4.3 Article

Evaluating the association between blood genotype or phenotype and haemoplasma infection in UK and Italian cats

Journal

VETERINARY RECORD
Volume 192, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/vetr.2282

Keywords

AB group system; blood type; feline; haemotropic mycoplasma; infections

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study combines data from two studies and finds an association between the feline AB blood group system and haemoplasma infection. Cats with the Ab genotype have a higher likelihood of haemoplasma infection.
Background In humans, blood groups are associated with varying prevalence of infections. The aim of this study was to determine if associations exist between the feline AB blood group system and haemoplasma infection. Methods Data from two studies were combined. In the first study, DNA samples from 131 haemoplasma-infected and 132 haemoplasma-uninfected UK cats underwent pyrosequencing to determine their blood genotype as AA, Ab or bb. In the second study, blood samples from 160 Italian cats of known blood phenotype A, B or AB underwent PCR testing for feline haemoplasma species DNA. Results Haemoplasma infection was demonstrated in cats of all phenotypes and genotypes. A significantly higher number of Ab genotype cats tested positive for overall haemoplasma infection status (p = 0.04) and for Mycoplasma haemofelis infection (p = 0.03). Limitations Haemoplasma-infected Italian cats were few, possibly increasing the chance of type II error, and the presence of purebred cats in the sample population may have had a confounding effect. Conclusions Feline haemoplasmas do not appear to preferentially use either blood type A or B antigens as attachment sites for erythrocyte colonisation. Further investigations in a larger number of haemoplasma-infected cats of known blood phenotype are warranted to explain the association between genotype Ab and haemoplasma infection.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available