| Literature DB >> 28611427 |
A Rodriguez-Cortes1, C Martori2, A Martinez-Florez2, A Clop3, M Amills3, J Kubejko3, J Llull4, J M Nadal4, J Alberola5.
Abstract
The relationship between vitamin D deficiency and the risk of suffering from a plethora of health disorders, ranging from autoimmune processes to infectious diseases has been widely described. Nonetheless, the potential role of vitamin D in visceral leishmaniasis remains uncharacterized. In the Mediterranean basin, where the dog is leishmania's main peri-domestic reservoir, control measures against the canine disease have shown beneficial effects on the incidence of human leishmaniasis. In this study, we measured the vitamin D levels in serum samples from a cohort of 68 healthy and disease dogs from a highly endemic area and we have also studied the relationship of these levels with parasitological and immunological parameters. The sick dogs presented significantly lower (P < 0.001) vitamin D levels (19.6 ng/mL) than their non-infected (31.8 ng/mL) and the asymptomatic counterparts (29.6 ng/mL). In addition, vitamin D deficiency correlated with several parameters linked to leishmaniasis progression. However, there was no correlation between vitamin D levels and the Leishmania-specific cellular immune response. Moreover, both the leishmanin skin test and the IFN-γ levels displayed negative correlations with serological, parasitological and clinical signs. Further studies to determine the functional role of vitamin D on the progression and control of canine leishmaniasis are needed.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28611427 PMCID: PMC5469782 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-03662-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Baseline characteristics of the dog population used in the current study.
| PARAMETERS | GROUPS OF ANIMALS | REFERENCE RANGE | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-infected (N = 18) | Asymptomatic (N = 35) | Symptomatic (N = 15) | |||||
| Median [IQR] | Positive dogs2 | Median [IQR] | Positive dogs2 | Median [IQR] | Positive dogs2 | ||
|
| 48.5 [36.0–99.8] | 5 (28%) | 42.0 [35.2–51.7] | 1 (3%) | 38.0 [29.5–82.5] | 2 (13%) |
|
|
| 43.3 [29.9–53.4] | 0 | 35.2 [24.7–46.7] | 0 | 54.0 [34.0–85.0] | 2 (13%) |
|
|
| 1.0 [0.9–1.2] | 0 | 1.1 [0.9–1.2] | 0 | 1.0 [0.7–1.2] | 1 (7%) |
|
|
| 44.4 [33.4–48.0] | 0 | 47.9 [35.9–56.3] | 0 | 47.2 [31.9–2.7] | 2 (13%) |
|
|
| 3.3 [3.0–3.8] | 1 (6%) | 3.1 [2.8–3.3]a | 2 (6%) | 2.3 [1.5–2.6] | 11 (73%) |
|
|
| 1.4 [1. —1.7] | 6 (33%) | 1.7 [1.5–2.0]a | 2 (6%) | 1.8 [1.6–2.1] | 11 (73%) |
|
|
| 0.6 [0.4–0.7] | 1 (6%) | 0.7 [0.6–0.8] | 3 (9%) | 2.5 [1.2–4.1] | 13 (87%) |
|
|
| 7.1 [6.5–7.6] | 1 (6%) | 6.8 [6.3–7.3] | 0 | 5.1 [4.6–6.2] | 10 (66%) |
|
|
| 296.0 [227.0–353.0] | 2 (11%) | 286.5 [230.5–337.5] | 2 (57%) | 407.5 [202.5–581.5] | 4 (27%) |
|
|
| 6.7 [5.19–9.9] | 4 (22%) | 6.7 [5.4–7.9] | 0 | 6.3 [4.5–7.6] | 3 (20%) |
|
|
| 2.6 [1.8–3.4] | 1 (46%) | 2.6 [1.8–3.3] | 1 (3%) | 1.8 [1.2–2.3] | 2 (13%) |
|
|
| — | 2 (11%) | — | 8 (23%) | — | 14 (93%) | — |
|
| — | 0 | — | 5 (14%) | — | 14 (93%) | — |
|
| — | 0 | — | 0 | — | 6 (40%) | — |
|
| — | 0 | — | 1 (3%) | — | 3 (20%) | — |
|
| — | 0 | — | 0 | — | 0 | — |
|
| — | 0 | — | 0 | — | 0 | — |
|
| — | 0 | — | 0 | — | 0 | — |
|
| — | 0 | — | 0 | — | 0 | — |
|
| 7.0 [4,29–12,98] | 0 | 15.9 [7.76–38.17] | 16 (46%) | 300.0 [193.85–300.00] | 15 (100%) |
|
|
| 0.0 [0.00–0.00] | 0 | 0.0 [0.00–4.32] | 12 (34%) | 12.4 [5.95–24.69] | 11 (73%) |
|
|
| 0.0 [0.00–0.00] | 0 | 12.0 [0.00–22.75] | 23 (66%) | 0.0 [0.00–0.00] | 2 (13%) |
|
a = Statistically different from non-infected dogs (P < 0.05); b = Statistically different from asymptomatic dogs (P < 0.05).
1ALT: Alanin-amino tranferase; ALP: Alkaline phosphatase; LAP: Lymphadenopathy; GI: Gastrointestinal signs.
2Number of dogs from each group that showed a value out of the reference range for each one of the parameters under evaluation.
Figure 1Serum vitamin D levels in dogs living in Mallorca and included in the study. Vitamin D status in dogs was assessed according to the serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) estimated with an ELISA test. Non-infected dogs (NI), Leishmania-infected asymptomatic animals (ASYMP), and dogs clinically ill (SYMPT).
Figure 2Correlations between vitamin D levels and clinicopathological score (A), Leishmania-specifc antibody levels (B) and parasite load in blood samples (C) from Leishmania-infected dogs. Spearman correlation indexes (r) and P < 0.05 are shown on the graphs.
Risk factors for canine leishmaniasis.
| Univariate analysis | OR (CI 95%) |
|---|---|
| 25(OH)D | 0.8591 [0.7810–0.9451] |
| IFNγ | 0.9976 [0.9954–0.9999] |
| ELISA CTLA | 1.0164 [1.0086–1.0243] |
| LST | 0.8589 [0.7687–0.9596] |
|
|
|
| 25(OH)D | 0.7855 [0.6499–0.9490] |
| LST | 0.7127 [0.5243–0.9689] |
OR: Odds Ratio; CI: Confidence interval.
Minor allele frequencies for each of the 4 vitamin D receptor SNPs genotyped in the study.
| SNP name | MAF NI | MAF ASYMP | MAF SYMPT |
|---|---|---|---|
| rs851938503 (A > G) | 0.40 | 0.33 | 0.32 |
| rs852643282 (C > G) | 0.03 | 0.08 | 0.05 |
| g.6894812 A > G | 0.40 | 0.35 | 0.36 |
| rs852900542 (T > C) | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.05 |
MAF: Minor allele frequency; NI: non-infected dogs, ASYMP: the group of asymptomatic dogs, SYMPT: group of dogs suffering clinical leishmaniasis. In the SNP name column cells, the major and the minor alleles of the SNPs with an rs identifier are indicated between brackets.
p-values of the χ2 test of independence comparing the allelic frequencies of the 4 SNPs among the phenotypic classes.
| g.6894812 A > G | rs851938503 | rs852643282 | rs852900542 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Infected vs SYMPT | 0.68 | 0.50 | 0.53 | 0.46 |
| NI vs ASYMP | 0.62 | 0.49 | 0.35 | 0.61 |
| SYMPT vs ASYMP | 0.77 | 0.69 | 0.45 | 0.42 |
| NI vs Infected | 0.76 | 0.48 | 0.45 | 0.72 |
NI: non-infected dogs, ASYMP: the group of asymptomatic dogs, SYMPT: group of dogs suffering clinical leishmaniasis.