| Literature DB >> 15109407 |
Jeannine M Petersen1, Martin E Schriefer, Leon G Carter, Yan Zhou, Tara Sealy, Darcy Bawiec, Brook Yockey, Sandra Urich, Nordin S Zeidner, Swati Avashia, Jacob L Kool, Jan Buck, Connie Lindley, Leos Celeda, John A Monteneiri, Kenneth L Gage, May C Chu.
Abstract
Oropharyngeal tularemia was identified as the cause of a die-off in captured wild prairie dogs at a commercial exotic animal facility in Texas. From this point source, Francisella tularensis-infected prairie dogs were traced to animals distributed to the Czech Republic and to a Texas pet shop. F. tularensis culture isolates were recovered tissue specimens from 63 prairie dogs, including one each from the secondary distribution sites. Molecular and biochemical subtyping indicated that all isolates were F. tularensis subsp. holarctica (Type B). Microagglutination assays detected antibodies against F. tularensis, with titers as great as 1:4,096 in some live animals. All seropositive animals remained culture positive, suggesting that prairie dogs may act as chronic carriers of F. tularensis. These findings demonstrate the need for additional studies of tularemia in prairie dogs, given the seriousness of the resulting disease, the fact that prairie dogs are sold commercially as pets, and the risk for pet-to-human transmission.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2004 PMID: 15109407 PMCID: PMC3322795 DOI: 10.3201/eid1003.030504
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Emerg Infect Dis ISSN: 1080-6040 Impact factor: 6.883
Laboratory results for outbreak of tularemia in wild-trapped, commercially sold prairie dogs
| Group | Prairie dogs | No. of animals | Presumptive-positive samplesa | Confirmed-positive samplesb | Confirmed-negative samplesc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | Exotic animal facility, Texas, bin 1, dead animals | 47d | 7 | 40 | 0 |
| B | Exotic animal facility, Texas, bin 1, live animals | 23 | 0 | 20 | 3 |
| C | Exotic animal facility, Texas, escapees | 36 | 0 | 1 | 35 |
| D | Exotic animal facility, Texas bin 2 and cages, healthy | 58 | 0 | 0 | 58 |
| E | Pet shop recalls, originating from exotic animal facility, Texas | 7 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
| F | Czech Republic, originating from exotic animal facility, Texas | 100 | 5 | 1 | Not determined |
aPrairie dogs were confirmed positive on recovery of an isolate with characteristic growth on cysteine heart agar with 9% sheep blood and positive testing of the isolate by direct fluorescent assay (DFA) or ISFtu2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR). bPrairie dogs were considered presumptive positive if primary tissues tested positive by DFA or PCR but no isolate was obtained. cPrairie dogs were confirmed negative if all three diagnostic tests (culture, DFA, serologic testing) failed to detect any evidence of Francisella tularensis infection. d46 animals that remained on site August 2, 2002, plus 1 animal that initiated the outbreak investigation (TX021935)
Figure 1Molecular subtyping of representative Francisella tularensis isolates from Groups A, B, C, E, and F prairie dogs. The expected size PCR fragments for F. tularensis subsp. tularensis (Type A) and holarctica (Type B) are shown in lanes 1 and 2, respectively. Subtyping results for the five groups (A, B, C, E, F) are shown in lanes 3–9. Lane 3: TX021935 (A); lane 4: TX022151 (A); lane 5: TX022537 (B); lane 6: TX022592 (B); lane 7: TX022799 (C); lane 8: TX022107 (E); lane 9: CZ024233 (F). Lane 10: no DNA template control. Lane M: molecular weight markers.
Comparison of diagnostic sensitivities of culture and direct fluorescent assay (DFA) for detection of Francisella tularensis in live versus dead prairie dogs (groups A–C)
| Prairie dogsa | No. (%) of samples positive for: | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Culture (spleen/liver) | Direct fluorescence (spleen/liver) | Direct fluorescence (lymph node) | Serologic testing | |
| Groups B, C; live, infected animals
(n = 20) | 20 (100) | 10 (50) | 17 (89.5)b | 10 (50) |
| Group A, dead animals (n = 47) | 40 (85.1) | 47 (100) | Not tested | Not tested |
aAll 67 prairie dogs tested positive for F. tularensis by at least one diagnostic test (culture, DFA, or serologic testing). b19 F. tularensis–positive animals were tested.
Diagnostic test results for culture–positive group B prairie dogsa
| Prairie dog | DFA (spleen/liver) | DFA (submandibular lymph node) | Serologic testing (microagglutination assay) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B1 | + | + | 1:512 | Pos |
| B2 | + | + | 1:32 | Neg |
| B3 | + | + | 1:8 | Neg |
| B4 | – | + | 1:1,024 | Pos |
| B5 | – | + | 1:4,096 | Pos |
| B6 | + | + | 1:512 | Pos |
| B7 | – | + | 1:512 | Pos |
| B8 | + | No sample | 1:8 | Neg |
| B10 | + | + | 1:4 | Neg |
| B11 | – | + | 1:256 | Pos |
| B12 | – | – | 1:1,024 | Pos |
| B13 | – | – | 0 | Neg |
| B14 | – | + | 1:128 | Pos |
| B15 | + | + | 1:64 | Neg |
| B16 | + | + | 1:16 | Neg |
| B17 | – | + | 0 | Neg |
| B18 | + | + | 1:512 | Pos |
| B19 | + | + | 1:4 | Neg |
| B20 | – | + | 1:128 | Pos |
| B21 | – | + | 1:16 | Neg |
aDFA, direct fluorescent assay; Neg, negative; Pos, positive.
Figure 2Direct fluorescent assay (DFA) results on spleen tissues from a seronegative (panel a) and seropositive (panel b) prairie dog.