A community approach of pathogens and their arthropod vectors (ticks and fleas) in dogs of African Sub-Sahara.
Africa, Eastern
/ epidemiology
Africa, Western
/ epidemiology
Animals
Arthropod Vectors
/ microbiology
Babesia
/ isolation & purification
Bacteria
/ isolation & purification
Coxiella burnetii
/ isolation & purification
Dog Diseases
/ epidemiology
Dogs
Ehrlichia canis
/ isolation & purification
Eucoccidiida
/ isolation & purification
Flea Infestations
/ epidemiology
Ixodidae
/ microbiology
Pathology, Molecular
Rhipicephalus sanguineus
Rickettsia
/ isolation & purification
Risk Factors
Siphonaptera
/ microbiology
Tick Infestations
/ epidemiology
Vector Borne Diseases
/ epidemiology
Zoonoses
/ epidemiology
Amblyomma
Coxiella burnetii
Dog
Fleas
Haemaphysalis
Ixodes
Rhipicephalus
Sub-Sahara Africa
Ticks
Vector-borne pathogens
Journal
Parasites & vectors
ISSN: 1756-3305
Titre abrégé: Parasit Vectors
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101462774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Nov 2021
16 Nov 2021
Historique:
received:
19
06
2021
accepted:
12
09
2021
entrez:
17
11
2021
pubmed:
18
11
2021
medline:
13
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Arthropod-borne pathogens and their vectors are present throughout Africa. They have been well-studied in livestock of sub-Saharan Africa, but poorly in companion animals. Given the socio-economic importance of companion animals, the African Small Companion Animal Network (AFSCAN), as part of the WSAVA Foundation, initiated a standardized multi-country surveillance study. Macro-geographic variation in ectoparasite (ticks and fleas) and pathogen communities in dogs was assessed through molecular screening of approximately 100 infested dogs in each of six countries (Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda and Namibia), both in rural and urban settings. The most important intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors within the subpopulation of infested dogs were evaluated. Despite the large macro-geographic variation in the dogs screened, there was no consistent difference between East and West Africa in terms of the diversity and numbers of ticks. The highest and lowest numbers of ticks were found in Nigeria and Namibia, respectively. Most often, there was a higher diversity of ticks in rural habitats than in urban habitats, although the highest diversity was observed in an urban Uganda setting. With the exception of Namibia, more fleas were collected in rural areas. We identified tick species (including Haemaphysalis spinulosa) as well as zoonotic pathogens (Coxiella burnetti, Trypanosoma spp.) that are not classically associated with companion animals. Rhipicephalus sanguineus was the most abundant tick, with a preference for urban areas. Exophilic ticks, such as Haemaphysalis spp., were more often found in rural areas. Several multi-host ticks occurred in urban areas. For R. sanguineus, housing conditions and additional pets were relevant factors in terms of infestation, while for a rural tick species (Haemaphysalis elliptica), free-roaming dogs were more often infested. Tick occurrence was associated to the use of endoparasiticide, but not to the use of ectoparasiticide. The most prevalent tick-borne pathogen was Hepatozoon canis followed by Ehrlichia canis. High levels of co-parasitism were observed in all countries and habitats. As dogs share a common environment with people, they have the potential to extend the network of pathogen transmission to humans. Our study will help epidemiologists to provide recommendations for surveillance and prevention of pathogens in dogs and humans.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Arthropod-borne pathogens and their vectors are present throughout Africa. They have been well-studied in livestock of sub-Saharan Africa, but poorly in companion animals. Given the socio-economic importance of companion animals, the African Small Companion Animal Network (AFSCAN), as part of the WSAVA Foundation, initiated a standardized multi-country surveillance study.
