4.4 Article

Chlamydiae in free-ranging and captive frogs in Switzerland

Journal

VETERINARY PATHOLOGY
Volume 44, Issue 2, Pages 144-150

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1354/vp.44-2-144

Keywords

amphibians; Chlamydia; immunohistochemistry; polymerase chain reaction

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A total of 210 frog samples originating either from a mass mortality (1991/1992) or from routine postmortem investigations of the years 1990 to 2004 were examined retrospectively for a possible involvement of Chlamydiae. For a prevalence study of Chlamydia in a selected Swiss amphibian population, 403 samples from free-ranging Rana temporaria were examined. Histopathology, immunohistochemistry using a monoclonal antibody against chlamydial lipopolysaccharide, and a 16S rRNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) followed by DNA sequencing were performed on the formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded tissues. Using PCR, 8 of 54 (14.8%) frog samples from the mass mortality (1991/1992) were positive for Chlamydia suis S45. A control group of healthy Xenopus laevis had 3 of 38 positive samples, sequenced as C suis S45 (2/3) and an endosymbiont of Acanthamoeba species UWE 1 (1/ 3). Chlamydophila pneumoniae TW-183 was detected from exotic frogs kept in a zoo. Of the frogs collected for the prevalence study, 6 of 238 (2.5%) tested positive, I each for C suis S45, Cp pneumoniae TW-183, and uncultured Chlamydiales CRG22, and the remaining 3 revealed Chlamydophila abortus S2613. In immunohistochemistry, there were 2 positive labeling reactions, I in intestine and the other in the epithelium coating the body cavity, both testing positive for Cp pneumoniae TW-183 in PCR. Histologically there were no lesions recorded being characteristic for Chlamydia. Although there is a prevalence of Chlamydia in Swiss frogs, no connection to a mass mortality (1991/1992) could be established. For the first time, C suis S45 and Cp abortus S2613 were detected in frog material.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available