Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research article
  • Open Access

Diagnostic tools of caprine and ovine anaplasmosis: a direct comparative study

BMC Veterinary Research201814:165

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-018-1489-x

  • Received: 13 February 2018
  • Accepted: 7 May 2018
  • Published:

Abstract

Background

The diagnosis of anaplasmosis is rather conflicting with other haemoprotozoans. Hence, the study aimed to compare and evaluate the efficiency of competitive ELISA (cELISA), indirect fluorescence antibody (IFA), and Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for precise diagnosis of Anaplasma spp. and to assess their concordance with microscopic examination (ME).

Results

A total of 312 blood samples (189 sheep and 123 goats) were examined for Anaplasma infection during a 1 year period. Giemsa-stained blood smears were examined under the microscope. IFA and cELISA were used for the detection of Anaplasma spp. antibodies. PCR was used as a standard of truth and for the identification of Anaplasma species. Using cELISA assay, 47.4% (148) were positive (93 sheep and 55 goats) with a sensitivity and specificity of 91.9, and 86.9%, respectively. Using IFA, it was found that 57.4% (179)were positive (113 sheep and 66 goats) with a sensitivity and specificity of 100, and 93.3%, respectively. PCR assay identified A. ovis in 49 (25.3%) sheep and 30 (15.5%) goats, and A. phagocytophilumin 74 (38.1%) sheep and 41 (20.8%) goats.

Conclusions

High sensitivity and specificity values of IFA and ELISA tests compared to microscopic examination strongly support their utility in the diagnosis of Anaplasma infection. PCR was a more specific diagnostic tool that allows to discriminate between Anaplasma subspecies, which makes it the method of choice for anaplasmosis diagnosis.

Background

Anaplasma are obligate intracellular, Gram-negative, tick-borne rickettsial bacteria that are important animal and human pathogens. Anaplasmosis constitutes a burden to livestock health and production in tropical and sub-tropical regions. It results in great economic losses due to decreased production, mortality, and lowered work efficiency of affected animals [7, 26].There are six recognized Anaplasma species: A. ovis, A. marginale, A. centrale, A. platys, A. bovis, and A. phagocytophilum [48]. A. ovis primarily infects sheep and goats, causing ovine and caprine anaplasmosis, respectively [24]. A. ovis infection is generally a subclinical or mild condition, while severe infection may involve anemia, abortion, and mortality [43].

A. phagocytophilum infects humans and animals and is thought to be zoonotic [38, 49]. The disease is known as tick-borne fever (TBF) in human and ruminants granulocytic anaplasmosis (HGA) in human. Tick-borne fever is characterized by high fever, which may last for one to 2 weeks, followed by a severe neutropenia, which makes the animals susceptible to secondary infections [39, 40]. Ruminants granulocytic anaplasmosis is characterized by fever, myalgia, chills, depression, and headache [47]. Anaplasmosis became a notifiable disease in 1999 [11, 20].

Anaplasmosis diagnosis is usually based on the microscopic examination (ME) of Giemsa-stained blood smears, serological, and molecular diagnostic procedures. Microscopic diagnosis may be difficult in carrier animals, thus various serological techniques have been used for the detection of Anaplasma-specific antibodies such as indirect immunofluorescence antibody (IFA), enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and complement fixation tests (CF) [9, 23].The competitive ELISA (cELISA) is depending on the use of a monoclonal antibody (Mab) ANAF16C1 that recognizes the conserved (MSP-5) antigen of different Anaplasma spp. [28, 46]. cELISA test has high sensitivity and specificity for detection of Anaplasma antibodies [27].

The “Gold standard” method for the diagnosis of Anaplasma spp. relies on the combination of the microscopic examination and cELISA [22].The indirect immunofluorescence antibody test is widely used for the diagnosis of blood protozoon and Rickettsia [25].The IFA test is commonly used in epidemiological studies because of its low costs [14, 25].

Molecular identification methods such as Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) have several advantages compared to the traditional serologic and blood smear tests [21]. PCR is the most sensitive and reliable diagnostic tool that allows discriminating between Anaplasma subspecies [44]. In addition, PCR can detect the coinfections with multiple Anaplamsa subspecies [5].

The aim of the study was to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the different diagnostic tools used for detecting anaplasmosis in sheep and goats.

Methods

Study design

This was a prospective study conducted according tothe Standards for Reporting Diagnosis Accuracy Studies (STARD) [13].

