevalence, intensity, histopathology, taxonomy, and systematic classification of protozoan parasites [6,7,8,9,10,11,12]. Protozoan parasites infecting Iranian freshwater fish were first reported by Jalali [7], who studied the pathogenesis and diagnosis of common parasites, discussing the interrelationship between fish and parasites extensively. A subsequent checklist [10] included 23 protozoan parasite species from 30 fish hosts, but nomenclature of the protozoa taxa and fish hosts reported in Iran was outdated and contained several errors. In many cases, the parasite life stage and precise names of localities were missed. Therefore, the present study aims to update the classification and nomenclature of protozoan parasites and their hosts, and correct possible misidentifications and misspellings made in previous studies. This paper presents a detailed list of parasites found in each host, and a spatial distribution map of the drainage basin for the localities where infected freshwater fishes have been caught. Different global change scenarios are also presented in by modeling past and present spatial distributions of freshwater fish protozoa in Iran.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Data used in the present study include lakes, wetlands, reservoirs, rivers, streams, estuaries, bays, springs, and aquaculture facilities throughout Iran, lying between latitudes 24° and 40° N, and longitudes 44° and 64° E. The recorded geographical features are distributed throughout 16 endorheic drainage basins, including Bejestan, Caspian Sea, Dasht-e Kavir, Dasht-e Lut, Isfahan, Hamun-e Mashkid, Hamun-e Jaz Murian, Kor River, Lake Maharlu, Lake Urmia, Namak Lake, Sirjan, Sistan, Hari (Tedzhen) River, and Kerman-Na’in.

2.2. Search Strategy

Figure 1 summarizes the research strategy of this study. Published records on lentic and lotic environments from 1981 to 2022, for native and introduced fish species in wild and farmed systems, were included. Zoological Record, Biological Abstracts, Fisheries Abstracts, Web of Knowledge, Scopus, Google Scholar, the Iranian Research Institute for Information Science and Technology (IranDoc), Scientific Information Database (SID), open access databases, and the research repository of Aquadocs were searched for the following words: “fish” or “protozoa” or “Iran”. The bibliographies of the articles found through the search were checked for other relevant articles. Inclusion criteria included peer-reviewed published articles, final reports of the research projects conducted by research institutes affiliated with the Ministry of Science, published conference abstracts of congress meetings and seminars where the parasites were reported at the species level, books, and indexed PhD and Master of Science (M.Sc.) dissertations. The exclusion criteria were unpublished records (gray literature) and those with misidentification, available doubts, duplicate documentation, and those where parasites were identified at the genera level. While conference proceedings and scientific reports may be considered gray literature, they were still included, as there is evidence that they can be valuable [13].

2.3. Data Extraction

We followed the classification used in previous studies [14,15], the World Register of Marine Species (https://www.marinespecies.org (accessed on 31 January 2023)), and The National Center for Biotechnology Information (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov (accessed on 31 January 2023)). All articles were independently screened by two reviewers and assessed for eligibility. Data, including taxonomic levels of parasites and hosts, locality, and the source of the report, were recorded in an MS Excel spreadsheet.
Cases dealing with parasite misidentification and duplicates were removed manually by reviewers, records were screened by going through titles, abstracts, and full texts. Articles in doubt were included in the first instance until further discussion and consensus was reached [16].

2.4. Spatial Analysis

2.4.1. Occurrence Record

Where geographic point information was unavailable, coordinates of localities where freshwater fish protozoa have been reported were calculated using ArcGIS Desktop (version 10.8, (Esri, Redlands, CA, USA; the American multinational geographic information system (GIS) software). The “Feature to Point” tool, which creates a feature class containing points generated from the representative locations of input features, was used to calculate the centroid coordinates of the features. For line, polygon, or three-dimensional features, the center of gravity/geometric center of a feature was used, which may fall inside or outside the feature. For multipoint features, such as fish farms and hatchery centers, with a collection of individual point locations stored as coordinate pairs, the gravity center was computed using the weighted mean center of all feature parts and was considered a single record in the database. After calculating the centroid coordinates of the features, the repeated records were rarefied into 5 km distances to reduce spatial autocorrelation. A total of 58 occurrence points were extracted to display the spatial distribution map of each natural or artificial geographic feature in Iran.

2.4.2. Protozoan Occurrences Map

To visualize the spatial distribution map of the features (localities where protozoan species of freshwater fishes have been reported), the GIS database for extracted geographic points was overlaid with the layer of the major drainage basins (watershed boundaries) of the country. To determine whether the spatial distribution of the geographical features was spatially random or clustered, the “average nearest neighbor” measurement tool was used. This tool measures the distance between the center of each feature and the centroid site of its nearest neighbors, then averages all these most relative neighbor distances [17]. The average nearest neighbor (ANN) ratio is provided as:
ANN = D O ¯ D E ¯
D ¯ O is the observed average distance between each location and its nearest neighbor; D ¯ E is the anticipated average distance for the locations provided in an accidental pattern.
D ¯ O = i = 1 n d i n
D ¯ E = 0.5 n / A
where di corresponds to the distance between location i and its nearest neighboring location, n equals the total of locations, and A is either the area of a minimum enclosing rectangle around all features, or a user-specified area value. The average of the nearest neighbor z-score for the statistic is computed as follows:
z = D O ¯ D E ¯ SE
SE = 0.26136 n 2 / A
Subsequently, kernel density estimation (KDE) modeling in ArcGIS Desktop was calculated to determine important hotspots for protozoan species throughout the country. After assessing the bandwidth (radius), weights were calculated for each point within the kernel radius. As a result, the closest points to the center obtained a higher weight and subscribed more to the cells’ total density value. Eventually, the values of the final grid were determined by adding the values of all circle surfaces for each feature [18]. The predicted density for a new (x,y) feature point is calculated as follows:
Density = 1 radius 2 i   =   1 n 3 π   ·     species i 1     dist i radius 2 2
For disti < radius
Where:
  • i = 1, …, n are the input points. Only points that are in the radius distance of the (x,y) location come into account.
  • speciesi is the species field value (in this case, the number of individual protozoan species) of point i.
  • disti is the distance between the (x,y) location and point i.
The IDW [19] tool was also used to create the spatial distribution map of the de Martonne (DM) aridity index for Iran, based on the past two-year average (2020–2022). IDW is a deterministic technique for multivariate interpolation with a set of known scattered points, assuming closer points are more similar than farther ones. The given values to unknown points are estimated with a weighted average of the existing values at the known points. Closer points to the center of the estimated cell have more influence or weight in the averaging process [19]. Inverse distance weighted (IDW) is calculated as follows:
Z j = i = 1 n Z i h ij   + δ β i = 1 n 1 h ij + δ β
where Zj is the value of an unknown point, Zi is the value of a known point, β is the weight and δ is a correction variable. The separation distance between a known and unknown point, hij is determined using the Euclidean method:
h i j = Δ x 2 + Δ y 2
where Δx and Δy are the distances between the known point i and the unknown point j depending on reference axes.
In the present study, precipitation and temperature observation datasets were obtained from the Meteorological Organization of Iran and used as model inputs for modeling on a monthly time scale, while the de Martonne aridity (IDM) was calculated based on the following equation [20]:
IDM = P/T + 10
where P is the annual amount of precipitation (in millimeters), and T is the mean annual air temperature (in degrees Celsius).
The classification of the climatic zones based on the de Martonne climate index is shown in Table 1. Ultimately, the GIS database for geographic points of each locality was overlaid on the spatial distribution map of the DM aridity index for Iran.

2.5. Distribution Modeling

2.5.1. Environmental Variables

Nineteen standard bioclimatic variables were downloaded from the latest version (2.1) of the CHELSA dataset (http://chelsa-climate.org (accessed on 1 December 2022) [21]) at a spatial resolution of 30 arc-seconds (~km2) for the current period, which is defined as the period from 1981 to 2010. Bioclimatic variables calculated from monthly temperature and precipitation values were generated by interpolating average monthly climate data from weather stations at different spatial resolutions. To avoid multicollinearity in the model, variables that were highly correlated with each other (i.e., showed more than 0.6 Pearson’s correlation coefficient) were removed using the “remove highly correlated variables” tool in SDM Toolbox v2.5 [22]. Therefore, only 12 environmental variables were retained to simulate the distributions of freshwater fish protozoan parasites in Iran (Table 2).
Three topographic variables—elevation, slope, and aspect—were used for the modeling distribution of protozoa. The topographic variable, elevation with a 30 arc-seconds (~km2) resolution was derived from the latest version (2.1) of the WorldClim dataset (Fick and Hijmans 2017; http://worldclim.org (accessed on 20 February 2023)); while slope and aspect layers were generated from the elevation raster using the surface analyst tool in ArcMap and added as the variables.
Downscaled future climatic data, with a 30 arc-second (~km2) resolution, for two time periods (2050s (2041–2070) and 2080s (2071–2100)) from the latest version of the IPSL climate model were extracted from CHELSA (version 1.2). IPSL-CM6A-LR was developed at the Institute Pierre-Simon Laplace (IPSL) to study natural climate variability and climate response to natural and anthropogenic forces as part of the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) [23]. Here, the latest “Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs)” scenarios of projected socioeconomic global changes up to 2100 from the CMIP6 were used to model the distributions of the Iranian freshwater fish protozoa in the future under the changing global environment [24]. These updated scenarios are called SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0, and SSP5-8.5, and the numerical values of the representative concentration pathways (RCPs; 2.6, 4.5, 7.0, and 8.5) refer to the possible range of radiative forcing values in the year 2100. The RCP2.6 is regarded as “the minimum greenhouse gas emission scenario”, while RCP 4.5 and RCP 7.0 reveal the “medium-to-high end of the range of future emissions and warming”. RCP 8.5 presents a “massive enhancement in greenhouse gas emissions up to the end of the twenty-first century” and is indicated as a high emission [25]. In the present study, three RCPs scenarios, 2.6, 7.0, and 8.5, were considered for the future timeline.

2.5.2. Species Distribution Modeling (SDM) and Statistical Analysis

All environmental and topographic layers were clipped to Iran’s boundaries using the mask tool, then converted to the ASCII format required for distribution modeling. The MaxEnt algorithm in the R environment [26] was used to model the distribution of Iranian freshwater fish protozoa and predict their current and future distributions under climate change [27]. MaxEnt has been shown to perform better than other modeling algorithms. It only requires present occurrence data, producing robust models when the sample size is small [28]. MaxEnt was run with maximum iterations of 1000, a convergence threshold of 0.0001, and 1000 background points. Ten replicates were established for each training partition. A bias file was included to reduce sampling bias by correcting how background values and ensure unique occurrence localities are selected (Phillips et al., 2006 [29]). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was also calculated to measure model performance. AUC represents the degree of separability and indicates how much the model can distinguish between classes (Phillips et al., 2006 [29]). AUC values vary from 0 to 1; 0.5 and shows model performance not (randomly) fit the data, while <0.5 indicates worse than random; 0.5–0.7 presents poor performance; 0.7–0.9 indicates reasonable or moderate performance; and 0.9 indicates high performance; 0.7–0.9 indicates reasonable or moderate performance; and 0.9 indicates high performance [30]. Contributions of each variable to the habitat model of protozoa were calculated using the software’s built-in jackknife test. The jackknife test (systematically leaving out each variable) was used to measure the dominant climatic factors determining the potential distribution of the species [29].
Finally, the projecting module in the MaxEnt model was used to project the trained models to future scenarios, with 12 changing environmental factors and three unchanged factors. The flow chart of the database and modeling distribution is presented in Figure 2.

