4.3 Article

Molecular Diagnosis of Ehrlichia canis in Dogs and Ticks Rhipicephalus sanguineus (Acari: Ixodidae) in Yucatan, Mexico

Journal

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ENTOMOLOGY
Volume 52, Issue 1, Pages 101-104

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/jme/tju010

Keywords

Ehrlichia canis; Rhipicephalus sanguineus; dog; infection frequency; nested PCR

Funding

  1. graduate studies scholarships
  2. Consejo Nacional De Ciencia Y Tecnologia-Mexico

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ehrlichia canis is the etiological agent behind canine monocytic ehrlichiosis, and the tick Rhipicephalus sanguineus (Latreille) is its main vector. Blood smear and nested polymerase chain reaction (PCR) techniques were used to identify E. canis infection in dogs and R. sanguineus, and explore factors possibly associated with infection in dogs in Yucatan, Mexico. Blood samples were taken and ticks R. sanguineus collected from 50 dogs (10 house dogs and 40 in an animal control center). Data were collected on dog age, sex, body condition, and signs associated with platelet deficiencies (epistaxis). Blood smears were analyzed to identify E. canis morulae and generate platelet counts. Nested PCR analysis was done on blood samples and 200 ticks. A X-2 test was done to identify factors associated with the E. canis infection in the tested dogs. The overall prevalence for infection, as determined by PCR, was 36% (18 out of 50). All positive dogs were from samples collected from the animal shelter, representing prevalence, for this sampling site, of 45% (18 out of 40). Morulae in monocytes were identified in only 4% of samples. Dog origin (i.e. animal control center) was the only variable associated with E. canis infection (P < 0.01). Male ticks had a higher (P < 0.05) infection rate than female ticks (24.5 vs 13.5%). It is concluded that E. canis infection is present in both dogs and the brown dog ticks R. sanguineus in Yucatan, Mexico.

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