4.5 Article

Prevalence of Ehrlichia canis, Anaplasma platys, Babesia canis vogeli, Hepatozoon canis, Bartonella vinsonii berkhoffii, and Rickettsia spp. in dogs from Grenada

期刊

VETERINARY PARASITOLOGY
卷 151, 期 2-4, 页码 279-285

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2007.11.008

关键词

Anaplasma; Babesia; Bartonella; dog; Ehrlichia; Hepatozoon; Rickettsia; Rhipicephalus sanguineus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To identify the tick-borne pathogens in dogs from Grenada, we conducted a serologic survey for Ehrlichia canis in 2004 (104 dogs) and a comprehensive serologic and molecular survey for a variety of tick-borne pathogens in 2006 (73 dogs). In 2004 and 2006, 44 and 32 dogs (42.3% and 43.8%) were seopositive for E. canis, respectively. In 2006, several tick-borne pathogens were identified by serology and PCR. DNA of E. canis, Anaplasma platys, Babesia canis vogeli, Hepatozoon canis, and Bartonella sp. were identified in 18 (24.7%), 14 (19.2%), 5 (7%), 5 (7%), and 1 (1.4%) dogs, respectively. Six (8.2%) dogs were seropositive for Bartonella vinsonii subsp. berkhoffii. All dogs were seronegative and PCR-negative for Rickettsia spp. Coinfection with two or three pathogens was observed in eight dogs. Partial 16S rRNA E. canis and A. platys sequences were identical to sequences in GenBank. Partial 18S rRNA gene sequences from the Grenadian H. canis were identical to each other and had one possible mismatch (ambiguous base) from H. canis detected from Spain and Brazil. Grenadian B. c. vogeli sequences were identical to B. c. vogeli from Brazil and Japan. All of the detected pathogens are transmitted, or suspected to be transmitted, by Rhipicephalus sanguineus. Results of this study indicate that dogs from Grenada are infected with multiple tick-borne pathogens; therefore, tick-borne diseases should be included as differentials for dogs exhibiting thrombocytopenia, leukopenia, fever, or lethargy. One pathogen, E. canis, is also of potential public health significance. (C) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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