Animals

Blood samples were collected from sheep and goats from the local abattoir and different farms in Medina, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Eligibility criteria were suspicion of anaplasmosis among sheep and goats in Medina, which has a subtropical climate and borders on a fully tropical climate. The animals were surveyed for anaplasmosis from September 2011 to November 2012 (Fig. 1). Microscopic examination of blood smears was basically used as a reference diagnosis of anaplasmosis. cELISA and IFA are the most commonly used serological methods to detect antibodies against Anaplasma. PCR is the most reliable diagnosis of Anaplasma infection.
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Study flow chart

Blood samples collection

A total of 312 blood samples were collected from 189 sheep and 123 goats of different age groups (2 months to 6 years) and sources (local and imported). The imported animals were either from Sudan, Pakistan, Australia, and Somalia. Venous blood samples were collected from each individual animal in two 4 ml vacutainer tubes (BD vacutainer, BD-Plymouth, UK), one containing EDTA and one additive-free. To separate sera, the additive-free blood was allowed to clot for about 15–30 min at room temperature. The tubes then centrifuged at 1000–2000 rpm for 10 min and serum was collected. The serum specimens were stored at − 20 °C for further use.

Microscopic examination

Thin blood smears were prepared for microscopic examination accordingly the standard protocol [7].The slides were allowed to air-dry before being fixed with absolute methanol. Fixed smears were stained with 10% Giemsa (Cresent diagnostic, KSA) and examined by using compound microscope under oil immersion lens. About 25 fields were examined from each slide for the presence of Anaplasma and the number of infected erythrocytes. Anaplasma was identified on the basis of its morphology [8].

Competitive ELISA (cELISA) assay

Sera were screened for the presence of Anaplasma antibodies by using the VMRD cELISA kit (VMRD Inc., Pullman, WA, USA), according to the manufacturer instructions. The optical density (OD) was measured at 650 nm with an ELISA microplate reader MR-960 (perlong Medical Equipment Co., Ltd., China). The results were calculated according to the formula: 100 [1-(Sample OD ÷ Negative Control OD)]. The positive sample OD must be > 30%.

Immunofluorescence (IFA)assay

Sera were screened for Anaplasma immunoglobulin G (IgG) by a semi-quantitative indirect IFA commercial kit (Fuller, USA), according to the manufacturer instructions. Briefly, sera samples were diluted in phosphate-buffer saline (PBS) and 25 μl were transferred to the slide wells. The slides were incubated at 35 °C for 30 min then washed with PBS followed by distilled water to remove the unreacted antibodies. Twenty five μl anti-ovine conjugate with DyLight 488 dye (Fuller, USA) were added and incubated then removed by washing as previously described. The slide was examined by standard fluorescence microscopy (Olympus BX50, Japan) at 400X magnification, the positive reaction appears as green fluorescent small cocci with a red background.

DNA extraction and PCR

DNA extraction was carried out using the G-spinTM Total DNA Extraction Kit (iNtRON Biotechnology, Korea) according to the instructions of the manufacturer. PCR was performed to detect both Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Anaplasma ovis using BioinGentech Veterinary PCR Kits (Concepcion, Chile) according to the instructions of the manufacturer. The cycling conditions were initial denaturation at 94 °C for 2 min, 35 cycles (94 °C 30 s, 57 °C30 s, 72 °C 30 sec) and a final extension at 72 °C for 5 min.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 20.0 (SPSS Inc. Chicago, USA). Eta-square and Chi-square were applied to compare the percentage of positive samples by each method. The differences were considered statistically significant when P-value is< 0.05.

Results

The examined animals

A total of 189 (60.6%) paired samples were collected from sheep and 123 (39.4%) were obtained from goats. As shown in (Table 1), the animals were classified into three age groups: group I included samples collected from animals aged2 months to 2 years (128; 41.5%), group II included animals > 2 -4 years (149; 47%), and group III included animals > 4 – 6 years (35; 12%). According to the country of origin,189 (60.6%) of the sampled animals were locally bred and included 107 (56.6%) samples collected from sheep and 82 (43.4%) samples of goats, and 123 (39.4%) animals were imported including 82 (66.7%) sheep and 41(33.3%) goats.
Table 1

Basic demographics of the sampled animals

Categories

 

N (%)

Gender

Female

119 (38.1%)

Male

193 (61.9%)

