| Literature DB >> 33148275 |
Yasmine H Tartor1, Wafaa M El-Neshwy2, Abdallah M A Merwad3, Mohamed F Abo El-Maati4, Rehab E Mohamed3, Hesham M Dahshan5, Hala I Mahmoud6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dermatophytosis in calves is a major public and veterinary health concern worldwide because of its zoonotic potential and associated economic losses in cattle farms. However, this condition has lacked adequate attention; thus, to develop effective control measures, we determined ringworm prevalence, risk factors, and the direct-sample nested PCR diagnostic indices compared with the conventional methods of dermatophytes identification. Moreover, the phenolic composition of an Aloe vera gel extract (AGE) and its in vitro and in vivo antidermatophytic activity were evaluated and compared with those of antifungal drugs.Entities:
Keywords: Aloe vera gel extract; Antifungal drugs; Calves dermatophytosis; Direct-sample nested PCR; Risk factors; Treatment
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33148275 PMCID: PMC7640396 DOI: 10.1186/s12917-020-02616-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Vet Res ISSN: 1746-6148 Impact factor: 2.741
Final logistic regression model of potential risk factors significantly (P < 0.05) associated with ringworm infection in calves
| Risk factor | Calves | Prevalence | S.E.( | OR | Relative risk | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Infected | Non-infected | (%) | (95% CI) | (95% CI) | |||
| 1 month (ref.) | 66 | 97 | 40.49 | ||||
| 4–6 months | 358 | 239 | 59.97 | 0.789 | 0.18 | 2.201 (1.546–3.133) | 1.481 (1.215–1.804) |
| Pure breed (ref.) | 297 | 312 | 48.77 | ||||
| Crossbreed | 127 | 24 | 84.11 | 1.715 | 0.236 | 5.558 (3.494–8.843) | 1.724 (1.549–1.919) |
| Summer (ref.) | 190 | 100 | 65.52 | ||||
| Winter | 81 | 69 | 54 | −0.48 | 0.205 | 0.617 (0.413–0.923) | 0.824 (0.695–0.976) |
| Spring | 83 | 90 | 47.98 | −0.72 | 0.196 | 0.485 (0.331–0.713) | 0.732 (0.614–0.873) |
| Autumn | 70 | 77 | 47.62 | −0.74 | 0.206 | 0.478 (0.319–0.716) | 0.726 (0.601–0.878) |
| Overcrowding (1.5 m/calf) (ref.) | 194 | 120 | 61.78 | ||||
| No overcrowding (6 m/calf) | 230 | 216 | 51.57 | −0.42 | 0.149 | 0.659 (0.491–0.884) | 0.834 (0.736–0.945) |
| Good (ref.) | 295 | 315 | 48.36 | ||||
| Bad | 129 | 21 | 86 | 1.88 | 0.248 | 6.559 (4.027–10.683) | 1.778 (1.602–1.973) |
| Milk (ref.) | 282 | 318 | 47 | ||||
| Meat | 142 | 18 | 88.75 | 2.185 | 0.263 | 8.896 (5.310–14.902) | 1.888 (1.706–2.089) |
| Semi-intensive (ref.) | 305 | 297 | 50.66 | ||||
| Intensive | 119 | 39 | 75.32 | 1.089 | 0.202 | 2.971 (2.001–4.412) | 1.486 (1.319–1.674) |
| Born at the farm (ref.) | 302 | 313 | 49.11 | ||||
| Newly purchased | 122 | 23 | 84.14 | 1.704 | 0.241 | 5.497 (3.426–8.820) | 1.713 (1.539–1.907) |
| Absent (ref.) | 312 | 278 | 52.88 | ||||
| Present | 112 | 58 | 65.88 | 0.542 | 0.181 | 1.720 (1.205–2.456) | 1.245 (1.091–1.422) |
| Irregular (ref.) | 125 | 27 | 82.24 | ||||
| Regular | 299 | 309 | 49.18 | −1.57 | 0.227 | 0.209 (0.133–0.326) | 0.598 (0.536–0.667) |
aRegression coefficient
bOdds ratio
Fig. 1(a) Random forest classification showing the most important risk factor (y-axis) as a classifier differentiating between diseased and non-diseased calves when it was clinically examined. The X-axis refers to the predictive accuracy of the studied risk factors. The mini heatmap shows the frequency distribution of each factor across the two outcomes (ringworm lesion and without lesion). Each dot refers to the value of mean decrease accuracy of one risk factor, (b) Box plot for a normal distribution of age (as a continuous variable) across the examined calves (n = 760), each dot represents one case and the horizontal line refers to the median of age distribution
Results of direct microscopy, culture, and direct sample-PCR assays for the detection and identification of dermatophytes in 150 scales and hair samples
| Direct microscopy | Dermatophyte culture | aPan-dermatophyte PCR | bOne-step PCR | Nested-PCR | Frequency (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [No. positive = 111 (74%)] | [No. positive = 84 (56%)] | [No. positive = 87 (58%)] | [No. positive = 93 (62%)] | [No. positive = 108 (72%)] | |
| 51 (34) | |||||
| 6 (4) | |||||
| 9 (6) | |||||
| 9 (6) | |||||
