Animal Reservoirs of Leptospires

Babudieri, B

doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1958.tb35398.x

Cited by 115 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding is consistent with previous studies of other mammals where only about half of animals with positive kidney culture or PCR were seropositive. 17,18 Based on the low frequency of pathogenic leptospiral infection in the Sao Paulo bats, we suggest that bats do not seem to be an important source of leptospirosis transmission to humans in this region. It is probable that Leptospira spp.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Contribution of Bats to Leptospirosis Transmission in São Paulo City, Brazil

Bessa¹,

Spichler²,

Chapola³

et al. 2010

The American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The biodiversity of potential leptospiral reservoir hosts is lower in urban than in rural environments. Previous data indicate the potential for bats to act as carriers of Leptospira in regions such as the Amazon of South America and in Australia. Yet, little is known about the contribution of bats to leptospirosis in urban environments in South America. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that bats infected with Leptospira are sources of leptospirosis transmission to humans in São Paulo City, Brazil. Six of 343 bats caught in different districts within the city of Sao Paulo (182 insectivorous, 161 frugivorous or nectarivorous) were polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positive for pathogenic Leptospira; no seropositive bats were found. That few renal carriers of Leptospira were found in the city of Sao Paulo suggests that bats are not important in the transmission of leptospirosis to humans in this, and possibly other urban settings .

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Contribution of Bats to Leptospirosis Transmission in São Paulo City, Brazil

Bessa¹,

Spichler²,

Chapola³

et al. 2010

The American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Babudieri (1958) Sick animals are not likely to enter traps, so the method of collecting would be biased against detecting grade I infections. Survivors would have a high excretion index, but the overall infection rate would be low, unless there were an epizootic, and no indication of one has been seen, either in the general or mark-recapture observations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The mark-recapture experiment to which several references have already been made has shown that a focus of infection with L. pomona, and probably L. australis and L. hyos, was being maintained in rain forest by R. assimilis, while the hebdomadis serogroup was being maintained by P. nasuta, which was also serving as an incidental host of other serotypes. In this experiment, 40 out of 103 R. assimilis were found to be infected at first examination, an incidence that would rival that in R. s. conatus (Alston & Broom, 1958) and aquatic birds in Italy (Babudieri, 1958), and serological evidence of infection has been found in reptiles in Roumania (Combiesco et al 1959) and Malaya (Gordon Smith, Turner, Harrison & Broom, 1961a), including a high incidence in the file snake (Acrochordus javanicus), which occurs also in Australia. A systematic survey of these groups was not attempted in the present study, but any individuals that were collected were examined.…”

Section: Douglasmentioning

confidence: 99%

The epidemiology of leptospirosis in North Queensland: I. General survey of animal hosts

Emanuel

Mackerras

Smith³

1964

Epidemiol. Infect.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Leptospirosis is a zoonosis that causes appreciable ill health and economic loss in North Queensland. Fourteen serotypes ofLeptospirawere known to infect man in the area, and information on their local distribution and seasonal and occupational incidence had been obtained. The next step in the investigation was to determine the reservoir hosts and estimate their significance.Wild animals examined comprised 5 monotremes, 643 marsupials, 2355 rodents, 67 bats, 30 birds, 28 reptiles, and 21 toads. Evidence of leptospiral infection was obtained from 223 marsupials, 309 rodents, and 6 fruit-bats. Analysis indicated that the principal maintaining hosts were:Peremeles nasuta—ofL. kremastos(and possiblyL. mini) in canefields and rain forest.Isoodon macrourus—ofL. broomi, L. mini, andL. kremastosin canefields.Rattus rattus, R. norvegicus(focal), andMus musculus(focal)—ofL. zanoniin town and canefields.Rattus sordidus conatus—ofL. australisin canefields.Rattus assimilis—of foci ofL. australis, a variant ofL. pomona, and probably ofL. hyosin rain forests.Random infections were also encountered, but the maintaining hosts of the other serotypes known to infect man in the area (icterohaemorrhagiae, canicola, bindjei, robinsoni, bratislava, grippotyphosa, medanensis, celledoni) were not determined.Domestic animals examined included 137 cattle, 54 pigs, 7 sheep, 34 dogs, 31 cats, and a dairy herd in which there was an epizootic ofpomonaleptospirosis. Again, there was a wide scatter of infection, but, apart from the long-known association ofL. pomonaandL. hyoswith cattle and pigs, there was no evidence of maintaining hosts in this series.As indicated in the Introduction, the work reported here was part of a planned investigation into the epidemiology of leptospirosis. Some of the early material was collected by Dr M. J. Mackerras, Dr R. L. Doherty, Mrs D. G. Delamoir, and Miss C. J. Ross, who had previously been stationed at the Institute's Field Station, and we are indebted to Mr D. W. Lavers, Mr S. G. Knott, and Mr R. E. Dunham, of the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Stock, for a number of sera from domestic animals. Many of the mammals were identified by Dr W. A. McDougall, of the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Stock, Mr E. le G. Troughton, then of the Australian Museum, Sydney, Mr B. J. Marlow, then of the C.S.I.R.O. Wildlife Section, Canberra, and by Dr J. L. Harrison, Dr M. J. Mackerras, and Mr R. Domrow of the Institute. We are indebted also to Mrs M. Macgregor, Librarian of the Institute, for considerable help with the literature.

show abstract

“…Animals, including humans can be divided into maintenance host and accidental host. The disease is maintained in nature by chronic infection of the renal tubules of maintenance hosts [19]. Incubation period varies from 4-20 days though it usually manifests within 6-8 days.…”

Section: Disease Onset and Progressmentioning

confidence: 99%