Host

Sheep

189 (60.6%)

Goat

123 (39.4%)

Source

Imported

123 (39.4%)

Local

189 (60.6%)

Age

Age group I (2 m-2y)

128 (41.5%)

Age group II (2y-4y)

149 (47%)

Age group III (4y-6y)

35 (12%)

Microscopic examination

A total of 312 blood smears were examined for the presence of intra-erythrocytic inclusions using Giemsa stain. Anaplasma spp. appeared as small spherical deep purple intraerythrocytic inclusions, measuring about 0.2 to 0.5 μm (Fig. 2a, b). Among the collected specimens, 130 were found positive with an overall prevalence of 43.6%. Among the 130 positive animals, 86 (45.5%)were sheep and 50 (40.7%) were goat (Table 2). The difference in Anapalsma prevalence in sheep and goats was not significant (P > 0.05).The highest infection rate of Anaplasma spp. was among animals aged 2 m–2y, in sheep (47/86; 54.6%)and goats (22/50; 44%) with a significant correlation (P < 0.05). The infection rate was higher albeit not significantly among the imported animals, 64.6% in sheep and 82.9% in goats compared to locally bred animals. Male animals had a higher and significant (P < 0.05) infection rate in sheep (66/86; 76.7%) and goats (38/50; 76%) compared to females.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2

a, b Anaplasma species under microscope appears as small and roughly spherical intraerythrocytic parasite measuring about 0.2 to 0.5 μm

Table 2

Microscopic examination

Host

Demographic factor

Positive animals percentage

Sheep (n = 189)

Gender

Male (128)

66 (34.9%)a

Female (61)

20 (10.6%)

Age

Group I (84)

47 (24.9%)a

Group II (89)

36 (19.0%)

Group III (16)

3 (1.6%)

Source

imported (82)

53 (28.1%)

Local (107)

33 (17.5%)

Goat (n = 123)

Gender

Male (65)

38 (30.9%)a

Female (58)

12 (9.8%)

Age

Group I (44)

22 (17.9%)a

Group II (60)

24 (19.5%)

Group III (19)

4 (3.3%)

Source

Imported (41)

34 (27.6%)

Local (82)

16 ( 13.0%)

Age group I (2 months to 2 years), group II (> 2 -4 years), group III (> 4 - 6 years)

aSignificant variation

Competitive inhibition ELISA (cELISA) assay

The overall prevalence of Anaplasma spp. using cELISA was 47.4% (n = 148), including 93 (49.2%) specimens from sheep and 55 (44.7%) from goats. In sheep, the infection rates were higher among males (37%), animals of the age group I (61.1%). and imported animals (71.1%). While in goats, the prevalence was 60% among males, 59.1% among age group I animals, and 87.8% in the imported animals (Table 3). Comparing the data obtained from microscopic examination with cELISA, it was observed that cELISA has high sensitivity (91.9%) and specificity (86.9%) than microscopic examination. The Gold standard of truth for the diagnosis of Anaplasma spp. relies on the combination of the microscopic examination and cELISA.
Table 3

Seroprevalence of anaplasma species among sheep and goats

Host

Serological assay

Gender

**Age

Source

Female

Male

Group I

Group II

Group III

Imported

Local

Sheep

cELISA

70 (37.0%)

23 (12.2%)

52 (61.1%)

39 (43.8%)

2 (12.5%)

59 (71.1%)

34 (31.7%)

IFA

82 (43.4%)

31 (16.4%)

60 (31.7%)

45 (23.8%)

8 (4.2%)

69 (36.5%)

44 (23.3%)

Goat

cELISA

39 (60.0%)*

16 (27.6%)

26 (59.1%)

25 (41.7%)

4 (21.1%)

36 (87.8%)

19 (23.1%)

IFA

45 (36.6%)*

21 (27.6%)

30 (24.4%)

29 (23.6%)

7 (5.7%)

43 (34.9%)

23 (18.7%)

* statistically significant (P-value is < 0.05)

