American journal of veterinary research · 1996
Polymerase chain reaction evidence of Ehrlichia chaffeensis, an etiologic agent of human ehrlichiosis, in dogs from southeast Virginia.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dawson J E, Biggie K L, Warner C K, Cookson K, Jenkins S, Levine J F, Olson J G
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To ascertain whether dogs are naturally infected with Ehrlichia chaffeensis.
ANIMALS: 74 dogs from 5 animal shelters and 1 kennel in 3 cities and 3 counties in southeastern Virginia were tested during June 1991.
PROCEDURE: Blood was drawn from 74 dogs; 73 were tested serologically for antibodies reactive to E chaffeensis and E canis, and 38 were tested for the presence of E chaffeensis, E canis, and E ewingii by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Serologic testing by indirect fluorescent antibody assay. Nested PCR used Ehrlichia wide outside primers to detect initial products, followed by use of species-specific primers for identification.
RESULTS: 28 (38.4%) dogs had a positive test result (minimum titer, > or = 1:64) for antibodies reactive to E chaffeensis, and 28 (38.4%) had a positive reaction to E canis. PCR analysis indicated that 8 (42.1%) dogs were positive for E chaffeensis and 6 dogs (31.6%) were positive for E ewingii. All dogs had negative results of the PCR test for E canis.
CONCLUSION: Dogs are potential reservoirs of E chaffeensis.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Canine E chaffeensis infection may be more prevalent than E canis or E ewingii infection in this region of the United States.
ANIMALS: 74 dogs from 5 animal shelters and 1 kennel in 3 cities and 3 counties in southeastern Virginia were tested during June 1991.
PROCEDURE: Blood was drawn from 74 dogs; 73 were tested serologically for antibodies reactive to E chaffeensis and E canis, and 38 were tested for the presence of E chaffeensis, E canis, and E ewingii by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Serologic testing by indirect fluorescent antibody assay. Nested PCR used Ehrlichia wide outside primers to detect initial products, followed by use of species-specific primers for identification.
RESULTS: 28 (38.4%) dogs had a positive test result (minimum titer, > or = 1:64) for antibodies reactive to E chaffeensis, and 28 (38.4%) had a positive reaction to E canis. PCR analysis indicated that 8 (42.1%) dogs were positive for E chaffeensis and 6 dogs (31.6%) were positive for E ewingii. All dogs had negative results of the PCR test for E canis.
CONCLUSION: Dogs are potential reservoirs of E chaffeensis.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Canine E chaffeensis infection may be more prevalent than E canis or E ewingii infection in this region of the United States.