OBJECTIVE: To determine whether Haemobartonella canis and Mycoplasma haemofelis (formerly known as H felis [large form]) can be differentiated by use of comparative analysis of gene sequences. SAMPLE POPULATION: Blood samples obtained from 3 dogs infected with H canis and 2 cats infected with M haemofelis. PROCEDURE: The partial 16S rDNA and ribonuclease P RNA (RNase P) genes were amplified, cloned, and sequenced in blood samples obtained from H canis-infected dogs and M haemofelis-infected cats. The DNA sequences were subjected to comparative analysis. RESULTS: The 16S rDNA sequences of H canis and M haemofelis were nearly identical (homology of 99.3 to 99.7%). In contrast, RNase P gene sequences had a lower degree of sequence homology between the 2 organisms (94.3 to 95.5%). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Haemobartonella canis and M haemofelis are not identical organisms. Molecular differentiation of H canis and M haemofelis is more clearly evident by use of comparative analysis of RNase P gene sequences than by comparative analysis of 16S rDNA gene sequences.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether Haemobartonella canis and Mycoplasma haemofelis (formerly known as H felis [large form]) can be differentiated by use of comparative analysis of gene sequences. SAMPLE POPULATION: Blood samples obtained from 3 dogs infected with H canis and 2 cats infected with M haemofelis. PROCEDURE: The partial 16S rDNA and ribonuclease P RNA (RNase P) genes were amplified, cloned, and sequenced in blood samples obtained from H canis-infected dogs and M haemofelis-infected cats. The DNA sequences were subjected to comparative analysis. RESULTS: The 16S rDNA sequences of H canis and M haemofelis were nearly identical (homology of 99.3 to 99.7%). In contrast, RNase P gene sequences had a lower degree of sequence homology between the 2 organisms (94.3 to 95.5%). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Haemobartonella canis and M haemofelis are not identical organisms. Molecular differentiation of H canis and M haemofelis is more clearly evident by use of comparative analysis of RNase P gene sequences than by comparative analysis of 16S rDNA gene sequences.
Authors: S Tasker; C R Helps; M J Day; D A Harbour; S E Shaw; S Harrus; G Baneth; R G Lobetti; R Malik; J P Beaufils; C R Belford; T J Gruffydd-Jones Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Ricardo G Maggi; Sarah M Compton; Chelsea L Trull; Patricia E Mascarelli; B Robert Mozayeni; Edward B Breitschwerdt Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2013-07-17 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Q L Su; H Q Song; R Q Lin; Z G Yuan; J F Yang; G H Zhao; W Y Huang; Xing Quan Zhu Journal: Trop Anim Health Prod Date: 2010-07-03 Impact factor: 1.559
Authors: Barbara Willi; Claudia Filoni; José L Catão-Dias; Valentino Cattori; Marina L Meli; Astrid Vargas; Fernando Martínez; Melody E Roelke; Marie-Pierre Ryser-Degiorgis; Christian M Leutenegger; Hans Lutz; Regina Hofmann-Lehmann Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2007-02-14 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Iain R Peters; Chris R Helps; Laura McAuliffe; Harold Neimark; Michael R Lappin; Timothy J Gruffydd-Jones; Michael J Day; Ludwig E Hoelzle; Barbara Willi; Marina Meli; Regina Hofmann-Lehmann; Séverine Tasker Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2008-03-12 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Ricardo G Maggi; Patricia E Mascarelli; Nandhakumar Balakrishnan; Cynthia M Rohde; Catherine M Kelly; Lila Ramaiah; Michael W Leach; Edward B Breitschwerdt Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2013-02-13 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Q J Zhuang; H J Zhang; R Q Lin; M F Sun; X J Liang; X W Qin; W J Pu; X Q Zhu Journal: Trop Anim Health Prod Date: 2008-10-24 Impact factor: 1.559