Value of the oral swab for the molecular diagnosis of dogs in different stages of infection with Leishmania infantum

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_ASCHAR_Value_of_the_oral_swab_for_the_molecular_2016.PDF (755.21 KB)
Citações na Scopus
22
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2016
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
Autores
OLIVEIRA, Eveline Tozzi Braga de
MARCONDES, Mary
TOLEZANO, Jose Eduardo
HIRAMOTO, Roberto Mitsuyoshi
Citação
VETERINARY PARASITOLOGY, v.225, p.108-113, 2016
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
This study was based on the need to employ a sensitive and specific method with samples that could be easily collected for diagnosing dogs infected with Leishmania infantum. To this end, we used real time-PCR (qPCR) to assess the value of the oral swab (OS) in detecting infected sick dogs (SD; n = 62), including, for the first time, the analysis of apparently healthy infected dogs (AD; n =30), both from endemic areas for visceral leishmaniasis (VL). For comparison, we also evaluated the performance of the conjunctival swab (CS), blood (BL), lymph node (LN) and serology. We detected the presence of Leishmania DNA in the oral cavity in 62 out of the 92 dogs studied. The OS positivity (67.4%) was equivalent to the CS (68.5%) (p > 0.05), higher than BL (52.2%) (p <= 0.05), and lower than LN (84.8%) (p <= 0.05). OS and CS performed well in SD dogs (82.3% and 83.9%, respectively) but not in AD dogs (36.7% for both samples). BL showed the lowest positivity (52.2%) and provided equivalent results between AD (60.0%) and SD (48.4%) dogs (p > 0.05). LN yielded the highest positivity (84.8%), and it was also higher in the SD population (93.5%) compared to the AD population (66.7%) (p <= 0.05). Parasite load was high in LN, moderate in OS and CS, and low in BL, showing the relationship between the levels of parasitism and the positivity rates found in these samples. Serology was positive in 82.2% of the SD group and in 70% of the AD dogs (p > 0.05). Among the 20 seronegative dogs, seven (35%) were positive in either OS or CS, and 12 (60%) were positive when both noninvasive samples were jointly considered. The OS/CS combination resulted in a significant increase of positivity (p <= 0.05) for the AD dogs (from 36.7% to 63.4%), as well as OS/serology (80%) and OS/CS/serology (83.4%). For the SD population, positivity reached up to 95.2% with the same combinations, showing that combination of samples and/or tests is required for the identification of dogs infected with L. infantum and that the OS and CS combination based on qPCR notably improves the detection of both AD and SD dogs. In conclusion, OS proved to be a suitable sample for the molecular diagnosis of infected dogs with clinical signs of VL, but not for dogs with inapparent infection. For these, we recommend the combination of OS results with CS and/or serology in order to reach relevant positivity for L infantum. Finally, another advantage of using OS or both noninvasive samples is the increased likelihood of diagnosing seronegative dogs.
Palavras-chave
Oral swab, Conjunctival swab, Leishmania infantum, Canine visceral leishmaniasis, Molecular diagnosis, Apparently healthy infected dogs, Sick dogs
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/17176
Referências
  1. Almeida ABPF, 2013, DIAGN MICR INFEC DIS, V76, P321, DOI 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2013.03.017
  2. Alvar J, 2012, PLOS ONE, V7, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0035671
  3. BEPA, 2011, B EP PAUL SECR EST S, V8, P32
  4. Bevilacqua P.D., 2004, CAD SAUDE PUBLICA, V20, P259
