| Literature DB >> 34838023 |
Tatenda Chiuya1,2, Jandouwe Villinger3, Daniel K Masiga3, Dickens O Ondifu3, Maurice K Murungi4, Lillian Wambua4, Armanda D S Bastos5, Eric M Fèvre4,6, Laura C Falzon7,8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tick-borne pathogens (TBPs) are of global importance, especially in sub-Saharan Africa where they represent a major constraint to livestock production. Their association with human disease is also increasingly recognized, signalling their zoonotic importance. It is therefore crucial to investigate TBPs prevalence in livestock populations and the factors associated with their presence. We set out to identify TBPs present in cattle and to determine associated risk factors in western Kenya, where smallholder livestock production is important for subsistence and market-driven income.Entities:
Keywords: Anaplasma; Dual infection; Livestock markets; Slaughterhouses; Theileria; Western Kenya
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34838023 PMCID: PMC8627057 DOI: 10.1186/s12917-021-03074-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Vet Res ISSN: 1746-6148 Impact factor: 2.741
Fig. 1PCR amplicon melt rate profiles of representative samples. A Anaplasma spp. 16S rRNA, B T. parva 18S rRNA, C Ehrlichia spp. 16S rRNA, D B. bigemina 18S rRNA, and E Theileria spp. 18S rRNA. Positive controls are indicated by ‘PC’. No template controls are shown by ‘NTC’. Melt rates are represented as change in fluorescence with increasing temperature (dF/dT)
Fig. 2Maximum-likelihood phylogeny inferred from 26 partial 16S rRNA Anaplasmataceae sequences detected in cattle. Sequences from this study are in bold. Numbers at the nodes indicate % bootstrap support and the scale bar represents 0.03 substitutions per site
Fig. 3Maximum-likelihood phylogeny of 18S rRNA partial sequences of Theileria and Babesia spp. detected in cattle. Sequences from this study are in bold. Numbers at the nodes indicate % bootstrap support and the scale bar represents 0.06 substitutions per site
Prevalence of Anaplasma, Babesia, Ehrlichia, and Theileria spp. detected in cattle from western Kenya
| Percent prevalence by County | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tick-borne pathogen | Busia | Bungoma | Kakamega | Total |
| (n = 51) | (n = 99) | (n = 272) | ( | |
| 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 5 (1.8) | 5 (1.2) | |
| 0 (0) | 5 (5.1) | 16 (5.9) | 21 (5.0) | |
| 6 (11.8) | 12 (12.1) | 39 (14.3) | 57 (13.5) | |
| 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (0.4) | 1 (0.2) | |
| 0 (0) | 1 (1.0) | 1 (0.4) | 2 (0.5) | |
| 6 (11.8) | 4 (4.0) | 16 (5.9) | 26 (6.2) | |
| 2 (3.9) | 4 (4.0) | 7 (2.6) | 13 (3.1) | |
| 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 7 (2.6) | 7 (1.7) | |
| 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1(0.4) | 1(0.2) | |
| 3 (5.9) | 6 (6.1) | 22 (8.1) | 31 (7.3) | |
