4.7 Article

Canine bartonellosis:: serological and molecular prevalence in Brazil and evidence of co-infection with Bartonella henselae and Bartonella vinsonii subsp berkhoffii

期刊

VETERINARY RESEARCH
卷 38, 期 5, 页码 697-710

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/vetres:2007023

关键词

dogs; Bartonella infections; heart disease; culture; Brazil

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to determine the serological and molecular prevalence of Bartonella spp. infection in a sick dog population from Brazil. At the Sao Paulo State University Veterinary Teaching Hospital in Botucatu, 198 consecutive dogs with clinicopathological abnormalities consistent with tick-borne infections were sampled. Antibodies to Bartonella henselae and Bartonella vinsonii subsp. berkhoffii were detected in 2.0% ( 4/197) and 1.5% ( 3/197) of the dogs, respectively. Using 16S-23S rRNA intergenic transcribed spacer ( ITS) primers, Bartonella DNA was amplified from only 1/198 blood samples. Bartonella seroreactive and/or PCR positive blood samples ( n = 8) were inoculated into a liquid pre-enrichment growth medium ( BAPGM) and subsequently sub-inoculated onto BAPGM/blood-agar plates. PCR targeting the ITS region, pap31 and rpoB genes amplified B. henselae from the blood and/or isolates of the PCR positive dog ( ITS: DQ346666; pap31 gene: DQ351240; rpoB: EF196806). B. henselae and B. vinsonii subsp. berkhoffii ( pap31: DQ906160; rpoB: EF196805) co-infection was found in one of the B. vinsonii subsp. berkhoffii seroreactive dogs. We conclude that dogs in this study population were infrequently exposed to or infected with a Bartonella species. The B. henselae and B. vinsonii subsp. berkhoffii strains identified in this study are genetically similar to strains isolated from septicemic cats, dogs, coyotes and human beings from other parts of the world. To our knowledge, these isolates provide the first Brazilian DNA sequences from these Bartonella species and the first evidence of Bartonella co-infection in dogs.

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

4.7
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