3. Results

3.1. Analysis of Published Reports

Data were obtained from 58 publications (48 scientific articles, two abstracts of conference proceedings, three scientific reports, four student theses, and one book) published between 1981 and 2022. A total of 26 parasite species were recorded from 52 freshwater fish species across different ecoregions of Iran. The protozoan parasites recorded were Tubulinea (1 species), Choanozoa (1 species), Apicomplexa (3 species), Euglenozoa (5 species), Metamonada (1 species), and Ciliophora (15 species). The most common microhabitats in fish were external organs, such as gills, the surface of skin and fins, and the surface of eyes. Gills (filaments, operculum, and gill cavity) were the most commonly infected site, harboring about 15 protozoan parasite species (Table 3).
The broadest host range was observed in holotrichous ciliate, I. multifiliis, which infected a broad spectrum of wild and cultured fish species, mostly belonging to the Cyprinidae family. This parasite was isolated from 51 cyprinid fish species belonging to 35 genera from 57 different localities. The highest diversity of protozoan parasites was found in Cypriniform fishes, the most abundant fish species (with 41 members, 72%). The maximum number of parasites, both in terms of the species and abundance, occurred in the native cyprinid fish, Capoeta capoeta as follows: Cyprinus carpio (Güldenstädt, 1773) (five species), Ctenopharyngodon idella (Valenciennes, 1844) (two species), Hypophthalmichthys molitrix (Valenciennes, 1844) (four species), H. nobilis (Richardson, 1845) (one species), and Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum, 1792) (seven species). In addition, protozoan species were reported from wild and cultured sturgeon fish, with at least four identified species in Acipenser persicus (Table 4). The Phyla of protozoan parasites found in Iranian freshwater fishes and Orders of Iranian freshwater fish infected with protozoan parasites are presented in Figure 3.

3.2. Spatial Analysis

Protozoan Occurrence Map

Drainage basins and spatial distribution of the natural and artificial features for localities where protozoan species of freshwater fishes have been reported are presented in Figure 4. The outcomes from measuring the distance between the center of each feature and its nearest neighbor’s center indicate that the averages of all nearest neighbor distances are less than the average for a hypothetical random distribution (z-score = −5.534068; p-value < 0.000). This z-score indicates that the likelihood of this clustered pattern being random chance is less than 1% (i.e., the distribution of the studied localities was mainly found in clusters within the northern and northwest to southwest parts of the country). The results for average nearest neighbor are presented in Figure 5.
The results of kernel density estimation (KDE) modeling to determine important hotspots for protozoan species throughout Iran are shown in Figure 6. The greatest number of protozoan species was reported from the north, northwest, and southwest of the country. Furthermore, presenting the protozoan occurrence points to the spatial distribution map of the DM aridity index indicates that most studies on protozoan parasites have been documented in areas with very humid to Mediterranean climates (Figure 6).

3.3. Distribution Modeling

3.3.1. Model Performance and Contribution of Environmental Variables

The accuracy of predicting the probable distribution of freshwater fish protozoa during the current period was found to be “good” (AUC mean = 0.828, which indicates reasonable or moderate performance). The results show that the selected variables described the current distribution of protozoan parasites very well. Among the fifteen environmental and topographical variables, the contribution of four variables, precipitation of coldest quarter (33.9%), slope (22.9%), isothermality (13.9%), and mean temperature of wettest quarter, accounted for 78.6% of model prediction. The results of the jackknife test also show that annual precipitation, annual mean temperature, aspect, and slope were the main variables (Figure 7).
Table 5 represents the mean AUC values of protozoan parasites in the future (2041–2070 and 2071–2100), indicating “good” performance. These findings indicate that the simulations have high reliability and can be used to analyze the impact of climate change on the distribution of freshwater fish protozoan parasites in Iran.

3.3.2. Predicted Current Potential Distribution

The distribution map of protozoan parasites of Iranian freshwater fish based on occurrence points, current environmental conditions, and topographic parameters, projected by the MaxEnt model, is presented in Figure 8. The map illustrates that the total suitable habitats, including poorly, moderately, and highly suitable, are widespread throughout the north and west of Iran. However, the northeast of the country might also be a suitable habitat.

3.3.3. Future Suitable Climate Spaces

The potential distribution of future climatically suitable habitats for freshwater fish protozoa under RCP 2.6, RCP 7.0, and RCP 8.5 climate change scenarios for 2041–2070 and 2071–2100 were projected using the MaxEnt model (Figure 8). The findings demonstrate a significant difference between current and predicted total suitable habitats in 2041–2070 (RCP 2.6, RCP 7.0, and RCP 8.5) and 2071–2100 (RCP 2.6, RCP 7.0, and RCP 8.5); in particular, the area size of suitable habitats varies from “keeps up” to “remarkably decreases”.

4. Discussion

According to the literature, 24 protozoan species were found in Iranian freshwater fish, and the most commonly reported microhabitats of fish hosts were external organs such as gills, skin and fins, and eyes’ surface. The skin surface and gills (filaments, operculum, and gill cavity) were the most commonly infected sites, harboring 14 and 11 protozoan parasite species, respectively. In contrast, the published data on protozoan infections in the internal organs is limited and mainly focuses on farmed fish species, likely due to global public health concerns. Only eight protozoan species have been reported from the blood (Trypanoplasma acipenseris, T. Borelli, Trypanosoma percae, Haemogregarina acipenseris) and gastrointestinal tract (Hexamita salmonis, Balantidium ctenopharyngodoni, Eimeria carpelli, Eimeria sinensis) of sturgeon and cultured carp [7,10,82]. Notably, the examined fish are usually dead when obtained from the market or sent to the laboratory, making internal and blood parasites difficult to study and potentially confounding the reported data.
In the current study, a slight decrease in the number of identified protozoan species was observed compared to the checklist by Pazooki and Masoumian [10]. The only new record is Trichodina gracilis, which was isolated on the gills of Capoeta razii from BabolRood River [62]. However, some taxonomic groups have been changed, and some reported species are no longer classified as parasites. Genus Pleistophora (Gurley, 1893) belongs to the Microsporidia phylum, which has traditionally been considered protozoan, but is now classified within the kingdom Fungi according to recent molecular phylogeny [83]. Furthermore, some questionable taxonomies, e.g., Cryptobia linchi, listed by Pazooki and Masoumian [10], seem to be misspelled in recorded data, and some modifications have been made to the taxonomic validity of Cryptobia acipenseris and C. Borelli [10]. Lom and Dykova [84] stated that Cryptobia and Trypanoplasma are morphologically similar, but based on their host infection site, the ectocommensal group is considered a species of Cryptobia and another living in the bloodstream as Trypanoplasma. Transmission of genus Cryptobia is direct (host to host) without any developmental changes, while the latter are transmitted by hematophagous leeches in which some development stages of the parasite occur [15]. In the present checklist, these two protozoan parasites are under the genus Trypanoplasma (Laveran and Mesnil, 1901). Protozoan ciliate Trichodina epizootica, documented by Rahanandeh and Tizkar [67] from the skin and fins of H. molitrix is now classified under the genus Trichodinella (Srámek-Husek, 1953) in the World Registry of Marine Species. As the morphological or molecular characteristics of the parasite were not cited in their research work, the parasite is excluded from the present list.
There is more information available on protozoan parasites, namely Trichodina, Ichthyobodo, and Chilodonella, than other protozoa [11,12,54,63]. Since there may be new species, and/or information about different localities and host species, further collaboration among researchers in various fields of parasitology is essential. Moreover, the development of the best methods for collecting and preserving protozoan parasite specimens, and applying novel laboratory diagnostics (e.g., molecular procedures) is pivotal to the accurate parasite description and identification.
The most prevalent species was I. multifiliis, which was reported from 57 different water resources in the country. The main host for this parasite is the common carp, which is widely cultivated in farms and natural water resources throughout Iran; thus, the wide distribution of the parasite may have occurred during the introduction of common carp and other Chinese carp [7].
Specific identification of protozoa can be challenging. Molecular taxonomy has changed the taxonomic status and phylogenetic relationship of many protozoan taxa. For example, myxosporidians are indeed no longer classified as protozoa and are instead considered metazoan organisms. They have been included in this study based on their previous classification. Unfortunately, molecular taxonomy of parasites in Iran lags behind the rest of the world. In particular, there are no sequence data for protozoan parasites of Iranian freshwater fish.

4.1. Host-Parasite List

The highest diversity in protozoan parasites belonged to Cyprinidae, with the maximum number of individual parasite species in Capoeta capoeta. Trichodina gracilis recorded for the first time from the gills of Capoeta razii by Mirnategh, Shabanipour, and Sattari [77]. C. razii was first described by Jouladeh-Roudbar et al. [85] from the KheyRood River, in the southern part of the Caspian Sea basin, as an endemic species. They stated that the genus Capoeta in the southern Caspian Sea Basin comprised two species, namely C. capoeta and the new species, C. razii, which differ molecularly and morphologically from other described Capoeta species. As the highest number of reported protozoan species belonged to the genus Capoeta, there may be more individual species in C. razii that need further investigation.
Among the reported parasites, the widest host range was observed in the ciliated ectoparasitic protozoan, I. multifiliis. The parasite causes ichthyophthiriasis or white spot disease and is one of the most economically important freshwater parasites globally [86]. I. multifiliis has a broad host range and was isolated from the skin, fins, and surface of the eyes of a broad spectrum of wild and cultured fish species from the Cyprinidae family (51 species belonging to 35 various genera).
Currently, the number of freshwater fish species in Iran is 297 [81], of which 57 fish species have been reported to be infected with parasites, accounting for only 19.2% of Iran’s fish diversity. Cyprinids, sturgeons, and salmonids have been evaluated for parasites more frequently and in more localities. However, most Iranian fishes have been examined for parasites only on a single occasion or not at all. This could be attributed to these species being rare, with some being very difficult or expensive to access. Moreover, some species are not considered important enough for parasitological examination.
In terms of host specificity, clearly some parasites, such as I. multifiliis, infect a broad range of hosts in different families, environments, and host age groups. Others such as Trichodina spp. can be fatal to juvenile fish but not adults, and some, such as Chilodenella spp., can be free living and become parasitic when the environment changes or the fish is under stress.

