O. Yaşar TEL, Mehmet AKAN

Kedi ve köpeklerden dermatofitlerin izolasyonu

Bu çalışmada kedi ve köpeklerden alınan materyallerin dermatofitozis yönünden direkt mikroskopik incelenmesi, kültür yöntemiyle etken izolasyonu ve izole edilen dermatofit türlerinin moleküler tekniklerle doğrulanması amaçlanmıştır. Bu çalışma kapsamında toplam 268 materyal dermatofit varlığı yönünden incelendi. Direkt mikroskopik incelemede, incelenen 268 materyalin 39 (%14.5)’unda mantar hifa ve/veya sporları görüldü. Kültür işlemi sonrasında 40 (%14.9) materyalden dermatofit izolasyonu gerçekleştirildi. İncelenen materyallerin orijinleri dikkate alındığında, kedi materyallerinde %42 köpek materyallerinde %7.5 oranında dermatofit izole edildi. İzolasyon amacıyla kullanılan Dermatofit test besiyeri (DTM)’nde, Sabouraud dekstroz agar (SDA)’a göre daha fazla oranda etken izole edildi. İzole edilen etkenlerin hayvan türlerine dağılımı, kedilerde %95.9’u Microsporum canis ve %4,1’i Microsporum nanum; köpekler materyallerinden ise, %50 Microsporum canis, %18.7 Trichophyton mentagrophytes, %12.5 Trichophyton terrestre, %12.5 Microsporum gypseum ve %6.3 Microsporum nanum olarak saptandı. Bu çalışmada kedi ve köpeklerde dermatofitozis görülme sıklığına cinsiyetin etkisinin olmadığı belirlenirken (p>0.05); kedilerde, 1 yaşın altındaki hayvanlarda dermatofitoz görülme sıklığı diğer yaş gruplarındakilere göre önemli bulundu (p≤0.01). Yapılan PCR çalışmalarında, izole edilen tüm suşların dermatofit olduğu ortaya kondu. Sonuç olarak, dermatofitozis şüphesiyle getirilen kedi ve köpeklerden Microsporum canis dominant etken olarak üredi ve izolasyon amacıyla DTM’nin SDA’ya göre daha etkin olduğu saptandı. İzole edilen türlerin doğrulanmasında moleküler tekniklerin teşhiste kullanılabilirliği ortaya konuldu. Ayrıca Microsporum canis’in zoonotik önemi göz önüne alındığında, hayvan sahipleri ve veteriner hekimlerin dermatofit şüpheli hayvanlarla temasta dikkatli olmaları gerektiği sonucuna varıldı.

Isolation of dermatophytes from cats and dogs

The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical samples obtained from cats and dogs for dermatophyte identification by direct microscopy, dermatophyte isolation by cultural methods, respectively and to confirm these by molecular methods. A total of 268 material was examined for the isolation of dermatophyte. Fungal hyphas and/or spores were observed in 39 (14.5 %) out of 268 materials following direct microscopy. Dermatophyte isolations were achieved from 40 (14.9 %) materials after the culture process. Considering the origins of materials examined, dermatophyte isolation ratios were 42 % in cat materials and 7.5 % in dogs’. Higher isolation rates were achieved on dermatophyte test medium (DTM) than sabouraud dextrose agar (SDA) after studies. The distribution of isolated strains according to the species of animals was determined to be 95.9 % Microsporum canis and 4.1 % Microsporum nanum in cats; 50 % Microsporum canis, 18.7 % Trichophyton mentagrophytes, 12.5 % Trichophyton terrestre, 12.5 Microsporum gypseum and 6.3 % Microsporum nanum in dogs. In this study, no significant effect of sex on dermatophytosis prevalence (p>0.05) was detected in cats, while the prevalences were found to be significant (p≤0.01) in animals (cats and/or) those were smaller than 1 year old compared to the animals of other age groups. It was determinated that all of the isolated strains were determined to be dermatophyte species following PCR studies. As a conclusion, Microsporum canis was the dominantly isolated agent from dermatophytosis suspected cats and dogs and DTM was determined to be more effective than SDA concerning dermatophyte isolations. The feasibility of molecular techniques for confirmation of laboratory diagnosis of isolated strains had been shown. It was also concluded that, owners and veterinarians should be aware and careful when they are in contact with suspected animals, concerning the zoonotical importance of Microsporum canis.

