Open Access

A serosurvey of selected cystogenic coccidia in Spanish equids: first detection of anti-Besnoitia spp. specific antibodies in Europe

  • Daniel Gutiérrez-Expósito1,
  • Ignacio García-Bocanegra2,
  • Daniel K. Howe3,
  • Antonio Arenas-Montes2,
  • Michelle R. Yeargan3,
  • SallyAnne L. Ness4,
  • Luis M. Ortega-Mora1 and
  • G. Álvarez-García1Email author
BMC Veterinary ResearchBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201713:128

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-017-1046-z

Received: 13 February 2017

Accepted: 4 May 2017

Published: 10 May 2017

Abstract

Background

Equine besnoitiosis, caused by Besnoitia bennetti, and equine protozoal myeloencephalitis (EPM), caused by Sarcocystis neurona and Neospora hughesi are relevant equine diseases in the Americas that have been scarcely studied in Europe. Thus, a serosurvey of these cystogenic coccidia was carried out in Southern Spain. A cross-sectional study was performed and serum samples from horses (n = 553), donkeys (n = 85) and mules (n = 83) were included. An in-house enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was employed to identify a Besnoitia spp. infection and positive results were confirmed by an a posteriori western blot. For Neospora spp. and Sarcocystis spp., infections were detected using in-house ELISAs based on the parasite surface antigens N. hughesi rNhSAG1 and S. neurona rSnSAG2/3/4. Risk factors associated with these protozoan infections were also investigated.

Results

Antibodies against Besnoitia spp., Neospora spp. and Sarcocystis spp. infections were detected in 51 (7.1%), 46 (6.4%) and 20 (2.8%) of 721 equids, respectively. The principal risk factors associated with a higher seroprevalence of Besnoitia spp. were the host species (mule or donkey), the absence of shelter and the absence of a rodent control programme. The presence of rodents was the only risk factor for Neospora spp. infection.

Conclusions

This study was the first extensive serosurvey of Besnoitia spp. infection in European equids accomplished by two complementary tests and gives evidence of the presence of specific antibodies in these populations. However, the origin of the infection is still unclear. Further parasite detection and molecular genotyping are needed to identify the causative Besnoitia and Neospora species. Finally, cross-reactions with antibodies directed against other species of Sarcocystis might explain the positive reactions against the S. neurona antigens.

Keywords

Besnoitia spp. Sarcocystis spp. Neospora spp. Spain Serosurvey Horse Donkey Mule Risk factors

Background

Cystogenic coccidia such as Sarcocystis spp., Neospora spp., and Besnoitia spp. have been reported to affect equids. Sarcocystis neurona and Neospora hughesi are the causative agents of equine protozoal myeloencephalitis (EPM), a serious neurological disease of horses in the Americas [1]. Moreover, besnoitiosis in donkeys caused by Besnoitia bennetti in donkeys is an emerging disease in the United States [2].

Several serosurveys of Sarcocystis spp. and/or Neospora spp. infections have been carried out in horses and donkeys in Europe (France, Italy, Czech Republic, Sweden and Spain) [3, 4]. However, Besnoitia spp. infection has not been studied in depth in European equids apart from only two reports of equine besnoitiosis. The first case of besnoitiosis in a horse was reported in Northern France [5]. Recently, the disease was suspected in seven donkeys from Southern Spain since tissue cysts were detected by histopathology [6]. Apart from B. bennetti, two additional Besnoitia species (B. besnoiti and B. tarandi) also affect ungulates (i.e., bovines and cervidae) causing similar clinical signs and have been reported in Europe [7]. Besnoitiosis caused by B. tarandi has been documented in reindeer in the Artic regions [8], whereas besnoitiosis caused by B. besnoiti is a re-emergent cattle disease in western and Central Europe and has also been recently reported in roe deer and red deer in Spain [911].

Diagnostic tools that provide an accurate serological diagnosis of cystogenic coccidia infections must overcome cross-reactions. Particularly in equids, N. hughesi cross-reacts with N. caninum [12]. In addition, cross-reactions between anti-B. bennetti antibodies and B. besnoiti antigens have also been observed [13]. Thus, highly sensitive and specific tests are mandatory in order to confirm an infection. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs)-based on recombinant proteins provide an accurate diagnosis of S. neurona and N. hughesi infection [14, 15]. A B. besnoiti tachyzoite extract-based ELISA is a routinely employed screening technique for Besnoitia spp. infection and a western blot is used as a confirmatory test in various ungulate species [2, 16]. In addition, a novel ELISA based on the enrichment of specific antigens has been demonstrated to be highly specific for the diagnosis of bovine besnoitiosis [17].

The goal of the present work was to determine the presence of specific antibodies against Besnoitia spp., Neospora spp. and Sarcocystis spp. in horses, donkeys and mules from southern Spain (Andalusia). This was the first serosurvey of Besnoitia spp. infection in European equids. Moreover, the first results of anti-Neospora spp. antibodies detection in Spanish equids are presented.