4.2. Mapping Distribution

In the environment, each parasite species occupies a particular niche. In addition to their microhabitats (infected organs), parasites are found in macrohabitats, which are part of the host habitat. However, macrohabitats and geographical ranges cannot always be clearly differentiated [87]. The geographical distribution of a parasite can be influenced by various host- and environment-dependent factors [88]. Behavioral and physiological characteristics of hosts (e.g., diet, migratory behavior, and defecation) can determine the parasite type/s encountered by the host [89], while environmental conditions can facilitate parasite viability and establishment [90]. Thus, our spatial distribution map of localities where infected fish species were caught also shows the parasite macrohabitats/geographical ranges and forms the basis for modeling current and future parasite distributions under different global change scenarios. Our results show that protozoan parasite distributions primarily occur in clusters in northern and northwest to southwest Iran. This indicates that the total suitable macrohabitats are mainly in the Palaearctic and Ethiopian Realms, which are both considered ecologically important, having substantial water resources and numerous diverse freshwater fish species [91]. Overlaying the occurrence points on the spatial distribution map of the DM aridity index indicated that most of the literature on protozoan parasites has been documented in very humid to Mediterranean climate types. The outcome of KDE for hotspot mapping confirmed this finding. Accordingly, the greatest number of protozoan species was reported from the north, northwest, and southwest, indicating the extent and abundance of suitable aquatic macrohabitats for protozoan parasites in these areas. It is noted that these areas may be more intensively studied due to accessibility to fish hosts, and proximity to laboratories and research centers.
Our potential distribution map of protozoan parasites of Iranian freshwater fish based on occurrence points, current environmental conditions, and topographic parameters was projected using the MaxEnt model for current and future scenarios. The results showed reasonable or moderate performance, which means that the potential distribution map created using MaxEnt is reliable. Similarly, most of the available literature emphasized that the maximum entropy (Maxent) could be a powerful predictive technique for ecological niche modeling of aquatic species, particularly fish species and their specific parasites [92,93,94]. The outcomes of the jackknife test indicated that precipitation and temperature played the most critical roles in predicting the probable distribution of freshwater fish protozoa throughout Iran. Similarly, Yousefi et al. [95] modeled the potential distribution of 15 endemic freshwater species under climate change in Iran and suggested that precipitation was the most crucial determinant of fish distribution, while Kim et al. [96] showed that temperature had the highest contribution to largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) distribution in South Korea.
The outcomes of the current study in relation to the potential distribution map for the current period demonstrated that the total suitable habitats for protozoan parasites are basically widespread throughout the north and west of the country. However, the northeast of the country may also be a suitable ecological niche. There is no research on freshwater fish parasites in this area despite providing natural and artificial habitats for many fish species [91]. Furthermore, a remarkable difference was observed in the model comparison of current and future protozoan parasites’ potential distribution places. This suggests that as fish host habitats shrink, protozoan parasite species also lose suitable habitat and geographical range.
There is very little research on modeling the distribution and predicting environmentally suitable habitats of freshwater fish parasites, and most of the available studies deal with marine species [93,97]. However, our findings for habitat reduction align with previous research that predicted range reductions for different groups of freshwater fish. Esmaeili, Sayyadzadeh, Eagderi, and Abbasi [81] showed that climate change might negatively affect the distribution of Alburnus species in Iran. They asserted that the current potential suitable places for this species would decrease in future. Similarly, Kwon et al. [98] projected the current and future distribution of some endemic freshwater fish in Korea under the RCP 8.5 scenario and revealed that climate change would probably lead to a decrease in the range size of suitable predicted spaces for some fish species. Pandit et al. [99] predicted the potential distribution of the threatened freshwater fish, Carmine shiner (Notropis percobromus), under various climate change scenarios, concluding that the available predicted areas for Carmine shiner would significantly decrease.
Iranian natural freshwater ecosystems are mainly identified as endorheic basins—land-locked drainage networks with no hydrological connection with marine environments [91]. Natural topographic barriers, basin fragmentation due to climate change and the resulting drought [100], and anthropogenic interventions may negatively affect occupants of aquatic systems and their interactions. These provide barriers that impede intracontinental migration in an endorheic system. Consequently, it would be difficult for fish species and parasites to change their distribution ranges to more suitable climates. Accordingly, it can be anticipated that climate change may lead to a shift in latitudinal and elevational distribution ranges [98,101], population decline in some species, or co-extinction of the host-specific parasites. In farmed fish, protozoan parasites are affected by health management policies and environmental changes. Unauthorized transport of live or harvested fish, substandard health conditions in some farms, intensive culture, and lack of disinfection have resulted in parasite establishment and geographical dispersal [101].
Currently, some parts of Iran, including the eastern regions of the Sistan Basin, Hamoon Lake, the southern regions of the Karun Basin, and the Iranian part of Al-Azim Marshes [102] are suffering from severe drought, primarily due to climate change. Future climate change is predicted to further increase temperatures and decrease precipitation, intensifying drought severity [103]. This, in turn, will threaten freshwater ecosystems, making them less or more habitable for fish species and their parasites. Moreover, habitat destruction caused by oil and gas projects, wastewater discharge, dam construction, and land-use changes can accelerate the adverse effects of climate modification [104,105], which should be considered in future research.

5. Conclusions

This paper has provided updated information regarding protozoan parasites of freshwater fish in Iran and a host–parasite list that may be utilized in future studies. Approximately one-sixth of freshwater fish reported in Iran were infected with protozoa, and most of the parasitic diversity found was related to the Cyprinidae family. Due to the great richness of freshwater fish species and extreme diversity in habitats, parts of the parasite fauna of Iranian freshwater fish are possibly poorly known. Protozoan infection has been documented in almost all economically important fish species such as cyprinids, sturgeons, and salmonids. The most prevalent protozoan species was I. multifiliis, which was reported in over two-thirds of the literature and was isolated from a range of wild and cultured fish species from the Cyprinidae family.
Distribution modeling underlined that MaxEnt could accurately predict habitat location and distribution for fish parasites, and mapping of future potential distribution demonstrated that northeastern Iran might also be a suitable ecological niche. In addition, the model comparison of current and future protozoan parasites’ potential distribution revealed that future climate change followed by intensifying droughts could affect parasite populations due to changes in fish hosts and suitable habitats.

Author Contributions

M.B.: conceptualization; methodology; software; validation; formal analysis; investigation; writing—original draft preparation; M.R.: conceptualization; methodology; software; validation; formal analysis; investigation; S.S.: resources; writing—review and editing; supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

Authors are grateful to Mark Filmer, CSU for editing the English of the first draft of the manuscript. The revised manuscript has been edited by an external professional editor.