PDF

___

1. Brilhante RSN, Cavalcante CSP, Soares-Junior FA, Cordeiro RA, Sidrim JJC, Rocha MFG (2003): High rate of Microsporum canis feline and canine dermatophtoses in Northeast Brazil: Epidemiological and diagnostic features. Mycopathologia, 156, 303-308.
2. Cabanes FJ, Abarca ML, Bragulat MR (1997): Dermatophytes isolated from domestic animals in Barcelona, Spain. Mycopathologia, 137, 107-113.
3. Cabanes FJ (2000): Dermatophytes in domestic animals In: Biology of Dermatophytes and other Keratinophilic Fungi. Ed.: Kushwaha RKS, Guarro J. Bilbao: Revista Iberoamericana de Micologia.
4. Cafarchia C, Romito D, Sasanelli M, Lia R, Capelli G, Otranto D (2004): The epidemiology of canine and feline dermatophytoses in southern Italy. Mycoses, 47, 508-513.
5. Caretta G, Manciantı F, Ajello L (1989): Dermatophytes and keratinophilic fungi in cats and dogs. Mycoses, 32, 620-626.
6. Faggi E, Pini G, Campisi E, Bertellini C, Difonza E, Mancianti F (2001): Application of PCR to distinguish common species of dermatophytes. J. Clin. Microbiol, 39, 3382-3385.
7. Jackson CJ, Barton RC, Evans EG (1999): Species identification and strain differantiation of dermatophyte fungi by analysis of ribosomal-DNA intergenic spacer regions. J. Clin. Microbiol, 31, 931-936.
8. Jand SK, Gupta MP (1989): Dermatomycosis in dogs. Mycoses, 32, 104-105
9. Kac G (2000): Molecular approaches to the study of dermatophytes. Med. Mycol, 38, 329-336
10. Kanbe T, Suzuki Y, Kamiya A, Mochizuki T, Machiko F, Kikuchi A (2003a): PCR-based identification of common dermatophyte species using primer sets specific for DNA topoisomerase II genes. J Dermatol Sci, 32, 151-161.
11. Kanbe T, Suzuki Y, Kamiya A, Mochizuki T, Kawasaki M, Fujihiro M, Kikuchi A (2003b): Species-identification of dermatophytes Trichophyton, Microsporum and Epidermophyton by PCR and PCR-RFLP targeting of DNA topoisomerase II genes. J Dermatol Sci, 33, 41-54.
12. Kano R, Hirai A, Muramatsu M, Watari T, Hasegawa A. (2003): Direct detection of dermatophytes in skin samples based of chitin synthase 1 (CHS1) gene. J. Vet. Med. Sci, 65, 267-270.
13. Khosravi AR, Mahmoudi M (2003): Dermatophytes isolated from domestic animals in Iran. Mycoses, 46, 222-225.
14. Liu D, Coloe S, Baird R, Pedersen J (1996): Use of arbitrarily primed polymerase chain reaction to differentiate Trichophyton dermatophytes. FEMS Microbiol. Lett, 136, 147-150.
15. Liu D, Coloe S, Baird R, Pedersen J (1997): Molecular determination of dermatophyte fungi using the arbitrarily primed polymerase chain reaction. Br. Vet. J. Dermatol, 131, 351-355.
16. Liu D, Coloe S, Baird R (2000a): Rapid mini preparation of fungal DNA for PCR. J. Clin. Microbiol, 38, 471.
17. Liu D, Coloe S, Baird R, Pedersen J (2000b): Application of PCR to the identification of dermatophyte fungi. J. Med. Microbiol, 49, 493-497.
18. Liu D, Pearce L, Lilley G, Coloe S, Baird R, Pedersen J (2001): A specific PCR assay for the dermatophyte fungus Microsporum canis. Med. Mycol, 39, 215-219.
19. Mancianti F, Nardoni S, Cecchi S, Corazza M, Taccini F (2002): Dermatophytes isolated from symptomatic dogs and cats in Tuscany, Italy during a 15-year-period. Mycopathologia, 156, 13-18.
20. Mochizuki T, Kawasaki M, Ishizaki H, Makimura K (1999): Identification of several clinical isolates of dermatophytes based on the nucleotide sequence of internal transcribed spacer 1 (ITS 1) in nuclear ribosomal DNA. J. Dermatol, 26, 276-281.
21. Paixao GC, Sidrim JJC, Campos GMM, Brilhante RSN, Rocha MFG (2001): Dermatophytes and saprobe fungi isolated from dogs and cats in the city of Fortaleza. Brazil. Arq. Bras. Med. Vet. Zootec, 53, 568-573.
22. Pinter L, Jurak Z, Ukalovic M, Susic V (1999): Epidemiological and clinical features of dermatophytoses in dogs and cats in Croatia between 1990 and 1998. Veterinarski. Arhiv, 69, 261- 270.
23. Quinn PJ, Carter ME, Markey B, Carter GR (1999): Clinical Veterinary Microbiology. London, England: Mosby-Wolfe. p: 381-390.
24. Ranganathan S, Arun Mazhi Balajee S, Mahendra Raja S (1998): A survey of dermatophytosis in animals in Madras, India. Mycopathologia, 140, 137-140.
25. Scott DW, Horn RT (1987): Zoonotic dermatoses of dogs and cats.Vet. Clin. North Am. Small. Anim. Pract, 17, 117-144.
26. Sparkes AH, Grufydd-Jones TJ, Shaw SE, Wright AI, Stokes CR (1993): Epidemiological and diagnostic features of canine and feline dermatophytosis in the United Kingdom from 1956 to 1991. Vet. Rec, 133, 57-61.
27. Thomas GM, Xu J (2002): Moleculer methods to identify pathogenic fungi In:Pathogenic Fungi in Humans and Animals. Ed.: DH Howard, Marcel Dekker, NY. p:677-702.
28. Thomsett LR (1986): Fungal diseases of the skin of small animals. Br. Vet. J, 142, 317-325.
29. Topçu AW, Söyletir G, Doğanay M (2002): İnfeksiyon Hastalıkları ve Mikrobiyolojisi cilt 2. Adana, Nobel Kitabevi.
30. Wright AI (1989): Ringworm in dogs and cats. J. Small Anim. Pract, 30, 242-249.