| Literature DB >> 33809606 |
Médiha Khamassi Khbou1, Mariem Rouatbi2, Rihab Romdhane2, Limam Sassi2, Mohamed Jdidi2, Aynalem Haile3, Mourad Rekik4, Mohamed Gharbi2.
Abstract
As ticks and tick-borne pathogens affect the productivity of livestock, searching for genetically resistant breeds to infestation by ticks may represent an alternative to the overuse of chemical drugs. The aim of this study was to assess if there is a difference in tick infestation among the main sheep breeds in Tunisia. The study was carried out between April 2018 and January 2020 in 17 small to middle-sized sheep flocks from 3 regions across Tunisia. Four hundred and thirty-nine ear-tagged ewes from Barbarine (n = 288, 65.6%) and Queue Fine de l'Ouest (QFO) (n = 151, 34.4%) breeds were examined and sampled each trimester. Ticks were identified to the species level, and piroplasms were detected using PCR that targets a common sequence ARNr18S to both Babesia and Theileria genera using catch-all primers. Totally, 707 adult ticks were collected from animals; 91.4% (646/707) of them were Rhipicephalus sanguineus s.l. Queue Fine de l'Ouest animals were markedly less infested by ticks, and no one of them was infected by piroplasms compared to the Barbarine breed. Indeed, during the first four seasons, 21 animals, all from the Barbarine breed, were detected positive for piroplasms. This is the first study in Tunisia about the low susceptibility of QFO ewes to infestation by ticks and to infection by piroplasms. The QFO sheep breed could be raised preferably at high-risk areas of tick occurrence and could be considered in concrete control strategies, including a breeding program.Entities:
Keywords: Tunisia; breed; piroplasms; resistance; sheep; ticks
Year: 2021 PMID: 33809606 PMCID: PMC8001609 DOI: 10.3390/ani11030839
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Animals (Basel) ISSN: 2076-2615 Impact factor: 2.752
Figure 1Map of Tunisia showing the sampling areas in the three regions.
Characteristics of the surveyed sheep flocks.
| Region | Locality (District) | Number of Surveyed Farms (Total Number of Animals) | Number of Barbarine Sheep in the Region/Total Number of Barbarine Sheep (%) | Number of QFO Sheep in the Region/Total Number of QFO Sheep (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Northeast | Mornaguia (Manouba) and Saouef (Zaghouan) | 6 (164) | 123/288 (42.7) | 41/151 (27.1) |
| Northwest | Fernana (Jendouba) and Sebeitla (Kasserine) | 6 (162) | 119/288 (41.3) | 43/151 (28.5) |
| Southeast | Bir Ali (Sfax) and Bir Lahmar (Tataouine) | 5 (113) | 46/288 (16) | 67/151 (44.4) |
| Overall | 17 (439) | 288 (100) | 151 (100) |
QFO: Queue Fine de l’Ouest breed.
Figure 2Black-headed Barbarine ewe.
Figure 3Queue Fine de l’Ouest ewe.
Primers used for universal and piroplasms detection PCRs.
| Primers | Sequences (5′------3′) | Author |
|---|---|---|
| 1A | AACCTGGTTGATCCTGCCAGT | [ |
| 564R | GGCACCAGACTTGCCCTC | |
| RLB-F | GAGGTAGTGACAAGAAATAACAATA | [ |
| RLB-R | TCTTCGATCCCCTAACTTTC |
Distribution according to sheep breed of tick species collected during 8 sampling rounds.
| Tick Species | Number of Ticks in the Breed (%) a | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Barbarine | Queue Fine de l’Ouest | Overall (%) | |
| 487 (75.4) | 159 (24.6) | 646 (91.4) b | |
|
| 31 | 0 | 31 (4.4) |
|
| 15 | 0 | 15 (2.1) |
|
| 5 | 0 | 5 (0.7) |
|
| 4 | 0 | 4 (0.6) |
|
| 2 | 1 | 3 (0.4) |
|
| 2 | 0 | 2 (0.3) |
|
| 1 | 0 | 1 (0.1) |
| Overall (%) | 547 (77.4) c | 160 (22.6) | 707 (100) |
a % not calculated for denominator <35; b Overall, percentages between the different tick species are significantly different at p ≤ 0.001 using χ2 test; c Overall, percentages between sheep breeds are significantly different at p ≤ 0.001 using χ2 test.