  5. Comes Y.M., 2008, VET J, V175, P45
  6. Coura-Vital W, 2013, PLOS ONE, V8, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0071833
  7. Coura-Vital W, 2014, PLOS ONE, V9, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0091009
  8. de Ferreira S.A., 2013, PLOS NEGLECT TROP D, V7, P1
  9. de Paiva CM, 2009, VET J, V182, P356, DOI 10.1016/J.TVJ1.2008.05.018
  10. Di Muccio T, 2012, J CLIN MICROBIOL, V50, P2651, DOI 10.1128/JCM.00558-12
  11. do Rosario EY, 2005, MEM I OSWALDO CRUZ, V100, P197, DOI 10.1590/S0074-02762005000200015
  12. Falqueto A, 2009, AM J TROP MED HYG, V80, P559
  13. Ferreira SD, 2012, PLOS NEGLECT TROP D, V6, DOI 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001596
  14. Francino O, 2006, VET PARASITOL, V137, P214, DOI 10.1016/j.vetpar.2006.01.011
  15. Gramiccia M, 2010, VET PARASITOL, V171, P223, DOI 10.1016/j.vetpar.2010.03.025
  16. GRIMALDI G, 1993, CLIN MICROBIOL REV, V6, P230
  17. Grimaldi G, 2012, T ROY SOC TROP MED H, V106, P54, DOI 10.1016/j.trstmh.2011.10.001
  18. Laranjeira DF, 2014, REV SAUDE PUBL, V48, P563, DOI 10.1590/S0034-8910.2014048005224
  19. Laurenti MD, 2014, VET PARASITOL, V205, P444, DOI 10.1016/j.vetpar.2014.09.002
  20. Laurenti MD, 2013, VET PARASITOL, V196, P296, DOI 10.1016/j.vetpar.2013.03.017
  21. Leite RS, 2010, VET PARASITOL, V170, P201, DOI 10.1016/j.vetpar.2010.02.020
  22. Leite RS, 2015, PARASITOL RES, V114, P2255, DOI 10.1007/s00436-015-4418-y
  23. Lombardo G, 2012, VET PARASITOL, V184, P10, DOI 10.1016/j.vetpar.2011.08.010
  24. Manna L, 2004, VET PARASITOL, V125, P251, DOI 10.1016/j.vetpar.2004.07.019
  25. Marcondes M, 2013, VET PARASITOL, V197, P649, DOI 10.1016/j.vetpar.2013.07.013
  26. Miro G, 2008, TRENDS PARASITOL, V24, P371, DOI 10.1016/j.pt.2008.05.003
  27. Michalsky EM, 2007, VET PARASITOL, V147, P67, DOI 10.1016/j.vetpar.2007.03.004
  28. Morales-Yuste M, 2012, PARASITOL RES, V111, P155, DOI 10.1007/s00436-011-2812-7
  29. Moreira MAB, 2007, VET PARASITOL, V145, P245, DOI 10.1016/j.vetpar.2006.12.012
  30. Ramos RAN, 2013, REV BRAS PARASITOL V, V22, P346, DOI 10.1590/S1984-29612013000300005
  31. Oliva G, 2006, J CLIN MICROBIOL, V44, P1318, DOI 10.1128/JCM.44.4.1318-1322.2006
  32. Pilatti MM, 2009, RES VET SCI, V87, P255, DOI 10.1016/j.rvsc.2009.02.005
  33. Porrozzi R, 2007, CLIN VACCINE IMMUNOL, V14, P544, DOI 10.1128/CVI.00420-06
  34. Quaresma PF, 2009, ACTA TROP, V111, P289, DOI 10.1016/j.actatropica.2009.05.008
  35. Quinnell RJ, 2009, PARASITOLOGY, V136, P1915, DOI 10.1017/S0031182009991156
  36. Quinnell RJ, 2001, PARASITOLOGY, V122, P253, DOI 10.1017/S0031182001007363
  37. Romero GAS, 2010, PLOS NEGLECT TROP D, V4, DOI 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000584
  38. Santos TR, 2014, ACTA TROP, V140, P137, DOI 10.1016/j.actatropica.2014.08.016
  39. Schantz PM, 2005, JAVMA-J AM VET MED A, V226, P1316, DOI 10.2460/javma.2005.226.1316
  40. Reis LES, 2013, VET PARASITOL, V197, P498, DOI 10.1016/j.vetpar.2013.07.006
  41. Solano-Gallego L, 2011, PARASITE VECTOR, V4, DOI 10.1186/1756-3305-4-86
  42. Srividya G, 2012, PARASITOL RES, V110, P1065, DOI 10.1007/s00436-011-2680-1
  43. Strauss-Ayali D, 2004, J INFECT DIS, V189, P1729, DOI 10.1086/383281
  44. Werneck GL, 2007, EPIDEMIOL INFECT, V135, P195, DOI 10.1017/S095026806006881
  45. WHO World Health Organization, 2011, WHO TECHN REP SER, V949, P1
  46. Xavier Silvio Coura, 2006, BMC Vet Res, V2, P17, DOI 10.1186/1746-6148-2-17
  47. Zanette MF, 2014, REV SOC BRAS MED TRO, V47, P105, DOI 10.1590/0037-8682-1723-2013

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MPT
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICHC
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/50