4.4 Article

Diversity of piroplasmids among wild and domestic mammals and ectoparasites in Pantanal wetland, Brazil

期刊

TICKS AND TICK-BORNE DISEASES
卷 9, 期 2, 页码 245-253

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2017.09.010

关键词

Babesia; Cytauxzoon; Dogs; Phylogenetic analysis; Theileria; Rangelia; Wildlife

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP)
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq) [2015/14896-1, 473575/2014-0]
  3. Doctorate Scholarship [2013/13186-5]
  4. Scientific Initiation Fellowship [2016/10676-0]
  5. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [16/10676-0] Funding Source: FAPESP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Piroplasmoses are one of the most prevalent arthropod-borne diseases of animals. The present work aimed to investigate the occurrence of piroplasmid in wild mammals, domestic dogs and ectoparasites in southern Pantanal region, central-western Brazil. For that purpose, blood or tissue samples from 31 Nasua nasua, 78 Cerdocyon thous, 7 Leopardus pardalis, 42 dogs, 110 wild rodents, and 30 marsupials, and 1582 ticks were submitted to PCR assays for piroplasmid targeting 18SrRNA and hps70 genes. Seven dogs, one C. thous, five L. pardalis, three N. nasua, six wild rodents, eight Amblyomma parvum, two Amblyomma sculptum and one Amblyomma ovale were positive for piroplasmid-PCR assays. Genotypes closely related to Babesia vogeli were detected in six dogs and five wild rodents. While genotypes closely related to Babesia caballi were detected in one C. thous, one dog, one A. ovale and one A. sculptum, genotypes closely related to Babesia bigemina and Babesia bovis were detected in four A. parvum ticks. Four sequences obtained from A. parvum, three coatis and one wild rodent were closely related to Theileria equi. Cytauxzoon spp. was detected in four ocelots. The present study revealed that wild and domestic animals in Brazilian southern Pantanal are exposed to different piroplasmid species.

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