Erin Miller1,2, Veronica Barragan3,4,5, Jorge Chiriboga6, Chad Weddell7, Ligia Luna6, Dulce J Jiménez2, John Aleman2, Joseph R Mihaljevic8, Sonora Olivas1, Jane Marks2,9, Ricardo Izurieta7, Nathan Nieto2, Paul Keim1,2, Gabriel Trueba6, J Gregory Caporaso1,2, Talima Pearson10,11. 1. The Pathogen and Microbiome Institute, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA. 2. Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA. 3. The Pathogen and Microbiome Institute, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA. vbarragan@usfq.edu.ec. 4. Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA. vbarragan@usfq.edu.ec. 5. Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Colegio de Ciencias Biologicas y Ambientales, Instituto de Microbiologia, Quito, Ecuador. vbarragan@usfq.edu.ec. 6. Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Colegio de Ciencias Biologicas y Ambientales, Instituto de Microbiologia, Quito, Ecuador. 7. College of Public Health, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA. 8. School of Informatics, Computing and Cyber Systems, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA. 9. The Center for Ecosystem Science and Society, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA. 10. The Pathogen and Microbiome Institute, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA. tpearson@nau.edu. 11. Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA. tpearson@nau.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Leptospira are shed into the environment via urine of infected animals. Rivers are thought to be an important risk factor for transmission to humans, though much is unknown about the types of environment or characteristics that favor survival. To address this, we screened for Leptospira DNA in two rivers in rural Ecuador where Leptospirosis is endemic. RESULTS: We collected 112 longitudinal samples and recorded pH, temperature, river depth, precipitation, and dissolved oxygen. We also performed a series of three experiments designed to provide insight into Leptospira presence in the soil. In the first soil experiment, we characterized prevalence and co-occurrence of Leptospira with other bacterial taxa in the soil at dispersed sites along the rivers (n = 64). In the second soil experiment, we collected 24 river samples and 48 soil samples at three points along eight transects to compare the likelihood of finding Leptospira in the river and on the shore at different distances from the river. In a third experiment, we tested whether Leptospira presence is associated with soil moisture by collecting 25 soil samples from two different sites. In our river experiment, we found pathogenic Leptospira in only 4 (3.7%) of samples. In contrast, pathogenic Leptospira species were found in 22% of shore soil at dispersed sites, 16.7% of soil samples (compared to 4.2% of river samples) in the transects, and 40% of soil samples to test for associations with soil moisture. CONCLUSIONS: Our data are limited to two sites in a highly endemic area, but the scarcity of Leptospira DNA in the river is not consistent with the widespread contention of the importance of river water for leptospirosis transmission. While Leptospira may be shed directly into the river, onto the shores, or washed into the river from more remote sites, massive dilution and limited persistence in rivers may reduce the environmental load and therefore, the epidemiological significance of such sources. It is also possible that transmission may occur more frequently on shores where people are liable to be barefoot. Molecular studies that further explore the role of rivers and water bodies in the epidemiology of leptospirosis are needed.
BACKGROUND:Leptospira are shed into the environment via urine of infected animals. Rivers are thought to be an important risk factor for transmission to humans, though much is unknown about the types of environment or characteristics that favor survival. To address this, we screened for Leptospira DNA in two rivers in rural Ecuador where Leptospirosis is endemic. RESULTS: We collected 112 longitudinal samples and recorded pH, temperature, river depth, precipitation, and dissolved oxygen. We also performed a series of three experiments designed to provide insight into Leptospira presence in the soil. In the first soil experiment, we characterized prevalence and co-occurrence of Leptospira with other bacterial taxa in the soil at dispersed sites along the rivers (n = 64). In the second soil experiment, we collected 24 river samples and 48 soil samples at three points along eight transects to compare the likelihood of finding Leptospira in the river and on the shore at different distances from the river. In a third experiment, we tested whether Leptospira presence is associated with soil moisture by collecting 25 soil samples from two different sites. In our river experiment, we found pathogenic Leptospira in only 4 (3.7%) of samples. In contrast, pathogenic Leptospira species were found in 22% of shore soil at dispersed sites, 16.7% of soil samples (compared to 4.2% of river samples) in the transects, and 40% of soil samples to test for associations with soil moisture. CONCLUSIONS: Our data are limited to two sites in a highly endemic area, but the scarcity of Leptospira DNA in the river is not consistent with the widespread contention of the importance of river water for leptospirosis transmission. While Leptospira may be shed directly into the river, onto the shores, or washed into the river from more remote sites, massive dilution and limited persistence in rivers may reduce the environmental load and therefore, the epidemiological significance of such sources. It is also possible that transmission may occur more frequently on shores where people are liable to be barefoot. Molecular studies that further explore the role of rivers and water bodies in the epidemiology of leptospirosis are needed.
