| Literature DB >> 35880003 |
Lavinia Haikukutu1,2, Japhet R Lyaku3, Charles Lyimo4, Christopher J Kasanga5, Sengiyumva E Kandusi5, Soanandrasana Rahelinirina6, Fanohinjanaharinirina Rasoamalala6, Minoarisoa Rajerison6, Rhodes Makundi2.
Abstract
Objectives: Plague has been a threat to human health in Tanzania since 1886. This zoonotic disease has established several endemic foci in the country, posing a risk of outbreaks. This study was conducted to investigate the presence of Yersinia pestis in small mammals in five districts. These districts were selected because of recent (Mbulu), past (40-18 years ago: Lushoto) and historic (>100 years ago: Iringa and Kilolo) human cases of plague. In addition, one region that has not had any reported human cases of plague was included (Morogoro-Mvomero).Entities:
Keywords: ELISA; Plague; Rodents; Small mammals; Tanzania; Yersinia pestis
Year: 2022 PMID: 35880003 PMCID: PMC9307448 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijregi.2022.06.006
Source DB: PubMed Journal: IJID Reg ISSN: 2772-7076
Figure 1Localities of the small mammals surveyed for plague in this study. The black lines in the central Tanzania map delineate regions. The green shaded areas are the four regions where samples were collected, and the light blue areas show the districts. The regions and districts are as follows: Manyara region (Mbulu district), Iringa region (Iringa district and Kilolo district), and Morogoro (Mvomero district). The four inserts show the location (within the districts) of the plague foci and the non-plague villages sampled.
Indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay results for detection of antibodies against the fraction 1 antigen of Yersinia pestis in the sera of small mammals
| Species | Number of animals tested for antibodies and % of positive samples in each district | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mbulu | Lushoto | Iringa and Kilolo | Mvomero | Total | |
| 59 (1.7) | 17 (5.9) | 0 | 3 | 79 | |
| 19 | 43 | 1 | 11 | 74 | |
| 61 (16.4) | 157 (3.2) | 72 (13.9) | 33 (18.2) | 323 | |
| 0 | 43 | 0 | 15 | 58 | |
| 24 (4.2) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 24 | |
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
| 0 | 17 (5.9) | 1 | 0 | 18 | |
| 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | |
| 1 | 5 | 1 | 5 (60) | 12 | |
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
| 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 4 | |
| 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 7 | |
| 19 (21.1) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | |
| 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 5 | |
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | |
| 0 | 0 | 5 (20.0) | 2 | 7 | |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 | |
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| Total | 194 (7.7) | 283 (2.5) | 97 (11.3) | 71 (12.7) | 645 |
Competitive blocking enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (cELISA) results of all seropositive indirect ELISA samples
| Animal species | Number tested | Number of cELISA positive | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 0 | ||
| 0 | 0 | ||
| 31 | 6 (19.3%) | 0.07–0.37 | |
| 0 | 0 | ||
| 1 | 0 | ||
| 0 | 0 | ||
| 1 | 0 | ||
| 0 | 0 | ||
| 3 | 0 | ||
| 0 | 0 | ||
| 0 | 0 | ||
| 0 | 0 | ||
| 4 | 0 | ||
| 0 | 0 | ||
| 0 | 0 | ||
| 0 | 0 | ||
| 0 | 0 | ||
| 1 | 0 | ||
| 0 | 0 | ||
| 0 | 0 | ||
| Total | 43 | 6 (14%) |
CI, confidence interval.
Clopper–Pearson exact CI method was used.