Keneth Iceland Kasozi1,2,3, Susan Christina Welburn1,4, Gaber El-Saber Batiha5, Najat Marraiki6, David Paul Nalumenya7, Monica Namayanja7, Kevin Matama8, Kelly Katenta Zalwango7, Wycliff Matovu7, Gerald Zirintunda2, Justine Ekou2, Stellamaris Kembabazi8, Claire Mack Mugasa7, Annah Kitibwa7, Dickson Stuart Tayebwa7, Simon Peter Musinguzi9, Michael Mahero10, Ibrahim Ssengendo8, Anne Nanteza7, Enock Matovu7, Ewan Thomas MacLeod1. 1. Infection Medicine, Deanery of Biomedical Sciences, College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, The University of Edinburgh, 1 George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9JZ, United Kingdom. 2. Department of Animal Production and Management, Faculty of Agriculture and Agricultural Sciences, Busitema University Arapai Campus, Box 203 Soroti, Uganda. 3. School of Medicine, Kabale University, Box 317 Kabale, Uganda. 4. Zhejiang University-University of Edinburgh Institute, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, International Campus, 718 East Haizhou Road, Haining 314400, China. 5. Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Damanhour University, Damanhour 22511, AlBeheira, Egypt. 6. Department of Botany and Microbiology, College of Science, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia. 7. College of Veterinary Medicine Animal Resources and Biosecurity, Makerere University, Box 7062 Kampala, Uganda. 8. Kampala International University Western Campus, Box 71 Bushenyi, Uganda. 9. Faculty of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Kabale University, Box 315 Kabale, Uganda. 10. Department of Veterinary Population Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Information as regards the epidemiology of the Anaplasmataceae in small ruminants in several low- and middle-income countries is scarce. METHODS: In this study a total of 712 DNA samples collected from small ruminants were analyzed for Anaplasmataceae and Anaplasma ovis using the 16S rRNA and MSP4 genes respectively. Infection risk was assessed by location, sex and age of the animals and qGIS® was used to construct spatial maps. RESULTS: The prevalence of Anaplasmataceae spp was 89.1% (95% CI: 77.5-95.9) and 79.1% (95% CI: 75.9-82.1) in ovines and caprines respectively (RR = 1.1, 95% CI: 1.0-1.3); higher than those previously reported in other eastern African countries. The prevalence of A. ovis was 26.1% and 25.4% for both ovines and caprines respectively with ovines showing significantly higher levels of infection than caprines (P < 0.05). The risk of Anaplasma ovis infections was not affected by age (OR = 1.2, 95% CI: 0.9-1.7) or sex (OR = 1.1, 95% CI: 0.6-2.0). Small ruminants located at the forest edge (<0.3 km) showed higher A. ovis prevalence than those found inland with infections present in the midland regions associated with increased agricultural activity. CONCLUSION: Anaplasma ovis remains a major challenge for small ruminant husbandry in Uganda and infections are under-reported. Policy efforts to prioritize management of Anaplasmataceae for small ruminant health would promote livestock productivity in vulnerable communities, improving livelihoods and ecosystem health.
BACKGROUND: Information as regards the epidemiology of the Anaplasmataceae in small ruminants in several low- and middle-income countries is scarce. METHODS: In this study a total of 712 DNA samples collected from small ruminants were analyzed for Anaplasmataceae and Anaplasma ovis using the 16S rRNA and MSP4 genes respectively. Infection risk was assessed by location, sex and age of the animals and qGIS® was used to construct spatial maps. RESULTS: The prevalence of Anaplasmataceae spp was 89.1% (95% CI: 77.5-95.9) and 79.1% (95% CI: 75.9-82.1) in ovines and caprines respectively (RR = 1.1, 95% CI: 1.0-1.3); higher than those previously reported in other eastern African countries. The prevalence of A. ovis was 26.1% and 25.4% for both ovines and caprines respectively with ovines showing significantly higher levels of infection than caprines (P < 0.05). The risk of Anaplasma ovis infections was not affected by age (OR = 1.2, 95% CI: 0.9-1.7) or sex (OR = 1.1, 95% CI: 0.6-2.0). Small ruminants located at the forest edge (<0.3 km) showed higher A. ovis prevalence than those found inland with infections present in the midland regions associated with increased agricultural activity. CONCLUSION: Anaplasma ovis remains a major challenge for small ruminant husbandry in Uganda and infections are under-reported. Policy efforts to prioritize management of Anaplasmataceae for small ruminant health would promote livestock productivity in vulnerable communities, improving livelihoods and ecosystem health.
Authors: Ahmed H El Imam; Shawgi M Hassan; Ahmed A Gameel; Abdelrahim M El Hussein; Khalid M Taha; Marinda C Oosthuizen Journal: Ann Parasitol Date: 2016
Authors: Stephen Balinandi; Lidia Chitimia-Dobler; Giulio Grandi; Teddy Nakayiki; William Kabasa; Johnson Bbira; Julius J Lutwama; Deon K Bakkes; Maja Malmberg; Lawrence Mugisha Journal: Parasitol Res Date: 2020-06-13 Impact factor: 2.289
Authors: Dennis Muhanguzi; Joseph Byaruhanga; Wilson Amanyire; Christian Ndekezi; Sylvester Ochwo; Joseph Nkamwesiga; Frank Norbert Mwiine; Robert Tweyongyere; Josephus Fourie; Maxime Madder; Theo Schetters; Ivan Horak; Nick Juleff; Frans Jongejan Journal: Parasit Vectors Date: 2020-04-03 Impact factor: 3.876