| Literature DB >> 30862151 |
Nida Akar, Emel Çalışkan, Cihadiye Elif Öztürk, Handan Ankaralı, Özge Kılınçel, Şükrü Öksüz, İdris Şahin.
Abstract
Background/aim: Hantavirus and Borrelia burgdorferi are two zoonotic agents that pose a great risk especially for people living in forest areas. This study aimed to investigate the seroprevalence of hantavirus and B. burgdorferi in forest villages of Düzce and its relationship with sociodemographic features. Materials and methods: The presence of immunoglobulin M (IgM) and immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies against hantavirus and B. burgdorferi in serum samples was investigated via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Hantavirus IgG and B. burgdorferi IgM and IgG positivity was then validated by western blot (WB) method.Entities:
Keywords: Borrelia burgdorferi; Düzce; forest villages; hantavirus; seroprevalence
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30862151 PMCID: PMC7018355 DOI: 10.3906/sag-1807-160
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Turk J Med Sci ISSN: 1300-0144 Impact factor: 0.973
The results of the ELISA screening and the WB validation results of the positive screenings [n (%)].
| Hantavirus | B. burgdorferi | |||
| Method | IgM * | IgG | IgM | IgG |
| ELISA-positive | 11 (6) | 13 (7) | 27 (14) | 21 (11) |
| WB-positive | - | 6 (3) | 3 (2) | 12 (6) |
* Hantavirus IgM ELISA-positive patients were not studied by the WB method.
The evaluation results of hantavirus positivity in samples using ELISA and WB.
| Hantavirus | |||||||
| IgM ELISAn (%) | P | IgG ELISA n (%) | P | IgG WB n (%) | P | Totaln | |
| Sex | |||||||
| Male | 6 (7) | 0.588 | 6 (7) | 0.971 | 5 (6) | 0.099 | 90 |
| Female | 5 (5) | 7 (7) | 1 (1) | 103 | |||
| Age distribution | |||||||
| 18–45 | 7 (8) | 0.212 | 4 (5) | 0.356 | 1 (1) | 0.239 | 83 |
| 46–70 | 4 (4) | 9 (8) | 5 (5) | 110 | |||
| Education status | |||||||
| Below middle school | 6 (4) | 0.342 | 10 (7) | 0.796 | 5 (4) | 1.000 | 136 |
| Middle school | 4 (9) | 3 (7) | 1 (2) | 43 | |||
| University | 1 (7) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 14 | |||
| Monthly income level (TL) | |||||||
| <1500 | 8(6) | 1.000 | 10 (7) | 1.000 | 5 (3) | 1.000 | 143 |
| ≥1500 | 3 (6) | 3 (6) | 1 (2) | 50 | |||
| Job groups | |||||||
| Farmer | 6 (4) | 0.064 | 8 (6) | 0.591 | 3 (2) | 0.306 | 136 |
| Laborer | 1 (3) | 3 (9) | 2 (6) | 32 | |||
| Civil servant | 4 (16) | 2 (8) | 1 (4) | 25 | |||
| House structure | |||||||
| Reinforced concrete | 8 (7) | 0.854 | 9 (7) | 0.573 | 5 (4) | 0.078 | 122 |
| Wooden | 3 (5) | 3 (5) | 0 (0) | 62 | |||
| Mud-brick | 0 (0) | 1 (11) | 1 (11) | 9 | |||
| Working in forestry | |||||||
| Yes | 7 (6) | 0.918 | 8 (7) | 0.989 | 5 (4) | 0.412 | 120 |
| No | 4 (6) | 5 (7) | 1 (1) | 73 | |||
| Total | 11 (6) | 13 (7) | 6 (3) | 193 | |||
The evaluation results of samples with B. burgdorferi positivity via ELISA and WB.
| B. burgdorferi | |||||||||
| IgM ELISA n (%) | P | IgM WB n (%) | P | IgG ELISA n (%) | P | IgG WBn (%) | P | Totaln (%) | |
| Sex | |||||||||
| Female | 13 (13) | 0.678 | 1 (1) | 0.599 | 14 (14) | 0.249 | 9 (9) | 0.144 | 103 |
| Male | 14 (16) | 2 (2) | 7 (8) | 3 (3) | 90 | ||||
| Age distribution | |||||||||
| 18–45 | 15(18) | 0.156 | 0 (0) | 0.261 | 4 (5) | 0.019 | 2 (2) | 0.057 | 83 |
| 46–70 | 12 (11) | 3 (3) | 17 (15) | 10 (9) | 110 | ||||
| Education status | |||||||||
| Below middle school | 16 (12) | 0.302 | 3 (2) | 1.000 | 18 (13) | 0.158 | 10 (7) | 0.684 | 136 |
| Middle school | 9 (21) | 0 (0) | 2 (5) | 2 (5) | 43 | ||||
| University | 2 (14) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 14 | ||||
| Monthly income level (TL) | |||||||||
| <1500 | 19 (12) | 0.634 | 3 (1) | 0.570 | 19 (11) | 0.069 | 10 (7) | 0.734 | 143 |
| ≥1500 | 8 (16) | 0 (0) | 2 (4) | 2 (4) | 50 | ||||
| Job groups | |||||||||
| Farmer | 15 (11) | 0.156 | 2 (1) | 0.652 | 17 (13) | 0.713 | 11 (8) | 0.220 | 136 |
| Laborer | 7 (22) | 1 (3) | 2 (6) | 0 (0) | 32 | ||||
| Civil servant | 5 (20) | 0 (0) | 2 (8) | 1 (4) | 25 | ||||
| House structure | |||||||||
| Reinforced concrete | 18 (15) | 0.718 | 1 (1) | 0.363 | 14 (12) | 0.045 | 8 (7) | 0.049 | 122 |
| Wooden | 9(15) | 2 (3) | 4 (7) | 2 (3) | 62 | ||||
| Mud-brick | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 3 (33) | 2 (22) | 9 | ||||
| Tick bite history | |||||||||
| Yes | 14 (12) | 0.403 | 2 (2) | 0.799 | 16 (14) | 0.156 | 9 (9) | 0.128 | 67 |
| No | 13 (17) | 1 (1) | 5 (6) | 3 (3) | 126 | ||||
| Working in forestry | |||||||||
| Yes | 20 (17) | 0.203 | 3 (3) | 0.291 | 10 (8) | 0.159 | 6 (5) | 0.375 | 120 |
| No | 7 (10) | 0 (0) | 11 (15) | 6 (8) | 73 | ||||
| Livestock farming | |||||||||
| Yes | 21 (13) | 0.239 | 3 (2) | 0.330 | 20 (12) | 0.322 | 11 (7) | 0.503 | 165 |
| No | 6 (21) | 0 (0) | 1 (4) | 1 (4) | 28 | ||||
| Total | 27 (14) | 3 (2) | 21 (11) | 12 (6) | |||||