4.7 Article

Sites of persistence of Fusobacterium necrophorum and Dichelobacter nodosus: a paradigm shift in understanding the epidemiology of footrot in sheep

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-50822-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) CASE studentship [NE/K007491/1]
  2. AHDB
  3. MSD Animal Health Ruminant Research Bursary
  4. Medical and Life Sciences Research Fund Bursary
  5. Natural Environment Research Council studentship [NE/K007491/1]
  6. University of Warwick
  7. BBSRC [BB/M012980/1]
  8. BBSRC [BB/M012980/1, BB/E01870X/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sites of persistence of bacterial pathogens contribute to disease dynamics of bacterial diseases. Footrot is a globally important bacterial disease that reduces health and productivity of sheep. It is caused by Dichelobacter nodosus, a pathogen apparently highly specialised for feet, while Fusobacterium necrophorum, a secondary pathogen in footrot is reportedly ubiquitous on pasture. Two prospective longitudinal studies were conducted to investigate the persistence of D. nodosus and F. necrophorum in sheep feet, mouths and faeces, and in soil. Molecular tools were used to detect species, strains and communities. In contrast to the existing paradigm, F. necrophorum persisted on footrot diseased feet, and in mouths and faeces; different strains were detected in feet and mouths. D. nodosus persisted in soil and on diseased, but not healthy, feet; similar strains were detected on both healthy and diseased feet of diseased sheep. We conclude that D. nodosus and F. necrophorum depend on sheep for persistence but use different strategies to persist and spread between sheep within and between flocks. Elimination of F. necrophorum would be challenging due to faecal shedding. In contrast D. nodosus could be eliminated if all footrot-affected sheep were removed and fade out of D. nodosus occurred in the environment before re-infection of a foot.

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

4.7
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