Methods

Sampled areas and experimental design

A cross-sectional study was carried out between January and March of 2010 in equine herds from Andalusia (southern Spain; 36° N - 38° 60′ N, 1° 75′ W - 7° 25′ W), which is the Spanish region with the largest number of equines (see the discussion section).

A total of 721 samples from horses (n = 553), donkeys (n = 85) and mules (n = 83) were included. Specifically, samples from 616 horses were collected in a survey stratified by census tract. We used a convenience sampling technique to select the remaining samples. Horse samples were distributed across all provinces of Andalusia, whereas the donkey and mule samples were restricted to Cádiz Province (Fig. 1). ELISAs based on S. neurona and N. hughesi recombinant proteins were employed for the detection of anti-Sarcocystis spp. and anti-Neospora spp. antibodies. To detect anti-Besnoitia spp. antibodies, all serum samples were initially screened by a soluble extract-based ELISA, and positive results were confirmed by western blot. Animals seropositive according to the western blot were included in the data analysis.
Fig. 1

Geographical distribution of equids sampled in Andalusia and seropositive results to B. besnoiti, N. hughesi and S. neurona infections. Positive results are marked in black and negative results are marked in white. Prevalence of infection by province is represented in grey

Samples and data collection

Blood samples were collected by puncturing of the jugular vein using a sterile collection system (Vacutainer®, Becton, Dickinson and Company, USA). Next, the blood samples were centrifuged at 400 g for 15 min at 4 °C and the sera were separated and stored at −20 °C until further analysis.

Epidemiological data were collected by an on-farm interview with the owners (Additional file 1), who were informed of the goals of the study. The questionnaires were especially designed to collect information using “close-ended” questions to avoid ambiguous or lengthy answers. In total, 18 explanatory variables were included in the analysis: species (horse, mule and donkey), age classes (young: < 5 years, adult: 5–16 years and geriatric: > 16 years), gender (male and female), colour (dark and light), breed (Spanish, Arabian, Spanish-Arabian, other purebred and crossbred), province, activity (farming, leisure and work), type of housing (outside and individual or collective shelter), direct contact with other horses, mules or donkeys, presence of other animal species (domestic and wild birds, domestic and wild ruminants), presence of rodents, insecticide treatment, cleaning and disinfection methods and protocols, pest control programmes (insects and rodents) and water sources. The sero-status of any animals that shared the same habitat as the sampled equids was unknown.

Antigen production for serological tests

Culture-derived tachyzoites of B. besnoiti isolate -Bb-Spain 1 [18] were propagated and purified [19] to prepare antigens for the ELISA and western blot tests. Foetal bovine serum was previously checked for the absence of anti-Besnoitia, anti-N. caninum and anti-T. gondii antibodies by an immunofluoresce antibody test (IFAT) [18]. Soluble B. besnoiti tachyzoite antigens used in the ELISA were prepared and quantified as previously described [20] and maintained at −80 °C until use. Besnoitia besnoiti tachyzoites were pelleted and frozen at −80 °C for western blot.

Sarcocystis neurona and N. hughesi recombinant proteins were purified as described previously [14, 15] and maintained at 4 °C until use.

Serology

ELISAs

Besnoitia besnoiti tachyzoite soluble extract was used as antigens because strong cross-reactions were present between B. besnoiti antigens and anti-B. bennetti specific antibodies as indicated by IFAT and western blot [13]. Serum samples were analysed in duplicate, as previously described [21], with a few modifications: (i) a blocking solution of phosphate buffered saline (PBS) containing 0.05% Tween 20 and 3% bovine serum albumin (Roche®) was used, and (ii) a rabbit peroxidase-labelled anti-horse IgG (H + L) antibody conjugate (INGENASA®) diluted at 1:5000 was used. The cut-off value was selected on the basis of three standard deviations of optical density (OD) values obtained with a panel of seronegative horse samples (n = 20). Positive and negative control sera tested by western blot consisted of chronically infected donkeys [13] and non-infected horses from USA and Spain, respectively. A cut-off at OD values higher than 0.40 was established and ELISA-positive results were confirmed by a western blot (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2

Recognition of Besnoitia spp. tachyzoite antigens by western blot. Lines 1–6: samples from Besnoitia spp. ELISA seropositive equids. Arrows indicate recognition of antigenic bands in each of the three principal antigenic areas

Anti-Neospora spp. and anti-Sarcocystis spp. antibodies were detected using the recombinant N. hughesi surface antigen rNhSAG1 and S. neurona trivalent protein rSnSAG2/4/3 by means of previously described ELISAs [14, 15]. Percent positivity (PP) values of 20 and 15 were used as cut-offs for N. hughesi and S. neurona antigen-based ELISAs, respectively. The horse positive control serum employed in the Neospora spp.-based ELISA came from a mare that was experimentally infected during pregnancy with N. hughesi. The horse positive control serum for the Sarcocystis spp.-based ELISA was collected from two clinically affected horses with confirmed EPM by histopathology. The negative control serum for both ELISAs consisted of a serum collected from a weanling prior to infection with S. neurona [22]. This serum was negative by S. neurona-, T. gondii-, N. caninum-, and N. hughesi- based western blots.