Fig. 4UpSetR plot showing the frequency of dual infections of tick-borne pathogens detected in cattle from western Kenya. The blue bar plot on the left shows the total number of pathogens of each species detected while the matrix shows single (black dots) and dual infections (black dots connected by black lines) whose frequency is depicted by the purple bar plot
Descriptive statistics and univariable logistic regression analysis of predictor variables associated with tick-borne pathogen occurrence in cattle
| Variables | Categories | Prevalence (%) | Odds ratio (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breed | Exotic | 16/62 (25.8) | 1.64 (0.84–3.09) | 0.132 |
| Cross | 17/74 (23.0) | 1.41 (0.74–2.58) | 0.281 | |
| Local | 50/286 (17.5) | Reference | Overall = 0.251 | |
| Sex | Male | 42/207 (20.3) | 1.08 (0.67–1.75) | 0.753 |
| Female | 41/215 (19.1) | Reference | ||
| Age | ≥ 12 months | 76/369 (20.6) | 1.70 (0.79–4.27) | 0.187 |
| < 12 months | 7/53 (13.2) | Reference | ||
| BCS | 3–5 | 27/133 (20.3) | 1.06 (0.63–1.76) | 0.825 |
| 1–2.5 | 56/289 (19.4) | Reference | ||
| Ticks | Present | 56/225 (24.9) | 2.09 (1.27–3.50) | 0.004 |
| Absent | 27/197 (13.7) | Reference | ||
| Sampling site | SH | 47/203 (23.2) | 1.53 (0.95–2.50) | 0.083 |
| LM | 36/219 (16.4) | Reference | ||
| Breed | Exotic | 10/62 (16.1) | 2.21 (0.87–5.18) | 0.079 |
| Cross | 3/74 (4.1) | 0.41 (0.06–1.48) | 0.244 | |
| Local | 15/286 (5.2) | Reference | Overall = 0.063 | |
| Sex | Male | 15/207 (7.2) | 1.21 (0.56–2.66) | 0.621 |
| Female | 13/215 (6.0) | Reference | ||
| Age | ≥ 12 months | 25/369 (6.8) | 1.21 (0.41–5.22) | 0.756 |
| < 12 months | 3/53 (5.7) | Reference | ||
| BCS | 3–5 | 7/133 (5.3) | 0.71 (0.27–1.64) | 0.433 |
| 1–2.5 | 21/289 (7.3) | Reference | ||
| Ticks | Present | 21/225 (9.3) | 2.79 (1.22–7.23) | 0.015 |
| Absent | 7/197 (3.6) | Reference | ||
| Sampling site | SH | 13/203 (6.4) | 0.93 (0.43–2.01) | 0.854 |
| LM | 15/219 (6.8) | Reference | ||
| Breed | Exotic | 2/62 (3.2) | 0.20 (0.03–0.67) | 0.029 |
| Cross | 9/74 (12.2) | 0.83 (0.36–1.72) | 0.630 | |
| Local | 41/286 (14.3) | Reference | Overall = 0.023 | |
| Sex | Male | 25/207 (12.1) | 0.96 (0.53–1.71) | 0.881 |
| Female | 27/215 (12.6) | Reference | ||
| Age | ≥ 12 months | 44/369 (11.9) | 0.76 (0.35–1.84) | 0.522 |
| < 12 months | 8/53 (15.1) | Reference | ||
| BCS | 3–5 | 21/133 (15.8) | 1.56 (0.85–2.82) | 0.149 |
| 1–2.5 | 31/289 (10.7) | Reference | ||
| Ticks | Present | 28/225 (12.4) | 1.02 (0.57–1.85) | 0.935 |
| Absent | 24/197 (12.2) | Reference | ||
| Sampling site | SH | 31/203 (15.3) | 1.70 (0.95–3.10) | 0.076 |
| LM | 21/219 (9.6) | Reference | ||
| Breed | Exotic | 11/62 (17.7) | 7.50 (2.90–20.24) | < 0.001 |
| Cross | 2/74 (2.7) | 0.96 (0.14–3.95) | 0.965 | |
| Local | 8/286 (2.8) | Reference | Overall < 0.001 | |
| Sex | Male | 11/207 (5.3) | 1.15 (0.47–2.82) | 0.754 |
| Female | 10/215 (4.7) | Reference | ||
| BCS | 3–5 | 5/133 (3.8) | 0.67 (0.21–1.74) | 0.424 |
| 1–2.5 | 16/289 (5.5) | Reference | ||
| Ticks | Present | 14/225 (6.2) | 1.80 (0.73–4.84) | 0.203 |
| Absent | 7/197 (3.6) | Reference | ||
| Sampling site | SH | 16/203 (7.9) | 3.66 (1.40–11.37) | 0.007 |