Conflicts of Interest

There are no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Buchmann, K. Impact and control of protozoan parasites in maricultured fishes. Parasitology 2015, 142, 168–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Sibley, L.D. Invasion and intracellular survival by protozoan parasites. Immunol. Rev. 2011, 240, 72–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Bermingham, M.L.; Mulcahy, M.F. Microfauna associated with amoebic gill disease in sea-farmed Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., smolts. J. Fish Dis. 2006, 29, 455–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zilberg, D. Amoebic gill disease of marine fish caused by Neoparamoeba pemaquidensis. Acta Zool. Sin. 2005, 51, 554–556. [Google Scholar]
  5. Marino, F. Damage due to parasites in Mediterranean teleosts. Parassitologia 2006, 48, 19–21. [Google Scholar]
  6. Barzegar, M.; Bozorgnia, A.; Raissy, M. Prevalence and mean intensity of ectoparasite Infections in Caspian shemaya (Alburnus chalcoides) in southeastern Caspian Sea Basin. J. Anim. Environ. 2022, 11, 50–61. [Google Scholar]
  7. Jalali, B. Parasites and Parasitic Diseases in the Freshwater Fishes of Iran, 1st ed.; Iranian Fisheries Company, Aquaculture Department: Tehran, Iran, 1998; 564p. (In Persian) [Google Scholar]
  8. Masoumian, M.; Pazouki, J.; Yahyazadeh, M.; Teymornezhad, A. Protozoan from freshwater fishes from north west of Iran. Iran. J. Fish. Sci. 2005, 4, 31–42. [Google Scholar]
  9. Mokhayer, B. Survey on the parasites of Sephid-Roud River. J. Vet. Med. Fac. Tehran. Univ. 1981, 38, 61–75. [Google Scholar]
  10. Pazooki, J.; Masoumian, M. Synopsis of the parasites in Iranian freshwater fishes. Iran. J. Fish. Sci. 2012, 11, 570–589. [Google Scholar]
  11. Taghavi, M.; Mokhayer, B.; Saeedi, A.; Mosavi, H. Parasitic infection in Hemiculter lucisculus, Liza auratus and Gasterosteus aculeatus of the Zardi River (Mazandaran). Iran. Sci. Fish. J. 2013, 21, 151–156. [Google Scholar]
  12. Zargar, A.; Rahimi Afzal, Z.; Taheri Mirghaed, A.; Soltani, M.; Ebrahimzadeh Mousavi, H.A.; Mollaeian, H. Study of ectoparasite contamination of rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum, 1792) in Aquatic Animal Health Research Center’s farm, Faculty of Veterinary, University of Tehran. J. Appl. Ichthyol. Res. 2017, 5, 153–166. [Google Scholar]
  13. Scherer, R.W.; Saldanha, I.J. How should systematic reviewers handle conference abstracts? A view from the trenches. Syst. Rev. 2019, 8, 264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Lom, J.; Dykova, I. Myxozoan genera: Definition and notes on taxonomy, life-cycle terminology and pathogenic species. Folia Parasitol. 2006, 53, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lom, J.; Dyková, I. (Eds.) Protozoan Parasites of Fishes; Elsevier Science Publishers: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1992; Volume 26, 315p. [Google Scholar]
  16. Tawfik, G.M.; Dila, K.A.S.; Mohamed, M.Y.F.; Tam, D.N.H.; Kien, N.D.; Ahmed, A.M.; Huy, N.T. A step by step guide for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis with simulation data. Trop. Med. Health 2019, 47, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Mitchell, A.; Griffin, L.S. The ESRI Guide to GIS Analysis; ESRI Press: Redlands, CA, USA, 2005; Volume 2, 288p. [Google Scholar]
  18. Silverman, B.W. Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1986; Volume 26. [Google Scholar]
  19. Biler, L.; Germeç, E. Inverse Distance Weighted (IDW) Distribution Mapping of Phlebotomus papatasi, Phlebotomus tobbi, and Phlebotomus sergenti in Çukurova Region, Turkey. Commagene J. Biol. 2018, 2, 23–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Emadodin, I.; Reinsch, T.; Taube, F. Drought and desertification in Iran. Hydrology 2019, 6, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Karger, D.N.; Saladin, B.; Wüest-Karpati, R.O.; Graham, C.H.; Zurell, D.; Mo, L.; Zimmermann, N.E. Interannual climate variability data improves niche estimates in species distribution models. bioRxiv 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Brown, J.L.; Bennett, J.R.; French, C.M. SDMtoolbox 2.0: The next generation Python-based GIS toolkit for landscape genetic, biogeographic and species distribution model analyses. PeerJ 2017, 5, e4095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Boucher, O.; Servonnat, J.; Albright, A.L.; Aumont, O.; Balkanski, Y.; Bastrikov, V.; Bekki, S.; Bonnet, R.; Bony, S.; Bopp, L. Presentation and evaluation of the IPSL-CM6A-LR climate model. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 2020, 12, e2019MS002010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhou, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Zhu, B.; Cheng, X.; Yang, L.; Gao, M.; Kong, R. MaxEnt modeling based on CMIP6 models to project potential suitable zones for Cunninghamia lanceolata in China. Forests 2021, 12, 752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. O’Neill, B.C.; Tebaldi, C.; Van Vuuren, D.P.; Eyring, V.; Friedlingstein, P.; Hurtt, G.; Knutti, R.; Kriegler, E.; Lamarque, J.-F.; Lowe, J. The scenario model intercomparison project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6. Geosci. Model Dev. 2016, 9, 3461–3482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2013; Available online: http://www.r-project.org (accessed on 31 January 2023).
  27. Fick, S.E.; Hijmans, R.J. WorldClim 2: New 1-km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 2017, 37, 4302–4315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Pearson, R.G. Species’ distribution modeling for conservation educators and practitioners. Synthesis. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 2007, 50, 54–89. [Google Scholar]
  29. Phillips, S.J.; Anderson, R.P.; Schapire, R.E. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Model. 2006, 190, 231–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Swets, J.A. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 1988, 240, 1285–1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Masomian, M.; Mehdizadeh, A.; Yahyazadeh, M. Protozoans;(Coccidia and Myxosporea;) infections in some fishes of Aras and Mahabad dams (Northwest of Iran). Iran. Sci. Fish. J. 2002, 11, 79–90. [Google Scholar]
  32. Molnar, K. Report of the Fish Pathology Course Held in Iran, 24 November–21 December; Fisheries Co. of Iran: Tehran, Iran, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  33. Pazooki, J.; Masoumian, M. Cryptobia acipenseris and Haemogregarina acipenseris infections in Acipenser guldenstadti and A. persicus in the Southern part of the Caspian Sea. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2004, 6, 95–101. [Google Scholar]
  34. Sharif Rohani, M. Survey on parasites and parasitic diseases in Sistan region. In Proceedings of the 2nd Symposium of Iranian Veterinary Clinics, Tehran, Iran, 19–21 November 1994; p. 109. [Google Scholar]
  35. Tavakol, S.; Motalebi, A.; Bahmani, M.; Halajian, A.; Jalali, B. Survey on gill parasites of acipenserid fishes of Caspian Sea and freshwater in Iran. Iran. Vet. Sci. 2009, 6, 763–770. [Google Scholar]
  36. Tavakol, S. Survey on Gill Parasites of Sturgeon Fishes (Acipenseridae) in Southern Part of Caspian Sea with Emphasis on Nitzschia sturionis Ablidgaard, 1794; Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University: Tehran, Iran, 2008; 115p. [Google Scholar]
  37. Seyed Mortezaei, R.; Pazoki, J.; Masomiay, M.; Koor, N. Identification of myxozoa and protozoa parasites of Barboid fishes of water resources in Khouzestan Province. Iran. Sci. Fish. J. 2008, 17, 63–78. [Google Scholar]
  38. Raissy, M.; Ansari, M. Parasites of some freshwater fish from Armand river, chaharmahal va Bakhtyari province, Iran. Iran. J. Parasitol. 2012, 7, 73–79. [Google Scholar]
  39. Mehdipoor, M.; Ranjbar Bahadori, S.; Masoumi, M.; Ojrati, N.; Barzegar, M.; Ghasemi, H. Identification of ectoparasites of fishes Hablerud river, Garmsar (Semnan province). J. Vet. Microbiol. Garmsar Vet. Res. J. 2010, 6, 95–100. (In Persian) [Google Scholar]
  40. Mehdipour, M. Parasites of Endemic and Introduced Fishes of Zaianderud River of the Esfahan; Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University: Tehran, Iran, 2007; 153p. [Google Scholar]
  41. Fadaeifard, F.; Mokhayer, B.; Ghorbani, H.; Fadaei Fard, F.; Mokhayer, B.; Ghorbani, H. Survey and identification of parasites from fishes of Choghakhor Wetland in Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari. J. Fac. Vet. Med. Univ. Tehran 2001, 56, 109–114. (In Persian) [Google Scholar]
  42. Raissy, M.; Azizi, H.; Fadaeifard, F.; Pour, S.Y. Parasites of some native fish from Kaaj river, Chaharmahal va Bakhtiari province, Iran. World J. Fish Mar. Sci. 2013, 5, 84–87. [Google Scholar]
  43. Golchin, M.A.; Ataei, A.; Sadeghi, L.R. Survey on skin and gill’s helminths and protozoa of Fahlian River’ fish. Iran. Vet. J. 2018, 14, 58–67. [Google Scholar]
  44. Jalali, B.; Barzegar, M.; Asadolah, S.; Mehdipour, M.; Maghsoudloo, E.; Gheshlaghi, P.; Abdolahi, F.; Mansouri, F.; Fakhri, Z. Identification of the parasites from some fishes of Zayandeh-Rud River and first record of Allocreadium laymani Bychowsky, 1962 from Iran. Vet. Res. Bulliten 2007, 4, 63–70. [Google Scholar]
  45. Pazouki, J.; Ghobadian, M.; Masoumian, M. Identification of some parasites of freshwater fishes of Zanjan Province, northwest Iran. Iran. Sci. Fish. J. 2005, 14, 23–40. [Google Scholar]
  46. Gholami, M.H.; Mokhayer, B.; Bozorgnia, A.; Hosseinzadeh Sahafi, H. Investigation on the c and intenstiy c parasitic infection of Leuciscus cephalus and Capoeta capoeta gracilis of the Neka River. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. Res. 2009, 4, 50–60. (In Persian) [Google Scholar]
  47. Nazari Chamak, F.; Pazooki, J.; Masoumianm, M. Identification of parasitic fauna of fishes in some water resources of Jiroft city, Kerman. In Proceedings of the 17th National & 5th International Iranian Biology Conference, Kerman, Iran, 4–6 September 2012; p. 5. [Google Scholar]
  48. Peyghan, R.; Razi, J.M.H.; Mohamadian, B. Study on parasitic contamination of Botak (Cyprinion macrostomum), Toeini (Barbus barbulus) and Kaputa (Capoeta trutta) in Dez River. J. Wetl. Ecobiol. 2018, 10, 15–28. [Google Scholar]
