| Literature DB >> 31640746 |
Mustapha Dahmani1,2,3, Bernard Davoust1,2, Masse Sambou2,4, Hubert Bassene2,4, Pierre Scandola1,2, Tinhinene Ameur1,2, Didier Raoult1,2, Florence Fenollar2,5, Oleg Mediannikov6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our study aimed to assess the diversity of the species of Anaplasmataceae in Senegal that infect animals and ticks in three areas: near Keur Momar Sarr (northern region), Dielmo and Diop (Sine Saloum, central region of Senegal), and in Casamance (southern region of Senegal).Entities:
Keywords: Anaplasmataceae; Dog; Donkey; Horse; PCR; Ruminants; Senegal; Ticks
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31640746 PMCID: PMC6805679 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-019-3742-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Fig. 1Location of the study
Primers and probes used in this study
| Species | Target gene | Primer and probe | Sequence (5′–3′) | T (°C) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| qPCR | |||||
|
| TtAna-F | TGACAGCGTACCTTTTGCAT | 60 | [ | |
| TtAna-R | GTAACAGGTTCGGTCCTCCA | ||||
| TtAna-S | FAM-GGATTAGACCCGAAACCAAG-TAMRA | ||||
| Conventional PCR | |||||
| Ana23S-212f | GTTGAAAARACTGATGGTATGCA | 55 | [ | ||
| Ana23S-753r | TGCAAAAGGTACGCTGTCAC | ||||
| AENW-16S-F1 | GCAGACGGGTGMGTAAYG | 50 | [ | ||
| AENW-16S-R | GTGCCAGCAGCCGCGGTAAT | ||||
| AENW-16S-F2 (seq.) | GTGCCAGCAGCCGCGGTAAT | ||||
|
| Ana-rpoBF | GCTGTTCCTAGGCTYTCTTACGCGA | 55 | [ | |
| Ana-rpoBR | AATCRAGCCAVGAGCCCCTRTAWGG | ||||
|
| Ehr- | GTTGAAAARACTGATGGTATGCA | 50 | [ | |
| Ehr- | ACACGRTCTTTACGYTCYTTAAC | ||||
| Ticks | T1B | AAACTAGGATTAGATACCCT | 51 | [ | |
| T2A | AATGAGAGCGACGGGCGATGT | ||||
Abbreviation: T, annealing temperature; seq., sequencing
Summary of the number of animal and ticks sampled and overall results reported in the present study
| Animals | No. examined | Region | Species amplified | No. of infected animals (%) | No. of animals infested by ticks | Tick species | No. of ticks examined | No. of infected ticks (% | Species amplified |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sheep | 136 | Keur Momar Sarr |
| 76 (55.9) | 15 |
| 48 | 2 (4.2) |
|
| 27 (19.8) | |||||||||
| “ | 5 (3.7) | ||||||||
| Cattle | 47 | Sine Saloum |
| 10 (21.3) | Not found | ||||
| 2013 |
| 3 (6.4) | |||||||
| 12 (25.5) | |||||||||
| “ | 4 (8.5) | ||||||||
| 2014 | 15 | Keur Momar Sarr |
| 2 (13.3) | 3 |
| 5 | na | |
|
| 3 (20.0) |
| 4 | na | |||||
| 2 (13.3) | |||||||||
| “ | 1 (6.7) | ||||||||
| Goats | 29 | Keur Momar Sarr | 8 (27.7) | Not found | |||||
| “ | 3 (10.3) | ||||||||
| Equines | 64 | Keur Momar Sarr | na | 2 donkeys |
| 6 | na | ||
| 26 horses |
| 113 | na | ||||||
|
| 10 | ||||||||
|
| 13 | na | |||||||
|
| 3 | na | |||||||
| Dogs | 64 | Keur Momar Sarr |
| 10 (15.6) | 2 |
| 2 | na | |
|
| 12 (18.8) | ||||||||
| 78 | Casamance | 0 (0) | Not found | ||||||
| Total | 433 | 178 (41.1) | 48 | 204 | 2 (0.9) |
Fig. 2Phylogenetic tree showing the position of R. evertsi evertsi, Hy. rufipes, Hy. impeltatum, R. bursa and R. muhsamae compared to other tick species. Evolutionary analyses were conducted using MEGA7 [26]. The sequences of the 12S rDNA amplified in this study with other 12S rDNA tick sequences available on GenBank were aligned using CLUSTAL W implemented on BioEdit v.3 [25] (there were 262 positions in the final dataset). The evolutionary history was inferred by using the maximum likelihood method based on the Hasegawa–Kishino–Yano model. The percentage of trees in which the associated taxa clustered together is shown next to the branches. Initial tree for the heuristic search was obtained automatically by applying Neighbor-Join and BioNJ algorithms to a matrix of pairwise distances estimated using the maximum composite