Molecular detection of tick-borne rickettsial and protozoan pathogens in domestic dogs from Turkey

Abstract

BackgroundCanine tick-borne parasites have emerged in recent years, showing a wider geographic distribution and increased global prevalence. In addition to their veterinary importance, domestic dogs play an important role in the transmission cycles of some agents by acting as reservoirs and sentinels. This study investigated Babesia, Theileria, Anaplasma, and Ehrlichia species in asymptomatic dogs in ten provinces of Turkey.MethodsDNA obtained from blood samples collected from 757 domestic dogs (243 stray, 351 shelter, 163 pet) of both sexes and various ages were evaluated using PCR and reverse line blotting (RLB) assays.ResultsOf the 757 dogs tested, 41 (5.4%) were found to be infected with one or more parasites. Ehrlichia canis (37/757, 4.9%) was the most common canine tick-borne pathogen, followed by Anaplasma platys (4/757, 0.5%). Babesia canis and Theileria annulata were each detected in 1 (0.13%) sample. Combined infection of E. canis and A. platys was detected in 2 (0.3%) samples. The prevalence of tick-borne pathogens was higher in adult dogs (6.8%) than in those under one year old (3.1%). Difference in infection rate of male and female dogs was not significant. Pet dogs had a lower prevalence of infection (1.2%) compared to stray (7.4%) and shelter dogs (6%) although the difference between stray and shelter dogs was not significant.ConclusionsBabesia canis, T. annulata, A. platys, and E. canis species were identified at the molecular level in dogs in several provinces of Turkey, with E. canis being the most common species among tick-borne pathogens. Detailed studies should be conducted regarding the existence and prevalence of B. canis and Dermacentor reticulatus in eastern Turkey.

Molecular detection of Ehrlichia canis in dogs from three districts in Punjab (Pakistan)

“…An analysis of risk factors indicated that male dogs were more often infected with E. canis than the females, but this association was statistically non-significant (P = 0.15) confirming previous studies reporting that there is no correlation between the sex and the presence of E. canis infection in dogs (Rani et al 2011;Aktas et al 2015). Similarly, data regarding the age of the animals indicated that animals less than 1-year-old were more prone to E. canis infection compared with animals older than 1 year old, but this association was also statistically non-significant (P > 0.05) indicating that neither sex nor the specific stage of life made subjects more prone to E. canis infection.…”

“…canis has been detected and reported in dogs from many parts of the world Rani et al 2011;Sasaki et al 2012;Ybañez et al 2012;Nazari et al 2013;Aktas et al 2015;Inpankaew et al 2016). An analysis of our results revealed a 28% overall prevalence of E. canis (N = 42) in the studied blood samples from the three districts, suggesting that E. canis is prevalent in Punjab province (Table 1) but the prevalence of E. canis varied significantly between three sampling areas indicating that geographical features and climatic conditions do affect the parasite prevalence (Rani et al 2011;Mircean et al 2012).…”

“…An analysis of our results revealed a 28% overall prevalence of E. canis (N = 42) in the studied blood samples from the three districts, suggesting that E. canis is prevalent in Punjab province (Table 1) but the prevalence of E. canis varied significantly between three sampling areas indicating that geographical features and climatic conditions do affect the parasite prevalence (Rani et al 2011;Mircean et al 2012). In Turkey, a large study was conducted in the coastal provinces (Sakarya, Kocaeli, Mersin, Giresun and _ Izmir) as well as in land provinces (Elazig, Diyarbakır, Erzurum, Ankara, Nevs ßehir) in 2015 and it was observed through PCR and reverse line blotting (RLB) assays that 37/757 (4.9%) dogs were positive for E. canis (Aktas et al 2015). In a similar study conducted in four different regions of India by using PCR technique, it was reported that 21% of the enrolled dogs were having E. canis in their blood (Rani et al 2011).…”

“…Canine ehrlichiosis has been reported from subtropical and tropical areas of the world where it is one of the very common disease reported during veterinary practice in dogs (Rani et al 2011). One of the major reasons for the common occurrence of E. canis is the tick vector, Rhipicephalus sanguineus sensu lato, which is common in rural and urban areas in tropical and subtropical areas of the world (Aguiar et al 2007;Dantas-Torres 2008;Aktas 2014;Aktas et al 2015). 1 These two authors have contributed equally to the manuscript.…”

İç Anadolu Bölgesindeki Sokak Köpeklerinde Kene-Kaynaklı Kan Protozoonları Varlığının Araştırılması ve Yüksek Orandaki Hepatozoon Enfeksiyonunun Moleküler Karakterizasyonu

“…Published studies of babesiosis in Turkey have identified B. canis [11][12][13][14][15][16] , B. vogeli [13,15,[17][18][19] , B. gibsoni [20] , and an unnamed Babesia spp. [15] in dogs.…”