4.3 Article

Molecular investigation, isolation and phylogenetic analsysis of Coxiella burnetii from aborted fetus and ticks

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cimid.2020.101571

关键词

Cattle-sheep-goat abortion; Coxiellaburnetii; Isolation; PCR; Tick; Turkey

资金

  1. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, General Directorate of Agricultural Research and Policy [TAGEM/HSGYAD/13/A02/P02/21]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Q fever is a zoonotic infection threatening human health, causing abortions in cattle, sheep and goats. Coxiella burnetii (C. burnetii) also causes serious problems such as low birth weight, infertility. This study is the first exemplary for analysis of Q fever around Black Sea region in Turkey. In the study, a total of 270 aborted fetuses (171 cattle, 79 sheep, 20 goats) and 1069 tick samples were aimed to be searched by PCR method. C. burnetii DNA was detected in 8 (2.96 %) of 270 sheep specimens while it could not be found in cattle and goat specimens. 406 sample pools were created from 1069 tick samples (490 male, 579 female) collected from 254 farm animals (187 cattle, 54 sheep, 13 goats) and 11 of these were stated positive. Tick species determined as C. burnetii positive were Hyalomma marginatum, Hyalomma anoliticum excavatum, Hyalomma detritum and Boophilus annulatus. Agent isolation was carried out within embryonated eggs. Agents were stained with Giemsa and was showed. Sequence analysis was performed for TUR/SAM/coxiella_1 (MN917207) isolate and phylogenetic tree was created. This tree, created in compliance with IS1111 transposon gene, did not form different branches in regard to host affiliation (goat, sheep, tick, human) and geographical distribution. As a result, an important zoonotic agent, C. burnetii was diagnosed in sheep aborted fetuses and the infection was proved to have spread among sheep herds in Black Sea region. Besides, 4 separate tick species found in our region hosted the agent and were found important for infection.

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

4.3
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