| Literature DB >> 34009120 |
Tao Sun1, Sajid Ur Rahman2, Jinzhong Cai3, Jiangyong Zeng4, Rongsheng Mi2, Yehua Zhang2, Haiyan Gong2, Hongcai Ma4, Yan Huang2, Xiangan Han2, Quan Zhao5, Zhaoguo Chen2.
Abstract
Toxoplasma gondii is an intracellular parasite that is extensively prevalent globally. Studies have indicated the presence of T. gondii infection in animals in some provinces of China, but little is known about T. gondii infection in yaks (Bos grunniens) on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. In the current study, to determine the seroprevalence and associated risk factors of T. gondii, a total of 2784 serum samples were collected from 18 different sampling sites in eight counties of the Qinghai and Tibet regions of China from 2018 to 2019. Serum antibodies against T. gondii were detected in 261 yaks (9.38%) via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). We found that seroprevalence differed significantly among different counties (ranging from 5.41% in Gangcha to 19.79% in Datong), by year in the Tibet Autonomous Region (from 2.34% in 2018 to 13.24% in 2019), and by age (from 5.59% in 0 < year ≤ 1 to 11.76% in year > 7) (p < 0.05). Climate, geographical conditions, and age are the main factors influencing T. gondii infection in yaks in these regions. Therefore, our study provides a data reference for public health and prevention of yak toxoplasmosis. © T. Sun et al., published by EDP Sciences, 2021.Entities:
Keywords: Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau; Risk factors; Seroprevalence; Toxoplasma gondii; Yak
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34009120 PMCID: PMC8132598 DOI: 10.1051/parasite/2021043
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasite ISSN: 1252-607X Impact factor: 3.000
Figure 1Map of sampling counties in Qinghai in this study. The red dots show the sampling sites.
Figure 2Map of sampling counties in Tibet in this study. The red dots show the sampling sites.
Prevalence of T. gondii in yaks in different provinces, counties and sampling sites on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau.
| Provinces | Counties | Positive rates% (No. positive/No. samples) | 95% CI | Sampling sites | Positive rates% (No. positive/No. samples) | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qinghai | Datong | 19.79(19/96)a | 12.4–29.2 | Datong Ranch | 19.79(19/96)a | 12.4–29.2 |
| Gangcha | 5.41(4/74)bc | 1.5–13.3 | Qingqingcao Ranch | 5.41(4/74)de | 1.5–13.3 | |
| Guinan | 7.06(19/269)bc | 4.3–10.8 | Laozhaxi Ranch | 7.06(19/269)de | 4.3–10.8 | |
| Huangzhong | 14.77(13/88)ab | 9.1–23.9 | Slaughter houses | 17.02(8/47)abc | 7.7–30.8 | |
| Fengtai Ranch | 12.20(5/41)abcd | 4.3–12.1 | ||||
| Qilian | 6.01(22/366)c | 3.8–9.0 | Qilain Ranch | 4.19(7/167)e | 1.7–8.5 | |
| Warinai Ranch | 7.54(15/199)de | 9.3–13.4 | ||||
| Wulan | 8.65(18/208)bc | 5.2–13.3 | Chaidamu Ranch | 0.00(0/11)abcde | 0.0–28.5 | |
| Tongpu Ranch | 9.14(18/197)bcde | 5.0–13.5 | ||||
| Subtotal | 8.63(95/1101) | 7.0–10.5 | 8.63(95/1101) | 7.0–10.5 | ||
| Tibet | Seni | 9.98(80/802)b | 8.0–12.3 | Dasa Village | 8.07(13/161)cde | 4.4–13.4 |
| Gaerde Ranch | 9.65(11/114)bcde | 4.9–16.6 | ||||
| Maqing Village | 12.34(19/154)abcd | 7.6–18.6 | ||||
| Mufa Ranch | 5.00(5/100)de | 1.6–11.3 | ||||
| Namaqiegong Village | 15.82(25/158)ab | 10.5–22.5 | ||||
| Naqu Ranch | 6.09(7/115)de | 2.5–12.1 | ||||
| Nyainrong | 9.76(86/881)b | 7.9–11.9 | Gaque Ranch | 10.62(24/226)bcd | 1.8–4.0 | |
| Payu Village | 7.17(22/307)de | 4.6–10.7 | ||||
| Yumaoxiong Village | 11.49(40/348)bcd | 8.3–15.3 | ||||
| Subtotal | 9.86(166/1683) | 8.5–11.4 | 9.86(166/1683) | 8.5–11.4 | ||
| Total | 9.38(261/2784) | 8.3–10.5 | 9.38(261/2784) | 8.3–10.5 |
Note: The same lowercase letters within columns represent no significant differences between groups (p > 0.05) and different lowercase letters within columns represent significant differences between groups (p < 0.05).
