| Literature DB >> 27090756 |
Vincenzo Lorusso1, Michiel Wijnveld2, Ayodele O Majekodunmi1, Charles Dongkum3, Akinyemi Fajinmi3, Abraham G Dogo4, Michael Thrusfield5, Albert Mugenyi1, Elise Vaumourin6, Augustine C Igweh3, Frans Jongejan2,7, Susan C Welburn1, Kim Picozzi8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ticks and tick-borne diseases undermine cattle fitness and productivity in the whole of sub-Saharan Africa, including Nigeria. In this West African country, cattle are challenged by numerous tick species, especially during the wet season. Consequently, several TBDs are known to be endemic in Nigerian cattle, including anaplasmosis, babesiosis, cowdriosis and theilerioris (by Theileria mutans and Theileria velifera). To date, all investigations on cattle TBDs in Nigeria have been based on cytological examinations and/or on serological methods. This study aimed to ascertain the occurrence of tick-borne pathogens of veterinary and zoonotic importance in cattle in Nigeria using molecular approaches.Entities:
Keywords: Africa; Cattle; Fulani; Nigeria; Tick-borne diseases; Tick-borne pathogens; Zoonoses
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27090756 PMCID: PMC4836144 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-016-1504-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Fig. 1Map of the study area. Study area including the nine villages where the sampling took place. All three maps (i.e. Nigeria, Plateau State and Local Government Areas of Bokkos, Mangu and Pankshin) were designed using ArcGIS software, version 9.2
Primer sets employed for PCR amplification
| PCR target | Primer | Sequence (5′– 3′) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Forward (RLB-F2) | GACACAGGGAGGTAGTGACAAG | [ |
| Reverse (RLB-R2) | Biotin-CTAAGAATTTCACCTCTGACAGT | ||
|
| Forward (16S8FE) | GGAATTCAGAGTTGGATC(A/C)TGG(C/T)TCAG | [ |
| Reverse (BGA1B-new) | Biotin-CGGGATCCCGAGTTTGCCGGGACTT(C/T)TTCT | [ | |
|
| Forward (Rick-F1) | GAACGCTATCGGTATGCTTAACACA | [ |
| Reverse (Rick-R2) | Biotin-CATCACTCACTCGGTATTGCTGGA |
Fig. 2Visualization of RLB results. RLB results after X-ray development of hyperfilms, for villages of Badni (a): samples 1–34 and Mangar (b): samples 31–50. (E/A = Ehrlichia/Anaplasma positive control (i.e. Ehrlichia canis); T/B = Theileria/Babesia positive control (i.e. Theileria parva); R = Rickettsia positive control (i.e. Rickettsia africae-like); N1 = blank white paper negative control; N2 = MilliQ water control
Genus- and species-specific probes employed for reverse line blotting
| Tick-borne Microorganism’s Genera/Species | Probe Sequence (from 5′–3′) | Tm* (°C) | Reference | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
| GGGGGAAAGATTTATCGCTA | 58 | [ |
| 2 |
| GTAGCTTGCTATG(A/G)GAACA | 56–58 | [ |
| 3 |
| TCGAACGGACCATACGC | 61 | [ |
| 4 |
| GACCGTATACGCAGCTTG | 59 | [ |
| 5 |
| AGTATCTGTTAGTGGCAG | 54 | [ |
| 6 |
| CGGATTTTTATCATAGCTTGC | 57 | [ |
| 7 |
| TAATGGTTAATAGGA(A/G)C(A/G)GTTG | 55–59 | [ |
| 8 |
| ATTAGAGTGTTTCAAGCAGAC | 57 | Nijhof (unpublished) |
| 9 |
| ACTAGAGTGTTTCAAACAGGC | 60 | Nijhof (unpublished) |
| 10 |
| CGTTTTTTCCCTTTTGTTGG | 58 | [ |
| 11 |
| CAGGTTTCGCCTGTATAATTGAG | 61 | [ |
| 12 |
| CCTCTGGGGTCTGTGCA | 62 | [ |
| 13 |
| GGCTTATTTCGG(A/T)TTGATTTT | 56–57 | [ |
| 14 |
| CTTGCGTCTCCGAATGTT | 59 | [ |
| 15 |
| GGACGGAGTTCGCTTTG | 60 | [ |
| 16 |
| TCTTGGCACGTGGCTTTT | 62 | [ |
| 17 |
| CCTATTCTCCTTTACGAGT | 54 | [ |
| 18 |
| TTTAGAAATAAAAGCTAATACCG | 54 | [ |
*Tm = melting temperature
Cattle screened and found infected for any tick-borne microorganism in the study area
| Village name | Total cattle population | Animals sampled (Infected) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Calves | Juveniles | Adults | Totals | ||
| Ampang West | 790 | 0 | 33 (28) | 47 (38) | 80 (66) |
| Badni | 383 | 4 (3) | 20 (18) | 56 (46) | 80 (67) |
| Bokkos | 2142 | 6 (6) | 25 (22) | 49 (42) | 80 (70) |
| Daffo | 2933 | 4 (1) | 17 (12) | 51 (45) | 72 (58) |
| Hurti | 1011 | 2 (1) | 9 (7) | 69 (64) | 80 (72) |
| Maiyanga | 2543 | 6 (5) | 32 (31) | 42 (32) | 80 (68) |
| Mangar | 1373 | 5 (3) | 29 (25) | 46 (44) | 80 (72) |
| Ruff | 154 | 5 (1) | 18 (14) | 49 (32) | 72 (47) |
| Tambes | 854 | 11 (6) | 1 (0) | 68 (35) | 80 (41) |
| Total | 12,183 | 43 (26) | 184 (158) | 477 (378) | 704 (561) |
Fig. 3Prevalence (%) of each tick-borne pathogen in relation to its primary competent vector ticks. (1) = A. variegatum for T. mutans, T. velifera and E. ruminantium; (2) = Rhipicephalus spp. for T. taurotragi; (3) = Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) spp. for A. marginale, B. bigemina, A. centrale and B. bovis; (4) = H. truncatum, presumably, for Anaplasma sp. (Omatjenne); (5) = Rh. simus for A. marginale and A. centrale; (6) = Rh. sanguineus (sensu lato) for A. platys and Rickettsia spp. (R. massiliae according to 16S rDNA sequencing). Vector competence for the transmission of T. taurotragi, Anaplasma sp. (Omatjenne), A. platys, R. massiliae; Anaplasma spp. in Rh. simus Group and B. bovis in Rh. (Bo.) spp. in Nigeria needs to be further confirmed
Statistically significant most and least likely infection patterns of the study
| Infection pattern | No. of observations | 95 % Confidence interval |
|---|---|---|
| (A) Significantly most likely infection pattern ( | ||
| Tm + Tt + Tv | 79 | 10 – 44 |
| Am + AspO + Tm + Tt + Tv | 42 | 0 – 20 |
| Am + AspO | 33 | 1 – 22 |
| AspO | 30 | 3 – 28 |
| Am + AspO + Tm + Tt + Tv + Bb | 12 | 0 – 5 |
| Ap + Tm + Tt + Tv | 12 | 0 – 7 |
| Am + Ac + AspO + Tm + Tt + Tv | 10 | 0 – 5 |
| Am + Ac | 8 | 0–7 |
| Am + Ac + AspO | 7 | 0 – 6 |
| R | 6 | 0 – 5 |
| (B) Significantly least likely infection patterns ( | ||
| Am + Tm | 7 | 11 – 46 |
| Tm + Tt | 6 | 8 – 44 |
| AspO + Tm | 5 | 6 – 38 |
| Tv | 1 | 10 – 47 |
| Am + Tm + Tt | 1 | 4 – 32 |
| Am + Tv | 0 | 4 – 30 |
| AspO + Tv | 0 | 3 – 33 |
| Tt | 0 | 3 – 31 |
| Tt + Tv | 0 | 2 – 30 |
| Am + Tt + Tv | 0 | 1 – 24 |
| Am + Tt | 0 | 1 – 23 |
Abbreviations: Ac, Anaplasma centrale; Am, Anaplasma marginale; Ap, Anaplasma platys; AspO, Anaplasma sp. (Omatjenne); Er, Ehrlichia ruminantium; R, Rickettsia spp. (R. massiliae according to 16S rDNA sequencing); Bb, Babesia bigemina; Tm, Theileria mutans; Tt, Theileria taurotragi; Tv, Theileria velifera
Fig. 4Prevalence (%) of each tick-borne pathogen detected, compared according to age classes. Error bars indicate 95 % CI, while asterisks indicate statistically significant difference between age classes. Calves were significantly less infected than both juveniles and adults for T. mutans (P < 0.0001 in both cases), T. velifera (P < 0.0001 in both cases) and T. taurotragi (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.001) infections. Calves were significantly less infected than juveniles (P = 0.02) with respect to Anaplasma sp. (Omatjenne) infection. Both calves and juveniles were significantly more infected than adult cattle (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.003) for B. bigemina infection