SDS-PAGE and western blot

A total of 4 × 107 tachyzoites under non-reducing conditions were employed for the electrophoresis of B. besnoiti [23]. Tachyzoite antigens were transferred to a nitrocellulose membrane and, incubated with sera from either horses, donkeys or mules at a 1:20 dilution, followed by a peroxidase-conjugated anti-horse IgG (H + L) antibody diluted at 1:500 (INGENASA®, Madrid, Spain). Control sera were the same as used for the ELISA. The presence of at least three bands in at least two of the three principal antigenic areas (area I: 72.5, 58.9 and 51.4 kDa; area II: 38.7, 31.8 and 28.5 kDa; area III: 23.6, 19.1, 17.4, 14.5 kDa) was considered as a positive result for a Besnoitia spp. infection (Fig. 2) [23].

Statistical analysis

The prevalence of antibodies against Besnoitia spp., Neospora spp. and Sarcocystis spp. infections was estimated with the exact binomial confidence intervals of 95% [24].

To detect non-linear relationships and to homogenize the scales of the explanatory variables, all quantitative variables were transformed to qualitative variables using three categories of the 33rd and 66th percentiles as cut-off values. Tests of association were performed in three steps. First, a general linear univariate analysis was performed. The herd was the experimental unit, and the individual seroprevalence against B. besnoiti and N. hughesi was the dependent variable. Second, factors showing a P-value < 0.15 were further scrutinized for associations using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (r) to avoid colinearity problems. When colinearity (P < 0.05 and r > 0.4) was present, only the variable more clearly linked to Besnoitia spp. and Neospora spp. seropositivity was retained. The third step involved a generalized estimating equations model (GEE) [25]. The number of seropositive animals was assumed to follow a binomial distribution and the herd was included as a random effect. A Poisson error distribution and a logit link function were considered.

An initial model was obtained using all of the potential explanatory variables and variables with a non-significant P-value were sequentially deleted. The quasi-likelihood under an independence model criterion was used to determine the best model in terms of its potential for explaining the results. Biologically plausible confounding factors were assessed using a Mantel-Haenszel analysis and confounding was considered to be potentially significant if the odds ratios (ORs) were shifted appreciably. Variables that altered the coefficients of the independent variables of interest by 30% or more when removed from the model were classified as confounding factors. The model was re-run until all of the remaining variables were statistically significant (i.e., the likelihood-ratio via Wald’s test had P < 0.05), and a potential causal relationship with the response variable existed. SPSS 22.0 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used for statistical analysis.

The association between Besnoitia spp. ELISA false-positive results and the presence of anti-Neospora spp. and anti-Sarcocystis spp. antibodies was estimated by using the chi-square test. A Mann–Whitney U test was used to compare differences in the anti-Besnoitia spp. antibody levels estimated by ELISA between the false-positive and true-positive results. These statistical analyses were performed with the InStat 3.05 software (GraphPad). Additionally, the test agreement expressed as the kappa-values (k) between the ELISA and the western blot tests was calculated using WinEpiscope 2.0 [26].

Results

Seroprevalence

Antibodies against Besnoitia spp., Neospora spp. and Sarcocystis spp. were detected in 51 (7.1%; CI95%: 5.2–8.9), 46 (6.4%; CI95%: 4.6–8.2) and 20 (2.8%; CI95%: 1.6–4.0) of 721 equids tested, respectively. Seropositivity against both Besnoitia spp. and Neospora spp. were confirmed in 0.8% (6/721), against both Besnoitia spp. and Sarcocystis spp. in 0.6% (4/721) and against both Neospora spp. and Sarcocystis spp. in 0.4% (3/721) equids (Table 1). A good agreement between the ELISA and the western blot tests was obtained (k = 0.6).
Table 1

Variables identified as significant (P < 0.15 in the univariate analysis) and included in the multivariate analysis

   

Besnoitia besnoiti

Neospora hughesi

Variables

Categories

No. analyzed a

Positive (%)

P-value

Positive (%)

P-value

Species

Horse

553

16 (2.9)

<0.001

  

Donkey

85

13 (15.3)

   

Mule

83

22 (26.5)

   

Breed

Pure

370

18 (4.9)

0.005

30 (8.1)

0.021

Crossbred

298

31 (10.4)

 

12 (4.0)

 

Sex

Female

306

26 (8.5)

0.129

  

Male

415

25 (6.0)

   

Province

Almeria

14

1 (7.1)

<0.001

  

Cadiz

320

40 (12.5)

   

Córdoba

60

0 (0.0)

   

Granada

38

3 (7.9)

   

Huelva

60

1 (1.7)

   

Jaen

30

0 (0.0)

   

Malaga

98

5 (5.1)

   

Seville

101

1 (1.0)

   