Mean temperature and cumulative precipitation of the 15 days before tick collections in the three regions and corresponding overall tick infestation prevalence, intensity and abundance during the 8 sampling rounds.
| Variables | April 2018 | July 2018 | October 2018 | January 2019 | April 2019 | July 2019 | October 2019 | January 2020 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||
| Mean temperature (°C) (Min–Max) a | 15.05 (9.7–207) | 27.34 (21.09–34.25) | 21.48 (17.2–26.73) | 10.11 (6.44–14.04) | 13.58 (8.93–18.86) | 27.96 (21.65–34.32) | 21.61 (16.68–27.03) | 9.87(6.12–13.99) | N.A. |
| Cumulative precipitation (mm) b | 16.44 | 0.5 | 8.02 | 17.12 | 44.32 | 1.58 | 19.39 | 14.43 | |
|
| |||||||||
| Mean temperature (°C) (Min–Max) | 12.48 (7.31–18.23) | 22.66 (17.43–30.53) | 20.21 (15.93–25–45) | 8.02 (3.91–11.27) | 11.17 (6.81–15.99) | 27.48 (20.72–33.99) | 20.80 (15.04–27.07) | 9.71 (6.36–13.16) | N.A. |
| Cumulative precipitation (mm) | 40.44 | 4.22 | 43.99 | 33.06 | 56.06 | 1.73 | 15.37 | 17.5 | |
|
| |||||||||
| Mean temperature (°C) (Min–Max) | 17.62 (12.12–23.35) | 28.7 (22.69–35.26) | 23.55 (19.11–28.71) | 10.97 (13.07–15.52) | 15.05 (11.06–19.57) | 30.9 (24.88–37.80) | 24.4 (19.9–29.63) | 10 (6.83–13.52) | N.A. |
| Cumulative precipitation (mm) | 6 | 1.6 | 19.8 | 5 | 27.17 | 0 | 14.08 | 16.93 | |
| Infestation prevalence c | 53/439 | 44/382 | 18/362 | 6/341 | 60/269 | 98/288 | 23/272 | 19/258 | <0.001 f |
| (% ± SE) | (12.1 ± 1.6) | (11.5 ± 1.6) | (5 ± 1.1) | (1.8 ± 0.7) | (22.3 ± 2.5) | (34 ± 2.8) | (8.5 ± 1.7) | (7.4 ± 1.6) | |
| Mean intensity d | 129/53 | 61/44 | 20/18 | 9/6 | 135/60 | 215/98 | 92/23 | 46/19 | <0.001 g |
| (mi ± SE) | (2.43 ± 0.2) | (1.39 ± 0.09) | (1.11 ± 0.07) | (1.5 ± 0.22) | (2.25 ± 0.22) | (2.19 ± 0.19) | (4 ± 1.16) | (2.42 ± 0.3) | |
| Mean abundance e | 129/439 | 61/382 | 20/362 | 9/341 | 135/269 | 215/288 | 92/272 | 46/258 | <0.001 h |
| (ma ± SE) | (0.29 ± 0.05) | (0.16 ± 0.02) | (0.06 ± 0.01) | (0.03 ± 0.01) | (0.5 ± 0.07) | (0.75 ± 0.09) | (0.34 ± 0.11) | (0.18 ± 0.04) |
SE: standard error; a,b The mean temperature and the cumulative precipitation were estimated for the 15 days before the tick collection date in each region (crude data were extracted from https://developers.google.com/earth-engine/datasets); N.A.: not applicable; c number of infested sheep/total number of examined sheep; d number of collected ticks/Total number of infested sheep; e number of collected ticks/total number of examined sheep; f the p value was estimated using χ2 test to compare the infestation prevalences between the 8 sampling rounds; g,h the p values were estimated by using ANOVA test and Tukey’s test to compare the means between the 8 sampling rounds.
