4.4 Article

Genotypes of Coxiella burnetii in wildlife: disentangling the molecular epidemiology of a multi-host pathogen

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY REPORTS
卷 8, 期 5, 页码 708-714

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1758-2229.12431

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Union FP7 ANTIGONE project [278976]
  2. Spanish Ministry for the Economy and Competitiveness-MINECO [RZ2010-00006-C02-01]
  3. INIA Estudio de la viabilidad y caracterizacion de Coxiella burnetii en explotaciones de pequenos rumiantes: dinamica y evolucion de sus genotipos e implicaciones en Salud Publica [RTA2013-00051-C02-02]
  4. MINECO through a 'Ramon y Cajal' research contract
  5. 'Plan Propio de Investigacion' from UCLM

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Evidences point to a relevant role of wildlife in the ecology of Coxiella burnetii worldwide. The lack of information on C. burnetii genotypes in wildlife prevents tracing-back clinical animal and human Q fever cases with potential wildlife origin. To compare C. burnetii genotypes circulating in wildlife, livestock and humans, 107 samples from red deer, European wild rabbit, racoon, small mammals, goat and sheep were genotyped by polymerase chain reaction and reverse line blot hybridization. Genomic groups I, II, VI and VII were found in wildlife and groups I, II, III and IV in domestic ruminants. Livestock genotypes clustered mainly with genotypes reported previously in livestock. Genotyping confirmed previous findings that suggest that C. burnetii may display host specificity since most genotypes of sympatric deer and rabbits clustered in separate groups. Wildlife genotypes clustered with genotypes from ticks and from acute hepatitis human Q fever cases, suggesting that particular C. burnetii genotypes circulating in a wildlife-tick cycle may occasionally jump into humans through tick bites or exposure to wildlife. This finding could be behind the reported geographic variation in the clinical presentation of acute Q fever in humans in Spain: atypical pneumonia in the north and hepatitis in the south.

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