Isolation and Morphologic Differentiation of Blastocystis from Insect  
Vectors Using Staining Media  
Sherwin B. Toriano, Jeannette C. Fabian, Myrna D. Matira, and Felicitas C. Aquino  
School of Medical Laboratory Science, The Manila Times College of Subic  
Received: 27 November 2025; Accepted: 02 December 2025; Published: 20 December 2025  
ABSTRACT  
The complexity of Blastocystis morphology, its presence in various insect vectors, and the need for accurate  
detection methods warrant further research. This comparative, cross-sectional study aimed to detect Blastocystis  
species in domestic insect vectors, including Periplaneta americana (cockroach), Musca domestica (housefly),  
and Drosophila melanogaster (fruit fly). The study also evaluated the effectiveness of various staining  
techniques, namely Acid Fast staining, Gram staining, Methylene blue wet mount, and Direct smear using  
Lugol's solution, for differential enumeration and morphologic assessment of Blastocystis cysts. The results  
showed that Blastocystis cysts were recovered from Periplaneta americana and Musca domestica. Notably,  
Methylene blue and Lugol's Iodine in Direct smear yielded higher morphologic scores, suggesting that these  
staining methods may be more effective for visualizing Blastocystis cysts in insect vectors.  
Keywords: Blastocystis; insect vectors; staining media; external washings; intestinal contents.  
INTRODUCTION  
Blastocystis species is a unicellular, polymorphic protozoan that inhabits the large intestine of humans and  
various animals [1]. Its diverse morphological forms, including vacuolar, granular, amoeboid, and cyst forms,  
contribute to its complex life cycle and pathogenicity [2]. Transmission occurs through the fecal-oral route, often  
in poor hygienic conditions, and can involve human-human or animal-human transmission [3]. Blastocystis is a  
prevalent parasite in human fecal samples, with higher rates in developing countries [4]. Close contact with  
domestic animals and livestock can also facilitate transmission [5]. Insect vectors, such as houseflies and  
cockroaches, can contaminate food and transmit diseases, including parasites like Blastocystis [6].  
The role of Blastocystis in human disease remains debated, with symptoms including diarrhea, abdominal  
cramps, and nausea [7]. While some studies suggest pathogenic potential, others have raised doubts due to  
concomitant presence of other pathogens [8].  
Various techniques can detect intestinal Blastocystis, including DNA probes, PCR, and direct fluorescent  
antibody methods [9]. However, these methods are often expensive and inaccessible in developing countries.  
Direct fecal smear microscopy is a widely used and cost-effective method, but requires skilled microscopists to  
identify the parasite's diverse morphologic forms [10].  
Several studies have investigated the sensitivity and specificity of direct fecal smear in detecting Blastocystis in  
human fecal samples, with varying results. Staining methods have been less frequently explored, but notable  
studies include the standardization of Blastocystis hominis diagnosis using Gram and May-Grünwald-Giemsa  
staining [11]. Giemsa stain was used to diagnose Blastocystis in domestic bird species [12]. Khalifa et al. [13]  
evaluated various staining methods, including Giemsa, trichrome stain, and others, finding Safranin-Methylene  
blue to be a promising option.  
This study differs from previous research in several key aspects. The Blastocystis used in this study was obtained  
from insect vectors, not from humans or a specific Blastocystis subtype from a stock culture. While various  
staining techniques have been explored, there is still no considered ideal method for routine use in detecting  
Page 1635  
Blastocystis. The complexity of Blastocystis morphology, presence in various insect vectors and detection  
methods necessitate further research.  
Research Gap and Research Problems  
The inadequate knowledge about this prevalent parasite, its presence in insect vectors, and the ambiguous  
findings in its detection using routine microscopy are very compelling reasons to direct the research efforts on  
this. Hence, this research study was undertaken to answer the following:  
1.What is the differential count of Blastocystis from insect vectors, namely:  
1.1 Periplaneta americana (giant cockroach),  
1.2 Musca domestica (housefly), and  
1.3 Drosophila melanogaster (fruit fly)?  
2. What is the differential count of Blastocystis from insect vectors using the various staining media:  
2.1 Gram stain,  
2.2 Acid Fast stain,  
2.3 Methylene blue, and  
2.4 Lugol’s direct smear?  
3.Is there any significant variation in the differential count of Blastocystis from insect vectors when grouped  
according to the staining media used?  