Multiple comparisons of the mean tick abundance and mean tick intensity according to the eight sampling rounds using the Tukey’s test.
| April 2018 | July 2018 | October 2018 | January 2019 | April 2019 | July 2019 | October 2019 | January 2020 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| April 2018 | 1 | 0.35 | 0.009 | 0.003 | 0.08 | 0.001 | 1 | 0.61 |
| July 2018 | - | 1 | 0.87 | 0.67 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.47 | 1 |
| October 2018 | - | - | 1 | 1 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.028 | 0.87 |
| January 2019 | - | - | - | 1 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.011 | 0.7 |
| April 2019 | - | - | - | - | 1 | 0.445 | 0.196 | 0.001 |
| July 2019 | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| October 2019 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | 0.69 |
| January 2020 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 |
|
| ||||||||
| April 2018 | 1 | 0.15 | 0.27 | 0.96 | 1 | 0.96 | 0.15 | 1 |
| July 2018 | - | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.24 | 0.54 | 0.001 | 0.68 |
| October 2018 | - | - | 1 | 1 | 0.37 | 0.64 | 0.002 | 0.65 |
| January 2019 | - | - | - | 1 | 0.98 | 0.99 | 0.24 | 0.98 |
| April 2019 | - | - | - | - | 1 | 0.99 | 0.08 | 1 |
| July 2019 | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | 0.009 | 1 |
| October 2019 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | 0.32 |
| January 2020 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 |
Significant values using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test are p ≤ 0.05.
Figure 4Tick infestation prevalence according to regions and sheep breeds during the eight sampling rounds. Bars: standard errors; Sig.: statistically significant infestation prevalences difference between sheep breeds using the χ2 test.
Figure 5Tick infestation prevalence among two sheep breeds in Tunisia during 8 successive sampling rounds. * Statistically significant infestation prevalences difference between sheep breeds at p ≤ 0.05 using χ2 test. Bars: standard error.
Figure 6Tick abundance among two sheep breeds in Tunisia during 8 successive sampling rounds. * Statistically significant mean abundance difference between sheep breeds at p ≤ 0.05 threshold using χ2 test. Bars: standard error.
Figure 7Tick infestation intensity among two sheep breeds in Tunisia during 8 successive sampling rounds. Bars: standard error.
P values from the negative binomial regression model to test the tick count as a dependent variable with the region, breeds, and their interaction as predictors.
| April 2018 | July 2018 | October 2018 | January 2019 | April 2019 | July 2019 | October 2019 | January 2020 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region | ||||||||
| NE | N.S. | N.S. | N.S. | N.S. | 0.001 | 0.003 | N.S. | N.S. |
| NW | N.S. | N.S. | <0.001 | N.S. | <0.001 | N.S. | N.S. | <0.001 |
| SE R | ||||||||
| Breed | ||||||||
| Barbarine | N.S. | <0.001 | 0.02 | N.S. | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.001 |
| QFO R | ||||||||
| Region × Breed | ||||||||
| NE × Barbarine | N.S. | <0.001 | N.S. | N.S. | <0.001 | 0.001 | 0.01 | N.S. |
| NE × QFO R | ||||||||
| NW × Barbarine | <0.001 | |||||||
| NW × QFO R | ||||||||
| SE × Barbarine | ||||||||
| SE × QFO R |
R: Reference modality; QFO: Queue Fine de l’Ouest sheep breed; NE: northeast; NW: northwest; SE: southeast; N.S.: not significant; empty cells: not applicable for the reference modality and when the value of B = 0).
Breed differences for molecular prevalence to Theileria/Babesia during four consecutive sampling rounds.
| Sampling Round | Number of | |
|---|---|---|
| Barbarine | Queue Fine de L’Ouest | |
| April 2018 | 2/286 (0.7 ± 0.5) a | 0/152 (0) b |
| July 2018 | 12/242 (4.96 ± 1.4) | 0/128 (0) |
| October 2018 | 13/219 (5.94 ± 1.6) | 0/129 (0) |
| January 2019 | 8/208 (3.85 ± 1.3) | 0/113 (0) |
| Total | 35/955 (3.66 ± 0.6) | 0/522 (0) |
SE: standard error; a prevalence of tick infestation between seasons within the same column are statistically different at p ≤ 0.01 using χ2 test; b Statistics not applicable.