Indian Journal of Animal Research

  • Chief EditorK.M.L. Pathak

  • Print ISSN 0367-6722

  • Online ISSN 0976-0555

  • NAAS Rating 6.50

  • SJR 0.263

  • Impact Factor 0.4 (2024)

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December)
Indexing Services :
Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Scopus, AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Research Article

Indian Journal of Animal Research, volume 52 issue 5 (may 2018) : 750-753

The endemic status of Anaplasma marginale in cattle, in Turkey

N. Isik, O. Derinbay Ekici, F. Sevinc
1Department of Parasitology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Selcuk University, 42075, Konya, Turkey
Cite article:- Isik N., Ekici Derinbay O., Sevinc F. (2018). The endemic status of Anaplasma marginale in cattle, in Turkey. Indian Journal of Animal Research. 52(5): 750-753. doi: 10.18805/ijar.B-813.

ABSTRACT

This study was designed to determine the prevalence and endemic status of Anaplasma marginale in cattle in the province of Konya. A total of 700 cattle were randomly selected, categorized in different age groups (i.e. 0–6, 7–12, 13–24, 25–36 and >36 months) and examined in Kadinhani, Cumra and Beysehir provinces and in Konya city center. The presence of A. marginale was diagnosed by microscopic examination of blood smears and competitive ELISA (cELISA). Parasites were observed in 11.29% of blood smears, and 31.86% of animals were positive for antibodies against A. marginale. The rates of seropositivity in successively older age groups were 19.1, 24.39, 33.14, 44.21 and 37.36% respectively. The endemic status of the disease was determined by calculating the inoculation rate (h) of cattle in each age group. The h value was detected to be lower than 0.005 and the endemic status of A. marginale was found to be unstable. If the cattle in Konya province were vaccinated when they are 9 to 12 months of age, they could be protected during the seasons when the disease is prevalent.

