| Literature DB >> 27160767 |
André Pereira1, Ricardo Parreira2,3, Mónica Nunes2,3, Afonso Casadinho1, Maria Luísa Vieira2,3, Lenea Campino2,4,5, Carla Maia6,7,8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Wildlife can act as reservoir of different tick-borne pathogens, such as bacteria, parasites and viruses. The aim of the present study was to assess the presence of tick-borne bacteria and protozoa with veterinary and zoonotic importance in cervids and wild boars from the Centre and South of Portugal.Entities:
Keywords: Anaplasma spp.; Fallow deer; PCR; Portugal; Red deer; Theileria spp.; Tick-borne pathogens; Wild boar
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27160767 PMCID: PMC4862153 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-016-1535-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Sequences of the oligonucleotide primers used
| Pathogen | Target gene | Oligonucleotide sequences (5′-3′) | Amplicon size (bp) | Reference | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Forward | Reverse | |||||
|
|
| GGTACCYACAGAAGAAGTCC | TAGCACTCATCGTTTACAGC | 345 | [ | |
|
| ACTGATGGTATGCARTTTGAYCG | TCTTTRCGTTCYTTMACYTCAACTTC | 600 | [ | ||
|
|
| GGGAGCTCCTATGAATTACAGAGAATTGTTTAC | CCGGATCCTTAGCTGAACAGGAATCTTGC | 851 | [ | |
|
|
| ATGAATTACAGAGAATTGCTTGTAGG | TTAATTGAAAGCAAATCTTGCTCCTATG | 849 | [ | |
|
|
| AATACCCAATCCTGACACAGGG | TTAAATACGAATGCCCCCAAC | 400 | [ | |
|
|
| Outer primmers | ACCATAGACTCTTATTACTTTGAC | TAAGCTGACTAATACTAATTACCC | 380 | [ |
| Inner primers | ACCATAGACTCTTATTACTTTGACCA | GAGAGTAGGTTATTGCCAGGG | 225 | |||
|
| Outer primmers | TGGTATGGGAGTTTCTGG | TAAGCTGACTAATACTAATTACCC | 774 | [ | |
| Inner primers | CAGACAACAGAGGGAAAT | TCAAGTCTATTTTGGAAAGCACC | 604 | |||
|
|
| GGGGGCCTGCTCACGGCGG | ATTGCAAAAAGTACAGTGAACA | 381 | [ | |
Fig. 1Phylogenetic tree of Anaplasma spp. based on the analysis of msp4 sequences
Fig. 2Phylogenetic tree of Theileria spp. based on 18S rRNA gene sequences
Prevalence of tick-borne pathogens as detected by PCR in 76 cervids and 65 wild boars from Centre and southern Portugal
| Idependent variable/category |
|
| ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. (%) |
|
| No. (%) |
|
| |||||
| % of positive | 95 % CI | % of positive | 95 % CI | % of positive | 95 % CI | % of positive | 95 % CI | |||
| District | 76 | ND* | ND* | 65 | ND* | ND* | ||||
| Castelo Branco | 27 (35.5) | 59.3a | 38.8–77.6 | 44.4 | 25.5–64.7 | 4 (6.2) | 0 | 0–60.2 | 0.0 | 0.0–60.2 |
| Portalegre | 1 (1.3) | 100 | 2.5–100 | 100 | 2.5–100 | 15 (23.1) | 0 | 0–21.8 | 0.0 | 0.0–21.8 |
| Lisboa | 3 (3.9) | 66.7 | 9.4–99.2 | 66.7 | 9.4–99.2 | 16 (24.6) | 0 | 0–20.6 | 0.0 | 0.0–20.6 |
| Évora | – | – | – | – | – | 15 (23.1) | 0 | 0–21.8 | 0.0 | 0.0–21.8 |
| Beja | 45 (59.2) | 31.1a | 18.2–46.7 | 42.2 | 27.7–57.9 | 15 (23.1) | 13.3 | 1.66–40.5 | 20.0 | 4.3–48.1 |
| Age | 61 |
|
| 62 |
|
| ||||
| Adult | 50 (82.0) | 40.0 | 26.4–54.8 | 46.0 | 31.8–60.7 | 42 (67.7) | 4.8 | 0.6–16.2 | 7.1 | 1.5–19.5 |
| Young | 11 (18.0) | 18.2 | 2.3–51.8 | 54.5 | 23.4–83.3 | 20 (32.3) | 0 | 0–16.8 | 0.0 | 0.0–16.8 |
| Gender | 69 |
|
| 63 |
|
| ||||
| Female | 37 (53.6) | 37.8 | 22.5–55.2 | 32.4 | 18.0–49.8 | 45 (71.4) | 2.2 | 0.1–11.8 | 4.4 | 0.5–15.2 |
| Male | 32 (46.4) | 43.8 | 26.4–62.3 | 59.4 | 40.7–76.3 | 18 (28.6) | 5.6 | 0.1–27.3 | 5.6 | 0.1–27.3 |
| Total | 76 | 43.4 | 32.1–55.3 | 44.7 | 33.3–56.6 | 65 | 3.1 | 0.4–10.7 | 4.6 | 1.0–12.9 |
a χ 2 = 5.50, df = 1, P = 0.019
b χ 2 = 0.25, df = 1
c χ 2 = 0.26, df = 1
d χ 2 = 5.03, df = 1
ND* Statistically significant difference(s) not confirmed after pairwise comparisons