  49. Manshadi, A.; Masoumian, M.; Jafari, B.J.; Dowlatabadi, M.B. Protozoan and myxozoan infections in some fishes of Parishan Lake. Asian J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 2012, 7, 842–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Moghainemi, S.R.; Abbasi, S.; Amiri, F. Survey on parasitic infections in the endemic fishes of Hoor-Alazim Lagoon. Iran. Fish. Res. Organ. Fish. Sci. 2004, 4, 31–42. (In Persian) [Google Scholar]
  51. Jalali, B.; Mahbobi Soofiani, N.; Asadollah, S.; Barzegar, M. An investigation on fish parasites in Hanna Wetland, Semirom, Isfahan Province. Iran. Sci. Fish. J. 2012, 21, 25–38. [Google Scholar]
  52. Rasouli, S.; Purghasem, S. Survey of external parasites infestation of cyprinidea in Zarine-rud river in West Azerbaijan province. Vet. Clin. Pathol. Q. Sci. J. 2016, 10, 155–164. [Google Scholar]
  53. Daghigh Roohi, J.; Sattari, M.; Nezamabadi, H.; Ghorbanpour, N. Occurrence and intensity of parasites in Prussian carp, Carassius gibelio from Anzali wetland, Southwest Caspian Sea. Iran. J. Fish. Sci. 2014, 13, 276–288. [Google Scholar]
  54. Raeisi, M.; Ansari, M.; Lashkari, A.; Jalali, B. Occurrence of parasites in selected fish species in Gandoman Lagoon, Iran. Iran. J. Fish. Sci. 2010, 9, 464–471. [Google Scholar]
  55. Raissy, M.; Fadaeifard, F.; Ansari, M.; Tajizadegan, H.; Hosseini, S.R. Study on parasites of fishes in Sooleghan Lagoon, Chaharmahal & Bakhtyari Province. Vet. J. Azad Univ. Garmsar 2009, 1, 15–19. [Google Scholar]
  56. Daghigh Roohi, J.; Mirhasheminasab, S.; Asgharnia, M.; Ghorbanpour, N.; Nahrvar, M.; Rufchaei, R.; Ramezani, B.; Musavi, A.; Abbasi, K.; Rastin, R. Study of Parasites Occurrence and Intensity in Fishes of Anzali Lagoon; Final Report Iranian Fisheries Science Research Institute; Iranian Fisheries Science Research Institute: Tehran, Iran, 2016; Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/1834/13770 (accessed on 21 November 2022).
  57. Ranjbar Bahadori, S.; Jafari Cherati, A.; Mehdipour, M.; Jalali, B. A survey on ectoparvasit in freshwater and warm water culture fishes in Mazandaran province. Vet. J. 2009, 84, 18–22. [Google Scholar]
  58. Ehsanfar, A.; Bozorgnia, A.; Barzegar, M.; Sadeghloo, S. Investigation on the prevalence and intensity of protozoan and metazoan parasites of some of the warm- water cultured fish species in Mazandaran Province. New Technol. Aquac. Dev. 2021, 4, 16–28. [Google Scholar]
  59. Bozorgnia, A.; Youssefi, M.; Barzegar, M.; Hosseinifard, S.; Ebrahimpour, S. Biodiversity of parasites of fishes in Gheshlagh (Vahdat) Reservoir, Kurdistan Province, Iran. World J. Fish Mar. Sci. 2012, 4, 249–253. [Google Scholar]
  60. Elahi, M.E.; Soltani, M.; Nokhbe, Z.D.; Ghafari, M.; Naderi, M. Study of parasites in skin and gill of (Schizothorax zarudnyi) in Sistan region. J. Aquat. Anim. Fish. 2014, 18, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  61. Barzegar, M.; Jalali, B. Parasites of fishes of Kuftar Lake, distribution and economically importance of them. Iran. Vet. J. Shahid Chamran Ahvaz Univ. 2002, 5, 52–64. (In Persian) [Google Scholar]
  62. Mirghaed, A.T.; Barzegar, M.; Mousavi, H.E.; Rahmati-holasoo, H.; Bozorgnia, A. A comparative study of parasite communities of some endemic fish species in River Babol and Alborz Dam in the Southern Caspian Sea basin in Mazandaran province. Int. J. Aquat. Biol. 2017, 5, 401–407. [Google Scholar]
  63. Jalali, B.; Barzegar, M. Fish parasites in Zarivar lake. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2006, 8, 47–58. [Google Scholar]
  64. Keivany, Y.; Aalipour, M.; Khalagy, M.; Asaollah, S.; Siami, M. Parasitic infestation in Chondrostoma regium and Aphanius vladykovi of the Behesht Abad River (Chaharmahal-va-Bakhtiary). Iran. Sci. Fish. J. 2017, 25, 101–108. [Google Scholar]
  65. Barzegar, M. A survey on ectoparasite of fishes in some rivers in southwest of Caspian Basin. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran, 2018; 124p. [Google Scholar]
  66. Mirghaed, A.T.; Mousavi, H.E.; Jazani, M.M.; Rahmati-Holasoo, H.; Bozorgnia, A. Parasite fauna of Chub, Squalius turcicus De Filippi, 1865 (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) from some rivers of the Southern Caspian Sea basin in Iran. Iran. J. Ichthyol. 2018, 5, 109–117. [Google Scholar]
  67. Rahanandeh, M.; Tizkar, B. Morphometric study and identification of external parasites in Hypophthalmichthys molitrix breeders in Guilan, Iran. Sustain. Aquac. Health Manag. J. 2021, 7, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Gholami, Z.; Youssefi, M.R.; Marhaba, Z.; Alizadeh, A.; Rahimi, M.T. Aphanius sophiae (Actinoptrygii, Cyprinodontidae), a new host for Ichthyophthirius multifiliis (Ciliophora) reported from Iran. J. Parasit. Dis. 2016, 40, 1030–1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Raissy, M.; Pirali Kheirabadi, E.; Mohseni, P. Identification of parasites of Aphanius vladykovi from Shalamzar and Salm Lakes, Chaharmahal va Bakhtiari Province, Iran. Iran. Sci. Fish. J. 2018, 27, 159–163. [Google Scholar]
  70. Mirhashemi Nasab, S.; Firouzbakhsh, F.; Sattari, M.; Ghasemi, M. Prevalence and intensity of parasites in pike (Esox lucius) from Anzali Wetland and evaluation of their impacts on biometric characticties in host fish. Iran. Sci. Fish. J. 2019, 1, 69–87. [Google Scholar]
  71. Barzegar, M.; Raeisi, M.; Bozorgnia, A.; Jalali, B. Parasites of the eyes of fresh and brackish water fishes in Iran. Iran. J. Vet. Res. 2008, 9, 256–261. [Google Scholar]
  72. Miariar, A.; Bozorgnia, A.; Pazoki, J.; Barzegar, M.; Masomian, M.; Jalali, B. Fish parasites in Valasht Lake and Chalns River. Iran. Sci. Fish. J. 2008, 17, 133–138. [Google Scholar]
  73. Mehdizadeh Mood, S.; Shohreh, P.; Sahandi, J. A survey on ectoparasite fauna of cold water fish farms in Mazandaran Province, Iran. Hum. Vet. Med. 2011, 3, 246–251. [Google Scholar]
  74. Azadikhah, D. Survey of Parasitic Infection of Sander lucioperca (Linnaeus, 1758) and Silurus glanis (Linnaeus, 1758) in Aras Reservoir with Emphasizes of Monogenean Parasites; Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University: Tehran, Iran, 2008; 155p. [Google Scholar]
  75. Pazooki, J.; Goorabzarmakhi, F.T.; Masoumian, M. Parasitic infection of an endemic fish (Blicca bjoerkna) and an exotic fish (Hemiculter beucisculus) in Anzali Lagoon, Caspian Sea, Iran. Iran. J. Parasitol. 2011, 6, 66–73. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  76. Bazari Moghaddam, S.; Mokhayer, B.; Masoumian, M.; Shenavar Masouleh, A.; Jalilpour, J.; Masoumzadeh, M.; Alizadeh, M. Parasitic infection among larvae and fingerlings of the Persian sturgeon (Acipenser persicus) in Vniro tanks and earthen ponds. Iran. J. Fish. Sci. 2010, 9, 342–351. [Google Scholar]
  77. Mirnategh, B.; Shabanipour, N.; Sattari, M. Occurrence and intensity of parasites in Chelon aurata (Risso, 1810) and Neogobius caspius (Eichwald, 1831) (Teleostei: Perciformes) from southern Caspian Sea. Int. J. Aquat. Biol. 2017, 5, 310–320. [Google Scholar]
  78. Khojasateh-Khah, M. Survey on Protozoan Parasites Infections of Cultured Trout in Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari Province. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran, 1999; 87p. (In Persian). [Google Scholar]
  79. Rahanandeh, M.; Tizkar, B.; Abedi, M. Identification of Chalcalburnus chalcoides internal parasites in Sefidrood river, Guilan, Iran. Iran. J. Aquat. Anim. Health 2021, 7, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Khara, H.; Nezami, A.; Satari, M.; Mousavi, A.; Mousapour, M.; Hajipour, A. Occuranee and intensity of parasites from perch (Perca fluviatilis, L. 1785) in Amirkelaieh wetland of Lahijan (Caspian basin-Iran). Pajouhesh Sazandegi 2005, 67, 92–103. [Google Scholar]
  81. Esmaeili, H.R.; Sayyadzadeh, G.; Eagderi, S.; Abbasi, K. Checklist of Freshwater Fishes of Iran. FishTaxa 2018, 3, 1–95. [Google Scholar]
  82. Jalali, B.; Molnar, K. Occurrence of monogeneans on fresh-water fishes in Iran—Dactylogyrus spp. on cultured Iranian fishes. Acta Vet. Hung. 1990, 38, 239–242. [Google Scholar]
  83. Didier, E.S.; Weiss, L.M. Microsporidiosis: Not just in AIDS patients. Curr. Opin. Infect. Dis. 2011, 24, 490–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Lom, J.; Dykova, I. Developments in Aquaculture and Fisheries. In Protozoan Parasites of Fishes, 1st ed.; Elsevier Science Publishers: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1992; p. 316. [Google Scholar]
  85. Jouladeh-Roudbar, A.; Eagderi, S.; Ghanavi, H.; Doadrio, I. A new species of the genus Capoeta Valenciennes, 1842 from the Caspian Sea basin in Iran (Teleostei, Cyprinidae). ZooKeys 2017, 682, 137–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Tange, E.Ø.; Mathiessen, H.; von Gersdorff Jørgensen, L. Effects of pH on free-living stages of a Nordic strain of the economically important freshwater fish parasite Ichthyophthirius multifiliis. Int. J. Parasitol. 2020, 50, 859–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Rohde, K. Marine Parasitology; Csiro Publishing: Clayton, Australia, 2005; p. 565. [Google Scholar]
  88. Fourcade, Y.; WallisDeVries, M.F.; Kuussaari, M.; van Swaay, C.A.; Heliölä, J.; Öckinger, E. Habitat amount and distribution modify community dynamics under climate change. Ecol. Lett. 2021, 24, 950–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Kołodziej-Sobocińska, M. Factors affecting the spread of parasites in populations of wild European terrestrial mammals. Mammal. Res. 2019, 64, 301–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Iyaji, F.; Etim, L.; Eyo, J. Parasite assemblages in fish hosts. Bio Res. 2009, 7, 570–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Esmaeili, H.R.; Gholamhosseini, A.; Mohammadian-Kalat, T.; Aliabadian, M. Predicted changes in climatic niche of Alburnus species (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) in Iran until 2050. Turk. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2018, 18, 995–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Vidal-Martínez, V.M.; Velázquez-Abunader, I.; Centeno-Chalé, O.A.; May-Tec, A.L.; Soler-Jiménez, L.C.; Pech, D.; Mariño-Tapia, I.; Enriquez, C.; Zapata-Pérez, O.; Herrera-Silveira, J. Metazoan parasite infracommunities of the dusky flounder (Syacium papillosum) as bioindicators of environmental conditions in the continental shelf of the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Parasites Vectors 2019, 12, 277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Kuhn, T.; Cunze, S.; Kochmann, J.; Klimpel, S. Environmental variables and definitive host distribution: A habitat suitability modelling for endohelminth parasites in the marine realm. