2005
DOI: 10.1136/vr.156.17.548
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Progression of Q fever and Coxiella burnetii shedding in milk after an outbreak of enzootic abortion in a goat herd

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

3
38
1
3

Year Published

2008
2008
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 54 publications
(45 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
(4 reference statements)
3
38
1
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Low levels of C. burnetii DNA were also detected in milk (C T Ͼ30.5), which fits with the prevailing opinion among experts that sheep shed lower burdens of C. burnetii in milk than do cows and goats (3). We also confirmed that vaginal and fecal shedding durations varied among ewes (17,20) and that shedding may be discontinuous, as in goats (19,23,25,26,37) and cows (18,24). The latter finding suggests that the number of C. burnetii shedders may be underestimated if only one shedding route is investigated and/or if the animals are not repeatedly tested over time.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 65%
“…Low levels of C. burnetii DNA were also detected in milk (C T Ͼ30.5), which fits with the prevailing opinion among experts that sheep shed lower burdens of C. burnetii in milk than do cows and goats (3). We also confirmed that vaginal and fecal shedding durations varied among ewes (17,20) and that shedding may be discontinuous, as in goats (19,23,25,26,37) and cows (18,24). The latter finding suggests that the number of C. burnetii shedders may be underestimated if only one shedding route is investigated and/or if the animals are not repeatedly tested over time.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 65%
“…In the United States there are currently no approved C. burnetii are inconsistent [8,15,24]. In past studies, a major limitation may have been the reliance on serology to define C. burnetii infection status, as serology is poor indicator of active C. burnetii shedding in individual animals [1,5,6,9,18]. Classically, confirmation of active infection in cattle required isolation of the organism either by laboratory animal or cell culture inoculation [1,4,7,13,16], and currently few laboratories carry out isolation due to legal limitations, risk of human exposure, and lack of sensitivity of the technique [1,9,18].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Classically, confirmation of active infection in cattle required isolation of the organism either by laboratory animal or cell culture inoculation [1,4,7,13,16], and currently few laboratories carry out isolation due to legal limitations, risk of human exposure, and lack of sensitivity of the technique [1,9,18]. A small number of recent studies have described PCR-based DNA detection to identify shedding of C. burnetii in ruminants, including dairy cattle with reproductive disorders [5,6,9,24].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A positive antibody titer result in an infected animal does not correspond to shedding of organisms, and some seronegative animals may still actively shed bacteria. [10][11][12][13][14] Quantitative PCR assay of biological matter or fluids (eg, feces, milk, or vaginal fluid) is a rapid and highly sensitive method of diagnostic testing for C burnetii infection. 15,16 It has the advantage of determining the number of animals in a herd currently shedding the organism and quantifying the bacterial load.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%