Presence of shelters

Yes

407

15 (3.7)

<0.001

23 (5.7)

0.122

No

280

35 (12.5)

 

23 (8.2)

 

Presence of wild birds

Yes

403

40 (9.9)

0.001

  

No

275

9 (3.3)

   

Presence of cattle

Yes

145

19 (13.1)

0.020

17 (11.7)

0.017

No

417

29 (7.0)

 

24 (5.8)

 

Presence of wild ruminants

Yes

41

  

8 (19.5)

0.006

No

521

  

33 (6.3)

 

Presence of rodents

Yes

388

35 (9.0)

0.001

34 (8.8)

0.002

No

261

8 (3.1)

 

15 (5.7)

 

Rodent control program

Yes

434

24 (5.5)

0.009

  

No

226

25 (11.1)

   

Cleaning protocol

Yes

581

38 (6.5)

0.018

32 (5.5)

0.068

No

86

12 (14.0)

 

9 (10.5)

 

Disinfection protocol

Yes

536

32 (6.0)

0.006

  

No

127

17 (13.4)

   

aMissing values were omitted

Cross-reactions between anti-Besnoitia spp. antibodies and other cystogenic coccidia

Antibodies against Neospora spp. and/or Sarcocystis spp. were detected in 8.7% (63/721) of the sampled animals (Table 2). Interestingly, true Besnoitia-seropositive animals that were also positive against Neospora spp. and/or Sarcocystis spp. had OD values higher than 0.8, whereas OD values of false Besnoitia-seropositive animals varied from 0.40 to 0.56 (Table 2) (P < 0.001, Mann–Whitney U test). However, the existence of Besnoitia spp. false-positive results was not significantly associated with seropositivity against Neospora spp. or Sarcocystis spp. (P = 0.55).
Table 2

Detection of anti-Besnoitia spp., anti-Sarcocystis spp. and anti-Neospora spp. antibodies by ELISA

 

n

Seropositive to Sarcocystis spp. (%)

Seropositive to Neospora spp. (%)

Seropositive to Sarcocystis spp. and Neospora spp. (%)

Seronegative to Sarcocystis spp. and Neospora spp. (%)

Besnoitia spp. seropositivea

51

4 (7.84%)

6 (11.76%)

0 (0.0%)

41 (80.39%)

Besnoitia spp. seronegative

641

11 (1.71%)

36 (5.61%)

1 (0.15%)

593 (92.51%)

Besnoitia spp. seronegative with a false-positive ELISA result

29

2 (6.89%)

1 (3.44%)

2 (6.89%)

24 (82.75%)

Total

721

17 (2.35%)

43 (5.96%)

3 (0.41%)

658 (91.26%)

aTrue Besnoitia-seropositive animals confirmed by western blot

Risk factors

Due to the low number of Sarcocystis spp. seropositive animals, risk factors were only analysed using Besnoitia spp. and Neospora spp. seropositive animals as the dependent variables.

Eleven explanatory variables were selected from the univariate analysis for Besnoitia spp. infection (P < 0.15) (Table 2). The seroprevalence was significantly higher in mules (26.5%) and donkeys (13.3%) compared to that in horses (2.9%) (Table 2). The seroprevalence values differed among provinces for horses (Fig. 1) and the seroprevalence was lower in the presence of shelters, whereas it was higher in the presence of rodents (Table 2).

The principal risk factors associated with a Besnoitia spp. infection were species (mule and donkey) (OR = 12.06 and OR = 2.06, respectively), the absence of shelters (OR = 2.45) and the absence of rodent a control programme (OR = 5.34) (Table 3). The presence of rodents (OR = 4.83) was the only risk factor for a Neospora spp. infection (Table 3).
Table 3

Generalized estimating equations model of potential risk factors associated with Besnoitia spp. and Neospora spp. seropositivity

Variable

Category

β

Sig.

OR

95% CI

Besnoitia spp.

      

Species

Horse

*

*

*

*

*

Donkey

0.723

0.116

2.060

0.836

5.075

Mule

2.490

<0.001

12.061

3.907

37.235

Presence of shelters

Yes

*

*

*

*

*

No

0.898

0.038

2.455

1.053

5.725

Rodent control program

Yes

*

*

*

*

*

No

1.676

0.001

5.342

1.952

14.623

Neospora spp.

      

Presence of rodents

Yes

1.575

0.003

4.831

1.680

13.890

No

*

*

*

*

*

* Reference category; OR, Odds ratio; 95% CI, 95% Confidence interval

Discussion

In the present study, we investigated three cystogenic coccidial infections that have been little studied in European equids. In fact, clinical cases of EPM have not been diagnosed in the Old World. Regarding other epidemiological gaps, the definitive hosts of N. hughesi and Besnoitia spp. that affect ungulates are still unknown [7, 27]. In contrast, the definitive host of S. neurona (Didelphis spp.) appears to be restricted to the New World, but other species of Sarcocystis are known to infect equids in the Old World [4].