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Moore, C.; Drazen, J.C.; Radford, B.T.; Kelley, C.; Newman, S.J. Improving essential fish habitat designation to support sustainable ecosystem-based fisheries management. Mar. Policy 2016, 69, 32–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Yousefi, M.; Kafash, A.; Khani, A.; Nabati, N. Applying species distribution models in public health research by predicting snakebite risk using venomous snakes’ habitat suitability as an indicating factor. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 18073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Kim, Z.; Shim, T.; Ki, S.J.; An, K.-G.; Jung, J. Prediction of three-dimensional shift in the distribution of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) under climate change in South Korea. Ecol. Indic. 2022, 137, 108731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Alt, K.G.; Kochmann, J.; Klimpel, S.; Cunze, S. Improving species distribution models of zoonotic marine parasites. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 9851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Kwon, Y.-S.; Bae, M.-J.; Hwang, S.-J.; Kim, S.-H.; Park, Y.-S. Predicting potential impacts of climate change on freshwater fish in Korea. Ecol. Inform. 2015, 29, 156–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Pandit, S.N.; Maitland, B.M.; Pandit, L.K.; Poesch, M.S.; Enders, E.C. Climate change risks, extinction debt, and conservation implications for a threatened freshwater fish: Carmine shiner (Notropis percobromus). Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 598, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Lymbery, A.J.; Lymbery, S.J.; Beatty, S.J. Fish out of water: Aquatic parasites in a drying world. Int. J. Parasitol. Parasites Wildl. 2020, 12, 300–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Akoll, P.; Konecny, R.; Mwanja, W.W.; Nattabi, J.K.; Agoe, C.; Schiemer, F. Parasite fauna of farmed Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) and African catfish (Clarias gariepinus) in Uganda. Parasitol. Res. 2012, 110, 315–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Cao, Q.; Yu, D.; Georgescu, M.; Han, Z.; Wu, J. Impacts of land use and land cover change on regional climate: A case study in the agro-pastoral transitional zone of China. Environ. Res. Lett. 2015, 10, 124025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Rahimi-Moghaddam, S.; Kambouzia, J.; Deihimfard, R. Adaptation strategies to lessen negative impact of climate change on grain maize under hot climatic conditions: A model-based assessment. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2018, 253, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Burgin, L.; Ekström, M.; Dessai, S. Combining dispersion modelling with synoptic patterns to understand the wind-borne transport into the UK of the bluetongue disease vector. Int. J. Biometeorol. 2017, 61, 1233–1245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Lin, Y.; Feng, Z.; Wu, W.; Yang, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Xu, C. Potential impacts of climate change and adaptation on maize in northeast China. Agron. J. 2017, 109, 1476–1490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Flowchart of review process.
Figure 1. Flowchart of review process.
Pathogens 12 00651 g001
Figure 2. Flowchart of methodological and analytical processes of MaxEnt modelling to project potential distribution of future climatically suitable habitats for freshwater fish protozoa under different global change scenarios.
Figure 2. Flowchart of methodological and analytical processes of MaxEnt modelling to project potential distribution of future climatically suitable habitats for freshwater fish protozoa under different global change scenarios.
Pathogens 12 00651 g002
Figure 3. (a): Phyla of protozoan parasites found in Iranian freshwater fishes; (b): Order of Iranian freshwater fish infected with protozoan parasites.
Figure 3. (a): Phyla of protozoan parasites found in Iranian freshwater fishes; (b): Order of Iranian freshwater fish infected with protozoan parasites.
Pathogens 12 00651 g003
Figure 4. Map of Iran showing main drainage basins and spatial distribution of localities where protozoan species of freshwater fishes have been reported. (* Tonekabon River is considered the Cheshme Kilah River. ** Zangmar River is also known as the Zangbar River).
Figure 4. Map of Iran showing main drainage basins and spatial distribution of localities where protozoan species of freshwater fishes have been reported. (* Tonekabon River is considered the Cheshme Kilah River. ** Zangmar River is also known as the Zangbar River).
Pathogens 12 00651 g004
Figure 5. The results for Average Nearest Neighbor.
Figure 5. The results for Average Nearest Neighbor.
Pathogens 12 00651 g005
Figure 6. Hotspot mapping of individual protozoan species (a); and the protozoan occurrence points relative to the DM aridity index (DMAI) map of Iran, based on the past two years’ average (2020–2022) (b). In the top figure red clusters illustrate the higher number of protozoan species, and the lighter-toned cluster zones (light blue) indicate a lower number of species. In the bottom figure red-colored cluster zones indicate a higher DMAI value, while the lighter-toned cluster zones show a lower DMAI value.
Figure 6. Hotspot mapping of individual protozoan species (a); and the protozoan occurrence points relative to the DM aridity index (DMAI) map of Iran, based on the past two years’ average (2020–2022) (b). In the top figure red clusters illustrate the higher number of protozoan species, and the lighter-toned cluster zones (light blue) indicate a lower number of species. In the bottom figure red-colored cluster zones indicate a higher DMAI value, while the lighter-toned cluster zones show a lower DMAI value.
Pathogens 12 00651 g006
Figure 7. The relative importance of different predictor variables based on the results of jackknife tests in MaxEnt. Graphs represent the contribution of the variables in regularized training test gain (a); test gain (b).
Figure 7. The relative importance of different predictor variables based on the results of jackknife tests in MaxEnt. Graphs represent the contribution of the variables in regularized training test gain (a); test gain (b).
Pathogens 12 00651 g007
Figure 8. Potential distribution of protozoan parasites of freshwater fishes in Iran; current (A) and future distribution; the 2050s (2041–2070) from IPSL-CM6A-LR according to the different climate scenarios (RCPs); RCP2.6 (B); RCP 7.0 (C); and RCP 8.5 (D); and the 2080s (2071–2100) from IPSL-CM6A-LR according to the different climate scenarios (RCPs); RCP2.6 (E); RCP 7.0 (F); and RCP 8.5 (G). Colors display the habitat suitability for fish hosts (green = high suitability).
Figure 8. Potential distribution of protozoan parasites of freshwater fishes in Iran; current (A) and future distribution; the 2050s (2041–2070) from IPSL-CM6A-LR according to the different climate scenarios (RCPs); RCP2.6 (B); RCP 7.0 (C); and RCP 8.5 (D); and the 2080s (2071–2100) from IPSL-CM6A-LR according to the different climate scenarios (RCPs); RCP2.6 (E); RCP 7.0 (F); and RCP 8.5 (G). Colors display the habitat suitability for fish hosts (green = high suitability).
Pathogens 12 00651 g008
Table 1. Types of climate according to the de Martonne aridity index (IDM).
Table 1. Types of climate according to the de Martonne aridity index (IDM).
Climate TypeIDM Values
AridIDM < 10
Semi-arid10 ≤ IDM < 20
Mediterranean20 ≤ IDM < 24
Semi-humid24 ≤ IDM < 28
Humid28 ≤ IDM < 35
Very humid35 ≤ IDM < 55
Table 2. List of predictor variables selected primarily to simulate the distributions of fish protozoan parasites in Iran.
Table 2. List of predictor variables selected primarily to simulate the distributions of fish protozoan parasites in Iran.
CategoriesName of VariablesUnit
Bioclimatic variablesAnnual mean temperature (BIO1)°C
Mean diurnal range (mean of monthly max temp–min temp) (BIO2)°C
Isothermality (BIO2/BIO7) (×100) (BIO3)°C
Temperature seasonality (standard deviation ×100) (BIO4)°C
Max temperature of warmest month (BIO5)°C
Mean temperature of wettest quarter (BIO8)°C
Mean temperature of driest quarter (BIO9)°C
Annual precipitation (BIO12)mm
Precipitation seasonality (coefficient of variation) (BIO15)mm
Precipitation of driest quarter (BIO17)mm
Precipitation of warmest quarter (BIO18)mm
Precipitation of coldest quarter (BIO19)mm
Topography variables Elevation (DEM) m
Slope %
Aspect (Asp)Degrees
Table 3. Details of protozoan parasites reported in Iranian freshwater fish. Data are sorted alphabetically based on parasite taxonomy, followed by host taxonomy. The water basin type in which the parasite was reported is provided as FW for freshwater and B for brackish water.
Table 3. Details of protozoan parasites reported in Iranian freshwater fish. Data are sorted alphabetically based on parasite taxonomy, followed by host taxonomy. The water basin type in which the parasite was reported is provided as FW for freshwater and B for brackish water.
ParasiteHost TaxonomyHost NameInfected OrganEnvironment, TypeBasinLocalityRef.
Ph: Apicomplexa
Cl: Conoidasida
Or: Eucoccidiorida
Fa: Eimeriidae
Goussia carpelli (Leger and Stankovich, 1921) Dykova and Lom, 1983OR: Cypriniformes
FA: Cyprinidae
Cyprinus carpioIntestineFW, Re, RiCaspianAras, SefidRood[31,32]
Goussia sinensis Chen, 1956OR: Cypriniformes
FA: Xenocyprididae
Hypophthalmichthys
molitrix
IntestineFW, RiCaspianSefidRood[32]
Ph: Apicomplexa
Cl: Conoidasida
Or: Eucoccidiorida
Fa: Haemogregarinidae
Haemogregarina acipenseris Navrotskii, 1914OR: Acipenseriformes
FA: Acipenseridae
Acipenser
gueldenstaedtii
BloodBW, SCaspianCaspian[33]
Acipenser
persicus
BloodBW, SCaspianCaspian[33]
Ph: Choanozoa
Cl: Ichthyosporea
Or: Dermocystida
Fa: Dermocystidae
Dermocystidium salmonis Davis 1947OR: Salmoniformes
FA: Salmonidae
Oncorhynchus mykissGillsFW, FaTigrisChaharmahal and Bakhtiari[10]
Ph: Ciliophora
Cl: Litostomatea
Or: Pleurostomatida
Fa: Amphileptidae
Amphileptus branchiarum Weinrich, 1924OR: Cypriniformes
FA: Cyprinidae
Capoeta capoetaSkin, finsFW, RiUrmiaZangmar[8]
Ph: Ciliophora
Cl: Litostomatea
Or: Vestibuliferida
Fa: Balantidiidae
Balantidium ctenopharyngodoni Chen, 1955OR: Cypriniformes
FA: Xenocyprididae
Ctenopharyngodon idellaIntestineFW, LSistanHamun[34]
Ph: Ciliophora
Cl: Oligohymenophorea
Or: Hymenostomatida
Fa: Ichthyophthiriidae
Ichthyophthirius multifiliis Fouquet, 1876OR: Acipenseriformes
