4.5 Article

Serosurveillance of Coxiellosis (Q-fever) and Brucellosis in goats in selected provinces of Lao People's Democratic Republic

期刊

PLOS NEGLECTED TROPICAL DISEASES
卷 12, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006411

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust of Great Britain
  2. Australian Centre for International Agriculture Research
  3. Cooperative Biological Engagement Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency of the United States Government Department of Defense
  4. Australian Government's New Colombo Plan scholarship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Goat raising is a growing industry in Lao People's Democratic Republic, with minimal disease investigation to date, especially zoonoses. This study determined the proportional seropositivity of two zoonotic diseases: Q fever (causative agent Coxiella burnetil) and Brucellosis (Brucella species) in goats across five provinces (Vientiane Capital, Xayaboury, Xiengkhuang, Savannakhet and Attapeu). A total of 1458 goat serum samples were tested using commercial indirect ELISA for both pathogens, plus Rose Bengal agglutination test for Brucellosis. Overall individual seropositivity of C. burnetii was 4.1% and Brucella spp. was 1.4%. A multiple logistic regression model identified that province (Vientiane Capital, p = 0.05), breed (introduced Boer mixed breed, p = 0.006) and age (goats >= 3 years old, p = 0.014) were significant risk factors for C. burnetii seropositivity. The results of the survey indicated that province (Vientiane Capital, p<0.001), breed (introduced Boer mixed breed, p<0.001), production system (commercial, p<0.001), age (adult, p = 0.004), and farm size (large, 0.001) were all significant risk factors seropositivity for Brucella spp. It was concluded that Lao goats have been exposed to both C. burnetii and Brucella spp. however the risk of clinical disease has not yet been determined and there is an urgent need to determine human health risks and economic losses caused by Q fever and Brucellosis.

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

4.5
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