| Literature DB >> 24031770 |
Annielle Regina Fonseca Fernandes1, Sérgio Santos de Azevedo, Eliana Scarcelli Pinheiro, Margareth Élide Genovez, Adílio Santos de Azevedo, Carolina de Sousa Américo Batista, Clebert José Alves.
Abstract
To determine the frequency of anti-Brucella canis antibodies in dogs attended in veterinary clinics from Patos, Paraíba State, Brazil, as well as to identify risk factors and to isolate and identify the agent, 193 dogs were used. Agar gel immunodiffusion test (AGID) was used to detect B. canis antibodies in sera. Isolation of B. canis was carried out in blood and bone marrow from seropositive animals. Six animals tested seropositive in AGID, resulting in a frequency of 3.11%. B. canis was isolated from bone marrow of one seropositive animal, with confirmation by PCR. Lack of cleaning of the dog's environment was identified as risk factor (odds ratio = 7.91). This is the first report of isolation of B. canis in dogs from the Northeast region of Brazil.Entities:
Keywords: Bacterial diseases; canine brucellosis; microbiological culture; prevalence; risk factors
Year: 2011 PMID: 24031770 PMCID: PMC3768721 DOI: 10.1590/S1517-838220110004000023
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Braz J Microbiol ISSN: 1517-8382 Impact factor: 2.476
Risk factors analysis to Brucella canis seroprevalence in 193 dogs from the Patos municipality, State of Paraíba, in the Northeast region of Brazil.
| Variables | Sample size | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||
| Seropositive (%) | P | Odds ratio | IC 95% | P | ||
| Owner education | ||||||
| Illiterate | 2 | 0 (0.0) | ||||
| 1st– 8th grade | 82 | 4 (4.9) | ||||
| Secondary | 67 | 1 (1.5) | ||||
| Higher | 42 | 1 (2.4) | 0.666 | |||
| Sex of the dogs | ||||||
| Female | 83 | 2 (2.4) | ||||
| Male | 110 | 4 (3.6) | 0.701 | |||
| Age (months) | ||||||
| 3 – 6 | 14 | 0 (0.0) | ||||
| 6 – 12 | 46 | 2 (4.3) | ||||
| 12 – 24 | 44 | 2 (4.5) | ||||
| > 24 | 89 | 2 (2.2) | 0.669 | |||
| Breed | ||||||
| Mixed | 110 | 3 (2.7) | ||||
| Pure | 83 | 3 (3.6) | 1.000 | |||
| Access to street | ||||||
| No | 140 | 5 (3.6) | ||||
| Yes | 53 | 1 (1.9) | 1.000 | |||
| Food | ||||||
| Commercial | 71 | 2 (2.8) | ||||
| Prepared at home | 64 | 1 (1.6) | ||||
| Scraps | 58 | 3 (5.2) | 0.510 | |||
| Contact with other dogs | ||||||
| No | 93 | 4 (4.3) | ||||
| Yes | 100 | 2 (2.0) | 0.431 | |||
| Contact with wildlife | ||||||
| No | 181 | 6 (3.3) | ||||
| Yes | 12 | 0 (0.0) | 1.000 | |||
| Dog’s environment | ||||||
| Soil | 106 | 4 (3.8) | ||||
| Cement | 87 | 2 (2.3) | 0.692 | |||
| Cleaning of the dog’s environment | ||||||
| Yes | 169 | 3 (1.8) | 1 | |||
| No | 24 | 3 (12.5) | 0.026 | 7.91 | 1.5 – 41.72 | 0.015 |
| Abortion destination | ||||||
| Throw away | 189 | 6 (3.2) | ||||
| Burying/burning | 4 | 0 (0.0) | 1.000 | |||
| Walk with the dogs | ||||||
| No | 72 | 4 (5.6) | ||||
| Yes | 121 | 2 (1.7) | 0.198 | |||
| Contact with ponds | ||||||
| No | 164 | 6 (3.7) | ||||
| Yes | 29 | 0 (0.0) | 0,594 | |||
Variables selected and used in the multivariate analysis