Seroprevalance of Anaplasmosis in Cattle in Van, Muş, Siirt and Diyarbakır Provinces

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 3, 208 - 214, 01.09.2018

Bekir Oğuz , Nalan Özdal , Özlem Orunç Kılınç , Ayşe Karakuş , Burçak Aslan Çelik M. Serdar Değer

https://doi.org/10.30607/kvj.397726

Cited By: 2

Öz

Anaplasmosis, caused
by the genus Anaplasma related to the family Anaplasmataceae the order
Rickettsiales, is an infectious disease occurs in mammals in tropical and
subtropical climatic regions. Bovine anaplasmosis is usually associated with Anaplasma marginale infection in cattle
and its can be transmitted  both
mechanically by biting flies or and biologically by ticks. The purpose of this
study was to investigate the presence of Anaplasma spp.  in cattle in Van, Mus, Siirt and Diyabakir
provinces. cELISA was used to detect specific anti-Anaplasma spp. antibodies in
the serum samples. 52 (28.6%) of the 182 asymptomatic cattle were seropositive
against Anaplasma. The prevalence of anaplasmosis in female and male cattle was
found as 29.3% and 27.3%, respectively and this difference was not found
significant. Seropositive rate was statistically differ among the age groups of
cattle and the highest seropositive rate was found in 3-5 years. Moreover, the
highest seropositive rate of study sites was determined in Siirt as 78.7%. As a
result, this is serologic survey for subclinical and chronic  Anaplasma spp. infections performed on cattle
in Van, Mus, Siirt and Diyabakir province. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Anaplasmosis, Cattle, cELISA, Seroprevalans

Van, Muş, Siirt ve Diyarbakır İllerinde Sığırlarda Anaplasmosis’in Seroprevalansı

Öz

Rikettsiales dizisi,
Anaplasmatacae ailesindeki Anaplasma türlerinin meydana getirdiği anaplasmosis,
tropik ve subtropik iklim bölgelerindeki memeli hayvanlarda görülen enfeksiyöz
bir hastalıktır. Sığır anaplasmosisi genellikle Anaplasma marginale ile ilişkilendirilir ve bu hastalık hem kan
emici sinekler ile mekanik hem de keneler ile biyolojik yolla nakledilir. Bu
çalışma Van, Muş, Siirt ve Diyarbakır İllerinde sığırlarda Anaplasma spp.
seroprevalansının araştırılması amacıyla yapılmıştır. Serum örnekleri ticari
cELISA kiti ile Anaplasma’ya karşı gelişen antikorlar yönünden analiz edilmiştir.
Çalışma sonucunda incelenen 182 sığırın 52’sinde (%28,6) Anaplasma spp.
antikorları bakımından seropozitiflik saptanmıştır. Dişi sığırlarda
seroprevalans %29.3, erkeklerde ise %27.1 olarak belirlenmiş ve bu farklılık
istatistiksel açıdan önemsiz bulunmuştur. İstatiksel olarak sığırlarda yaş
gruplarına göre farklı seropozitiflik saptanmış olup, en yüksek oran 3-5
(%45.1) yaş arasındaki hayvanlarda bulunmuştur. Ayrıca çalışma merkezleri
arasında en yüksek seropozitiflik %78.7 oranı ile Siirt ilinde belirlenmiştir.
Sonuç olarak, Van, Muş, Siirt ve Diyarbakır illerinde sığırlarda subklinik ve
kronik Anaplasma enfeksiyonlarının varlığı ortaya konulmuştur. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Anaplasmosis, Sığır, cELISA, Seroprevalans

