4.5 Article

Redescription of Babesia capreoli (Enigk and Friedhoff, 1962) from roe deer (Capreolus capreolus): Isolation, cultivation, host specificity, molecular characterisation and differentiation from Babesia divergens

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR PARASITOLOGY
卷 40, 期 3, 页码 277-284

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2009.08.008

关键词

Babesia capreoli; Roe deer; In vitro cultivation; Host range; 18S rDNA sequencing; Babesia divergens

资金

  1. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique
  2. Ecole Nationale Veterinaire de Nantes
  3. Region Pays de Loire

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The recent use of the sole molecular identification of Babesia infecting European cervids has led to confusion between the closely related Babesia divergens and Babesia capreoli, and to their grouping together as B. divergens-like. In order to clarify this taxonomic Confusion, Babesia from roe deer, cattle and human blood were isolated, cultured and their biological as well as molecular characteristics compared. On this basis, we conclude that: (i) the parasites isolated from roe deer blood are B. capreoli; (ii) there are no intraspecific variations in the 18S rDNA within B. capreoli and B. divergens spp.; (iii) these two species are closely related as demonstrated by their morphology, serological cross-reactions and 99.83% identity in their 18S rDNA: (iv) these two species are distinct as demonstrated by their different abilities to grow in vitro in cattle, human and sheep erythrocytes, by their infectivity for gerbils, and by a conserved three bases difference at positions 631, 663 and 1637 of their 18S rDNA; (v) B. capreoli does not pose a threat to either humans or livestock. An integrated description is given of the host range, geographical distribution, biological and molecular characterisation of B. capreoli, and reference materials have been deposited at the Museum d'Histoire Naturelle de Paris. (C) 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of Australian Society for Parasitology Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据