| Literature DB >> 22314246 |
R M Khattak1, M Rabib, Z Khan, M Ishaq, H Hameed, A Taqddus, M Faryal, S Durranis, Q U A Gillani, R Allahyar, R S Shaikh, M A Khan, M Ali, F Iqbal.
Abstract
The present study was carried out to determine the prevalence of Theileria annulata in large ruminants from two districts, Peshawar and Kohat, in Khyber Pukhtoon Khwa (Pakistan). Blood samples were collected from 95 cattle. Data on the characteristics of animals and herds were collected through questionnaires. No significant risk factors were found associated with the spread of tropical theileriosis in the study area. Two different parasite detection techniques, PCR amplification and screening of Giemsa stained slides, were compared and it was found that PCR amplification is a more sensitive tool (33.7% parasite detection), as compared to smear scanning (5.2% parasite detection) for the detection of Theileria annulata. 32 out of 95 animals, from both districts, produced the 721-bp fragment specific for Theileria annulata.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22314246 PMCID: PMC3671426 DOI: 10.1051/parasite/2012191091
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasite ISSN: 1252-607X Impact factor: 3.000
Sampling districts along with the total number of cattle samples collected (N) from each site. Prevalence of Theileria annulata is given in parenthesis. ANOVA results revealed a significant effect (P = 0.053) of location on parasite prevalence.
| Sampling site | N | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Peshawar | 63 | 15 (23.8%) | 48 (76.2%) |
| Kohat | 32 | 17 (53.1%) | 15 (46.9%) |
| Total animals | 95 | 32 (33.7%) | 63 (66.3%) |
Association between parasite prevalence in cattle and the studied parameters describing animal and herd characters.
| Characters | Parameters | No. of Samples | T. annulata + ive | T. annulata - ive | P-value (F) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Animal | Sex | Male | 9 | 1 (13%) | 8 (87%) | 0.26 |
| Female | 86 | 31 (36%) | 45 (64%) | (NS) | ||
| Age | > 1 year | 15 | 2 (15%) | 13 (85%) | 0.08 | |
| < 1 year | 80 | 30 (38%) | 50 (62%) | (NS) | ||
| Ticks | Absent | 44 | 14 (32%) | 30 (68%) | 0.82 | |
| Present | 51 | 18 (35%) | 33 (65%) | (NS) | ||
| Prior treatment | Yes | 4 | 3 (75%) | 1 (25%) | 0.10 | |
| No | 91 | 29 (32%) | 62 (68%) | (NS) | ||
| Herd | Size | 1–15 cattle | 75 | 28 (37%) | 47 (63%) | 0.18 |
| More than 15 cattle | 20 | 4 (20%) | 16 (80%) | (NS) | ||
| Dogs with herd | Absent | 31 | 11 (36%) | 20 (64%) | 0.82 | |
| Present | 64 | 21 (33%) | 43 (67%) | (NS) | ||
| Ticks on dogs | Absent | 35 | 11 (31%) | 24 (69%) | 0.82 | |
| Present | 60 | 21 (35%) | 39 (65%) | (NS) | ||
Probability of Fisher’s exact test is mentioned for each parameter. For all parameters, P > 0.05 and results are statistically non significant (NS).