REFERENCES

  1. Aktas, M., Altay, K. and Dumanli, N. (2011). Molecular detection and identification of Anaplasma and Ehrlichia species in cattle from Turkey. Ticks and Tick-borne Diseases, 2: 62–65.
  2. Aubry, P. and Geale, D.W. (2011). Review of bovine Anaplasmosis. Transbound Emerg Dis, 58: 1-30.
  3. Birdane, F.M., Sevinc, F. and Derinbay, O. (2006). Anaplasma marginale infections in dairy cattle: clinical disease with high seroprevalence. Bull Vet Inst Pulawy, 50: 467-470.
  4. Bowles, P.M., Molloy, J.B., Blight, G.W., Singh, S. and Mabikacheche, L.G. (2000). Evaluation of a commercially available kit for detection of antibodies to Anaplasma marginale and A. centrale in cattle in Australia and Zimbabwe. Onderstepoort J Vet Res, 67: 83–86.
  5. Cakmak, A. (1990). Ankara yöresinde bir sýðýr sürüsünde hemoparazitlerin insidensinin araþtýrýlmasý. Ankara Univ Vet Fak Derg, 37: 633-645.
  6. Carrique, J.J., Morales, G.J. and Edelsten, M. (2000). Endemic instability for babesiosis and anaplasmosis in cattle in the bolivian Chaco. Vet J, 160: 162-164.
  7. Chaudhri S.S., Bisla R.S., Bhanot V, and Singh H. (2013). Prevalence of haemoprotozoan infectýons in pyretic dairy animals of eastern Haryana. Indian J Anim Res, 47: 344-347.
  8. Coskun, A., Ekici, O.D., Guzelbektes, H., Aydogdu, U. and Sen, I. (2012). Acute phase proteins, clinical, hematological and biochemical parameters in dairy cows naturally infected with Anaplasma marginale. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg, 18: 497-502.
  9. de la Fuente, J., Vicente, J., Hofle, U., Ruiz-Fons, F., Fernandez de Mera, I.G., Van Den Bussche, R.A., Kocan, K.M., Gortazar, C. (2004). Anaplasma marginale infection in free-ranging Iberian red deer in the region of Castilla La Mancha, Spain. Vet Microbiol, 100: 163-173.
  10. de la Fuente, J., Lew, A., Lutz, H., Meli, M.L., Hofmann-Lehmann, R., Shkap, et al (2005). Genetic diversity of Anaplasma species major surface proteins and implications for anaplasmosis serodiagnosis and vaccine development. Anim Health Res Rev, 6: 75-89.
  11. Derinbay Ekici, O. and Sevinc, F. (2011). Comparison of cELISA and IFA tests in the serodiagnosis of anaplasmosis in cattle. Afr J Microbiol Res, 5: 1188-1191.
  12. Duzgun, A., Schuntner, C.A., Wright, I.G., Leatch, G. and Waltisbuhl, D.J. (1988). A sensitive ELISA technique for the diagnosis of Anaplasma marginale infections. Vet Parasitol, 29: 1-7.
  13. Geleta, A.R. (2005). Antibody response to Babesia bigemina and Babesia bovis by vaccinated and unvaccinated cattle in an endemic area of South Africa. Master thesis, University of Pretoria etd.
  14. Gokce, G., Kýrmýzýgül, A.H., Yýldýrým, Y. and Erkýlýc, E.E. (2013). Kars yöresindeki sýðýrlarda anaplasma marginale seroprevalansý. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg, 19: 187-190.
  15. Knowles, D., Torioni de Echaide, S., Palmer, G., McGuire, T., Stiller, D. and McElwain, T. 1996. Antibody against an Anaplasma marginale MSP5 epitope common to tick and erythrocyte stages identifies persistently infected cattle. J Clin Microbiol, 34: 2225-2230.
  16. Kocan, K.M., Blouin, E.F. and Barbet A.F. (2000). Anaplasmosis control: past, present, and future. Ann NY Acad Sci, 916: 501-509.
  17. Kocan, K.M., de la Fuente, J., Guglielmone, A.A. and Melendez, R.D. (2003). Antigens and alternatives for control of Anaplasma marginale infection in cattle. Clin Microbiol Rev, 16: 698–712.
  18. Kocan, K.M., de La Fuente, J., Blouin, E.F., Coetzee J.F. and Ewing, S.A. (2010). The natural history of Anaplasma marginale. Vet Parasitol, 167: 95-107.
  19. Lolli, C., Marenzoni, M.L., Strona, P., Lappo, P.G., Etiang, P. and Diverio, S. (2016). Infections and risk factors for livestock with species of Anaplasma, Babesia and Brucella under semi-nomadic rearing in Karamoja Region, Uganda. Trop Anim Health Prod, 48: 603–611.
  20. Maharana, B.R., Kumar B., Prasad, A., Patbandha, T.K., Sudhakar, N.R., Joseph, J.P. and Patel B.R. (2016). Prevalence and assessment of risk factors for haemoprotozoan infections in cattle and buffaloes of South-West Gujarat, India. Indian J Anim Res, 50: 733-739.
  21. Mahoney, D.F. and Ross, D.R. (1972). Epizootiological factors in the control of bovine babesiosis. Aust Vet J, 48: 292-298.
  22. Ndou, R.V., Diphahe, T.P., Dzoma, B.M. and Motsei, L.E. (2010). The seroprevalence and Endemic Stability of Anaplasmosis in Cattle Around Mafikeng in the North West Province. South Africa Vet Res, 3:1-3. 
  23. Oliveira, J.B., Montoya, J., Romero, J.J., Urbina, A., Soto-Barrientos, N., Melo, E.S.P, Ramos, C.A.N and Araujo F.R. (2011). Epidemiology of bovine anaplasmosis in dairy herds from Costa Rica. Vet Parasitol, 177: 359-365.
  24. Ristic, M. (1968). Anaplasmosis. In: Infectious Blood Diseases of Man and Animals, edited by D. Weinman, M. Ristic, Vol. II. Academic Press, New York, London, pp. 478-542.
  25. Selcuk, O., Alver, O., Catik, S., Aydin, L. and Senlik, B. (2015). Determination of diagnostic value of cELISA for the diagnosis of anaplasmosis in clinically suspected ruminants. Kafkas Üniv Vet Fak Derg, 21: 691-695.
  26. Singh, N.D., Banga, H.S., Gadhave, P.D., Chougule, A.A., Goyal, A. and Brar, R.S. (2014). Clinico-pathological alterations in a case of bovine (Anaplasmosis). Indian J Anim Res, 48: 295-297.
  27. Tassi, P., Carelli, G. and Ceci, L. (2002). Tick-borne diseases (TBDs) of dairy cows in a Mediterranean environment: A clinical, serological, and hematological study. Ann NY Acad Sci, 969: 314-317.
  28. Torioni De Echaide, S., Knowles, D.P., McGuire, T.C., Palmer, G.H., Suarez, C. and McElwain, T.F. (1998). Detection of cattle naturally infected with Anaplasma marginale in a region of endemicityby nested PCR and a competitive enzyme linkedimmunosorbent assay using recombinant major surface protein 5. J Clin Microbiol, 36: 777-782.
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)