Kaynakça

• Açici M, Bölükbaş CS, Pekmezci GZ, Gürler AT, Umur Ş, Karaer KZ, Çakmak A, Nalbantoğlu AS, Nisbet C. Seroepidemiological survey of bovine tick-borne infections in the Black Sea Region of Turkey. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 2016; 40: 1-5.
• Ahmadi-hamedani M, Khaki Z, Rahbari S, Kazemi B, Bandehpour M. Molecular identification of anaplasmosis in goats using a new PZR-RFLP method. Iran J Vet Res. 2009; 10: 367-72.
• Aktas M, Altay K, Dumanli N. Molecular detection and identification of Anaplasma and Ehrlichia species in cattle from Turkey. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2011; 2: 62-65.
• Aktas M, Altay K, Ozubek S, Dumanli N. A survey of ixodid ticks feeding on cattle and prevalence of tick-borne pathogens in the Black Sea Region of Turkey Vet. Parasitol. 2012; 187(3-4):567-571.
• 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. 2014; 20: 1-4.
• Atif FA, Khan MS, Muhammad F, Ahmad B. Seroepidemiological study of Anaplasma marginale among cattle. J Anim Plant Sci. 2013; 23: 740-744.
• Aydın L, Bakırcı S. Geographical distrubution of ticks in Turkey. Parasitol Res. 2007; 101: 163-166
• Belal SMSH, Mahmud MAA, Ferdous MJ. Prevalence of anaplasmosis in cattle in Sirajganj district of Bangladesh. Res Agric Livest Fish. 2014; 1: 97-103.
• Birdane FM, Sevinç F, Derinbay Ö. Anaplasma margınale infections in dairy cattle: Clinical disease wıth high seroprevalence. Bull Vet Inst Pulawy. 2006; 50: 467-470.
• Corona B, Machado H, Rodríguez M, Martínez S. Characterization of recombinant msp5 Anaplasma marginale Havana isolate. Braz J Microbiol.. 2009; 40(4): 972-979.
• Corona B, Martinez S. Differences and similarities between Anaplasma marginale and Anaplasma phagocytophilum. Revista de Salud Animal 2009; 31(1): 1-7.
• Ekici ÖD, Sevinc F. Comparison of cELISA and IFA tests in the serodiagnosis of anaplasmosis in cattle. African J Microbiol Res. 2011; 5: 1188- 1191.
• Gökçe G, Kırmızıgül AH, Yıldırım Y, Erkılıç EE. Kars yöresindeki sığırlarda Anaplasma marginale seroprevalansı. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg. 2013; 19: 187-190.
• Hornok S, Elek V, de la Fuente J, Naranjo V, Farkas R, Majoros G, Földvári G. First serological and molecular evidence on the endemicity of Anaplasma ovis and A. marginale in Hungary. Vet Microbiol 2007; 122(3-4): 316-22.
• Jassem, GA, Agaar OA. Molecular and biochemical study of Anaplasma marginale in cattle in Wassit Province of Iraq. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 2015; 30: 36-41
• Jonsson NN, Bock RE, Jorgensen WK. Productivity and health effects of anaplasmosis and babesiosis on Bos indicus cattle and their crosses, and the effects of differing intensity of tick control in Australia. Vet Parasitol. 2008; 155: 1-9
• Kocan KM, Blouin EF, Barbet AF. Anaplasmosis: Control, past, present, and future. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2000; 916: 501-509.
• Kocan KM, de la Fuente J, Guglielmone AA, Melendez RD. Antigens and alternatives for control of Anaplasma marginale infection in cattle. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2003; 16: 698-712.
• Pong S, Nik Him NAII. Seroprevalence of bovine anaplasmosis caused by Anaplasma marginale in Malaysia. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Annual International Conference Syiah Kuala University and the 8th IMT-GT Uninet Biosciences Conference Banda Aceh. 2012.
• Selçuk Ö, Alver O, Çatık S, Aydın L, ġenlik B. Determination of diagnostic value of cELISA for the diagnosis of anaplasmosis in clinically suspected ruminants. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg. 2015; 21(5): 691-695.
• Sevinç F. Sığırlarda Anaplasmosis. Erciyes Üniv Vet Fak Derg. 2004; 1: 113-118.Shompole S, Waghela SD, Rurangirwa FR, McGuire TC. Cloned DNA probes identify Anaplasma ovis in goats and reveal a high prevalence of infection. J Clin Microbiol. 1989; 27(12): 2730-2735.
• Tembue AA, da Silva JB, da Silva FJ, Pires MS, Baldani CD, Soares CO, Massard CL, da Fonseca A H. Seroprevalence of IgG antibodies against Anaplasma marginale in cattle from South Mozambique. Rev Bras Parasitol Vet. 2011; 20: 318-324
• Torioni De Echaide S, Knowles DP, McGuire TC, Palmer GH, SuarezCE-McElwain TF. Detection of cattle naturally infected with Anaplasmamarginale in aregion of endemicity by nested PCR and a competitiveenzyme-linked immunosorbent assay using recombinant major surface protein 5. J Clin Microbiol. 1998; 36: 777-782.
• Woldehiwet Z. The natural history of Anaplasma phagocytophilum. Vet Parasitol. 2010; 167(2-4): 108-122.