Seroprevalence of T. gondii infection by year in yaks on the Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau.
| Provinces | Counties | Sampling sites | 2018 | 2019 | Average | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive rates% (No. positive/No. samples) | 95% CI | Positive rates% (No. positive/No. samples) | 95% CI | Positive rates% (No. positive/No. samples) | 95% CI | |||
| Qinghai | Datong | Datong Ranch | 19.79(19/96)a | 12.4–29.2 | – | – | 19.79(19/96)a | 12.4–29.2 |
| Gangcha | Qingqingcao Ranch | 5.41(4/74)cde | 1.5–13.3 | – | – | 5.41(4/74)bd | 1.5–13.3 | |
| Guinan | Laozhaxi Ranch | 3.66(3/82)de | 0.8–10.3 | 8.56(16/187)bcd | 4.1–26.2 | 7.06(19/269)cd | 4.3–10.8 | |
| Huangzhong | Slaughterhouses | 17.02(8/47)ab | 7.7–30.8 | – | – | 14.77(13/88)ab | 8.1–23.9 | |
| Fengtai Ranch | – | – | 12.20(5/41)abcd | 4.3–12.1 | ||||
| Qilian | Qilain Ranch | 4.19(7/167)de | 1.7–8.5 | – | – | 6.01(22/366)d | 3.8–9.0 | |
| Warinai Ranch | – | – | 7.54(15/199)cd | 9.3–13.4 | ||||
| Wulan | Chaidamu Ranch | 0.00(0/11)abcde | 0.0–28.5 | – | – | 8.65(18/208)bcd | 5.2–13.3 | |
| Tongpu Ranch | – | – | 9.14(18/197)abcd | 5.0–13.5 | ||||
| Total | 8.60(41/477) | 6.2–11.5 | 8.65(54/624) | 5.5–14.1 | 8.63(95/1101) | 7.0–10.5 | ||
| Tibet | Seni | Dasa Village | – | – | 8.07(13/161)bcd | 4.4–13.4 | 9.98(80/802)bc | 8.0–12.3 |
| Gaerde Ranch | – | – | 9.65(11/114)abcd | 4.9–16.6 | ||||
| Maqing Village | 12.34(19/154)abc | 7.6–18.6 | – | – | ||||
| Mufa Ranch | – | – | 5.00(5/100)d | 1.6–11.3 | ||||
| Namaqiegong Village | – | – | 15.82(25/158)a | 10.5–22.5 | ||||
| Naqu Ranch | 6.09(7/115)cde | 2.5–12.1 | – | – | ||||
| Nyainrong | Gaque Ranch | 11.72(15/128)abc | 6.7–18.6 | 9.18(9/98)abcd | 4.3–16.7 | 9.76(86/881)bc | 7.9–11.9 | |
| Payu Village | 2.34(4/171)e | 0.6–5.9 | 13.24(18/136)abc | 8.0–20.1 | ||||
| Yumaoxiong Village | 9.04(17/188)bcd | 5.4–14.1 | 14.38(23/160)ab | 9.3–20.8 | ||||
| Total | 8.20(62/756) | 6.4–10.4 | 11.22(104/927) | 9.3–13.4 | 9.86(166/1683) | 8.5–11.4 | ||
| Qinghai and Tibet | 8.35(103/1233) | 6.9–10.0 | 10.19(158/1551) | 8.7–11.8 | 9.38(261/2784) | 8.3–10.5 | ||
Note: The same lowercase letters within columns represent no significant differences between groups (p > 0.05) and different lowercase letters within columns represent significant differences between groups (p < 0.05).
Seroprevalence of T. gondii infection by sex in yaks on the Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau in 2018 and 2019.
| Qinghai | Tibet | Qinghai and Tibet | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | 2018 | 2019 | Total | 2018 | 2019 | Total | 2018 | 2019 | Total | |||||||||
| Positive rates % (No. positive/No. samples) | 95% CI | Positive rates % (No. positive/No. samples) | 95% CI | Positive rates % (No. positive/No. samples) | 95% CI | Positive rates % (No. positive/No. samples) | 95% CI | Positive rates % (No. positive/No. samples) | 95% CI | Positive rates % (No. positive/No. samples) | 95% CI | Positive rates % (No. positive /No. sample) | 95% CI | Positive rates % (No. positive /No. sample) | 95% CI | Positive rates % (No. positive /No. sample) | 95% CI | |
| Male | 6.15(15/244)a | 3.5–9.9 | 8.05(21/261)a | 5.1–12 | 7.13(35/505)a | 4.9–9.5 | 8.57(12/140)a | 4.5–14.5 | 10.88(41/377)a | 7.9–14.5 | 10.25(53/517)a | 7.8–13.2 | 7.03(27/384)a | 4.7–10.1 | 9.72(62/638)a | 7.5–12.3 | 8.71(89/1022)a | 4.6–7.0 |
| Female | 11.16(26/233)a | 7.4–15.9 | 9.09(33/363)a | 6.3–12.5 | 9.90(59/596)a | 7.6–12.6 | 8.12(50/616)a | 6.1–10.6 | 11.45(63/550)a | 7.9–14.5 | 9.69(113/1166)a | 8.1–11.5 | 8.95(76/849)a | 7.1–11.1 | 10.51(96/913)a | 8.6–12.7 | 9.76(172/1762)a | 8.4–11.2 |
| Total | 8.60(41/477) | 6.2–11.5 | 8.65(54/624) | 6.6–11.1 | 8.63(95/1101) | 7.0–10.5 | 8.20(62/756) | 6.4–10.4 | 11.22(104/927) | 9.3–13.4 | 9.86(166/1683) | 8.5–11.4 | 8.35(103/1233) | 6.9–10.0 | 10.19(158/1551) | 8.7–11.8 | 9.38(261/2784) | 8.3–10.5 |
Note: The same lowercase letters within columns represent no significant differences between groups (p > 0.05) and different lowercase letters within columns represent significant differences between groups (p < 0.05).