This serosurvey was focused on Andalusia, which has the highest number of equid herds in Spain (44.3%) [28]. In addition, Besnoitia spp. infections have been reported in cattle and suspected in donkeys from Andalusia [6, 29]. In contrast, no data exist for Neospora spp. and Sarcocystis spp. infections in equids from this region. Thus, the impact of EPM is unknown.

The most relevant finding of this work was the first detection of specific antibodies against Besnoitia spp. in European equids. The diagnostic approach (i.e., an initial screening by ELISA followed by a confirmatory western blot) was previously used in serosurveys conducted in the absence of a panel of reference sera and a gold standard test [11, 16] using sera from clinically Besnoitia spp.-infected donkeys as a positive control [13, 23]. Additionally, serological cross-reactions with antibodies against Neospora spp. and Sarcocystis spp. were ruled out, probably due to the low antibody levels detected against Neospora spp. and Sarcocystis spp. in this study and the use of highly specific recombinant proteins. Since the Besnoitia ELISA can yield ambiguous results, a western blot or a more specific ELISA are mandatory in order to confirm the infection [17].

Outside of Europe, a few cases of Besnoitia spp. infections in various equid species (horse, donkey, mule and zebra) were attributed to B. bennetti infection in the mid-twentieth century in different sub-Saharan countries such as South Africa and Sudan [3032]. It has been suggested that besnoitiosis may be an emerging disease in donkeys in the United States [2]. Furthermore, equine besnoitiosis in Europe was first reported in 1922 [5] in a horse in Northern France. The disease has not been diagnosed since, but in a recent outbreak of donkeys from Southern Spain besnoitiosis was suspected [6]. Seroprevalence rates of Besnoitia spp. infection in other ungulate species of Spain of 1% (2/2608) and 0% (0/2285) have been reported in wild and small domestic ruminants, respectively, in areas where bovine besnoitiosis is highly endemic [11, 33]. However, whether equids may be reservoirs or intermediate hosts of B. besnoiti should be further elucidated through molecular genotyping [34].

Interestingly, the highest seroprevalence of Besnoitia spp. infection was observed in donkeys and mules. However, a higher susceptibility to Besnoitia spp. infection in donkeys and mules compared to that in horses has not been demonstrated. Most of the clinical cases of equine besnoitiosis have been reported in donkeys [2, 35, 36]. Although less frequently, the disease has also been diagnosed in horses [30, 32, 37]. The differences in the management and biosecurity measures between donkeys/mules and horse herds could be a feasible explanation for this finding. Similar to bovine besnoitiosis, parasite transmission might occur through direct contact during natural mating or from bites of blood-sucking arthropods, and animal movement might favour the spread of the disease [29]. Indeed, it was suggested that the use of repellents indoors may help to reduce mechanical transmission by blood-sucking insects [29]. In this study, data on treatment with ectoparasiticides were only recorded in 229 animals and 190 were treated (156 of the treated animals were horses; data not shown). In addition, the absence of shelters would also lead to a higher exposure to blood-sucking arthropods. Finally, whether rodents may act as intermediate hosts of B. bennetti as they do for other Besnoitia species (B. akodoni, B. jellisoni, B. neotomofelis and B. wallacei) has not been clarified yet [7, 9]. The Besnoitia species that parasitize equids must be elucidated. Because B. besnoiti and B. bennetti infections are serologically indistinguishable, further molecular analyses and parasite isolations are necessary in order to determine which Besnoitia species might be present in Spanish equids.

Antibodies against the aetiological agents of EPM (N. hughesi and S. neurona) were also researched in this study. However, the simple detection of a specific antibody does not confirm the diagnosis of the disease since EPM occurs in a small proportion of infected horses [1]. This initial serosurvey of Neospora spp. infection carried out in Spanish equids showed a low seroprevalence (6.4%) and that the presence of rodents was a risk factor for a Neospora spp. infection. These results agreed with other studies carried out in different European countries such as France, Sweden and Italy that revealed a seroprevalence of approximately 10% [3, 38, 39]. Little it is known about the role of rodents in the epidemiology of equine neosporosis. Rodents could be considered as a putative intermediate host of equine neosporosis, similarly to bovine neosporosis. In fact, N. caninum DNA could be detected in mice and rats in cattle herds with a previous history of neosporosis [4042]. Equids likely become infected with Neospora spp. via the ingestion of oocysts shed by the definitive host, or possibly through vertical transmission [43, 44].

The Neospora species present in these equids remain to be elucidated, since cross-reactions between both existing Neospora species are widely known [12]. Indeed, the rNhSAG1-based ELISA clearly detects antibodies to the N. caninum orthologue [14]. In this study, Neospora spp. seropositive sera were demonstrated to be seropositive by N. caninum-based western blot, supporting this assumption (see Additional file 2).

