| Literature DB >> 33125388 |
Mateus de Souza Ribeiro Mioni1, Francisco Borges Costa2, Bruna Letícia Devidé Ribeiro1, Wanderson Sirley Reis Teixeira1,3, Vanessa Cristina Pelicia1, Marcelo Bahia Labruna4, Élodie Rousset5, Karim Sidi-Boumedine5, Richard Thiéry5, Jane Megid1.
Abstract
Q fever is an important zoonosis, yet it is often neglected and can present large outbreaks, as observed in the Netherlands. In the past few years, cases of Q fever have been described in Brazil; however, the epidemiological situation of Q fever in ruminants, the main reservoir of the pathogen, is unknown in this country. Our study aimed to estimate the prevalence of C. burnetii in cattle sent to slaughterhouses using an immunofluorescence assay (IFA) and quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR). From 1515 cattle serum samples collected from nine slaughterhouses, 23.8% (360/1515) were serologically positive by IFA (cutoff titer>1:64), indicating past or recent exposure to C. burnetii infection. Among the 54 cities sampled during the study, 83.3% (45/54) had at least one seropositive animal. Subsequently, all seropositive samples were submitted to qPCR for C. burnetii DNA, and 12.2% (44/360) of the sera were qPCR positive, which indicates bacteremia and suggests active or recent infection. The results highlight the risk for abattoir workers that results from exposure to contaminated aerosols produced during slaughter procedures. Moreover, the heat maps that were construction from the positive samples demonstrate the widespread distribution of C. burnetii in the State of São Paulo, Brazil and denotes the need for surveillance and preventive measures to reduce the prevalence in cattle.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33125388 PMCID: PMC7598456 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241246
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Prevalence for each slaughterhouse evaluated during the study by IFA and qPCR.
| Slaughterhouse | Samples analyzed (n) | Positives (n) | Prevalence (%) | Samples analyzed (n) | Positives (n) | Positivity (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 170 | 42 | 24.7% | 42 | 8 | 19.0% |
| 2 | 166 | 38 | 22.9% | 38 | 7 | 18.4% |
| 3 | 170 | 29 | 17.0% | 29 | 3 | 10.3% |
| 4 | 170 | 49 | 28.8% | 49 | 5 | 10.2% |
| 5 | 181 | 64 | 35.3% | 64 | 2 | 3.1% |
| 6 | 158 | 27 | 17.1% | 27 | 15 | 55.6% |
| 7 | 162 | 42 | 25.9% | 42 | 3 | 7.1% |
| 8 | 172 | 21 | 12.2% | 21 | 0 | 0.0% |
| 9 | 166 | 48 | 28.9% | 48 | 1 | 2.1% |
| Total | 1515 | 360 | 23.8% | 360 | 44 | 12.2% |
Fig 1Distribution of collected serum samples by municipalities.
Fig 3Detection of Coxiella burnetii DNA in cattle from different municipalities.