METHODS
METHODS
Macro-geographic variation in ectoparasite (ticks and fleas) and pathogen communities in dogs was assessed through molecular screening of approximately 100 infested dogs in each of six countries (Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda and Namibia), both in rural and urban settings. The most important intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors within the subpopulation of infested dogs were evaluated.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Despite the large macro-geographic variation in the dogs screened, there was no consistent difference between East and West Africa in terms of the diversity and numbers of ticks. The highest and lowest numbers of ticks were found in Nigeria and Namibia, respectively. Most often, there was a higher diversity of ticks in rural habitats than in urban habitats, although the highest diversity was observed in an urban Uganda setting. With the exception of Namibia, more fleas were collected in rural areas. We identified tick species (including Haemaphysalis spinulosa) as well as zoonotic pathogens (Coxiella burnetti, Trypanosoma spp.) that are not classically associated with companion animals. Rhipicephalus sanguineus was the most abundant tick, with a preference for urban areas. Exophilic ticks, such as Haemaphysalis spp., were more often found in rural areas. Several multi-host ticks occurred in urban areas. For R. sanguineus, housing conditions and additional pets were relevant factors in terms of infestation, while for a rural tick species (Haemaphysalis elliptica), free-roaming dogs were more often infested. Tick occurrence was associated to the use of endoparasiticide, but not to the use of ectoparasiticide. The most prevalent tick-borne pathogen was Hepatozoon canis followed by Ehrlichia canis. High levels of co-parasitism were observed in all countries and habitats.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
As dogs share a common environment with people, they have the potential to extend the network of pathogen transmission to humans. Our study will help epidemiologists to provide recommendations for surveillance and prevention of pathogens in dogs and humans.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34784947
doi: 10.1186/s13071-021-05014-8
pii: 10.1186/s13071-021-05014-8
pmc: PMC8594167
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
576Subventions
Organisme : h2020 marie skłodowska-curie actions
ID : 799609
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Parasit Vectors. 2020 Apr 21;13(1):184
pubmed: 32312292
J Vet Diagn Invest. 2016 Sep;28(5):529-35
pubmed: 27423737
J Clin Microbiol. 2004 Jul;42(7):3164-8
pubmed: 15243077
Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2020 May;11(3):101359
pubmed: 32067949
Vet Parasitol. 2008 Oct 20;157(1-2):123-7
pubmed: 18752897
Parasit Vectors. 2010 Apr 08;3:26
pubmed: 20377860
Onderstepoort J Vet Res. 2007 Sep;74(3):181-208
pubmed: 17933361
Parasite. 2018;25:30
pubmed: 29806592
J Clin Microbiol. 2003 Aug;41(8):3870-2
pubmed: 12904406
Exp Appl Acarol. 2013 Nov;61(3):383-6
pubmed: 23722233
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2013 Dec;79(23):7439-44
pubmed: 24056468
Ambio. 2014 May;43(4):516-29
pubmed: 24740622
Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2019 Feb;10(2):421-432
pubmed: 30591405
Parasit Vectors. 2018 Mar 20;11(1):186
pubmed: 29554955
Parasit Vectors. 2015 Mar 23;8:170
pubmed: 25851920
Parasit Vectors. 2011 Apr 13;4:49
pubmed: 21489237
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013 Aug 15;7(8):e2345
pubmed: 23967357
Vet Parasitol. 2008 Aug 1;155(1-2):152-7
pubmed: 18502588
Vet Parasitol. 2008 May 31;153(3-4):255-64
pubmed: 18374490
J Med Microbiol. 2010 Nov;59(Pt 11):1285-1292
pubmed: 20651038
Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Jun;26(6):1221-1233
pubmed: 32441628
Parasit Vectors. 2011 Apr 13;4:51
pubmed: 21489239
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2013 Mar;88(3):513-518
pubmed: 23382156
Parasit Vectors. 2018 Jun 18;11(1):350
pubmed: 29914548
FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2012 Feb;64(1):126-9
pubmed: 22092999
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011 Sep;77(18):6516-23
pubmed: 21784920
Sci Total Environ. 2019 Jun 20;670:941-949
pubmed: 30921726