Finally, anti-Sarcocystis spp. antibodies were detected in 2.8% equids and this level is similar to previous reports in France and northern Spain [45, 46]. Spanish horses are unlikely to be exposed to S. neurona due to the absence of the definitive host in Europe but cross-reactions with other species of Sarcocystis might explain positive reactions. In fact, the trivalent rSnSAG surface antigen chimaera-based ELISA was not validated with sera from European equids. Additionally, other latent Sarcocystis spp. cysts are present in equids and are often benign.

Conclusions

This is the first serosurvey of Besnoitia spp. and Neospora spp. infections carried out in Spain. This study found specific antibodies against Besnoitia spp. infection in European equids. Anti-Neospora spp. and Sarcocystis spp. antibodies were also found in a few animals. However, neither parasitic disease had been not previously diagnosed in Europe. Further parasite detection and molecular genotyping are needed to clarify the presence and identity of these three parasite species [11].

Abbreviations

B: 

Besnoitia

ELISA: 

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay

EPM: 

Equine protozoal myeloencephalitis

GEE: 

Generalized estimating equation

IFAT: 

Immunofluorescence antibody test

Ig: 

Immunoglobulin

k: 

Kappa value

kDa: 

Kilodalton

N: 

Neospora

OD: 

Optical density

OR: 

Odd ratio

S: 

Sarcocystis

SPSS: 

Statistical package for the social sciences

Declarations

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Epidemiological Monitoring Program of the Regional Government of Andalusia and farmers for providing the samples. Finally, we also acknowledge Paula García-Lunar, Alejandro Jiménez-Meléndez and Carlos Diezma-Díaz for their excellent technical assistance.

Funding

This study was supported by several research projects (AGL 2010–20,561, CYTED Thematic Network 113RT0469 Protozoovac and by PLATESA S20137ABI-2906). Daniel Gutiérrez Expósito has been financially supported by the Ministry of Science and Innovation (grant no. BES-2011-043753).

Availability of data and materials

The datasets analysed in the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

DGE performed serological tests against Besnoitia spp. infection, analysed the data and drafted the manuscript; IGB and AAM provided serum samples, carried out the statistical analyses and drafted the manuscript; DKH and MRY performed the ELISA tests against Neospora spp. and Sarcocystis spp. infections; SLN provided positive control sera against a Besnoitia spp. infection; LMO and GAG contributed to the conception and design of the study. GAG analysed the data and drafted the manuscript. All authors critically reviewed the manuscript and agreed to the final version.

Competing interests

All authors declare that they or their institutions have no financial and personal relationship with other people or organizations that could inappropriately influence their work.

Consent for publication

The manuscript contains no individual person’s data and does not require consent for publication.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The samples were collected during the control programme of West Nile virus1 by the official veterinarians of Andalusia, so no formal ethical approval was necessary. The official veterinarians explained the aim of the survey and obtained verbal consent from the owners prior to the interview.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
SALUVET, Animal Health Department, Faculty of Veterinary Sciences, Complutense University of Madrid
(2)
Animal Health Department, Faculty of Veterinary Sciences, University of Cordoba-Agrifood Excellence International Campus (ceiA3)
(3)
Department of Veterinary Science, M.H. Gluck Equine Research Center, University of Kentucky
(4)
Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Box 52, Cornell University

