4.2 Article

The seroprevalence of canine respiratory coronavirus and canine influenza virus in dogs in New Zealand

期刊

NEW ZEALAND VETERINARY JOURNAL
卷 57, 期 5, 页码 295-298

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00480169.2009.58624

关键词

Canine respiratory coronavirus; CRCoV; canine influenza virus; CIV; New Zealand; serology; indirect fluorescent antibody; IFA

资金

  1. Pfizer Animal Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AIM: To determine whether canine respiratory coronavirus (CRCoV) and canine influenza virus (CIV) are present in dogs in New Zealand. METHODS: Serum samples from 251 dogs of varying age, breed and clinical histories were tested for the presence of antibodies to CRCoV and CIV, using indirect fluorescent antibody (IFA) analysis. The population sampled represented a wide geographic area but principally encompassed the central and lower North Island of New Zealand. RESULTS: Seventy-three of the 251 samples (29%) were seropositive for CRCoV. Dogs <2 years old were less likely to be seropositive for CRCoV than older dogs. None was seropositive for CIV. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed the presence of antibodies to CRCoV in dogs in New Zealand. Young dogs are less likely to be seropositive than older dogs, probably due to increased opportunity for exposure to CRCoV over time. Serum antibodies to CIV were not detected in any of the dogs sampled, suggesting that this virus is unlikely to be present in dogs in New Zealand. CLINICAL RELEVENCE: Canine respiratory coronavirus is present in New Zealand. Although the role of this virus in canine infectious tracheobronchitis has not been fully elucidated, evidence suggests that it may have a causal role in this disease. Veterinarians should consider CRCoV as a differential diagnosis in cases of respiratory disease in dogs in New Zealand. While CIV appears not to be currently present in New Zealand, veterinarians should consider infection with this virus as a differential diagnosis in dogs presenting with respiratory signs.

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

4.2
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