2000
DOI: 10.3201/eid0605.000505
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Naturally Occurring Ehrlichia chaffeensis Infection in Coyotes from Oklahoma

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
45
1
3

Year Published

2005
2005
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 84 publications
(49 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
45
1
3
Order By: Relevance
“…in coyotes. This finding contrasts with a study that used PCR of whole blood to show that E. chaffeensis, but not E. ewingii or E. canis, was present in coyotes in Oklahoma (Kocan et al, 2000). However, recent studies have shown that evidence of past or current infection with E. ewingii is twofold to 10-fold more common than that to E. chaffeensis or E. canis in domestic dogs Beall et al, 2012).…”
contrasting
confidence: 52%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…in coyotes. This finding contrasts with a study that used PCR of whole blood to show that E. chaffeensis, but not E. ewingii or E. canis, was present in coyotes in Oklahoma (Kocan et al, 2000). However, recent studies have shown that evidence of past or current infection with E. ewingii is twofold to 10-fold more common than that to E. chaffeensis or E. canis in domestic dogs Beall et al, 2012).…”
contrasting
confidence: 52%
“…pose the greatest infection risk to both canids and humans because of the high population of A. americanum in this region (Bowman et al, 2009;Dahlgren et al, 2011Dahlgren et al, , 2012. Infection with Ehrlichia chaffeensis has been documented in coyotes from this area previously (Kocan et al, 2000), although subsequent work has shown that Ehrlichia ewingii is the most common Ehrlichia spp. in domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) from this region .…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…: ECC (5´-aga acg aac gct ggc ggc aag cc -3´) and ECB (5´-cgt att acc gcg gct gct ggc -3) that amplify a fragment of 478 bp (PERSING, 1996;KOCAN et al, 2000), for the A. phagocytophilum 16sRNA gene: gE3a (5' -cac atg caa gtc gaa cgg att att c -3'), gE10R (5' -ttc cgt taa gaa gga tct aat ctc c -3'), gE2 (5' -ggc agt att aaa agc agc tcc agg -3') and gE9F (5' -aac gga tta ttc ttt ata gct tgc t -3') that amplify fragments of 932 and 546 bp (MASSUNG et al, 1998), respectively, and for the A. phagocytophilum msp2 gene: MSP 465F (5´ -tga tgt tgt tac tgg aca ga -3´) and MSP 980R (5´ -cac cta acc ttc ata aga a -3´) that amplifies a 550 bp fragment (CASPERSEN et al, 2002). All the amplification reaction mixtures and the cycling parameters were performed as previously described by the authors cited above.…”
Section: Pcr Amplificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Humans are incidental hosts of these pathogens, and the recent emergence of ehrlichiosis in humans has been associated with changes in ecology, demographics, and host susceptibility. 1 Ehrlichia chaffeensis, [2][3][4] Ehrlichia ewingii, 5,6 and Ehrlichia canis 7,8 cause ehrlichioses of medical and veterinary importance, with E. chaffeensis and E. canis being the primary agents of severe and sometimes fatal human monocytotropic ehrlichiosis (HME) and canine monocytic ehrlichiosis (CME), respectively. E. chaffeensis was first identified as an agent of human disease in 1987 in the United States, 2 whereas globally distributed E. canis was first identified in Africa as early as 1935 9 and in North America in 1962.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%