4.5 Article

Factors associated with infection by Neospora caninum in dogs in Brazil

Journal

VETERINARY PARASITOLOGY
Volume 185, Issue 2-4, Pages 305-308

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2011.09.029

Keywords

Neosporosis; Risk factors; Canines

Funding

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado da Bahia (FAPESB)
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)
  3. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior [CAPES-PROCAD/NF-1512/2007]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

From August 2006 to 2008, 411 dogs in northeastern Brazil were evaluated for seropositivity to Neospora caninum. The dogs were clinically examined, and their owners were interviewed about the conditions in which the animals were maintained in order to assess the factors associated with infection by this parasite. A serum sample was taken from each dog for serological examination in an indirect fluorescent antibody test for N. caninum. The Yates' Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test was used to select the variables for the multivariate logistic regression model. Seropositivity was detected in 9.26% of dogs. The seropositivity rates of dogs from different environments were 2.6% (4/156) in urban areas, 13.1% (28/214) in pen-urban areas, and 14.6% (6/41) in rural areas. Factors associated with seropositivity for N. caninum were the following: contact with other dogs, access to food outside the home and residing in the pen-urban or rural environments (p < 0.05). Results of this study confirm that dogs in urban, rural and pen-urban areas of northeastern Brazil are exposed to N. caninum. Control measures to prevent infection of dogs in the studied region should be focused primarily on preventing access to potential sources of infection, which include environments with other dogs, bovines, and other small intermediate hosts, such as birds and rodents. (C) 2011 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

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available