4.4 Article

Molecular detection and phylogeny of Anaplasma spp. in cattle reveals the presence of novel strains closely related to A. phagocytophilum in Turkey

期刊

TICKS AND TICK-BORNE DISEASES
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2020.101604

关键词

Anaplasma phagocytophilum; Reverse line blot; Cattle

资金

  1. Firat University [VF.19.02]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Anaplasma species were investigated in 200 apparently healthy cattle in Turkey, revealing a high overall infection rate of 38.5%. The most common species detected was A. marginale, while the presence of A. phagocytophilum-like strains was reported for the first time in the country.
Anaplasma species are obligate intracellular rickettsial pathogens that affect the health of humans and animals. In this study, we investigated the presence and frequency of Anaplasma species by 16S rRNA PCR-RLB, RFLP, and DNA sequencing in 200 apparently healthy cattle. Anaplasma spp. overall infection rate was 38.5 % (77/200) by RLB. The frequency of single and mixed infections was 31.5 % (63/200) and 7% (14/200), respectively. The most common species was A. marginale (32.5 %), followed by A. centrale (5.5 %), Anaplasma/Ehrlichia catc-all (5.5 %) and Anaplasma sp. Omatjenne (2.5 %). No A. phagocytophilum and A. bovis were detected in the tested animals. Eleven of 77 PCR-positive amplicons gave positive reactions to the catch-all probes but did not show any signals to the species-specific probes, but PCR-RFLP results showed that these amplicons were A. phagocytophilum-like 1 and A. phagocytophilum-like 2 strains. Sequencing and phylogenetic analyses based on 16S rRNA gene validated RFLP findings and provided evidence for the circulation of A. phagocytophilum-like-1 and 2 strains in Turkish cattle. This is the first report of the presence of A. phagocytophilum-like strains in the country. These findings indicate that A. phagocytophilum-like 1 and 2 strains should be taken into account in the differential diagnosis with bovine anaplasmosis.

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

4.4
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