4.What is the effect of staining media to the morphology of Blastocystis?  
METHODOLOGY  
Research Design  
This comparative, cross-sectional study involved the detection of Blastocystis species from domestic insect  
vectors: Musca, Periplaneta and Drosophila species and for its differential enumeration using various staining  
techniques, namely: Acid Fast staining, Gram staining, Methylene blue wet mount and the Direct smear using  
Lugol’s solution.  
Specimen sampling and Locale  
Cockroaches were collected overnight using empty jars coated with Vaseline and baited with bread soaked in  
water, placed in areas they frequent such as kitchens and near garbage cans. Only adult cockroaches with intact  
bodies were brought to the laboratory. These cockroaches were anesthetized by freezing at 0°C for at least 5  
minutes before processing for Blastocystis detection.  
Flies, on the other hand, were collected using a bait trap made from a disposable plastic water bottle, where the  
top was cut off and inverted to form a cone leading to the bait inside. The baits used were spoiling fruit or meat,  
and food residue, which attracted and trapped the flies inside the bottle.  
Hundreds of insects were collected randomly from among the localities in Metro Manila, Philippines. A pair of  
each insect species were sent to the RITM for species identification. Ten each of the randomly selected  
houseflies, fruit flies, and cockroaches were used for testing. The external washings and intestinal contents were  
obtained for staining and microscopy.  
Page 1636  
Process  
To obtain the external washings, the insects were washed one by one in sterile saline by manually shaking for 3  
minutes in a sterile container. The external washings were centrifuged for 5 minutes at 2,000 rpm, and the filtrate  
was discarded. The sediment was resuspended in 1 ml of Ringer’s solution and mixed for an even distribution.  
One drop (50 uL) of the specimen was placed on a slide for each of the staining methods. The stained smears  
were microscopically viewed for the presence and quantitation of Blastocystis. The morphologic quality of  
Blastocystis was evaluated using the rubric provided.  
The intestinal contents were also collected and examined. The insects were placed in flasks rinsed with 70%  
alcohol for 5 minutes in order to decontaminate the external surfaces. They were transferred to another flask and  
allowed to dry at room temperature, and finally washed with normal saline for 3 minutes to remove traces of  
alcohol. Intestinal contents were collected by squeezing the abdomen area of the insects to expel the fecal  
material. The excreted materials were macerated in 1 ml of Ringer’s solution and mixed. One drop (50 uL) of  
the mixture was used for each of the staining methods.  
Data Gathering Procedure  
The morphology, identification and enumeration of the parasite were confirmed and evaluated by three  
experienced Medical Technologists specialized in Clinical Parasitology. The microscopic test was conducted in  
a single-blind study, where the staining media used were not disclosed to the evaluators to minimize bias.  
The following staining media were used: Acid Fast staining, Gram staining, Methylene blue wet mount, and  
Direct smear using Lugol's solution. The standard Gram staining method and the Kinyoun cold method in AFB  
were employed for the dry smears, while Methylene blue and Lugol’s solution were conducted as wet mounts.  
Despite the difference in the staining media specimen state dry in AFB and Gram stain, while wet in Methylene  
Blue and Lugol’s Iodine, each of the slides for staining received an equal amount of one drop (50 uL) of the  
specimen and examined entirely.  
The morphology of the parasite was evaluated using a 4-point rubric scale according to their staining clarity and  
reaction, cellular and structural differentiation, and over-all visual quality. The number of parasites were counted  
per smear or specimen drop on slide for the external washings and intestinal contents isolated from insect vectors.  
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION  
A tabulation of the findings of the differential Blastocystis counts (Table I) made through various staining media  
in three different insect vectors, considering the external washings and intestinal contents as specimens showed  
that out of the ten cockroaches Blastocystis was present in the external washings of only five (5/10) samples; in  
houseflies, Blastocystis was present in eight samples (8/10), whereas, all the samples of fruit flies turned out  
negative. The intestinal contents of insect vectors revealed that there were seven out of ten (7/10) cockroaches  
that were positive; similarly, seven out of ten (7/10) houseflies were positive. The fruit flies were all negative in  
their intestinal contents.  
The Blastocystis count in Periplaneta intestinal contents was notably higher (Gram: 361, AFB: 363, MB: 452,  
and DS: 443) compared to their external washings (Gram: 100, AFB: 109, MB: 133, and DS: 116). This finding  
is consistent with previous studies on the role of cockroaches in harboring parasites [14], [15]. In contrast, the  
Blastocystis count in Musca species was relatively similar in both external washings (Gram: 201, AFB: 205,  
MB: 223, and DS: 239) and intestinal contents (Gram: 173, AFB: 185, MB: 191, and DS: 193). This observation  
aligns with research on the potential of flies as mechanical vectors of parasites [16], [17]. Notably, Periplaneta  
samples had higher parasite counts in their intestinal contents, whereas Musca samples had higher counts in their  
external washings, highlighting differences in parasite carriage between insect species. Whether the surface area  
of these insects and the volume of their intestinal content play a role in the count is yet to be determined. The p  
values (Table II) in the differential count of external washings of Periplaneta (0.959) and Musca species (0.923),  
and the intestinal contents of Periplaneta (0.903) and Musca species (0.989), were > 0.05, indicating no  
significant variation in the differential count of the parasite among the insect vectors.  
Page 1637  
Staining Media  
Control  
Insect Vectors  
Gram stain  
Acid Fast  
Stain  
Methylene  
Blue  
Direct  
Smear  
1.1 External Washings  
Periplaneta species  
Musca species  
100  
201  
0
109  
205  
0
133  
223  
0
116  
239  
0
0
0
0
Drosophila species  
1.2 Intestinal Contents  
Periplaneta species  
Musca species  
361  
173  
0
363  
185  
0
452  
191  
0
443  
193  
0
0
0
0
Drosophila species  
Table 1. Differential Count of Blastocystis From Insect Vectors  
Variables  
2.1 External Washing  
Periplaneta species  
Musca species  
Statistic F  
p
Analysis  
Decision  
0.100  
0.160  
0.959  
0.923  
Not Significant  
Not Significant  
Accept H0  
Accept H0  
Drosophila species  
2.2 Intestinal Contents  
Periplaneta species  
Musca species  
Undetermined  
0.190  
0.04  
0.903  
0.989  
Not Significant  
Not Significant  
Accept H0  
Accept H0  
Drosophila species  
Undetermined  
Table II. Variation in The Differential Count of Blastocystis Grouped According to Staining Media  
Cockroaches and houseflies are notorious vectors of various parasites, playing a significant role in the  
transmission of diseases to humans. These insects can pick up parasites from contaminated feces, garbage, or  
decaying matter and then deposit them onto food, surfaces, or water, facilitating the spread of diseases [18].  
Cockroaches, for instance, can carry parasites like Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia lamblia, and Cryptosporidium  
parvum, which cause amoebiasis, giardiasis, and cryptosporidiosis, respectively [19]. One hundred cockroaches  
(Periplaneta americana) were examined in Metro Manila, and 36% of the cockroaches had multiple parasites  
seen on their external surface. The common parasite observed in the cockroach obtained was the rhabditiform  
larva (25%) [20]. They can also transmit Toxoplasma gondii, a protozoan parasite causing toxoplasmosis,  
particularly hazardous for pregnant women and immunocompromised individuals [21]. Houseflies, on the other  
hand, can transmit a range of parasites, including Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia lamblia, Shigella spp., and  
Salmonella spp., causing diseases like shigellosis and salmonellosis [22], [23].  
Page 1638  
Insect  
Staining Media  
Vectors  
Gram stain  
Acid Fast Stain  
Methylene Blue  
Direct Smear  
3.1 External washings  
Visible cell  
membrane and  
vaguely  
Visible cell  
membrane and  
vaguely  
Distinct cell  
membrane, visible  
large central  
Distinct cell  
membrane, visible  
large central vacuole  
and peripheral  
Periplaneta sp.  
delineated  
delineated  
vacuole and  
intracytoplasmic intracytoplasmic peripheral  
vacuole  
nuclei  
vacuole  
nuclei  
Mean (X)  
1.00  
1.00  
1.75  
1.65  
Distinct cell  
membrane,  
visible large  
central vacuole  
and peripheral  
nuclei  
Distinct cell  
membrane,  
visible large  
central vacuole  
and peripheral  
nuclei  
Distinct cell  
membrane, distinct  
large central  
vacuole with thin  
intra-cytoplasmic  
rim, well-defined  
and dense  
peripheral nuclei,  
multiple forms are  
observed  
Distinct cell  
membrane, distinct  
large central vacuole  
with thin intra-  
cytoplasmic rim,  
well-defined and  
dense peripheral  
nuclei, multiple  
forms are observed  
Musca sp.  
Mean (X)  
1.60  
1.60  
2.93  
2.88  
Drosophila sp.  
Unobservable  
Unobservable  
Unobservable  
Unobservable  
3.2 Intestinal Contents  
Visible cell  
Visible cell  
membrane and  
vaguely  
Distinct cell  
membrane, distinct  
large central  
vacuole with thin  
intra-cytoplasmic  
rim, well-defined  
Distinct cell  
membrane and  
vaguely  
delineated  
membrane, visible  
large central vacuole  
and peripheral nuclei  
delineated  
Page 1639  
Periplaneta sp.  
intracytoplasmic intracytoplasmic and dense  
vacuole  
vacuole  
peripheral nuclei,  
multiple forms are  
observed  
Mean (X)  
1.40  
1.40  
2.53  
2.40  
Visible cell  
membrane and  
vaguely  
Visible cell  
membrane and  
vaguely  
Distinct cell  
membrane, visible  
large central  
Distinct cell  
membrane, visible  
large central vacuole  
and peripheral nuclei  
Musca sp.  
delineated  
delineated  
vacuole and  
intracytoplasmic intracytoplasmic peripheral nuclei  
vacuole vacuole  
Mean (X)  
1.40  
Unobservable  
1.40  
Unobservable  
2.40  
2.38  
Drosophila sp.  
Unobservable  
Unobservable  
Table III. Effects of Staining Media to The Morphology of Blastocystis  
Variables  
4.1 External Washings  
Periplaneta species  
Musca species  
Statistics F  
p
Analysis  
Decision  
0.760  
0.524  
Not Significant  
Significant  
Accept H0  
3.62  
0.022  
Reject H0  
Drosophila species  
4.2 Intestinal Contents  
Periplaneta species  
Musca species  
Undetermined  
1.97  
1.74  
0.136  
0.176  
Not Significant  
Not Significant  
Undetermined  
Accept H0  
Accept H0  
Drosophila species  
Table IV. Variation in The Effects of Staining Media to The Morphology of Blastocystis  
Additionally, houseflies can transmit the eggs of tapeworms like Taenia saginata and Taenia solium, causing  
taeniasis [24]. Other parasites carried by these insects include Blastocystis hominis and Dientamoeba fragilis,  
which cause gastrointestinal symptoms [25], [26]. Proper hygiene, sanitation, and pest control measures are  
crucial in preventing the transmission of these parasites.  
The morphology of Blastocystis (Table III) was consistently rated higher in Methylene blue and Direct smear  
compared to Gram stain and Acid Fast smear in both external washings and intestinal contents. This is evident  
in Periplaneta external washings, where Methylene blue (X = 1.75) and Direct smear (X = 1.65) outperformed  
Gram stain and Acid Fast stain (both X = 1.0). Similarly, in Musca samples, Methylene blue (X = 2.93) and  
Direct smear (X = 2.88) showed superior results compared to Gram stain and Acid Fast stain (both X = 1.60).  
These findings support the use of Methylene blue and Direct smear as effective staining methods for detecting  
Blastocystis, as previously suggested [9], [13].  
Page 1640  
Considering the morphologic scores obtained in the intestinal contents of Periplaneta, Methylene blue (X =  
2.53) gave the highest Mean, followed by Direct smear (X=2.40), a notch higher than Gram stain and Acid Fast  
stain (both with X=1.40). The Musca specimen findings weren’t different with the Methylene blue (X=2.40) and  
Direct smear (X=2.38), dominating over Gram stain and Acid Fast stain (both with X=1.40) with lower mean  
values. This reflected the results of Khalifa et al. [13] who evaluated various staining methods, finding Safranin-  
Methylene blue to be a promising option.  
Blastocystis appears microscopically as a spherical or oval-shaped organism with a central vacuole and  
peripheral cytoplasm, measuring approximately 5-15 μm in diameter [9]. In Methylene blue staining,  
Blastocystis appears as a blue-stained organism with a distinct central vacuole and peripheral cytoplasm, often  
with a characteristic "signet ring" appearance [13]. Direct smear with Lugol's iodine staining reveals Blastocystis  
as a brown-stained organism with a central vacuole and peripheral cytoplasm, often with a granular appearance  
[27]. Gram staining typically shows Blastocystis as a Gram-negative organism with a faintly stained central  
vacuole and peripheral cytoplasm [28]. Acid Fast staining often yields variable results, with Blastocystis  
appearing as a weakly acid-fast organism with a central vacuole and peripheral cytoplasm [29]. The morphology  
of Blastocystis can vary depending on the staining medium and the subtype of the organism [27].  
The statistical analysis of Blastocystis morphologic findings (Table IV) revealed varying results across staining  
media. In Periplaneta external washings, the F-statistic (0.760) and p-value (0.524) indicated no significant  
morphologic variation across staining media (p > 0.05). Conversely, Musca samples showed significant variation  
in the effects of staining media on Blastocystis morphology, with an F-statistic of 3.62 and a p-value of 0.022 (p  
< 0.05). This disparity highlights the importance of considering the specific insect host and staining method  
when evaluating Blastocystis morphology [9], [13]. In the assessment of intestinal contents, both Periplaneta (p  
= 0.136) and Musca (p = 0.176) samples showed no significant variation in the effects of staining media on  
Blastocystis morphology.  
CONCLUSION  
This study demonstrated that Periplaneta americana and Musca domestica carry Blastocystis parasites on their  
external surfaces and intestines, whereas Drosophila species do not appear to harbor the parasite.  
The choice of staining media did not significantly impact parasite counts or morphology in most cases, except  
for Musca domestica's external washings. Notably, wet mounts using Methylene blue and Lugol's Iodine (Direct  
smear) provided better microscopic visualization of Blastocystis cysts compared to Gram and Acid fast staining  
methods.  
The study supports previous research on the potential of cockroaches and flies as mechanical vectors of parasites,  
highlighting the need for effective pest control measures to prevent the spread of Blastocystis and other parasites.  
Disclosure statement  
The researchers have no conflict of interest to disclose.  
REFERENCES  
1. Tan KS (2008). New insights on classification, identification, and clinical relevance of Blastocystis spp.  
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2008 Oct;21(4):639-65. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00022-08. PMID: 18854485; PMCID:  
PMC2570156.  
2. Stenzel DJ, Boreham PF (1996). Blastocystis hominis revisited. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1996 Oct;9(4):563-  
84. doi: 10.1128/CMR.9.4.563. PMID: 8894352; PMCID: PMC172910.  
3. Leelayoova, S., et al. (2008). Genetic diversity of Blastocystis subtype 3 in human isolates from Thailand.  
Infection, Genetics and Evolution, 8(2), 161-166.  
4. Park, S. K., et al. (2012). Prevalence and subtype distribution of Blastocystis in Korean patients with  
irritable bowel syndrome. Korean Journal of Parasitology, 50(2), 139-144.  
Page 1641  
5. Greige S, El Safadi D, et al (2018). Prevalence and subtype distribution of Blastocystis sp. isolates from  
poultry in Lebanon and evidence of zoonotic potential. Parasit Vectors. 2018 Jul 4;11(1):389. doi:  
10.1186/s13071-018-2975-5. PMID: 29973261; PMCID: PMC6030734.  
6. Graczyk, T. K., et al. (2005). Filth flies are transport hosts of Cryptosporidium parvum. Emerging  
Infectious Diseases, 11(5), 748-751.  
7. Jones, M. S., et al. (2014). Blastocystis subtypes in symptomatic and asymptomatic family members and  
pets. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 52(10), 3467-3473.  
8. Roberts, T., et al. (2014). Blastocystis infection and subtype distribution in symptomatic and  
asymptomatic individuals. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 52(10), 3461-3466.  
9. Stensvold, C. R., et al. (2012). Detecting and identifying Blastocystis subtypes using PCR and  
sequencing. Methods in Molecular Biology, 862, 171-184.  
10. Termmathurapoj, S., et al. (2004). Comparative evaluation of direct fecal smear and formalin-ether  
concentration techniques for diagnosis of Blastocystis hominis. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical  
Medicine and Public Health, 35(2), 267-271.  
11. Eymael, D., et al. (2008). Standardization of Blastocystis hominis diagnosis using different staining  
methods. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 46(10), 3467-3470.  
12. Bergamo do Bomfim, T. C., & Machado do Couto, M. C. (2013). Morphological  
diagnosis and  
occurrence of Blastocystis stained with Giemsa in domestic bird species. Revista Brasileira de  
Parasitologia Veterinária, 22(2), 249-254.  
13. Khalifa, A. M., El-Sheikh, H. F., & El-Rigalaty, A. A. (1999). Evaluation of different staining methods  
for the detection of Blastocystis hominis. Journal of the Egyptian Society of Parasitology, 29(3), 741-  
754.  
14. Rambo, W. R., et al. (2017). Cockroaches as vectors of pathogens in hospitals. Journal of Infection and  
Public Health, 10(5), 531-536.  
15. Menasria, T., Moussa, A., & Bousseboua, H. (2014). Intestinal parasites in cockroaches in hospitals of  
Batna city, Algeria. Journal of Medical Entomology, 51(4), 853-858.  
16. Graczyk, T. D., Knight, R., & Tam, E. W. (2001). Mechanical transmission of Cryptosporidium parvum  
oocysts by flies. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 65(4), 309-314.  
17. Alzahrani, S. M., & Mounkaila, S. (2019). Parasites of medical importance in flies: A review. Journal of  
Medical Entomology, 56(4), 831-844.  
18. Graczyk, T. K., Knight, R., & Tamang, L. (2005). Mechanical transmission of human protozoan parasites  
by insects. Clinical Microbiology Reviews, 18(1), 128-132.  
19. Fayer, R., & Lewis, E. J. (1998). Cockroaches as vectors of parasites. Journal of Medical Entomology,  
35(5), 669-675.  
20. Sia Su, GL, et al, (2018). Parasitic Infestation in Cockroaches (Periplaneta americana) Obtained in  
Selected Areas of Metro Manila. International Journal of TROPICAL DISEASE & Health, ISSN: 2278-  
1005,Vol.: 13, Issue.: 4  
21. Chinchilla, M., & Reyes, L. (1998). Toxoplasma gondii in cockroaches. Journal of Parasitology, 84(3),  
537-539.  
22. Levine, O. S., & Levine, M. M. (1991). Houseflies as vectors of diarrheal diseases. Journal of Medical  
Entomology, 28(4), 491-496.  
23. Echeverria, P., & Taylor, D. N. (1991). Houseflies and the transmission of Shigella spp. Journal of  
Medical Entomology, 28(4), 497-502.  
24. Pawlowski, Z. S. (1990). Taeniasis and cysticercosis. In K. S. Warren & A. A. F. Mahmoud (Eds.),  
Tropical and geographical medicine (pp. 655-665). McGraw-Hill.  
25. Tan, K. S. (2008). Blastocystis in humans and animals: new insights using modern methodologies.  
Veterinary Parasitology, 151(2-4), 247-256.  
26. Johnson, E. H., & Windsor, J. J. (2006). Dientamoeba fragilis: a neglected human pathogen. Journal of  
Infection, 53(2), 75-82.  
27. Alfellani, M. A., et al. (2013). Genetic diversity of Blastocystis in animals and humans.Infection,  
Genetics and Evolution, 19, 232-239  
28. Ramsay, M., Reithinger, R., & Curtis, C. (2010). Blastocystis: a bug with a complex lifestyle. Trends in  
Parasitology, 26(11), 538-545.  
Page 1642  
29. Stensvold, C. R., Alfellani, M., & Clark, C. G. (2012). Blastocystis: to subtype or not to subtype? Journal  
of Clinical Microbiology, 50(11), 3564-3565.  
Page 1643