Entities:
Keywords:
Environmental detection of Leptospira; Epidemiology of leptospirosis; Leptospira in soil; Leptospira in water; Leptospirosis transmission
Authors: Evan Bolyen; Jai Ram Rideout; Matthew R Dillon; Nicholas A Bokulich; Christian C Abnet; Gabriel A Al-Ghalith; Harriet Alexander; Eric J Alm; Manimozhiyan Arumugam; Francesco Asnicar; Yang Bai; Jordan E Bisanz; Kyle Bittinger; Asker Brejnrod; Colin J Brislawn; C Titus Brown; Benjamin J Callahan; Andrés Mauricio Caraballo-Rodríguez; John Chase; Emily K Cope; Ricardo Da Silva; Christian Diener; Pieter C Dorrestein; Gavin M Douglas; Daniel M Durall; Claire Duvallet; Christian F Edwardson; Madeleine Ernst; Mehrbod Estaki; Jennifer Fouquier; Julia M Gauglitz; Sean M Gibbons; Deanna L Gibson; Antonio Gonzalez; Kestrel Gorlick; Jiarong Guo; Benjamin Hillmann; Susan Holmes; Hannes Holste; Curtis Huttenhower; Gavin A Huttley; Stefan Janssen; Alan K Jarmusch; Lingjing Jiang; Benjamin D Kaehler; Kyo Bin Kang; Christopher R Keefe; Paul Keim; Scott T Kelley; Dan Knights; Irina Koester; Tomasz Kosciolek; Jorden Kreps; Morgan G I Langille; Joslynn Lee; Ruth Ley; Yong-Xin Liu; Erikka Loftfield; Catherine Lozupone; Massoud Maher; Clarisse Marotz; Bryan D Martin; Daniel McDonald; Lauren J McIver; Alexey V Melnik; Jessica L Metcalf; Sydney C Morgan; Jamie T Morton; Ahmad Turan Naimey; Jose A Navas-Molina; Louis Felix Nothias; Stephanie B Orchanian; Talima Pearson; Samuel L Peoples; Daniel Petras; Mary Lai Preuss; Elmar Pruesse; Lasse Buur Rasmussen; Adam Rivers; Michael S Robeson; Patrick Rosenthal; Nicola Segata; Michael Shaffer; Arron Shiffer; Rashmi Sinha; Se Jin Song; John R Spear; Austin D Swafford; Luke R Thompson; Pedro J Torres; Pauline Trinh; Anupriya Tripathi; Peter J Turnbaugh; Sabah Ul-Hasan; Justin J J van der Hooft; Fernando Vargas; Yoshiki Vázquez-Baeza; Emily Vogtmann; Max von Hippel; William Walters; Yunhu Wan; Mingxun Wang; Jonathan Warren; Kyle C Weber; Charles H D Williamson; Amy D Willis; Zhenjiang Zech Xu; Jesse R Zaneveld; Yilong Zhang; Qiyun Zhu; Rob Knight; J Gregory Caporaso Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 54.908
Authors: Juliette Morgan; Shari L Bornstein; Adam M Karpati; Michael Bruce; Carole A Bolin; Constance C Austin; Christopher W Woods; Jairam Lingappa; Carl Langkop; Belinda Davis; Donald R Graham; Mary Proctor; David A Ashford; Mary Bajani; Sandra L Bragg; Kathleen Shutt; Bradley A Perkins; Jordan W Tappero Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2002-05-24 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: R T Trevejo; J G Rigau-Pérez; D A Ashford; E M McClure; C Jarquín-González; J J Amador; J O de los Reyes; A Gonzalez; S R Zaki; W J Shieh; R G McLean; R S Nasci; R S Weyant; C A Bolin; S L Bragg; B A Perkins; R A Spiegel Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Nathan E Stone; Carina M Hall; Marielisa Ortiz; Shelby M Hutton; Ella Santana-Propper; Kimberly R Celona; Charles H D Williamson; Nicole Bratsch; Luis G V Fernandes; Joseph D Busch; Talima Pearson; Sarai Rivera-Garcia; Fred Soltero; Renee Galloway; Jason W Sahl; Jarlath E Nally; David M Wagner Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis Date: 2022-05-18
Authors: Manuel Calvopiña; Eduardo Vásconez; Marco Coral-Almeida; Daniel Romero-Alvarez; Miguel Angel Garcia-Bereguiain; Alberto Orlando Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis Date: 2022-05-12