| Literature DB >> 29963762 |
Thaís G da Silva1, Michele S Lima1, Massimo Spedicato2, Irene Carmine2, Liana Teodori2, Alessandra Leone2, Maira S N Martins1, Fernando G Buchala3, Klaus S Hellwig3, Adriana H de Campos Nogueira Romaldini1, Eliana De Stefano1, Giovanni Savini2, Edviges M Pituco1.
Abstract
Bluetongue (BT), caused by Bluetongue virus (BTV), is a disease that affects ruminants such as cattle, sheep, goats and deer. BTV is transmitted by female midges of the genus Culicoides. In Brazil, information on the prevalence of BTV in cattle is limited, so the objective of this work was to identify BTV serotypes in cattle. The State of São Paulo was divided into seven cattle-producing regions, and in each of them, 300 cattle farms were randomly selected. One animal from each farm (out of a total of 1,598 farms) was selected and its sera tested by virus neutralization technique against BTV serotypes (1-24 and 26) for determining antibody titre. Moreover, for each sampled farm, an epidemiological questionnaire was submitted to verify the type of cattle production and the zootechnical and sanitary practices carried out, which could be associated with a higher risk of BTV infection. In this study, antibodies (percentage, [95% confidence interval]) were identified against 11 serotypes: BTV-1 (22.15%, [15.72-27.92]), BTV-2 (31.03%, [26.65-37.98]), BTV-3 (18.96%, [12.42-24.90]), BTV-4 (24.90% [19.41-29.12]), BTV-9 (6.82%, [1.45-11.72]), BTV-12 (7.50%, [2.82-12.51]), BTV-17 (23.90%, [17.35-29.35]), BTV-19 (10.20%, [4.62-5.56]), BTV-21 (30.66%, [25.00-36.00]), BTV-22 (12.14%, [5.91-18.55]), BTV-26 (57.00%, [51.41-63.59]). In this study, for the first time in Brazil serological evidence of the presence of serotypes BTV-2, BTV-9, BTV-21 and BTV-26 is reported. The variable 'new cattle entering herd' was considered a risk factor for the occurrence of infection (OR = 2.183, 95% CI = 1.6-2.9).Entities:
Keywords: zzm321990Bluetongue viruszzm321990; Brazil; seroprevalence
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29963762 PMCID: PMC6236132 DOI: 10.1002/vms3.113
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Vet Med Sci ISSN: 2053-1095
Figure 1Map of the State of São Paulo showing the division into regions (Dias et al. 2009).
Neutralizing antibody titers in bovine sera from the State of São Paulo, Brazil (2011) against BTV serotypes
| Antibody Titer | BTV1 | BTV2 | BTV3 | BTV4 | BTV9 | BTV12 | BTV17 | BTV19 | BTV21 | BTV22 | BTV26 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <1:10 | (75.5) 1207 | (67.2) 1074 | (80.2) 1282 | (74.1) 1184 | (91.5) 1462 | (91.5) 1462 | (75.1) 1201 | (87.7) 1403 | (67.2) 1074 | (86.1) 1376 | (40.6) 650 |
| 1:10 | (14.5) 233 | (20.3) 324 | (14.5) 231 | (16.1) 258 | (4.7) 75 | (6.4) 102 | (16.7) 267 | (7.5) 120 | (23.0) 368 | (7.1) 114 | (37.6) 602 |
| 1:20 | (5.2) 83 | (8.4) 134 | (3.2) 52 | (6.0) 96 | (1.4) 23 | (0.9) 11 | (5.2) 84 | (2.0) 33 | (6.1) 98 | (2.7) 44 | (14.8) 238 |
| 1:40 | (2.1) 33 | (1.9) 30 | (1.2) 19 | (2.2) 34 | (0.6) 9 | (0.4) 6 | (1.7) 28 | (0.4) 7 | (1.1) 18 | (1.9) 31 | (3.5) 56 |
| 1:80 | (0.2) 4 | (0.6) 10 | (0.06) 1 | (0.2) 4 | (0.1) 2 | (0.06) 1 | (0.06) 1 | (0.1) 3 | (0.3) 1 | (0.3) 2 | (0.9) 9 |
| 1:160 | (0.06) 1 | 0 | 0 | (0.2) 4 | 0 | 0 | (0.1) 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | (0.2) 4 |
| 1:320 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | (0.2) 4 | 0 | 0 |
| 1:640 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | (0.1) 3 | (0.1) 2 |
| 1:1280 | 0 | 0 | (0.06) 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | (0.3) 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Toxic | (1.3) 20 | (0.7) 10 | (0.4) 7 | (0.3) 4 | (0.6) 10 | (0.6) 9 | (0.4) 7 | (0.6) 11 | (1.1) 19 | (0.7) 12 | (0.8) 14 |
| Insufficient | (1.1) 17 | (1.0) 16 | (0.3) 5 | (0.7) 12 | (1.1) 17 | (0.4) 7 | (0.5) 8 | (1.3) 21 | (0.9) 15 | (1.0) 16 | (1.4) 23 |
| Total | 1598 (100%) | ||||||||||
Numbers in brackets are percentages.