**statistically highly significant (P-value is < 0.01)

Immunofluorescence (IFA)assay

The presence of the intraerythrocytic Anaplasma spp. is indicated by greenish yellow or yellowish fluorescence (Fig. 3a, b). The overall prevalence of Anaplasma spp. using IFA was 57.4% (179), of which113 (59.8%) were sheep and 66 (53.7%) were goats (Table 3). In sheep, the infection rate was higher among males (43.4%), animals of the age group I (31.7%), and imported animals (36.5%). While in goats, the prevalence was 36.6% among males, 24.4% among age group I animals, and 34.9% in imported animals. The agreement between positive and negative results in cELISA and IFA were 82.7% (148/179). The remainder 17.3% (31 samples) was represented by samples, which were positive in IFA and negative in cELISA. No samples were found to be negative in IFA but positive in cELISA. The Gold Standard for the detection of Anaplasma spp. is the concordance of both cELISA and microscopic examination results. The sensitivity and specificity of IFA were 100 and 93.3% respectively, compared with the gold standard (Table 4).
Fig. 3
Fig. 3

a, b Anaplasma species under fluorescent microscope appears green fluorescent small cocci with a red back ground

Table 4

Sensitivity and specificity of IFA as compared with gold standard (ELISA and ME) of anaplasma spp.

 

Gold Standard

 

Positive

Negative

Total

IFA test

positive

125

11

136

Negative

0

153

153

Total*

125

164

289

* statistically significant (P-value is < 0.05)

**statistically highly significant (P-value is < 0.01)

PCR analysis

Molecular identification of Anaplasma spp. revealed two distinct species: Anaplasma ovis (Fig. 4) and Anaplasma phagocytophilum (Fig. 5). Anaplasma ovis was detected in 25.3% (25.9% of sheep and 24.4% of goats) of the sampled animals, while Anaplasma phagocytophilum was detected in 36.9% (39.2% of sheep and 33.3% of goats). Mixed infections with the two species were detected in18.9% of the animals (20.6% of sheep and 16.3% of goats).The sensitivity and specificity of PCR assay was 73.2 and 89% respectively when compared with microscopic examination (Table 5).
Fig. 4
Fig. 4

Agarose gel electrophoreses of PCR products of Anaplasma ovis amplified from DNA purified from sheep and goats blood samples. Right arrowhead indicates position of the 271 bp PCR product

Fig. 5
Fig. 5

Agarose gel electrophoreses of PCR products of Anaplasma phagocytophilum amplified from DNA purified from sheep and goats blood samples. Right arrowhead indicates position of the 236 bp PCR product

Table 5

Molecular identification

 

Anaplasma spp.

Gender

**Age

Source

  

Male

Female

Group I

Group II

Group III

Imported

Local

Sheep

A. ovis

35 (18.5%)

14 (7.4%)

26 (13.8%)

23 (12.2%)

0

30 (15.9%)

19 (10.0%)

A. phagocytophylum

50 (26.5%)

24 (12.7%)

37 (19.6%)

31 (16.4%)

6 (4.8%)

38 (20.1%)

36 (19.0%)

Goat

A. ovis

*19 (60.0%)

11 (27.6%)

13 (15.4%)

13 (15.4%)

4 (3.3%)

16 (13.0%)

14 (11.4%)

A. phagocytophylum

20 (16.3%)

21 (17.0%)

23 (18.7%)

16 (13.0%)

2 (1.6%)

15 (12.2%)

26 (21.1%)

* statistically significant (P-value is < 0.05)

**statistically highly significant (P-value is < 0.01)

Discussion

Anaplasmosis frequently occurs in tropical and subtropical regions, and it is a major problem to small ruminants [34]. Epidemiologic studies aimed to determine the prevalence of anaplasmosis uses different diagnostic tools, such as microscopic examination of stained blood smears, serological, and molecular tests. The reliability of the diagnostic tests is crucial for accurate diagnosis and estimation of the disease prevalence. Despite microscopic examination and serologic tests are practical and reliable diagnostics to detect Anaplasma spp. infection, they have limitations [1, 47]. The accuracy of stained blood smear examination can be hindered by the low number of infected cells, lack of expertise of the examiner, and/or the occurrence of intracellular artifacts [2, 3]. In the early acute phase of infection, serologic assays have limited value, due to the absence of detectable antibodies [5, 42].

Our results showed that the number of infected animals by Anaplasma spp. was 43.6% (45.6% in sheep and 40.7% in goats) when examined microscopically compared to 47.4% (49.2% in sheep and 44.7% in goats) using cELISA and 57.4% (59.8% in sheep and 53.7% in goats) by using IFA. On the other hand, the prevalence using PCR was 62.2% (65.1% in sheep and 57.7% in goats), consistent with previous findings [22]. The variability of infection rates determined by different methods maybe attributed to several factors as, age, gender, and species. Previous studies have shown that some cases of anaplasmosis might be missed depending on the detection method used [30, 33].

