Parasites & vectors · 2024
Molecular analysis of vector-borne pathogens in Eurasian badgers (Meles meles) from continental Europe.
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.
Lindhorst Zoë Tess Lara, Brandstetter Sebastian, Unterköfler Maria Sophia, Eigner Barbara, Spergser Joachim, Colyn Marc, Steinbach Peter, Ćirović Duško, Šprem Nikica, Dumić Tomislav, Veneziano Vincenzo, Müller Franz, Harl Josef, Deak Georgiana, Ionică Angela Monica, Heddergott Mike, Fuehrer Hans-Peter
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Vector-borne pathogens (VBPs) are increasing in significance in veterinary medicine and public health settings, with wildlife playing a potentially crucial role in their transmission. Eurasian badgers (Meles meles) are widely distributed across Europe. However, information currently available on the prevalence of VBPs in badgers is limited. The objective of the current study was to investigate the occurrence of Anaplasmataceae, Bartonella spp., Mycoplasma spp., Rickettsia spp., Piroplasmida, Trypanosomatida and Filarioidea in badgers and subsequently, based on the results, assess the potential risk to domestic animals, other wildlife and humans.
METHODS: Between 2017 and 2021, blood or spleen samples from 220 badgers were collected in nine continental European countries: Austria (n = 7), Bosnia and Herzegovina (n = 2), Croatia (n = 22), France (n = 44), Germany (n = 16), Hungary (n = 7), Italy (n = 16), Romania (n = 80) and Serbia (n = 26). VBPs were identified by performing PCR analysis on the samples, followed by Sanger sequencing. Additionally, to distinguish between different Babesia lineages we performed restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis on piroplasm-positive samples, using HinfI as restriction enzyme. A phylogenetic analysis was performed on Mycoplasma spp.
RESULTS: The pathogens identified were Babesia sp. badger type A (54%), B (23%), and C (37%); Trypanosoma pestanai (56%); Mycoplasma sp. (34%); Candidatus Mycoplasma haematomelis (8%); Candidatus Mycoplasma haematominutum (0.5%); and Ehrlichia spp. (2%). Rickettsia spp., Bartonella spp. and filarioid nematodes were not detected among the tested samples.
CONCLUSIONS: The large sample size and diverse study populations in this study provide valuable insights into the distribution and epidemiology of the analyzed pathogens. Some of the VBPs identified in our study show high similarity to those found in domestic animals, such as dogs. This finding suggests that badgers, as potential reservoirs for these pathogens, may pose a threat not only to other wildlife but also to domestic animals in close vicinity. Continuous surveillance is essential to monitor VBPs in wildlife as a means to enable the assessment of their impact on other wildlife species, domestic animals and human health.
METHODS: Between 2017 and 2021, blood or spleen samples from 220 badgers were collected in nine continental European countries: Austria (n = 7), Bosnia and Herzegovina (n = 2), Croatia (n = 22), France (n = 44), Germany (n = 16), Hungary (n = 7), Italy (n = 16), Romania (n = 80) and Serbia (n = 26). VBPs were identified by performing PCR analysis on the samples, followed by Sanger sequencing. Additionally, to distinguish between different Babesia lineages we performed restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis on piroplasm-positive samples, using HinfI as restriction enzyme. A phylogenetic analysis was performed on Mycoplasma spp.
RESULTS: The pathogens identified were Babesia sp. badger type A (54%), B (23%), and C (37%); Trypanosoma pestanai (56%); Mycoplasma sp. (34%); Candidatus Mycoplasma haematomelis (8%); Candidatus Mycoplasma haematominutum (0.5%); and Ehrlichia spp. (2%). Rickettsia spp., Bartonella spp. and filarioid nematodes were not detected among the tested samples.
CONCLUSIONS: The large sample size and diverse study populations in this study provide valuable insights into the distribution and epidemiology of the analyzed pathogens. Some of the VBPs identified in our study show high similarity to those found in domestic animals, such as dogs. This finding suggests that badgers, as potential reservoirs for these pathogens, may pose a threat not only to other wildlife but also to domestic animals in close vicinity. Continuous surveillance is essential to monitor VBPs in wildlife as a means to enable the assessment of their impact on other wildlife species, domestic animals and human health.