Seroprevalence of T. gondii infection by age in yaks on the Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau in 2018 and 2019.
| Ages | Qinghai | Tibet | Qinghai and Tibet | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 2019 | Subtotal | 2018 | 2019 | Subtotal | 2018 | 2019 | Subtotal | ||||||||||
| Positive rates % (No. positive/No. samples) | 95% CI | Positive rates % (No. positive/No. samples) | 95% CI | Positive rates % (No. positive/No. samples) | 95% CI | Positive rates % (No. positive/No. samples) | 95% CI | Positive rates % (No. positive/No. samples) | 95% CI | Positive rates % (No. positive/No. samples) | 95% CI | Positive rates % (No. positive /No. sample) | 95% CI | Positive rates % (No. positive /No. sample) | 95% CI | Positive rates % (No. positive /No. sample) | 95% CI | |
| 0<year≤1 | 6.61(8/121)bc | 2.9–12.6 | 2.99(4/134)c | 0.8–7.5 | 4.71(12/255)b | 2.5–8.1 | 5.00(1/20)a | 0.1–24.9 | 27.27(3/11)a | 6.0–61.0 | 12.90(4/31)a | 3.6–29.8 | 6.38(9/141)a | 3.0–11.8 | 4.83(7/145)c | 2.0–9.7 | 5.59(16/286)b | 3.2–8.9 |
| 1<year≤3 | 7.76(9/116)bc | 3.6–14.2 | 7.76(17/219)bc | 4.6–12.1 | 7.76(26/335)b | 5.1–11.2 | 9.59(14/146)a | 5.3–15.6 | 11.76(26/221)a | 7.8–16.8 | 10.90(40/367)a | 7.9–14.5 | 8.78(23/262)a | 5.7–12.9 | 9.77(43/440)abc | 7.2–12.9 | 9.40(66/702)a | 7.4–11.8 |
| 3<year≤5 | 3.42(4/117)c | 0.9–8.5 | 8.61(13/151)b | 4.7–14.3 | 6.34(17/268)b | 3.7–10.0 | 7.98(19/238)a | 4.9–12.2 | 9.55(30/314)a | 6.54–13.4 | 8.88(49/552)a | 6.6–11.6 | 6.48(23/355)a | 4.2–9.6 | 9.25(43/465)bc | 6.8–12.3 | 8.05(66/820)ab | 6.3–10.1 |
| 5<year≤7 | 17.78(16/90)a | 10.5–27.3 | 18.03(11/61)a | 9.4–30.0 | 17.88(27/151)a | 12.1–24.9 | 6.81(19/279)a | 4.2–10.4 | 12.66(39/308)a | 9.2–16.9 | 9.88(58/587)a | 7.6–12.6 | 9.49(35/369)a | 6.7–12.9 | 13.55(50/369)a | 10.2–17.5 | 11.52(85/738)a | 9.3–14.0 |
| year>7 | 12.12(4/33)ab | 3.4–28.2 | 15.25(9/59)ab | 7.2–27.0 | 14.13(13/92)a | 4.7–14.3 | 12.33(9/73)a | 5.8–22.1 | 8.22(6/73)a | 3.1–17.0 | 10.27(15/146)a | 5.9–16.4 | 12.26(13/106)a | 6.7–20.0 | 11.36(15/132)ab | 6.5–18.1 | 11.76(28/238)a | 8.0–16.6 |
| Total | 8.60(41/477) | 6.2–11.5 | 8.65(54/624) | 6.6–11.1 | 8.63(95/1101) | 7.0–10.5 | 8.20(62/756) | 6.4–10.4 | 11.22(103/927) | 9.3–13.4 | 9.86(166/1683) | 8.5–11.4 | 8.35(103/1233) | 6.9–10.0 | 10.19(158/1551) | 8.7–11.8 | 9.38(261/2784) | 8.3–10.5 |
Note: The same lowercase letters within columns represent no significant differences between groups (p > 0.05) and different lowercase letters within columns represent significant differences between groups (p < 0.05).