In this study, sheep had a higher prevalence of anaplasmosis than goats in agreement with previous studies in India and Cyprus [12, 45]. Based on the age factor, it was found that age group I (2 m-2 yrs) had the highest rate of anaplasmosis. Also, gender seemed to play a role whereby anaplasmosis was more prevalent in males than in females. Additionally, Anaplasma infection rates were higher among the imported sheep and goats compared with local animals. This could be attributed to the presence of a specific tick vector in the source countries.

Anaplasma is routinely diagnosed by microscopic examination of Giemsa stained blood smears and detection of intraerythrocytic Anaplasma inclusions. Microscopic examination is suitable for diagnosis of acute anaplasmosis, but it is not applicable for the detection of pre-symptomatic or carrier cases due to low numbers of Anaplasma infected cells in circulation, which falls below the detection limit [17, 32].The cELISA currently used for diagnosis of anaplasmosis is based on the use of ANAF16C1 Mab that recognizes the MSP5 antigen in A. marginale, A. central and A. ovis. The MSP-5 antigen is conserved among all known Anaplasma spp. [15, 16, 29]. Our results showed that cELISA enabled the detection of more Anaplasma cases compared to microscopic examination (62.2% vs. 43.6%, respectively), with 91.9% sensitivity and 86.9% specificity. This was consistent with the findings of Naqid and Zangana [30] who found that the prevalence of A. ovis infection in goats was lower (55.9%) using Giemsa stained blood smears compared to cELISA (75.2%).

Indirect fluorescent antibody technique has been recommended and has proven sensitivity for the diagnosis of haemoparasites as Anaplasma spp. [35]. Several studies have reported that IFA may be used as an alternative to PCR, CF, and ELISA [10, 23, 38] for the detection of anaplasmosis among sheep and goats [12, 49]. In this study, we found that IFA had high sensitivity (100%) and specificity (91.9%) when compared to the Gold standard (combination of ME and cELISA). A previous study reported a similar level of specificity and sensitivity for IFA when compared with cELISA [22].

Detection of carrier animals is very important, as they play a significant role in the disease epidemiology as reservoirs. Furthermore, it is essential for epidemiologic studies to discriminate between Anaplasma species [31]. PCR is reported to be more sensitive than conventional parasitological techniques in different hosts. It also enables the identification of different species [18, 19]. Therefore, we also evaluated PCR for detection of Anaplasma species in our animals in comparison with ME, cELISA, and IFA.

The sensitivity of the PCR results was 100% compared to the other diagnostic results. However, in agreement with other studies [30, 32], our results revealed that only 70% of the PCR-positive animals were smear positive. This may be due to animals being examined during the early stage of infection when Anaplasma-infected cells are low. Having the ability to detect and differentiate between Anaplasma species is important for their accurate diagnosis and better understanding of their burden [11, 42]. Using PCR, we were also able to differentiate between A. ovis and A. phagocytophilum and to identify animals with mixed infections. In agreement with other studies, our results revealed that 70% of PCR-positive animals were smear positive. This may be due to the animals examined in early stage and there is a low number of Anaplasma cells in the circulating blood. Our data and those of others, suggest that PCR may provide a more reliable diagnosis of anaplasmosis particularly during early stages of infection, which would ensure proper management of infected animals and reduction of unnecessary antibiotic use [4, 11].

Comparing the sensitivity of the PCR assay with the cELISA, a lower percentage of animals were seropositive than PCR-positive. A previous study on anaplasmosis seroprevalence using cELISA showed that 88% was seropositive while 76% were positive by using PCR [22]. In our study,47.4% was seropositive while 62.2% were PCR-positive; which means that 14.8% of PCR-positive sera were seronegative, this may occur in the early stage of infection where antibodies have not yet been produced [5].

The prevalence of A. phagocytophylum in sheep was 39.2%, and in goats it was 33.3%. While, a lower prevalence of A. ovis was reported among sheep and goats, 25.9 and 24.3%, respectively, consistent with previous studies in Cyprus, China, Switzerland, and Italy [12, 37, 44, 49].

