| Literature DB >> 26303260 |
Magalie René-Martellet1,2, Claire Valiente Moro3, Jeanne Chêne4, Gilles Bourdoiseau5, Luc Chabanne6,7, Patrick Mavingui8,9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Canine babesiosis is an emerging or re-emerging disease caused by Babesia and Theileria protozoans, also called piroplasms, transmitted by Ixodid ticks. In Europe, four etiological agents have been identified to date, namely Babesia canis, B. vogeli, B. gibsoni and Theileria annae. France has a high prevalence of canine babesiosis and two tick species, Dermacentor reticulatus and Rhipicephalus sanguineus, are supposed to transmit B. canis and B. vogeli respectively. In southern France, where dog infections with B. vogeli were recently confirmed, no comprehensive study was performed to date on piroplasm species infecting dogs. Thus, a large scale survey involving veterinary clinics, kennels and tick collection from the environment was conducted from 2010 to 2012 in this area.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26303260 PMCID: PMC4547427 DOI: 10.1186/s12917-015-0525-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Vet Res ISSN: 1746-6148 Impact factor: 2.741
Fig. 1Map of sampling sites in southern France. The figure depicts southern France and its administrative divisions called “départements”. Départements where ticks and/or blood sampling where performed are indicated in grey. The survey was conducted at 13 locations indicated by black dots corresponding to veterinary practices, kennels or the environment as detailed in Table 1. Sites codes are as follows: CO, Corsica; DR, Drôme; HE, Hérault; HG, Haute-Garonne; HP, Hautes-Pyrénées; GA, Gard. We thank J.F. Bradu for providing the basemap of French départements
Sampling locations and methods
| Site code | Location | Geographical coordinates | Characteristics | Collected samples | Tick sampling method |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DR | La Bégude de Mazenc, Drôme | 44°32′N 4°56′E | Veterinary clinic | Dog blood samples; Ticks | on dogs |
| HE | Béziers, Hérault | 43°20′N 3°12′E | Veterinary clinic | Dog blood samples | NA |
| HG | Aurignac, Haute-Garonne | 43°13′N 0°53′E | Veterinary clinic | Dog blood samples; Ticks | on dogs |
| HP | Trie sur Baïse, Hautes-Pyrénées | 43°19′N 0°22′E | Veterinary clinic | Dog blood samples; Ticks | on dogs |
| GA1 | Sommières, Gard | 43°47′N 4°05′E | Veterinary clinic | Dog blood samples; Ticks | on dogs |
| GA2 | Sommières, Gard | 43°47′N 4°05′E | Along a river with reeds, in town | Ticks | flagging |
| GA3 | Calvisson, Gard | 43°47′N 4°11′E | Veterinary clinic | Dog blood samples; Ticks | on dogs |
| GA4 | Saint-Gilles, Gard | 43°40′N 4°26′E | Veterinary clinic | Dog blood samples; Ticks | on dogs |
| GA5 | Aigues-Vives, Gard | 43°42′N 4°13′E | Kennel | Dog blood samples; Ticks | on dogs; visual handling; flagging |
| GA6 | Aigues-Vives, Gard | 43°42′N 4°13′E | Along a creek, near kennel | Ticks | flagging |
| CO1 | Bastia, Corsica | 42°41′N 9°27′E | Veterinary clinic | Dog blood samples; Ticks | on dogs |
| CO2 | Bastia, Corsica | 42°41′N 9°27′E | Kennel | Dog blood samples | NA |