| 6 (4) | |||||
| 15 (10) | |||||
| 6 (4) | |||||
| 3 (2) | |||||
| 6 (4) | |||||
| 9 (6) | |||||
| 6 (4) | |||||
| 3 (2) | |||||
| 15 (10) | |||||
| 6 (4) |
Representative a pchs-1 and b ITS+ amplicons were sequenced for confirmation of the dermatophytes identification results. GenBank accession numbers of the nucleotide sequences were mentioned in the methods section
Fig. 2Agarose gel electrophoresis for amplicons of direct PCR assays for testing dermatophytes DNA from calves’ hair samples. (a) Pan-dermatophytes PCR amplicons of pchs-1gene at 440 bp, (b) One-step PCR ITS+ amplified products for T. verrucosum at 900 bp (lanes 2–8) and T. mentagrophytes at 872 bp (lanes 11, 12), and (c) ITS-1 amplicons of nested PCR at 400 bp. Lanes M: 100 bp molecular size marker, lane Pos.: positive control and lane Neg.: negative control
Diagnostic indices of the direct-sample PCRs for the detection and identification of dermatophytes from ringworm lesions based on (a) culture and (b) culture and/or nested PCR as the gold standards
| Diagnostic indexa | Pan-dermatophyte | One step-PCR | Nested PCR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Se (95% CI) | 82.14% (72.26–89.65) | 71.43% (60.53–80.76) | 92.86% (85.10–97.33) | |
| SP (95% CI) | 72.73% (60.36–82.97 | 50% (37.43–62.57) | 54.55% (41.81–66.86) | |
| PPV (95% CI) | 79.31% (71.86–85.20) | 64.52% (57.96–70.57) | 72.22% (66.48–77.32) | |
| NPV (95% CI) | 76.19% (66.40–83.82) | 57.89% (47.58–67.56) | 85.71% (72.91–93.05) | |
| LR+(95% CI | 3.01 (2.01–4.52) | 1.43 (1.08–1.88) | 2.04 (1.56–2.68) | |
| LR- (95% CI) | 0.25 (0.15–0.40) | 0.57 (0.38–0.87) | 0.13 (0.06–0.29) | |
| DOR (95% CI) | 12.36 (5.64–26.7) | 2.5 (1.72–4.19) | 15.6 (5.965–40.799) | |
| AUC | 78% (70.51–84.35) | 62% (53.72–69.79) | 76% (68.35–82.59) | |
| Kappa value | 0.55*** | 0.217 ** | 0.493*** | |
| Se (95% CI) | 78.95% (70.31–86.02) | 73.68% (64.61–81.49) | 63.16% (53.61–72.00) | 94.74% (88.90–8.04) |
| SP (95% CI) | 41.67% (25.51–59.24) | 100% (90.26–100) | 41.67% (25.51–59.24) | 100% (90.26–100) |
| PPV (95% CI) | 81.08% (76.19–85.16) | 100% | 77.42% (71.56–82.37) | 100% |
| NPV (95% CI) | 38.46% (26.99–51.38) | 54.55% (46.88–62) | 26.32% (18.47–36.02) | 85.71% (73.36–92.89) |
| LR+(95% CI | 1.35 (1.01–1.81) | b | 1.08 (0.79–1.48) | b |
| LR- (95% CI) | 0.51 (0.30–0.85) | 0.26 (0.19–0.36) | 0.88 (0.56–1.39) | 0.05 (0.02–0.11) |
| DOR (95% CI) | 2.68 (1.2–5.9) | 0.46 (0.35–0.59) | 1.22 (0.57–2.62) | 19.6 (8.7–41.4) |
| AUC | 70% (61.99–77.20) | 80% (72.70–86.08) | 58% (49.68–66) | 96% (91.50–98.52) |
| Kappa value | 0.2 ** | 0.57** | 0.04 | 0.91*** |
aSe Sensitivity, Sp specificity, PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value, LR+ positive likelihood ratio, LR- negative likelihood ratio, DOR diagnostic odds ratio and AUC accuracy
bCannot be estimated/infinity
**, *** denote significant P values
Yield, TPC, TF and phenolic compounds of AGE
| Unit | cAGE | |
|---|---|---|
| g/100 g | 1.02 ± 0.052 | |
| a | mg GAE/g extract | 111.78 ± 10.62 |
| b | mg QE/g extract | 45.6 ± 8.45 |
| Gallic acid | mg/ g AGE | 0.12 ± 0.06 |
| Caffeic acid | 0.23 ± 0.11 | |
| Chlorogenic acid | 0.54 ± 0.07 | |
| Cinnamic acid | 0.98 ± 0.25 | |
| Aloe-Emodin | 28.02 ± 4.67 | |
| Quercetin | 1.54 ± 0.22 | |
| Rutin | 1.14 ± 0.86 | |
aTPC Total phenolic compounds, GAE gallic acid equivalent, b TF total flavonoids, QE quercetin equivalent and cAGE Aloe vera gel extract
Fig. 3(a) The antioxidant activity of Aloe vera gel extract (AGE) against 1,1-Diphenyl-2picrylhydrazyl (DPPH˙) radical and β-Carotene/linoleic emulsion compared with gallic acid and tert-butyl hydroquinone (TBHQ), (b) The absorbance of ferric reducing power of AGE against gallic acid and TBHQ
Fig. 4Medians for clinical scores of ringworm lesions on treated groups and control untreated group from day 0 to 42 days of the study. There is a non-significant difference between the clinical scores of groups on days 0 and 7, while the treated groups displayed significantly (P < 0.05) lower clinical scores than the control group on days 14, 21, 28, and 42. Clinical scores carrying asterisks with the same color was statistically different. † indicating a high significant difference between the control untreated group and all other groups within the same days