References

  1. Howe DK, MacKay RJ, Reed SM. Equine protozoal myeloencephalitis. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract. 2014;30:659–75.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Ness SL, Schares G, Peters-Kennedy J, Mittel LD, Dubey JP, Bowman DD, Mohammed HO, Divers TJ. Serological diagnosis of Besnoitia bennetti infection in donkeys (Equus asinus). J Vet Diagn Investig. 2014;26:778–82.Google Scholar
  3. Bártová E, Machacova T, Sedlák K, Budíková M, Mariani U, Veneziano V. Seroprevalence of antibodies of Neospora spp. and Toxoplasma gondii in horses from southern Italy. Folia Parasitol. 2015;62:43.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Dubey JP, Howe DK, Furr M, Saville WJ, Marsh AE, Reed SM, Grigg ME. An update on Sarcocystis neurona infections in animals and equine protozoal myeloencephalitis (EPM). Vet Parasitol. 2015;209:1–42.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Henry A, Masson G. Globidiose cutanée du cheval. In: Traite de protozoologie médicale et vétérinare. París: Vigot Freres; 1922. p. 386–7.Google Scholar
  6. Zafra R, Soria-López N, de Castro ED, Jaber J, Mozos E, Pérez J. Outbreak of besnoitiosis in donkeys (Equus asinus) in the south of Spain. J Comp Pathol. 2013;1:81.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Olias P, Schade B, Mehlhorn H. Molecular pathology, taxonomy and epidemiology of Besnoitia species (protozoa: Sarcocystidae). Infect Genet Evol. 2011;11:1564–76.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Dubey JP, Sreekumar C, Rosenthal BM, Vianna MC, Nylund M, Nikander S, Oksanen A. Redescription of Besnoitia tarandi (protozoa: Apicomplexa) from the reindeer (Rangifer tarandus). Int J Parasitol. 2004;34:1273–87.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. EFSA. European food safety authority - bovine Besnoitiosis: an emerging disease in Europe. EFSA J. 2010;8:1499.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Arnal M, Gutiérrez-Expósito D, Martínez-Durán D, Regidor-Cerrillo J, Revilla M, Fernández de Luco D, Jiménez-Meléndez A, Ortega-Mora LM, Álvarez-García G. Systemic besnoitiosis in a juvenile roe deer (Capreolus capreolus). Transbound Emerg Dis. 2016; doi: 10.1111/tbed.12514.
  11. Gutiérrez-Expósito D, Arnal MC, Martínez-Durán D, Regidor-Cerrillo J, Revilla M, Fernández de Luco D, Jiménez-Meléndez A, Calero-Bernal R, Habela Martínez-Estéllez MA, García-Bocanegra I, Arenas-Montes A, Álvarez-García G. The role of wild ruminants as reservoirs of Besnoitia besnoiti infection in cattle. Vet Parasitol. 2016;223:7–13.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Gondim LF, Lindsay DS, McAllister MM. Canine and bovine Neospora caninum control sera examined for cross-reactivity using Neospora caninum and Neospora hughesi indirect fluorescent antibody tests. J Parasitol. 2009;95:86–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Ness SL, Peters-Kennedy J, Schares G, Dubey JP, Mittel LD, Mohammed HO, Bowman DD, Felippe MJ, Wade SE, Shultz N, Divers TJ. Investigation of an outbreak of besnoitiosis in donkeys in northeastern Pennsylvania. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2012;240:1329–37.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoane JS, Yeargan MR, Stamper S, Saville WJ, Morrow JK, Lindsay DS, Howe DK. Recombinant NhSAG1 ELISA: a sensitive and specific assay for detecting antibodies against Neospora hughesi in equine serum. J Parasitol. 2005;91:446–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Yeargan M, de Assis RI, Morrow J, Graves A, Reed SM, Howe DK. A new trivalent SnSAG surface antigen chimera for efficient detection of antibodies against Sarcocystis neurona and diagnosis of equine protozoal myeloencephalitis. J Vet Diagn Investig. 2015;27:377–81.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Gutiérrez-Expósito D, Ortega-Mora LM, Marco I, Boadella M, Gortázar C, San Miguel-Ayanz JM, García-Lunar P, Lavin S, Álvarez-García G. First serosurvey of Besnoitia spp. infection in wild European ruminants in Spain. Vet Parasitol. 2013;197:557–64.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Schares G, Langenmayer MC, Scharr JC, Minke L, Maksimov P, Maksimov A, Schares S, Barwald A, Basso W, Dubey JP, Conraths FJ, Gollnick NS. Novel tools for the diagnosis and differentiation of acute and chronic bovine besnoitiosis. Int J Parasitol. 2013;43:143–54.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Fernández-García A, Risco-Castillo V, Pedraza-Díaz S, Aguado-Martínez A, Álvarez-García G, Gómez-Bautista M, Collantes-Fernández E, Ortega-Mora LM. First isolation of Besnoitia besnoiti from a chronically infected cow in Spain. J Parasitol. 2009;95:474–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Pérez-Zaballos FJ, Ortega-Mora LM, Álvarez-García G, Collantes-Fernández E, Navarro-Lozano V, García-Villada L, Costas E. Adaptation of Neospora caninum isolates to cell-culture changes: an argument in favor of its clonal population structure. J Parasitol. 2005;91:507–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Álvarez-García G, Pereira-Bueno J, Gómez-Bautista M, Ortega-Mora LM. Pattern of recognition of Neospora caninum tachyzoite antigens by naturally infected pregnant cattle and aborted foetuses. Vet Parasitol. 2002;107:15–27.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Fernández-García A, Álvarez-García G, Risco-Castillo V, Aguado-Martínez A, Marcén JM, Rojo-Montejo S, Castillo JA, Ortega-Mora LM. Development and use of an indirect ELISA in an outbreak of bovine besnoitiosis in Spain. Vet Rec. 2010;166:818–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Fenger CK, Granstrom DE, Gajadhar AA, Williams NM, McCrillis SA, Stamper S, Langemeier JL, Dubey JP. Experimental induction of equine protozoal myeloencephalitis in horses using Sarcocystis sp. Sporocysts from the oposum (Didelphis virginiana). Vet Parasitol. 1997;68:199–213.