The zoonotic potential of A. phagocytophilum was previously documented [36, 41].The absence of host specificity of A. phagocytophilum allows the infection of the human by animal strains and vice versa [6]. Thus, the high prevalence A. phagocytophilum detected in the present study constitutes a risk to humans.

Conclusions

Proper disease diagnosis requires reliable tests. Therefore, it is important to evaluate the existing diagnostic methods. The evaluation depends on several factors as; whether the test is suitable for the field and/or the laboratory settings; cost; and time required. Microscopic examination provides reliable results, but it is not suitable to diagnose carrier animals. cELISA is known for its ease of use, low cost, and for being quantitative. IFA is an economical and easy method to perform. In the present study, IFA was highly specific and sensitive, but it requires special laboratory settings such as fluorescent microscope. PCR is the most sensitive and reliable diagnostic tool that achieves simultaneous differentiation between different Anaplasma subspecies.

Abbreviations

cELISA: 

Competitive ELISA

CF: 

Complement fixation tests

ELISA: 

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay

IFA: 

Indirect fluorescence antibody

IgG: 

Immunoglobulin G

Mab: 

Monoclonal antibody

ME: 

Microscopic examination

MSP5: 

A protein epitope of major surface protein 5

OD: 

The optical density

PBS: 

Phosphate-buffer saline

PCR: 

Polymerase chain reaction

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Taha, H.A. for her valuable contributions.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

SII designed the research, established the experiments scheme, analyzed the data, oriented the statistical results, and wrote the manuscript. ANM, collected the sample, and performed laboratory experiments. ZH contributed to the design and wrote the manuscript with SII. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the author’s institution (Taibah University) and animals owner approval was obtained for collecting the samples.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

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)
Biology Department, Faculty of Science, Taibah University, Al- madinah Al-munawarah, Saudi Arabia
(2)
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Bacteriology, Immunology and Mycology, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt
(3)
Department of Experimental Pathology, Immunology & Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
(4)
Center for Infectious Diseases Research, Faculty of Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon

References

  1. Aguero-Rosenfeld ME. Diagnosis of human granulocytic ehrlichiosis: state of the art. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2002;2:233–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakken JS, Aguero-Rosenfeld ME, Tilden RL, Wormser GP, Horowitz HW, Raffalli JT, Baluch M, Riddell D, Walls JJ, Dumler JS. Serial measurements of hematologic counts during the active phase of human granulocytic ehrlichiosis. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;32:862–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakken JS, Dumler JS. Human granulocytic ehrlichiosis. Clin Infect Dis. 2000;31:554–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakken JS, Dumler JS. Clinical diagnosis and treatment of human granulocytotropic anaplasmosis. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2006;1078:236–47.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bakken JS, Haller I, Riddell D, Walls JJ, Dumler JS. The serological response of patients infected with the agent of human granulocytic ehrlichiosis. Clin Infect Dis. 2002;34:22–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Ben Said M, Belkahia H, Alberti A, Zobba R, Bousrih M, Yahiaoui M. Molecular survey of Anaplasma species in small ruminants reveals the presence of novel strains closely related to A. phagocytophilum in Tunisia. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2015;15(10):580–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Benjamin MM. Outline of veterinary clinical pathology. III ed. New Delhi: Kalyani Publishers; 2005.Google Scholar
  8. Bowmann DD. George’s parasitology for veterinarians. 9th ed. Louis: Saunders Elsevier, St; 2009.Google Scholar
  9. Bradway DS, Torioni de Echaide S, Knowles DP, Hennager SG, McElwain TF. Sensitivity and specificity of the complement fixation test for detection of cattle persistently infected with Anaplas mamarginale. J Vet Diagn Investig. 2001;13(1):79–81.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Anaplasmosis: statistics and epidemiology. 2016. http://www.cdc.gov/anaplasmosis/stats/. Accessed 2016.
  11. Chapman AS, Bakken JS, Folk SM, Paddock CD, Bloch KC, Krusell A, Sexton DJ, Buckingham SC, Marshall GS, Storch GA, Dasch GA, McQuiston JH, Swerdlow DL, Dumler SJ, Nicholson WL, Walker DH, Eremeeva ME, Ohl CA, Tickborne Rickettsial Diseases Working Group, CDC. Diagnosis and management of tickborne rickettsial diseases; 2006.Google Scholar
  12. Chochlakis D, Ioannou I, Sharif L, Kokkini S, Hristophi N, Dimitriou T, Tselentis Y, Psaroulaki A. Prevalence of Anaplasma sp. in goats and sheep in Cyprus. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2009;9(5):457–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen JF, Korevaar DA, Altman DG, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Hooft L, Irwig L, Levine D, Reitsma JB, de Vet HC, Bossuyt PM. STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration. Br Med J Open 2016; 6: 012799.Google Scholar
  14. De Kroon JF, NM PÃ, Franssen FF, Uilenberg G. The indirect fluorescent antibody test for bovine anaplasmosis. VetQ. 1990;12(2):124–8.Google Scholar
  15. de la Fuente J, Lew A, Lutz H, Meli ML, Hofmann-Lehmann R, Shkap V, Molad T, Mangold AJ, Almazán C, Naranjo V, Gortázar C, Torina A, Caracappa S, García-Pérez AL, Barral M, Oporto B, Ceci L, Carelli G, Blouin EF, Kocan KM. Genetic diversity of Anaplasma species major surface proteins and implications for anaplasmosis serodiagnosis and vaccine development. Anim Health Res Rev. 2005;6:75–89.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. De la Fuente J, Vicente J, Hofle U, Ruiz-Fons F, Fernández de Mera IG, van den Bussche RA, Kocan KM, Gortazar C. Anaplasma infection in free-ranging Iberian red deer in the region of Castilla-La Mancha Spain. Vet Microbiol. 2004;100:163–73.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. de Waal T. Advances in diagnosis of protozoan diseases. Vet Parasitol. 2012;189:65–74.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Desquesnes M, Davila AMR. Application of PCR-based tools for detection and identification of animal trypanosomes; a review and perspectives. Vet Parasitol. 2002;109(3-4):213–33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Dey A, Singh S. Progress of science from microscopy to microarrays (part 1): diagnosis of parasitic diseases. J Lab Phys. 2009;1:2–6.Google Scholar
  20. Dumler JS, Barat NC, Barat CE, Bakken JS. Human granulocytic anaplasmosis and macrophage activation. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45:199–204.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Dumler JS, Brouqui P. Molecular diagnosis of human granulocytic anaplasmosis. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2004;4:559–69.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Ekici OD, Sevinc F. Comparison of cELISA and IFA tests in the serodiagnosis of anaplasmosis in cattle. Afri J Microbiol Res. 2011;5(10):1188–91.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Goff WL, Stiller D, Roeder RA, Johnson LW, Falk D, Gorham JR, McGuire TC. Comparison of a DNA probe, complement fixation and indirect immunofluorescence tests for diagnosing Anaplasma marginale in suspected carrier cattle. Vet Microbiol. 1990;24:381–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hornok S, Elek V, de la Fuente J, Naranjo V, Farkas R. First serological and molecular evidence on the endemicity of Anaplasma ovis and A. marginale in Hungary. Vet Microbiol. 2007;122(3–4):316–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Hungerford LL, Smith RD. Variations in seroprevalence and host factors for bovine Anaplasmosis in Illionis. Vet Res Com. 1997;21:9–18.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Jonsson NN, Bock RE, Jorgensen WK. Productivity and health effects of anaplasmosis and babesiosis on Bosindicus cattle and their crosses, and the effects of differing intensity of tick control in Australia. Vet Parasitol. 