likelihood approach and then selecting the topology with superior log likelihood value. Statistical support for internal branches of the trees was evaluated by bootstrapping with 1000 iterations. A discrete gamma distribution was used to model evolutionary rate differences among sites [2 categories (+G, parameter = 0.4726)]. The analysis involved 52 nucleotide sequences. All positions containing gaps and missing data were excluded. The tree is drawn to scale, with branch lengths measured in the number of substitutions per site. The scale-bar represents a 5% nucleotide sequence divergence
Fig. 3Phylogenetic tree showing the position of A. ovis, A. marginale, Anaplasma cf. platys and “Ca. Anaplasma africae” amplified from ruminates and A. platys amplified from dogs compared to other Anaplasmataceae species. Evolutionary analyses were conducted using MEGA7 [26]. The concatenated 23S rRNA, 16S rRNA and the rpoB genes of the Anaplasma spp. amplified in this study with other sequences of Anaplasmataceae species available from GenBank were aligned using CLUSTAL W implemented on BioEdit v.3 [25] (there were 1599 positions in the final dataset). The evolutionary history was inferred by using the maximum likelihood method based on theHasegawa–Kishino–Yano model. The percentage of trees in which the associated taxa clustered together is shown next to the branches. Initial tree for the heuristic search was obtained automatically by applying Neighbor-Join and BioNJ algorithms to a matrix of pairwise distances estimated using the maximum composite likelihood approach and then selecting the topology with superior log likelihood value. Statistical support for internal branches of the trees was evaluated by bootstrapping with 1000 iterations. A discrete gamma distribution was used to model evolutionary rate differences among sites [2 categories (+G, parameter = 0.3463)]. The analysis involved 41 nucleotide sequences. All positions containing gaps and missing data were excluded. The tree is drawn to scale, with branch lengths measured in the number of substitutions per site. The scale-bar represents a 20% nucleotide sequence divergence. Accession number for each concatenated sequence in the phylogenetic tree were provided for each species as [23S rRNA, rpoB and 16S rRNA]
Fig. 4Phylogenetic tree showing the position of E. canis amplified from dogs and Rhipicephalus bursa ticks collected from sheep compared to other Anaplasmataceae species. Evolutionary analyses were conducted using MEGA7 [26]. The concatenated 23S rRNA, groEl and 16S rRNA genes of the E. canis amplified in this study with other sequences of Anaplasmataceae species available from GenBank were aligned using CLUSTAL W implemented on BioEdit v.3 [25] (there were 1818 positions in the final dataset). The evolutionary history was inferred by using the maximum likelihood method based on theHasegawa–Kishino–Yano model. The percentage of trees in which the associated taxa clustered together is shown next to the branches. Initial tree for the heuristic search was obtained automatically by applying Neighbor-Join and BioNJ algorithms to a matrix of pairwise distances estimated using the maximum composite likelihood (MCL) approach and then selecting the topology with superior log likelihood value. Statistical support for internal branches of the trees was evaluated by bootstrapping with 1000 iterations. A discrete gamma distribution was used to model evolutionary rate differences among sites [2 categories (+G, parameter = 0.4640)]. The analysis involved 41 nucleotide sequences. All positions containing gaps and missing data were excluded. The tree is drawn to scale, with branch lengths measured in the number of substitutions per site. The scale-bar represents a 5% nucleotide sequence divergence