4.1 Article

Prevalence of Bartonella species, Rickettsia felis, haemoplasmas and the Ehrlichia group in the blood of cats and fleas in eastern Australia

期刊

AUSTRALIAN VETERINARY JOURNAL
卷 88, 期 5, 页码 160-165

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.2010.00569.x

关键词

Bartonella; Ctenocephalides felis; cats; fleas; haemoparasites; haemoplasmas; Mycoplasma; Rickettsia felis

资金

  1. Pfizer Animal Health
  2. Center for Companion Animal Studies at Colorado State University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To define the prevalence of Bartonella spp., Rickettsia felis, Mycoplasma haemofelis,'CandidatusMycoplasma haemominutum' (Mhm) and 'Candidatus Mycoplasma turicensis' (Mtc) in cats and their fleas in eastern Australia. Design and procedure Conventional PCR assays that detect Bartonella spp., M. haemofelis, Mhm, Mtc, Rickettsia spp., Ehrlichia spp., Anaplasma spp. and Neorickettsia spp. were performed on DNA extracted from blood and fleas collected from 111 cats. Cat sera were assayed by ELISA for IgG of Bartonella spp. Results DNA of M. haemofelis, Mtc and Mhm was amplified from 1 (0.9%), 1 (0.9%) and 17 cats (15.3%), respectively. Only DNA of Mhm was amplified from the 62 of 111 pooled flea samples (flea sets; 55.9%). Overall, the prevalence rates for Bartonella spp. DNA in the cats and the flea sets was 16.2% (18 cats) and 28.8% (32 flea sets), respectively. Bartonella spp. IgG was detected in 42 cats (37.8%), of which 11 (26.2%) were positive for Bartonella spp. DNA in their blood. R. felis DNA was amplified from 22 flea sets (19.8%), but not from cats. Overall, DNA of one or more of the organisms was amplified from 27% (30) of cats and 67.6% (75) of the flea sets. Conclusions This is the first Australian study to determine the prevalence of R. felis and B. clarridgeiae in both fleas and the cats from which they were collected. Flea-associated infectious agents are common in cats and fleas in eastern Australia and support the recommendation that stringent flea control be maintained on cats.

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

4.1
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