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. García-Lunar P, Ortega-Mora LM, Schares G, Gollnick NS, Jacquiet P, Grisez C, Prevot F, Frey CF, Gottstein B, Álvarez-García G. An inter-laboratory comparative study of serological tools employed in the diagnosis of Besnoitia besnoiti infection in bovines. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2013;60:59–68.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Thrusfield M, Ortega C, de Blas I, Noordhuizen JP, Frankena K. WIN EPISCOPE 2.0: improved epidemiological software for veterinary medicine. Vet Record. 2001;148:567–72.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Hanley JA, Negassa A, Edwardes MD, Forrester JE. Statistical analysis of correlated data using generalized estimating equations: an orientation. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;157:364–75.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Altman DG. Statistics in medical journals: developments in the 1980s. Stat Med. 1991;10:1897–913.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Dubey J, Liddell S, Mattson D, Speer C, Howe D, Jenkins M. Characterization of the Oregon isolate of Neospora hughesi from a horse. J Parasitol. 2001;87:345–53.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. El sector equino en cifras. http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/ganaderia/temas/produccion-y-mercados-ganaderos/indicadoreseconomicossectorequino2015_tcm7-386080.pdf. Accessed 1 Feb 2017.
  29. Alvarez-García G, Frey CF, Ortega-Mora LM, Schares G. A century of bovine besnoitiosis: an unknown disease re-emerging in Europe. Trends Parasitol. 2013;29:407–15.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Bennet SC. A peculiar equine sarcosporidium in the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. Vet J. 1927;83:297–304.Google Scholar
  31. Bigalke RD. New concepts on the epidemiological features of bovine besnoitiosis as determined by laboratory and field investigations. Onderstepoort J Vet Res. 1968;35:3–137.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Bigalke RD. Studies on equine besnoitiosis. J Parasitol. 1970;56:29.Google Scholar
  33. Gutiérrez-Expósito D, Ortega-Mora LM, Ara V, Marco I, Lavín S, Carvajal-Valilla J, Morales A, Alvarez-García G. Absence of antibodies specific to Besnoitia spp. in European sheep and goats from areas in Spain where bovine besnoitiosis is endemic. Parasitol Res. 2017;116:445–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Madubata C, Dunams-Morel DB, Elkin B, Oksanen A, Rosenthal BM. Evidence for a recent population bottleneck in an Apicomplexan parasite of caribou and reindeer, Besnoitia tarandi. Infect Genet Evol. 2012;12:1605–13.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Dubey JP, Sreekumar C, Donovan T, Rozmanec M, Rosenthal BM, Vianna MC, Davis WP, Belden JS. Redescription of Besnoitia bennetti (protozoa: Apicomplexa) from the donkey (Equus asinus). Int J Parasitol. 2005;35:659–72.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Elsheikha HM, Mansfield LS, Morsy GH. Studies on besnoitiosis bennetti in miniature donkeys. J Egypt Soc Parasitol. 2008;38:171–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Van Heerden J, Els HJ, Raubenheimer EJ, Williams JH. Besnoitiosis in a horse. J S Afr Vet Assoc. 1993;64:92–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Pitel P, Lindsay D, Caure S, Romand S, Pronost S, Gargala G, Mitchell S, Hary C, Thulliez P, Fortier G. Reactivity against Sarcocystis neurona and Neospora by serum antibodies in healthy French horses from two farms with previous equine protozoal myeloencephalitis-like cases. Vet Parasitol. 2003;111:1–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Jakubek E, Lundén A, Uggla A. Seroprevalences of Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora sp. infections in Swedish horses. Vet Parasitol. 2006;138:194–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Machačová T, Ajzenberg D, Žákovská A, Sedlák K, Bártová E. Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum in wild small mammals: seroprevalence, DNA detection and genotyping. Vet Parasitol. 2016;223:88–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Ferroglio E, Pasino M, Romano A, Grande D, Pregel P, Trisciuoglio A. Evidence of Neospora caninum DNA in wild rodents. Vet Parasitol. 2007;148:346–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Medina-Esparza L, Macías L, Ramos-Parra M, Morales-Salinas E, Quezada T, Cruz-Vázquez C. Frequency of infection by Neospora caninum in wild rodents associated with dairy farms in Aguascalientes, Mexico. Vet Parasitol. 2013;191:11–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Antonello AM, Pivoto FL, Camillo G, Braunig P, Sangioni LA, Pompermayer E, Vogel FSF. The importance of vertical transmission of Neospora spp. in naturally infected horses. Vet Parasitol. 2012;187:367–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Pusterla N, Mackie S, Packham A, Conrad PA. Serological investigation of transplacental infection with Neospora hughesi and Sarcocystis neurona in broodmares. Vet J. 2014;202:649–50.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Pitel P, Pronost S, Gargala G, Anrioud D, Toquet M, Foucher N, Collobert-Laugier C, Fortier G, Ballet J. Detection of Sarcocystis neurona antibodies in French horses with neurological signs. Int J Parasitol. 2002;32:481–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Arias M, Yeargan M, Francisco I, Dangoudoubiyam S, Becerra P, Francisco R, Sánchez-Andrade R, Paz-Silva A, Howe DK. Exposure to Sarcocystis spp. in horses from Spain determined by western blot analysis using Sarcocystis neurona merozoites as heterologous antigen. Vet Parasitol. 2012;185:301–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Dubey JP, Hattel AL, Lindsay DS, Topper MJ. Neonatal Neospora caninum infection in dogs: isolation of the causative agent and experimental transmission. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1988;193:1259–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement