Özgür SELÇUK, OKTAY ALVER, Serkan ÇATIK, LEVENT AYDIN, BAYRAM ŞENLİK

Determination of Diagnostic Value of cELISA for the Diagnosis of Anaplasmosis in Clinically Suspected Ruminants

Bu çalışmada cELISAnın klinik olarak anaplasmosis şüphesi olan ruminantlardaki tanısal değerinin belirlenmesi ve klinik muayene sonuçları ile cELISA sonuçlarının karşılaştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Bunun için toplam 720 ruminant (457 sığır, 146 koyun, 117 keçi) klinik belirtiler yönünden muayene edilmiştir. Anemi, ateş, sarılık, güçsüzlük, durgunluk ve iştahsızlık belirtileri olan 61i sığır, 11i koyun ve 16sı keçi olmak üzere toplam 88 ruminant çalışma için seçilmiştir. Klinik şüpheli bu hayvanların vena j ugularisinden kan alınmış ve serumları çıkarılmıştır. Anaplasma antikorlarını belirlemek amacıyla ticari olarak temin edilen cELISA kiti kullanılmıştır. cELISA sonuçlarına göre 88 serum örneğinin 47si (%53.4) anaplasmosis açısından pozitif bulunmuştur. Seroloj ik muayenede sığırların %45.9unda, koyunların %63.6sında ve keçilerin %56.2sinde Anaplasma spesifik antikorlar saptanmıştır. İstatistiki olarak sığırlarda yaş gruplarına göre farklı seropozitivite oranları saptanmış olup, en yüksek oran 12 aydan daha küçük hayvanlarda saptanmıştır. Bununla birlikte koyun ve keçilerde yaş gruplarına göre seropozitivite oranlarında bir farklılık saptanmamıştır. Bu çalışmadan elde edilen verilere göre anaplasmosis tanısında klinik bulguların tek başına yeterli olmayacağı ve seroloj ik muayenelerle mutlaka desteklenmesi gerektiği sonucuna varılabilir.

Klinik Olarak Anaplasmosis Şüphesi Olan Ruminantlarda cELISAnın Tanısal Değerinin Belirlenmesi

The aim of this study was to determine diagnostic value of cELISA in anaplasmosis in clinically suspected animals and to compare the cELISA results with the clinical examination results. For this purpose a total of 720 ruminants (457 cattle, 146 sheep, 117 goat) were examined in terms of clinical signs. Eighty-eight ruminants consisting of 61 cattle, 11 sheep and 16 goat which had the symptoms of anemia, fever, icterus, weakness, depression and lack of appetite were selected for the study. Blood samples were collected from the j ugular vein of all clinically suspected animals and serum samples were separated. A commercially available competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (C-ELISA) kit was used for determine antibodies to Anaplasma species. cELISA based diagnosis revealed that 47 of 88 serum samples (53.4%) were positive for anaplasmosis. In serological examination Anaplasma specific antibodies were determined in 45.9% of cattle, 63.6% of sheep and 56.2% of goats. Seropositivity rate was statistically differ among the age groups of cattle and the highest seropositvity rate was found in <12 month age (P<0.005). However no difference was found in the seropositivity rate of Anaplasma in sheep and goat in relation to age group. From the data obtained in this study it can be concluded that clinical findings are not sufficient criteria for the diagnosis of anaplasmosis and must be supported by serological examination.

PDF

___

1. Coskun A, Derinbay Ekici O, Gozelbektes H, Aydogdu U, Sen I: Acute phase proteins, clinical, hematological and biochemical parameters in dairy cows naturally ınfected with Anaplasma marginale. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg, 18, 497-502, 2012. DOI: 10.9775/kvfd.2011.5822
2. Ait Hamou S, Rahali T, Sahibi H, Belghyti D, Losson B, Goff W, Rhalem A: Molecular and serological prevalence of Anaplasma marginale in cattle of North Central Morocco. Res Vet Sci, 93, 1318-1323, 2012. DOI: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2012.02.016
3. Gökçe G, Kırmızıgül AH, Yıldırım Y, Erkılıç EE: Kars yöresindeki sığırlarda Anaplasma marginale seroprevalansı. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg, 19 (Suppl-A): A187-A190, 2013. DOI: 10.9775/kvfd.2013.8748
4. Sevinç F: Sığırlarda Anaplasmosis. Erciyes Üniv Vet Fak Derg, 1, 113- 118, 2004.
5. Singh H, Jyoti Haque M, Singh NK, Rath SS: Molecular detection of Anaplasma marginale infection in carrier cattle. Ticks Tick Borne Dis, 3, 55-58, 2012. DOI: 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2011.10.002
6. Carelli G, Decaro N, Lorusso A, Elia G, Lorusso E, Mari V, Ceci L, Buonavoglia C: Detection and quantification of Anaplasma marginale DNA in blood samples of cattle by real-time PCR. Vet Microbiol, 124, 107-114, 2007. DOI: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2007.03.022
7. Aktas M, Altay K, Ozubek S, Dumanli NA: Survey of ixodid ticks feeding on cattle and prevalence of tick-borne pathogens in the Black Sea region of Turkey. Vet Parasitol, 187, 567-571, 2012. DOI: 10.1016/j. vetpar.2012.01.035
8. Abou-Elnaga RR, Mahmoud MA, Osman WA Goda ASA: Serological survey of anaplasma marginale (rickettsia) antibodies in animals by major surface protein 5 competitive inhibition enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Suez Canal Vet Med J, 19 (1): 309-319, 2009.
9. Derinbay Ekici O, Sevinc F: Comparison of cELISA and IFA tests in the serodiagnosis of anaplasmosis in cattle. African J Microbiol Res, 5, 1188- 1191, 2011.
10. Birdane MF, Sevinc F, Derinbay Ekici O: Anaplasma marginale infections in dairy cattle: Clinical disease with high seroprevalence. Bull Vet Inst Pulawy, 50, 467-470, 2006.
11. Aktaş M, Altay K, Dumanlı N: Molecular detection and identification of Anaplasma and Ehrlichia species in cattle from Turkey. Ticks Tick Borne Dis, 2, 62-65, 2011. DOI: 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2010.11.002
12. Gokce HI, Genc O, Akca A, Vatansever Z, Unver A, Erdogan HM: Molecular and serological evidence of Anaplasma phagocy tophilum infection of farm animals in the Black Sea region of Turkey. Acta Vet Hung, 56, 281-292, 2008. DOI: 10.1556/AVet.56.2008.3.2
13. Altay K, Dumanlı N, Aktas M, Özübek S: Survey of Anaplasma infections in small ruminants from East part of Turkey. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg, 20, 1-4, 2014. DOI: 10.9775/kvfd.2013.9189
14. Aydın L: Güney Marmara bölgesi ruminantlarında görülen kene türleri ve yayılışları. Doktora Tezi, Uludağ Üniv. Sağlık Bil. Enst., 1994.
15. Knowles DS, de Echaide T, Palmer G, Mc Guire D, Stiller D, Mc Elwain T: Antibody against an Anaplasma marginale MSP5 epitope common to tick and erythrocytest ages identifies persistently infected cattle. J Clin Microbiol, 34, 2225-2230, 1996.
16. Minitab Inc: Statistical Software. Minitab 15, State College, PA, USA, 2007.
17. Kocan KM, Blouin EF, Barbet AF: Anaplasmosis control: Past, present, and future. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 916, 501-509, 2000. DOI: 10.1111/j. 1749-6632.2000.tb05329.x
18. Tassi P, Carelli G, Ceci L: Tick-borne diseases (TBDs) of dairy cows in a Mediterranean environment: A clinical, serological, and hematological study. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 969, 314-317, 2002.
19. Gale KR, Dimmock CM, Gartside M, Leatch G: Anaplasma marginale: Detection of carrier cattle by PCR-ELISA. Int J Parasitol, 26, 1103-1109, 1996. DOI: 10.1016/S0020-7519(96)80009-9
20. Eriks IS, Stiller D, Palmer GH: Impact of persistent Anaplasma marginale rickettsemia on tick infection and transmission. J Clin Microbiol, 31 (8): 2091-2096, 1993.
21. Amrita Sharma A, Das Singla L, Kaur P, Bal MS, Batth BK, Juyal PD: Prevalence and haemato-biochemical profile of Anaplasma marginale infection in dairy animals of Punjab (India). Asian Pac J Trop Med, 139- 144, 2013. DOI: 10.1016/S1995-7645(13)60010-3
22. de la Fuente J, Lew A, Lutz H, Meli ML, Hofmann-Lehmann R, Shkap V, Molad T, Mangold AJ, Almaza´n C, Naranjo V, Gorta´zar C, Torina A, Caracappa S, Garci´a-Pe´rez 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, 6, 75-89, 2005. DOI: 10.1079/AHR2005104
23. Bock RE, D Vos AJ, Kingston TG, Carter PD: Assessment of a low virulence Austuralian isolate of Anaplasma marginale for pathogenicity and transmissability by Boophilus microplus. Vet Parasitol, 118, 121-131, 2003. DOI: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2003.08.011
24. Kvein KL, Junzo N, Mitchell SA, Guy HP, Wendy CB: The CD4+ T cell immunodominants Anaplasma marginale major surface protein 2 stimulate γδ T cell clones that express unique T cell receptors. J Leukocyte Biol, 77, 199-208, 2005. DOI: 10.1189/j lb.0804482
25. Chahan B, Zij ian J, Xuenan X, Yukita S, Hisashi I: Serological evidence of infection of Anaplasma and Ehrlichia in domestic animals in Xinj iang Uygur Autonomous Region area, China. Vet Parasitol, 134, 273-278, 2005. DOI: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2005.07.024
26. Keleş I, Değer S, Aytuğ N, Karaca M, Akdemir C: Tick-borne diseases in cattle: Clinical and haematological findings, diagnosis, treatment, seasonal distribution, breed, sex and age factor and the transmitters of the diseases. YYU Vet Fak Derg, 12 (12): 26-32, 2001.
27. Arslan MÖ, Umur Ş, Aydın L: Kars yöresi sığırlarında Ixodidae türlerinin yaygınlığı. T Parazitol Derg, 23, 331-335, 1999.
28. Aydın L: Güney Marmara Bölgesi ruminantlarında görülen kene türleri ve yayılışları. T Parasitol Derg, 24 (1): 194-200, 2000.
29. Aktas M, Altay K, Dumanli N, Kalkan A: Molecular detection and identification of Ehrlichia and Anaplasma species in ixodid ticks. Parasitol Res, 104 (5), 1243-1248, 2009. DOI: 10.1007/s00436-009-1377-1
30. Aktas M: A survey of ixodid tick species and molecular identification of tick-borne pathogens. Vet Parasitol, 200, 276-283, 2014. DOI: 10.1016/j. vetpar.2013.12.008
31. Aktas M, Vatansever Z, Altay K, Aydin MF, Dumanli N: Molecular evidence for Anaplasma phagocytophilum in Ixodes ricinus from Turkey. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg, 104, 10- 15, 20 10. DOI: 10.10 16/j . trstmh.2009.07.025