FA: Acipenseridae
Acipenser
persicus
GillsFW, FaCaspianInternational Sturgeon Fa[35]
OR: Acipenseriformes
FA: Acipenseridae
Acipenser
stellatus
GillsFW, FaCaspianInternational Sturgeon Fa[35]
OR: Acipenseriformes
FA: Acipenseridae
Huso husoGillsFW, FaCaspianInternational Sturgeon Fa[36]
OR: Cypriniformes
FA: Cyprinidae
Arabibarbus grypusSkin, gillsFW, Ri, WKarun;
Tigris
Karun, Karkheh, Shadegan; Armand[37,38]
Barbus lacertagillsFW, RiKavirHablehRood[39]
Capoeta aculeataGills, skinFW, Ri, WIsfahan; Tigris;
Kavir
ZayandehRood; Armand, Choghakhor; Kaaj; HablehRood[38,39,40,41,42]
Capoeta barroisiGills, skinFW, RiKorFahlian[43]
Capoeta capoetaGills, skinFW, RiCaspian; Isfahan; UrmiaSefidRood, NekaRood, SojasRood; ZayandehRood; Sarysou, Zangmar[8,9,44,45,46]
Capoeta damascinaGills, skinFW, Q, Ri, WKerman- Nain;
Isfahan; Tigris,
Urmia; Kavir
Jafar abad, Konaroiyeh; ZayandehRood; Armand, Kaaj; Choghakhor; ZarinehRood; HablehRood[7,38,39,40,41,42,44,47]
Capoeta truttaGills, skinFW, RiKarunDez[48]
Carasobarbus luteusGills, skinFW, L, WKor; KarunParishan; HoorAlazim[49,50]
Carassius carassiusGills, skinFW, L, ReKor;
Urmia
Parishan; Aras[8,49]
Carassius auratusGills, skinFW, Ri, WTigris; Caspian; IsfahanChoghakhor; SefidRood; Hanna [9,41,51]
Carassius gibelioGills, skinFW, Ri, Lg, WUrmia; Caspian; TigrisZarrinehRood; Anzali, SefidRood; Gandoman, [9,52,53,54,55]
Sooleghan
Cyprinion macrostomumGills, skinFW, RiKarun; KorDez; Fahlian[43,48]
Cyprinus carpioGills, skin, finFW, Ri, Re, Fa, Lg, W, LUrmia; Caspian; Karun;
Tigris; Kor;
Isfahan
ZarrinehRood; Mazandaran, Anzali, Dashte Naz, SefidRood; HoorAlazim, Sooleghan, Vahdat, Gandoman; Parishan; ZayandehRood[9,40,49,50,52,54,55,56,57,58,59]
Luciobarbus barbulusGills, skinFW, RiKarun;
Tigris
Dez; Armand[38,48]
Luciobarbus capitoSkinFW, RiCaspianAras[8]
Luciobarbus
esocinus
SkinFW, Ri, WKarunKarun, Karkheh, Shadegan[37]
Mesopotamichthys sharpeyiGills, skinFW, Ri, WKarunKarun, Karkheh, Shadegan, HoorAlazim[37,50]
Schizocypris
altidorsalis
SkinFW, LSistanHamun[34]
Schizothorax pelzamiSkinFW, LSistanHamun[34]
Schizothorax
zarudnyi
Gills, skinFW, L, FaSistanHamun, Zahak[34,60]
OR: Cypriniformes
FA: Leuciscidae
Abramis bramaSkinFW, ReUrmiaAras[8]
Acanthobrama persidisGillsFW, LKorKuftar[61]
Alburnoides eichwaldiiSkinFW, RiCaspianAras[8]
Alburnoides tabarestanensisGillsFW, Re, RiCaspianAlborz, BabolRood[62]
Alburnus
chalcoides
GillsFW, RiIsfahan; CaspianZayandehRood; Cheshmeh Kileh, ShiRood[6,40]
Alburnus
hohenackeri
Gills, skinFW, LTigrisZarivar[63]
Alburnus
mossulensis
Gills, skinFW, RiKorFahlian[43]
Chondrostoma orientaleGills, skinFW, L, WKor;
Tigris
Kuftar; Choghakhor[41,61]
Chondrostoma regiumGills, skinFW, RiTigris;
Isfahan
Kaaj, Behesht Abad; ZayandehRood[42,44,64]
Leuciscus voraxGills, skinFW, WKarunHoorAlazim[50]
Squalius
cephalus
GillsFW, RiUrmia; CaspianZarinehRood; [7]
NekaRood, Chalus, Tajan, ShiRood, SiahRood[46,65,66]
Vimba vimbaGillsFW, RiCaspianCheshmeh Kileh[65]
OR: Cypriniformes
FA: Xenocyprididae
Ctenopharyngodon idellaGillsFW, RiIsfahan; Caspian; UrmiaZayandehRood; SefidRood; ZarrinehRood[9,40,52]
Hemiculter
leucisculus
not statedFW, LgCaspianAnzali[56]
Hypophthalmichthys
molitrix
Gills, skin, finFW, Fa, RiCaspianGilan, SefidRood, Mazandaran[9,57,67]
Hypophthalmichthys nobilisSkin, finFW, FaCaspianMazandaran[57]
OR: Cyprinodontiformes
FA: Aphaniidae
Aphanius
sophiae
Gills, skinFW, SpKorSafashahr[68]
Aphanius
vladykovi
Gills, skinFW, Ri, LIsfahan; TigrisZayandehRood; Behesht Abad, Shalamzar, Salm[40,64,69]
OR: Esociformes
FA: Esocidae
Esox luciusGillsFW, Lg, RiCaspianAnzali, ShiRood[56,65,70]
OR: Mugiliformes
FA: Mugilidae
Chelon auratusGills, skinFW, RiCaspianZardi[11]
Planiliza abuGills, skinFW, WKarunHoorAlazim[50]
OR: Perciformes
FA: Gasterosteidae
Gasterosteus aculeatusGills, skinFW, RiCaspianZardi[11]
OR: Salmoniformes
FA: Salmonidae
Oncorhynchus mykissSurface of eyes, gills, skin, finFW, Ri, FaCaspianHaraz, Mazandaran, Chalus[10,57,71,72,73]
OR: Siluriformes
FA: Sisoridae
Glyptothorax silviaeGills, skinFW, RiTigrisArmand[38]
Silurus glanisGills, skinFW, Lg, ReCaspian; UrmiaAnzali; Aras[60,74]
OR: Synbranchiformes
FA: Mastacembelidae
Mastacembelus mastacembelusGillsFW, LTigrisZarivar[63]
Ph: Ciliophora
Cl: Oligohymenophorea
Or: Hymenostomatida
Fa: Tetrahymenidae
Tetrahymena pyriformis Ehrenberg, 1830OR: Cypriniformes
FA: Cyprinidae
Capoeta capoetaSkinFW, RiUrmiaZangmar[8]
Ph: Ciliophora
Cl: Oligohymenophorea
Or: Mobilida
Fa: Trichodinidae
Trichodina domerguei Wallengren, 1897OR: Cypriniformes
FA: Cyprinidae
Barbus lacertaGills, skinFW, RiCaspianSefidRood[9]
Capoeta capoetaGills, skinFW, RiCaspianSefidRood[9]
Cyprinus carpioGills, skinFW, RiCaspianSefidRood[9]
Luciobarbus capitoGills, skinFW, RiCaspianSefidRood[9]
OR: Cypriniformes
FA: Leuciscidae
Abramis bramaGills, skinFW, RiCaspianSefidRood[9]
Alburnoides eichwaldiiGills, skinFW, RiCaspianSefidRood[9]
Trichodina gracilis Polyanski, 1995OR: Cypriniformes
FA: Cyprinidae
Capoeta raziiGillsFW, RiCaspianBabolRood[62]
Trichodina perforata Lom, Golemansky and Grupcheva, 1976OR: Cypriniformes
FA: Cyprinidae
Barbus lacertaGills, skinFW, RiUrmiaSojasRood[45]
Capoeta capoetaGills, skinFW, Ri, ReUrmiaZangmar, Ghezel Ozan, SojasRood, Hasan Abdaal[8,45]
Carassius
auratus
Gills, skin, finsFW, ReIsfahanHanna[51]
Luciobarbus capitoGills, skinFW, RiUrmiaAras, Sarysou[8]
OR: Cypriniformes
FA: Leuciscidae
Abramis bramaGills, skinFW, ReUrmiaAras[8]
Alburnoides eichwaldiiGills, skinFW, RiUrmiaAras, Sarysou[8,45]
Alburnus
filippii
SkinFW, RiUrmiaSojasRood[45]
Blicca bjoerknaGills, skin, finsFW, LgCaspianAnzali[75]
OR: Cypriniformes
FA: Xenocyprididae
Hemiculter
leucisculus
Gills, skin, finsFW, LgCaspianAnzali[75]
OR: Perciformes
FA: Percidae
Sander
lucioperca
Gills, skinFW, ReUrmiaAras[8]
OR: Siluriformes
FA: Siluridae
Siluris glanisGills, skinFW, ReUrmiaAras[8]
Trichodina pediculus Ehrenberg, 1831OR: Cypriniformes
FA: Cyprinidae
Capoeta
damascina
GillsFW, LTigrisZarivar[63]
Cyprinus carpioGillsFW, LTigrisZarivar[63]
OR: Synbranchiformes
FA: Mastacembelidae
Mastacembelus mastacembelusGillsFW, LTigrisZarivar[63]
Trichodina truttae Mueller, 1937OR: Salmoniformes
FA: Salmonidae
Oncorhynchus mykissSkin, finsFW, RiCaspianChalus[72]
Trichodina reticulata Hirschmann and Partsch, 1955OR: Acipenseriformes
FA: Acipenseridae
Acipenser
gueldenstaedtii
not statedFW, FaCaspianShahid Beheshty[76]
Acipenser
persicus
not statedFW, FaCaspianShahid Beheshty[76]
Acipenser
stellatus
not statedFW, FaCaspianShahid Beheshty[76]
OR: Mugiliformes
FA: Mugilidae
Chelon auratusnot statedBW, SCaspianKiashahr, Anzali, Chamkhaleh[77]
Trichodinella subtilis Lom, 1959OR: Cypriniformes
FA: Cyprinidae
Cyprinus carpioSkinFW, FaUrmiaWest Azerbaijan[10]
Tripartiella lata Lom 1963OR: Salmoniformes
FA: Salmonidae
Oncorhynchus mykissSkinFW, FaUrmiaWest Azerbaijan[10]
Ph: Ciliophora
Cl: Phyllopharyngea
Or: Chlamydodontida
Fa: Chilodonellidae
Chilodonella cyprini (Moroff, 1902) Strand, 1928OR: Cyprinodontiformes
FA: Aphaniidae
Squalius
cephalus
SkinFW, RiCaspianChalus[72]
OR: Salmoniformes
FA: Salmonidae
Oncorhynchus mykissSkinFW, Fa, RiTigris; CaspianChaharmahal and Bakhtiari; Chalus[10,72]
Chilodonella piscicola (Zacharias 1894) Jankowski 1980OR: Cypriniformes
FA: Cyprinidae
Capoeta capoetaGills, skinFW, RiUrmiaGhezel Ozan[45]
OR: Cypriniformes
FA: Xenocyprididae
Hypophthalmichthys
molitrix
Gills, skin, finsFW, FaCaspianGilan[67]
Ph: Ciliophora
Cl: Spirotrichea
Or: Sporadotrichida
Fa: Oxytrichidae
Stylonychia pustulata (Müller, 1786) Ehrenberg, 1835OR: Cypriniformes
FA: Cyprinidae
Capoeta capoetaGillsFW, RiUrmiaZangmar[8]
Ph: Euglenozoa
Cl: Kinetoplastea
Or: Ichthyobodonidae
Fa: Ichthyobodonidae
Ichthyobodo necator Henneguy, 1928OR: Cypriniformes
FA: Cyprinidae
Arabibarbus grypusSkinFW, WKarunHoorAlazim[7]
Capoeta capoetaGillsFW, Ri, ReUrmia; CaspianZarinehRood; Sohreyn[7,45]
Carassius auratusSkinFW, LgCaspianAnzali[10]
OR: Cypriniformes
FA: Leuciscidae
Leuciscus voraxGillsFW, WKarunHoorAlazim[7]
OR: Cyprinodontiformes
FA: Aphaniidae
Aphanius
vladykovi
SkinFW, LTigrisShalamzar[69]
OR: Cypriniformes
FA: Xenocyprididae
Hemiculter
leucisculus
SkinFW, RiCaspianZardi[11]
OR: Mugiliformes
FA: Mugilidae
Chelon auratusSkinFW, RiCaspianZardi[11]
Planiliza abuSkin, gillsFW, W, RiKarunHoorAlazim, Karun[7]
Ph: Euglenozoa
Cl: Kinetoplastea
Or: Parabodonida
Fa: Cryptobiaceae
Cryptobia branchialis Nie in Chen, 1956OR: Cypriniformes
FA: Xenocyprididae
Hypophthalmichthys
molitrix
Gills, skin, finsFW, FaKarun; CaspianKhouzestan; Guilan[7,67]
Ph: Euglenozoa
Cl: Kinetoplastea
Or: Parabodonida
Fa: Cryptobiaceae
Trypanoplasma acipenseris Ioff, Lewashow, Boschenko, 1926OR: Acipenseriformes
FA: Acipenseridae
Acipenser
gueldenstaedtii
BloodBW, SCaspianCaspian[33]
OR: Acipenseriformes
FA: Acipenseridae
Acipenser persicusBloodBW, SCaspianCaspian[33]
Trypanoplasma borelli Laveran et Mesnil, 1901OR: Salmoniformes
FA: Salmonidae
Oncorhynchus mykissBloodFW, FaTigrisChaharmahal and Bakhtiari[78]
Ph: Euglenozoa
Cl: Kinetoplastea
Or: Trypanosomatida
Fa: Trypanosomatidae
Trypanosoma percae Brumpt, 1906OR: Cypriniformes
FA: Leuciscidae
Alburnus
chalcoides
BloodFW, RiCaspianSefidrood[79]
OR: Perciformes
FA: Percidae
Perca fluviatilisBloodFW, W, SCaspianAmirkelayeh, Caspian[7,80]
Ph: Fornicata
Cl: Trepomonadea
Or: Diplomonadida
Fa: Hexamitidae
Hexamita salmonis (Moore, 1923) Wenyon, 1926OR: Salmoniformes
FA: Salmonidae
Oncorhynchus mykissIntestine FW, FaTigris; UrmiaChaharmahal and Bakhtiari; West Azerbaijan[10,78]
Ph: Tubulinea
Cl: Elardia
Or: Arcellinida
Fa: Arcellidae
Arcella vulgaris Ehrenberg, 1830OR: Cypriniformes
FA: Cyprinidae
Capoeta capoetaSkinFW, RiUrmiaZangmar[8]
Fa: fish farm, L: lake, Lg: lagoon, Q: qanat, Re: reservoir, Ri: river, S: sea, Sp: spring, W: wetland.
Table 4. Host–parasite list of Iranian freshwater fish. The host–parasite list was organized based on the classification performed by Esmaeili et al. [81]. Host information includes current scientific name, authors’ names, authorship dates, and synonyms. It is followed by a list of parasites reported for the host categorized by higher taxon and listed alphabetically.
Table 4. Host–parasite list of Iranian freshwater fish. The host–parasite list was organized based on the classification performed by Esmaeili et al. [81]. Host information includes current scientific name, authors’ names, authorship dates, and synonyms. It is followed by a list of parasites reported for the host categorized by higher taxon and listed alphabetically.