2008;155(1–2):1–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Knowles D, Torioni de Echaide S, Palmer G, McGuire T, Stiller D, McElwain T. Antibody against an Anaplasma marginale MSP5 epitope common to tick and erythrocyte stages identifies persistently infected cattle. J Clin Microbiol. 1996;34:2225–30.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Mason KL, Gonzalez MV, Chung C, Mousel MR, White SN, Taylor JB, Scoles GA. Validation of an improved Anaplasma antibody competitive ELISA for detection of Anaplasma ovis antibody in domestic sheep. J Vet Diagn Investig. 2017;29(5):763–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. McElwain TF. Bovine anaplasmosis. In: Manual of standards for diagnostic tests and vaccines for terrestrial animals. Paris office Int. des.Epizoo; 2004. p. 494–506.Google Scholar
  30. Nazifi S, Razavi SM, Mansourian M, Nikahval B, Moghaddam M. Studies on correlations among parasitaemia and some hemolytic indices in two tropical diseases (theileriosis and anaplasmosis) in Fars province of Iran. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2008;40:47–53.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Niu QL, Luo JX, Guan GQ, Ma ML, Liu ZJ, Liu AH, et al. Detection and differentiation of ovine Theileria and Babesia by reverse line blotting in China. Parasitol Res. 2009;104(6):1417–23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Noaman V, Shayan P. Comparison of microscopy and PCR-RFLP for detection of Anaplasma marginale in carrier cattle. Iran J Microbiol. 2010;2(2):89–94.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Renneker S, Abdo J, Bakheit MA, Kullmann B, Beyer D, Ahmed J. Coinfection of sheep with Anaplasma, Theileria and Babesia species in the Kurdistan region, Iraq. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2013;60(2):113–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Ros-Garcia A, Barandika JF, Garcia-Perez AL, Juste RA, Hurtado A. Assessment of exposure to piroplasms in sheep grazing in communal mountain pastures by using a multiplex DNA bead-based suspension array. Parasit Vectors. 2013;6(1):277.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Salih DA, El Hussein AM, Seitzer U, Ahmed JS. Epidemiological studies on tick-borne diseases of cattle in central Equatoria state, southern Sudan. Parasitol Res. 2007;101(4):1035–44.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Scharf W, Schauer S, Freyburger F, Petrovec M, Schaarschmidt-Kiener D, Liebisch G, et al. Distinct host species correlate with Anaplasma phagocytophilum ankA gene clusters. J ClinMicrobiol. 2011;49:790–6.Google Scholar
  37. Silaghi C1, Scheuerle MC, Friche Passos LM, Thiel C, Pfister K. PCR detection of Anaplasma phagocytophilum in goat flocks in an area endemic for tick-borne fever in Switzerland. Parasite. 2011;18(1):57–62.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Silva VMG, Araújo FR, Madruga CR, Soares CO, Kessler RH, Almeida MAO, Fragoso SP, Santos LR, Ramos CAN, Bacanelli G, Torres Júnior RAA. Comparison between indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for Anaplasma marginale antibodies with recombinant major surface protein 5 and initial body antigens. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro. 2006;101(5):511–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Stuen S, Granquist E, Silaghi C. Anaplasma phagocytophilum- a widespread multi-host pathogen with highly adaptive strategies. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2013;3:31.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Stuen S. Anaplasma phagocytophilum – the most widespread tick-borne infection in animals in Europe. Vet Res Commun. 2007;31:79-84.Google Scholar
  41. The center of food security and public health2013. http://www.cfsph.iastate.edu/Zoonoses/. Accessed 2013.
  42. Thomas RJ, Dumler JS, Carlyon JA. Current management of human granulocytic anaplasmosis, human monocytic ehrlichiosis and Ehrlichia ewingii ehrlichiosis. Expert Rev Anti-Infect Ther. 2009;7:709–22.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Torina A, Caracappa S. Tick-borne diseases in sheep and goats: clinical and diagnostic aspects. Small Rumin Res. 2012;106:S6–S11.Google Scholar
  44. Torina A, Agnone A, Blanda V, Alongi A, D’Agostino R, Caracappa S, Marino AMF, Di Marco V, de la Fuente J. Development and validation of two PCR tests for the detection of and differentiation between Anaplasma ovis and Anaplasma marginale. Ticks Tick-Borne Dis. 2012;3(5-6):283–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Velusamy R, Rani N, Ponnudurai G, Anbarasi P. Prevalence of intestinal and haemoprotozoan parasites of small ruminants in Tamil Nadu, India. Vet World. 2015;8(10):1205–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Visser ES, McGuire TC, Palmer GH, Davis WC, Shkap V, Pipano E, Knowles DP. The Anaplasma marginale msp 5 gene encodes a 19-kilodalton protein conserved in all recognized Anaplasma species. Infect Immun. 1992;60:5139–44.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Woldehiwet Z. The natural history of Anaplasma phagocytophilum. Vet Parasitol. 2010;167(2-4):108–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Ybañez AP, Sashika M, Inokuma H. The phylogenetic position of Anaplasma bovis and inferences on the phylogeny of the genus Anaplasma. J Vet Med Sci. 2014;76:307.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhang XC, Zhang LX, Li WH, Wang SW, Sun YL, Wang YY, Guan ZZ, Liu XJ, Yang YS, Zhang SG, Yu HL, Zhang LJ. Ehrlichiosis and zoonotic anaplasmosis in suburban areas of Beijing, China. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2012;12(11):932–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

Advertisement