Univariate (chi‐square) analysis of cattle herds reactive and non‐reactive to BTV in the State of São Paulo, Brazil, in 2011, considering non‐statistically significant variables (P < 0.20)
| Variable | % (BTV reactive) | % (non‐BTV reactive) | Total |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Farm type | ||||
| Meat | 13.0% (83) | 87.0% (555) | 638 | 0.95 |
| Dairy | 13.5% (76) | 86.5% (486) | 562 | |
| Mixed | 88.7% (353) | 11.3% (45) | 398 | |
| Type of operation | ||||
| Extensive | 12.8% (175) | 87.2% (1195) | 1370 | 0.48 |
| Semi‐extensive | 12.6% (27) | 87.4% (187) | 214 | |
| Confined | 14.3% (2) | 85.7% (12) | 14 | |
| Type of milking | ||||
| Mechanical | 12.6% (79) | 87.4% (546) | 625 | 0.51 |
| Manual | 5.0% (1) | 95.0% (19) | 20 | |
| Manual and mechanical | 16.3% (15) | 83.7% (77) | 92 | |
| — | 13.6% (109) | 86.4% (695) | 804 | |
| Artificial insemination (AI) | ||||
| Does not use AI | 12.9% (192) | 87.1% (1300) | 1492 | 0.91 |
| Uses AI and bulls | 88.7% (63) | 11.3% (8) | 71 | |
| Only uses AI | 11.4% (4) | 88.6% (31) | 35 | |
| Presence of sheep and goats | ||||
| Yes | 11.3% (33) | 88.7% (261) | 294 | 0.40 |
| No | 13.1% (171) | 86.9% (1133) | 1304 | |
| Presence of wild animals | ||||
| Yes | 11.0% (75) | 89.0% (607) | 682 | 0.13 |
| No | 14.1% (129) | 85.9% (787) | 916 | |
| Presence of deer | ||||
| Yes | 10.0% (22) | 90.0% (199) | 221 | 0.51 |
| No | 13.2% (182) | 86.8% (1195) | 1377 | |
| Abortions within the last 12 months | ||||
| No | 13.0% (176) | 86.9% (1177) | 1353 | 0.35 |
| Yes | 9.2% (14) | 90.8% (139) | 153 | |
| Not known | 15.4% (14) | 84.6% (77) | 91 | |
| Entry of new cattle into herd | ||||
| No | 8.9% (85) | 91.1% (871) | 956 | 0.00 |
| Yes | 81.4% (522) | 18.6% (119) | 641 | |
| Purchase of breeding stock | ||||
| No | 11.2% (129) | 88.8% (1032) | 1161 | 0.016 |
| Yes | 17.2% (75) | 82.8% (361) | 436 | |
| Sale of breeding stock | ||||
| No | 12.7% (177) | 87.3% (1219) | 1396 | 0.81 |
| Yes | 13.4% (27) | 86.6% (175) | 202 | |
| Slaughter of adults | ||||
| No | 11.9% (133) | 88.1% (989) | 1122 | 0.19 |
| Yes | 14.9% (71) | 85.1% (405) | 476 | |
| Pasture rental | ||||
| No | 12.6% (167) | 87.4% (1161) | 1328 | 0.84 |
| Yes | 13.7% (37) | 86.3% (233) | 270 | |
| Common grazing | ||||
| No | 12.6% (173) | 87.4% (1201) | 1374 | 0.42 |
| Yes | 13.8% (31) | 86.2% (193) | 224 | |
| Sharing rights of way with other farms | ||||
| No | 13.0% (173) | 87.0% (1167) | 1340 | 0.31 |
| Yes | 12.0% (31) | 88.0% (227) | 258 | |
| Flooded areas | ||||
| No | 12.7% (140) | 87.3% (967) | 1107 | 0.85 |
| Yes | 13.1% (64) | 86.9% (426) | 490 | |
| Concentrated cattle | ||||
| No | 12.7% (187) | 87.3% (1294) | 1481 | 0.37 |
| Yes | 14.5% (17) | 85.5% (100) | 117 | |
| Calving pens | ||||
| No | 13.5% (169) | 86.5% (1087) | 1256 | 0.61 |
| Yes | 12.3% (35) | 87.7% (250) | 285 | |
| Veterinary care | ||||
| No | 11.4% (122) | 88.6% (954) | 1076 | 0.11 |
| Yes | 15.7% (82) | 84.3% (440) | 522 | |
| Watering places shared with other farms | ||||
| No | 12.4% (164) | 87.6% (1162) | 1326 | 0.22 |
| Yes | 14.7% (40) | 85.3% (232) | 272 | |
| Farm type | ||||
| Rural | 12.7% (179) | 87.3% (1232) | 1411 | 0.86 |
| With some settlements | 14.8% (13) | 85.2% (75) | 88 | |
| Urban periphery | 12.1% (12) | 87.9% (87) | 99 | |
Final model of multivariate logistic regression of risk factors (Odds Ratio) for BTV in bovines of the State of São Paulo, Brazil, in the year of 2011
| Variables | OR | CI (95%) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Entry of new cattle into herd | 2183 | [1619–2945] | 0.00 |