HostParasite Species
Class Actinopterygii
Order Acipenseriformes
Family Acipenseridae Bonaparte, 1831
Genus Acipenser Linnaeus, 1758
Species Acipenser gueldenstaedtii Brandt and Ratzeburg, 1833Haemogregarina acipenseris
Trichodina reticulata
Trypanoplasma acipenseris
Species Acipenser persicus Borodin, 1897Haemogregarina acipenseris
Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Trichodina reticulata
Trypanoplasma acipenseris
Species Acipenser stellatus Pallas, 1771Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Trichodina reticulata
Genus Huso Brandt and Ratzeburg, 1833
Species Huso huso Linnaeus, 1758Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Order Cypriniformes
Family Cyprinidae Rafinesque, 1815
Genus Arabibarbus Borkenhagen, 2014
Species Arabibarbus grypus Heckel, 1843
Synonym: Barbus grypus Heckel, 1843Ichthyobodo necator
Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Species Barbus lacerta Heckel, 1843
Synonym: Barbus lacerta cyri De Filippi, 1865Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Trichodina domerguei
Trichodina perforate
Genus Capoeta Valenciennes, 1842
Species Capoeta aculeata Valenciennes, 1844Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Species Capoeta barroisi Lortet, 1894Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Species Capoeta capoeta Güldenstädt, 1773Arcella vulgaris
Amphileptus branchiarum
Chilodonella piscicola
Ichthyobodo necator
Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Stylonychia pustulata
Tetrahymena pyriformis
Trichodina domerguei
Trichodina perforata
Comment: The subspecies, Capoeta capoeta gracilis Keyserling, 1861), which has been considered as an Iranian subspecies, is recognized as a full species [81]
Species Capoeta damascina Valenciennes, 1842Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Trichodina pediculus
Species Capoeta razii Jouladeh-Roudbar, Eagderi, Ghanavi and Doadrio 2017Trichodina gracilis
Species Capoeta trutta Heckel, 1843Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Genus Carasobarbus Karaman, 1971
Species Carasobarbus luteus Heckel, 1843Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Synonym: Barbus luteus Heckel, 1843
Genus Carassius Jarocki, 1822Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Ichthyobodo necator
Trichodina perforata
Species Carassius auratus Linnaeus, 1758
Synonym: Carassius auratus auratus Linnaeus, 1758
Species Carassius Carassius Linnaeus, 1758Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Species Carassius gibelio Bloch, 1782Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Synonym: Carassius auratus gibelio Bloch, 1782
Genus Cyprinion Heckel, 1843
Species Cyprinion macrostomum Heckel, 1843Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Genus Cyprinus Linnaeus, 1758
Species Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus, 1758Goussia carpelli
Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Trichodina domerguei
Trichodina pediculus
Trichodinella subtilis
Genus Luciobarbus Heckel, 1849
Species Luciobarbus barbulus Heckel, 1849Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Synonym: Barbus barbulus Heckel, 1849
Species Luciobarbus brachycephalus Kessler, 1872Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Synonym: Barbus brachycephalus Kessler, 1872
Species Luciobarbus capito Güldenstaedt, 1773Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Synonym: Barbus capito Güldenstaedt, 1773Trichodina domerguei
Trichodina perforata
Species Luciobarbus esocinus Heckel, 1843Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Synonym: Barbus esocinus Heckel, 1843
Genus Mesopotamichthys Karaman, 1971
Species Mesopotamichthys sharpeyi Günther, 1874Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Synonym: Barbus sharpeyi Günther, 1874
Genus Schizocypris Regan, 1914
Species Schizocypris altidorsalis Bianco and Banarescu, 1982Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Comment: Schizocypris altidorsalis formerly identified as Schizocypris brucei Regan, 1914 (El-Dairi and House 2019)
Genus Schizothorax Heckel, 1838
Species Schizothorax pelzami Kessler, 1870Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Species Schizothorax zarudnyi Nikol’skii, 1897Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Family Leuciscidae Bonaparte, 1835
Genus Abramis Cuvier, 1816
Species Abramis brama Linnaeus, 1758Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Trichodina domerguei
Trichodina perforata
Genus Acanthobrama Heckel, 1843
Species Acanthobrama persidis Coad, 1981Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Synonym: Leuciscus persidis Coad, 1981
Genus Blicca Heckel, 1843
Species Blicca bjoerkna Linnaeus, 1758Trichodina perforata
Genus Alburnoides Jeitteles, 1861
Species Alburnoides eichwaldii De Filippii, 1863Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Trichodina domerguei
Trichodina perforata
Synonym: Alburnoides bipunctatus eichwaldi De Filippi, 1863
Species Alburnus chalcoides Güldenstaedt, 1772Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Trypanosoma percae
Synonym: Chalcalburnus chalcoides Güldenstädt, 1772
Species Alburnus filippii Kessler, 1877Trichodina perforata
Species Alburnus hohenackeri Kessler, 1877Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Species Alburnus mossulensis Heckel, 1843
Synonym: Chalcalburnus mossulensis Heckel, 1843Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Species Alburnoides tabarestanensisIchthyophthirius multifiliis
Genus Chondrostoma Agassiz, 1832
Species Chondrostoma regium Heckel, 1843Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Species Chondrostoma orientale Bianco and Bănărescu, 1982Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Species Leuciscus vorax Heckel, 1843Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Synonym: Aspius vorax Heckel, 1843Ichthyobodo necator
Genus Squalius Bonaparte, 1837
Species Squalius cephalus Linnaeus, 1758Chilodonella cyprini
Synonym: Leuciscus cephalus Linnaeus, 1758Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Genus Vimba Fitzinger, 1873
Species Vimba vimba Linnaeus 1758Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Synonym: Vimba vimba persa Pallas, 1814
Family Xenocyprididae Günther, 1868
Genus Ctenopharyngodon Steindachner, 1866Balantidium ctenopharyngodoni
Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Species Ctenopharyngodon idella Valenciennes, 1844
Genus Hemiculter Bleeker, 1860
Species Hemiculter leucisculus Basilewsky, 1855Ichthyobodo necator
Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Trichodina perforata
Genus Hypophthalmichthys Bleeker, 1859
Species Hypophthalmichthys molitrix Valenciennes, 1844Chilodonella piscicola
Cryptobia branchialis
Goussia sinensis
Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Species Hypophthalmichthys nobilis Valenciennes, 1844Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Order Cyprinodontiformes
Family Aphaniidae Hoedeman, 1949
Genus Aphanius Nardo, 1827Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Species Aphanius vladykovi Coad, 1988Ichthyobodo necator
Species Aphanius sophiae Heckel, 1847Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Order Esociformes
Family Esocidae Rafinesque, 1815
Genus Esox Linnaeus, 1758
Species Esox Lucius Linnaeus, 1758Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Order Gasterosteiformes
Family Gasterosteidae Bonaparte, 1831
Genus Gasterosteus Linnaeus, 1758
Species Gasterosteus aculeatus Linnaeus, 1758Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Order Mugiliformes
Family Mugilidae Jarocki, 1822
Genus Planiliza Whitley, 1945
Species Planiliza abu Heckel, 1843
Synonym: Mugil abu Heckel, 1843; Liza abu Heckel, 1843Ichthyobodo necator
Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Genus Chelon Artedi, 1793
Species Chelon auratus Risso, 1810Ichthyobodo necator
Synonym: Mugil auratus Risso, 1810Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Trichodina reticulata
Order Perciformes
Family Percidae Rafinesque, 1815
Genus Perca Linnaeus, 1758
Species Perca fluviatilis Linnaeus, 1758Trypanosoma percae
Genus Sander Oken, 1817
Species Sander lucioperca Linnaeus, 1758Trichodina perforata
Order Salmoniformes
Family Salmonidae
Genus Oncorhynchus Suckley, 1861
Species Oncorhynchus mykiss Walbaum, 1792Chilodonella cyprini
Synonym: Salmo gairdnerii Richardson, 1836Dermocystidium salmonis
Hexamita salmonis
Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Trichodina truttae
Tripartiella lata
Trypanoplasma borelli
Order Siluriformes
Family Sisoridae Bleeker, 1858
Genus Glyptothorax Blyth, 1860
Species Glyptothorax silviae Coad, 1981Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Family Siluridae Cuvier, 1816
Genus Silurus Linnaeus, 1758
Species Silurus glanis Linnaeus, 1758Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Trichodina perforata
Order Synbranchiformes
Family Mastacembelidae Swainson, 1839
Genus Mastacembelus Scopoli, 1777
Species Mastacembelus mastacembelus Banks and Solander, 1794Ichthyophthirius multifiliis
Trichodina pediculus
Table 5. AUC Values of modeling freshwater fish protozoan parasite distribution under three different RCP scenarios (RCPs 2.6, 7.0, and 8.5) in two future periods (2041–2070, and 2071–2100, 10 replicated runs).
Table 5. AUC Values of modeling freshwater fish protozoan parasite distribution under three different RCP scenarios (RCPs 2.6, 7.0, and 8.5) in two future periods (2041–2070, and 2071–2100, 10 replicated runs).
PeriodsAUCmeanAUCmean Standard Deviation
2041–2070RCP2.60.7960.063
RCP7.00.8280.044
RCP8.50.7970.040
2071–2100RCP2.60.8040.068
RCP7.00.8030.067
RCP8.50.8230.037
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Barzegar, M.; Raissy, M.; Shamsi, S. Protozoan Parasites of Iranian Freshwater Fishes: Review, Composition, Classification, and Modeling Distribution. Pathogens 2023, 12, 651. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12050651

AMA Style

Barzegar M, Raissy M, Shamsi S. Protozoan Parasites of Iranian Freshwater Fishes: Review, Composition, Classification, and Modeling Distribution. Pathogens. 2023; 12(5):651. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12050651

Chicago/Turabian Style

Barzegar, Maryam, Mehdi Raissy, and Shokoofeh Shamsi. 2023. "Protozoan Parasites of Iranian Freshwater Fishes: Review, Composition, Classification, and Modeling Distribution" Pathogens 12, no. 5: 651. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12050651

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop