4.7 Article

Molecular epidemiology of Mycobacterium bovis isolates from free-ranging wildlife in South African game reserves

Journal

VETERINARY MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 133, Issue 4, Pages 335-343

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2008.07.023

Keywords

Mycobacterium bovis; African wildlife; Kruger National Park; Molecular epidemiology; Genetic typing; IS6110 RFLP

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Bovine tuberculosis is endemic in African buffalo and a number of other wildlife species in the Kruger National Park (KNP) and Hluhluwe-iMfolozi Park (HiP) in South Africa. It was thought that the infection had been introduced into the KNP ecosystem through direct contact between cattle and buffalo, a hypothesis which was confirmed in this study by IS6110 and PGRS restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) typing. The molecular characterisation of 189 Mycobacterium bovis isolates from nine wildlife species in the Hip, including three smaller associated parks, and the Kruger National Park with adjacent areas showed that the respective epidemics were each caused by an infiltration of a single M. bovis genotype. The two M. bovis strains had different genetic profiles, as demonstrated by hybridisation with the IS6110 and PGRS RFLP probes, as well as with regard to evidence of evolutionary changes to the IS profile. While the M. bovis type in HiP was transmitted between buffaloes and to at least baboon, bushpig and lion without obvious genetic changes in the RFLP patterns, in the KNP a dominant strain was represented in 73% of the M. bovis isolates, whilst the remaining 27% were variants of this strain. No species-specific variants were observed, except for one IS6110 type which was found only in a group of five epidemiologically related greater kudu. This finding was attributed to species-specific behaviour patterns rather than an advanced host-pathogen interaction. (c) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available