| LM | 5/219 (2.3) | Reference | ||
Significant codes: * = < 0.05; ** = < 0.01; *** = < 0.001; LM = livestock market; SH = slaughterhouse
Logistic regression analyses results for the occurrence of tick-borne pathogens in cattle and associated predictor variables
| Variables | Categories | Odds ratio (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ticks | Present | 2.18 (1.32–3.69) | |
| Absent | Reference | ||
| Sampling site | SH | 1.64 (1.01–2.70) | |
| LM | Reference | ||
| Ticks | Present | 2.79 (1.22–7.23) | |
| Absent | Reference | ||
| Breed | Exotic | 0.20 (0.03–0.67) | 0.029 |
| Cross | 0.83 (0.36–1.72) | 0.630 | |
| Local | Reference | ||
| Breed | Exotic | 7.99 (3.04–22.02) | < 0.001 |
| Cross | 1.16 (0.17–4.84) | 0.855 | |
| Local | Reference | ||
| Sampling site | SH | 3.84 (1.43–12.21) | |
| LM | Reference | ||
Significant p-values are shown in bold italic; SH slaughterhouse, LM livestock market
Fig. 5Map of western Kenya showing the three neighbouring counties included in this study. Slaughterhouses and livestock markets from which blood samples used in this study were collected from cattle are shown
Primers that were used for the detection of arboviruses, tick-borne bacteria and protozoa
| Target gene | Primer name | Primer sequence (5′ – 3′) | Product size (bp) | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phlebo JV3a F | AGTTTGCTTATCAAGGGTTTGATGC | 150 | [ | |
| Phlebo JV3b F | GAGTTTGCTTATCAAGGGTTTGACC | |||
| Phlebo JV3 R | CCGGCAAAGCTGGGGTGCAT | |||
| Nairo L 1a F | TCTCAAAGATATCAATCCCCCCITTACCC | 150 | [ | |
| Nairo L 1b F | TCTCAAAGACATCAATCCCCCTTWTCCC | |||
| Nairo L 1a R | CTATRCTGTGRTAGAAGCAGTTCCCATC | |||
| Nairo L 1b R | GCAATACTATGATAAAAACAATTMCCATCAC | |||
| Nairo L 1c R | CAATGCTGTGRTARAARCAGTTGCCATC | |||
| Nairo L 1d R | GCAATGCTATGGTAGAAACAGTTTCCATC | |||
| Vir 2052 F | TGGCGCTATGATGAAATCTGGAATGTT | 150 | [ | |
| Vir 2052 R | TACGATGTTGTCGTCGCCGATGAA | |||
| Flavi JV2a F | AGYMGHGCCATHTGGTWCATGTGG | 150 | [ | |
| Flavi JV2b F | AGCCGYGCCATHTGGTATATGTGG | |||
| Flavi JV2c F | AGYCGMGCAATHTGGTACATGTGG | |||
| Flavi JV2d F | AGTAGAGCTATATGGTACATGTGG | |||
| Flavi JV2a R | GTRTCCCADCCDGCDGTRTCATC | |||
| Flavi JV2b R | GTRTCCCAKCCWGCTGTGTCGTC | |||
| Bunyagroup F | CTGCTAACACCAGCAGTACTTTTGAC | 210 | [ | |
| Bunyagroup R | TGGAGGGTAAGACCATCGTCAGGAACTG | |||
| Dhori virus NP | Dhori F | CGAGGAAGAGCAAAGGAAAG | 200 | [ |
| Dhori R | GTGCGCCCCTCTGGGGTTT | |||
| Thogoto virus (M-segment) | Thogoto S6 F | GATGACAGYCCTTCTGCAGTGGTGT | 200 | [ |
| Thogoto S6 R | RACTTTRTTGCTGACGTTCTTGAGGAC | |||
| Rick-F | GAACGCTATCGGTATGCTTAACACA | 364 | [ | |
| Rick-R | CATCACTCACTCGGTATTGCTGGA | |||
| RLB-F | GAGGTAGTGACAAGAAATAACAATA | 450 | [ | |
| RLB-R | TCTTCGATCCCCTAACTTTC | |||
| CGGTGGAGCATGTGGTTTAATTC | 300 | [ | ||
| CGRCGTTGCAACCTATTGTAGTC | ||||
| CGTAAAGGGCACGTAGGTGGACTA | 200 | [ | ||
| CACCTCAGTGTCAGTATCGAACCA | ||||
| EHR16SD | GGTACCYACAGAAGAAGTCC | 1090 | [ | |
| pH 1522 | AAGGAGGTGATCCAGCCGCA | |||
| pH 1492 | GGCTACCTTGTTACGACTT |