4.5 Review

Potential Role of Birds in the Epidemiology of Coxiella burnetii, Coxiella-like Agents and Hepatozoon spp.

Journal

PATHOGENS
Volume 11, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pathogens11030298

Keywords

birds; Coxiella burnetii; Coxiella-like agent; Q fever; Hepatozoon spp.

Categories

Funding

  1. University of Pisa [PRA_2020_88]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Birds may play a role in the epidemiology of infectious and parasitic diseases affecting mammals, including humans, but their exact role is not fully understood.
Birds may be involved in the epidemiology of infectious and/or parasitic diseases which affect mammals, including humans. Q fever, caused by Coxiella burnetii, is an important zoonosis causing economic losses mainly due to pathologies induced in ruminants. Even though birds are known to be potential reservoirs of C. burnetii, their role in the epidemiological cycle of the pathogen is not completely verified. In recent years, new bacteria identified as Coxiella-like agents, have been detected in birds affected by different pathologies; the potential role of these bacteria as pathogens for mammals is not currently known. Hepatozoon spp. are haemoprotozoa, causing arthropod borne affections within several vertebrate classes. The infection of vertebrate host develops after ingestion of the arthropod final hosts containing oocysts; different tissues and blood cells are then colonized by other parasite stages, such as merozoites and gamonts. In avian hosts, there are several recognized Hepatozoon species; however, their life cycle and pathogenicity have not been fully elucidated. Referring to a carrier role by avian species and their ticks in the epidemiology of canine hepatozoonosis, the only clinically relevant affection caused by this parasite genus, they would act as carriers of infected ticks and, when Hepatozoon americanum is involved, as paratenic hosts, as well.

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