| CO3 | Ajaccio, Corsica | 41°55′N 8°44′E | Kennel | Dog blood samples; Ticks | on dogs |
NA not applicable as no ticks were collected in these areas
Primers used in the study
| Gene target | PCR target | Name | Fragment length | References | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mitosin gene |
| CAN-F | 5′-CTTGTCACGGTAAGGTTC-3′ | 290-bp | [ |
| CAN-R | 5′-CTGATGTATTTCCTGCACCAAG-3′ | ||||
| 18S rRNA gene |
| BTF1 (ext) | 5′-GGCTCATTACAACAGTTATAG-3′ | 930-bp | [ |
| BTR1 (ext) | 5′-CCCAAAGACTTTGATTTCTCTC-3′ | ||||
| BTF2 (int) | 5′-CCGTGCTAATTGTAGGGCTAATAC-3′ | 800-bp | |||
| BTR2 (int) | 5′-GGACTACGACGGTATCTGATCG-3′ | ||||
| 18S rRNA gene |
| BCV-F | 5′-GTGTTCGAGTTTGCCATTCG-3′ | 422-bp | [ |
| Ba721R | 5′-CCCCAGAACCCAAAGACTTTGATTTCTCTCAAG-3′ | [ | |||
| Mitochondrial 16S rRNA gene |
| TQ16S + 1 F | 5′-CTGCTCAATGATTTTTTAAATTGCTGTGG-3′ | 320-bp | [ |
| TQ16S-2R | 5′-ACGCTGTTATCCCTAGAG-3′ | ||||
| Mitochondrial 12S rRNA gene | Ticks | Forward | 5′-AAACTAGGATTAGATACCCTATTATTTTAG-3′ | 400-bp | [ |
| Reverse | 5′-CTATGTAACGACTTATCTTAATAAAGAGTG-3′ | ||||
Results of tick and dog blood collection per study site
| Sites codea | Sample source | Tick speciesb | Dog blood samplesc | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| Other | |||
| DR | Dogs | 0/208 (0.0 %) | 18/208 (8.7 %) | 190/208 (91.3 %) | 0/208 (0.0 %) | 25/140 (17.9 %) |
| HE | NA | NA | NA | NA | 9/140 (6.4 %) | |
| HG | 30/40 (75.0 %) | 4/40 (10.0 %) | 6/40 (15.0 %) | 0/40 (0.0 %) | 15/140 (10.7 %) | |
| HP | 3/6 (50.0 %) | 2/6 (33.3 %) | 0/6 (0.0 %) | 1/6 (16.7 %)d | 6/140 (4.3 %) | |
| GA | 0/293 (0.0 %) | 0/293 (0.0 %) | 293/293 (100.0 %) | 0/293 (0.0 %) | 49/140 (35.0 %) | |
| CO | 0/88 (0.0 %) | 3/88 (3.4 %) | 85/88 (96.6 %) | 0/88 (0.0 %) | 36/140 (25.7 %) | |
| Total | 33/635 (5.2 %) | 27/635 (4.3 %) | 574/635 (90.4 %) | 1/635 (0.2 %) | ||
| GA2 | Environment | 0/9 (0.0 %) | 0/9 (0.0 %) | 9/9 (100.0 %)e | 0/9 (0.0 %) | |
| GA5 | 0/4 (0.0 %) | 0/4 (0.0 %) | 4/4 (100.0 %)f | 0/4 (0.0 %) | ||
| GA6 | 0/19 (0.0 %) | 0/19 (0.0 %) | 18/19 (94.7 %)g | 1/19 (5.3 %)h | ||
| Total | 0/32 (0.0 %) | 0/32 (0.0 %) | 31/32 (96.9 %) | 1/32 (3.1 %) | ||
aSite code (see Table 1 and Fig. 1 for details)
bNumber of ticks of the corresponding species/Total number of ticks morphologically identified in each area (percentage)
cNumber of dog blood samples collected in the area/Total number of dog blood samples collected in the study (percentage)
dOne Pholeoixodes hexagonus
eNine Rhipicephalus sanguineus s.s. after sequencing of mitochondrial 16S rDNA of ticks
fOne Rhipicephalus sanguineus s.s. and 3 Rhipicephalus pusillus after sequencing of mitochondrial 16S rDNA of ticks
gFour Rhipicephalus sanguineus s.s. and 14 Rhipicephalus pusillus after sequencing of mitochondrial 16S rDNA of ticks
hOne Haemaphysalis spp
Fig. 2PCR-RFLP profiles of 18S rRNA gene fragments from selected piroplasm species. This method was used to discriminate between Babesia/Theileria species from ticks or blood samples known to contain piroplasms following nested PCR targeting the 18S rRNA gene. Lanes 2 to 8 and lanes 10 to 16 show PCR-RFLP products for seven piroplasm species known or supposed to infect dogs in France and in Europe digested with endonucleases TaqI or HinfI, respectively. Lanes 1, 9 and 17 show 100-bp molecular weight markers. Product sizes expected for each piroplasm species after digestion with TaqI or HinfI enzymes are given in the table
Prevalence of piroplasm infections in dogs
| Sample type | Site codea | Piroplasm species detected in dog blood samplesb | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| Other | ||
| Dog blood samples | DR | 0/25 (0.0 %) | 3/25 (12.0 %) | 0/25 (0.0 %) |
| HE | 6/9 (66.7 %) | 2/9 (22.2 %) | 0/9 (0.0 %) | |
| HG | 8/15 (53.3 %) | 2/15 (13.3 %) | 0/15 (0.0 %) | |
| HP | 4/6 (66.7 %) | 0/6 (0.0 %) | 0/6 (0.0 %) | |
| GA | 0/49 (0.0 %) | 12/49 (24.5 %) | 1/49 (2.0 %) | |
| CO | 0/36 (0.0 %) | 0/36 (0.0 %) | 0/36 (0.0 %) | |
| Total | 18/140 (12.9 %) | 19/140 (13.6 %) | 1/140 (0.7 %)c | |
aSite code (see Table 1 and Fig. 1 for details)
bNumber of positive sample/Number analyzed (percentage) per location
cRFLP and sequencing confirmed the affiliation of the protozoa to Theileria annae
Prevalence of piroplasm infections in R. sanguineus and D. reticulatus ticks
| Sample type | Site codea | Piroplasm species detected in ticksb | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| Other | ||
|
| DR | 1/56 (1.8 %) - 1M | 3/56 (5.4 %) - 1M, 2F | 0/56 (0.0 %) - NA |
| HG | 0/6 (0.0 %) - NA | 0/6 (0.0 %) - NA | 0/6 (0.0 %) - NA | |
| GAd | 3/121 (2.5 %)c - 3F | 20/121 e (16.5 %) - 3M, 16F, 1N | 0/121 (0.0 %) - NA | |
| CO | 0/65 (0.0 %) - NA | 3/65 (4.6 %) - 1M, 2F | 0/65 (0.0 %) - NA | |
| Total | 4/248 (1.6 %) - 1M, 3F | 26/248 (10.5 %) - 5M, 20F, 1N | 0/248 (0.0 %) - NA | |
|
| HG | 2/28 (7.1 %) - 2F | 0/28 (0.0 %) - NA | 0/28 (0.0 %) - NA |
| HP | 1/3 (33.3 %) - 1F | 0/3 (0.0 %) - NA | 0/3 (0.0 %) - NA | |
| Total | 3/31 (9.7 %) - 3F | 0/31 (0.0 %) - NA | 0/31 (0.0 %) - NA | |
NA not applicable
aSite code (see Table 1 and Fig. 1 for details)
bNumber of positive sample/Number analized (%) - Tick stages of positive samples (M, adult male; F, adult female; N, nymph; NA, not applicable)
cThe 3 R. sanguineus ticks positive for B. canis specific PCR-RFLP were also positive for B. vogeli species specific PCR
dOut of the 121 R. sanguineus ticks from Gard selected for piroplasm screening 107 were collected from dogs and 14 from the environment
eAmong the 20 B. vogeli positive ticks, 18 were collected from dogs and 2 from the environment
Fig. 3Details of tick collection, B. vogeli detection and meteorological records in Gard. Gard is an area recently supposed to be a hot spot of Babesia vogeli infection in southern France [15]. a Number of R. sanguineus, D. reticulatus and Ixodes ricinus collected each month from dogs and number of canine babesiosis cases caused by B. vogeli. b Number of R. sanguineus collected each month and mean monthly temperature and rainfall. Only ticks retrieved from dogs in veterinary clinics were included in the analysis to avoid potential bias due to the high number of ticks obtained during sampling campaigns in kennels or the environment