Advertisement

Parasitology Research

, Volume 118, Issue 1, pp 347–352 | Cite as

Seroprevalence of vector-borne pathogens in dogs from Croatia

  • Daria Jurković
  • Ana Beck
  • Doroteja Huber
  • Željko Mihaljević
  • Adam Polkinghorne
  • Franjo Martinković
  • Damir Lukačević
  • Miroslav Pilat
  • Renata Brezak
  • Sanja Bosnić
  • Relja BeckEmail author
Arthropods and Medical Entomology - Short Communication

Abstract

Canine vector-borne pathogens (VBPs) are a group of globally distributed and rapidly spreading microorganisms transmitted by arthropods. In the present survey, we investigated Anaplasma spp., Ehrlichia canis, Dirofilaria immitis and Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato seroprevalence between three groups of dogs (asymptomatic, suspected and deceased) from continental and coastal regions of Croatia with the commercial point-of-care SNAP®4Dx®Plus for VBPs. The overall prevalence for tested pathogens in dogs was 6.1% with the highest prevalence detected for Anaplasma spp. (4.5%), while the remaining pathogens were found at a prevalence of less than 1% (E. canis 0.6%, B. burgdorferi s.l. 0.4%, D. immitis 0.6%). No statistically significant differences in VBP detection between dog cohorts could be found with the exception of D. immitis in the deceased group. Interestingly, no evidence of D. immitis could be found in the hearts of dogs in this group at necropsy, however. This study provides the first data on the seroprevalence of selected VBPs between dogs of different health statuses in Croatia. The results demonstrate that serological evidence of VBPs alone or in combination with co-infections were found just as frequently in asymptomatic dogs as those with suspected or confirmed evidence of VBP disease, raising questions about the pathogenic potential of these organisms in domesticated dogs.

Keywords

Dog Vector-borne pathogens Serology Croatia 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the excellent technical support of Marija Stublić and Kristina Skrbin from the Croatian Veterinary Institute. We also wish to acknowledge company VOXA for their kind provision of assays to support the completion of this project.

Funding

The research was financed by the Croatian Scientific Foundation Grant number 1957, acronym GENOTICKTRECK.

Compliance with ethical standards

The authors declare that the research complies with current ethical standards and laws of the country where the study was conducted. This study was approved by the institutional ethics committee of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Zagreb (permit numbers 251–61-01/139–15-2) and the ethics committee of the Croatian Veterinary Institute (permit 2544 from 26-05-2014).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Beck R, Vojta L, Mrljak V, Marinculić A, Beck A, Živičnjak T, Caccio SM (2009) Diversity of Babesia and Theileria species in symptomatic and asymptomatic dogs in Croatia. Int J Parasitol 39:843–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cardoso L, Madeira MC, De Carvalho L (2012) Prevalence of Dirofilaria immitis, Ehrlichia canis, Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato, Anaplasma spp. and Leishmania infantum in apparently healthy and CVBD-suspect dogs in Portugal–a national serological stud. Parasit Vectors 5(62)Google Scholar
  3. Chandrashekar R, Mainville CA, Beall MJ, O’Connor T, Eberts MD, Alleman AR, Gaunt SD, Breitschwerdt EB (2010) Performance of a commercially available in-clinic ELISA for the detection of antibodies against Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Ehrlichia canis, and Borrelia burgdorferi and Dirofilaria immitis antigen in dogs. Am J Vet Res 71:1443–1450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chomel B (2015) Lyme disease. Rev Sci Tech 34:569–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Day MJ (2011) One health: the importance of companion animal vector-borne diseases. Parasit Vectors 4(49)Google Scholar
  6. De Tommasi AS, Otranto D, Dantas-Torres F, Capelli G, Breitschwerdt EB, de Caprariis D (2013) Are vector-borne pathogen co-infections complicating the clinical presentation in dogs? Parasit Vectors 6(97)Google Scholar
  7. Farkas R, Gyurkovszky M, Lukács Z, Aladics B, Solymosi N (2014) Seroprevalence of some vector-borne infections of dogs in Hungary. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 14:256–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Holler D, Racz A, Bošnir J, Petrak O (2010) The prevalence of dirofilariasis in the hinterland of the Istrian peninsula. Med Jad 40:67–74Google Scholar
  9. Huber D, Reil I, Duvnjak S, Jurković D, Lukačević D, Pilat M, Beck A, Mihaljević Ž, Vojta L, Beck R, Polkinghorne A (2017) Molecular detection of Anaplasma platys, Anaplasma phagocytophilum and Wolbachia sp. but not Ehrlichia canis in Croatian dogs. Parasitol Res 116:3019–3026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jurić B, Beck R, Martinković F, Milosavljević A, Pahović S, Matić A (2007) The prevalence of Dirofilaria infections among truffle dogs in Istria. Proceedings of the First European Dirofilaria Days Zagreb, Croatia, p 33–4Google Scholar
  11. Krupka I, Straubinger RK (2010) Lyme Borreliosis in dogs and cats: background, diagnosis, treatment and prevention of infections with Borrelia burgdorferi sensu stricto. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 40:1103–1119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Maggi RG, Birkenheuer AJ, Hegarty BC, Bradley JM, Levy MG, Breitschwerdt EB (2014) Comparison of serological and molecular panels for diagnosis of vector-borne diseases in dogs. Parasit Vectors 7:127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mircean V, Dumitrache MO, Györke A, Pantchev N, Jodies R, Mihalca AD, Cozma V (2012) Seroprevalence and geographic distribution of Dirofilaria immitis and tick-borne infections (Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato and Ehrlichia canis) in dogs from Romania. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 12:595–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Miró G, Montoya A, Roura X, Gálvez R, Sainz A (2013) Seropositivity rates for agents of canine vector-borne diseases in Spain: a multicentre study. Parasit Vectors 6:117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mrljak V, Kuleš J, Mihaljević Ž, Torti M, Gotić J, Crnogaj M, Živičnjak T, Mayer I, Šmit I, Bhide M, Barić Rafaj R (2017) Prevalence and geographic distribution of vector-borne pathogens in apparently healthy dogs in Croatia. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 17:398–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Otranto D, Dantas-Torres F, Breitschwerdt EB (2009) Managing canine vector-borne diseases of zoonotic concern: part one. Trends Parasitol 25:157–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pantchev N, Schaper R, Limousin S, Norden N, Weise M, Lorentzen L (2009) Occurrence of Dirofilaria immitis and tick-borne infections caused by Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato and Ehrlichia canis in domestic dogs in France: results of a countrywide serologic survey. Parasitol Res 105:S101–S113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pérez Vera C, Kapiainen S, Junnikkala S, Aaltonen K, Spillmann T, Vapalahti O (2014) Survey of selected tick-borne diseases in dogs in Finland. Parasit Vectors 7:285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Piantedosi D, Neola B, D'Alessio N, Di Prisco F, Santoro M, Pacifico L, Sgroi G, Auletta L, Buch J, Chandrashekar R, Breitschwerdt EB, Veneziano V (2017) Seroprevalence and risk factors associated with Ehrlichia canis, Anaplasma spp., Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato and D. immitis in hunting dogs from southern Italy. Parasitol Res 116:2651–2660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rijpkema S, Golubic D, Molkenboer M, Verbeek-De Kruif N, Schellekens J (1996) Identification of four genomic groups of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato in Ixodes ricinus ticks collected in a Lyme borreliosis endemic region of northern Croatia. Exp Appl Acarol 20:23–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sainz Á, Roura X, Miró G, Estrada-Peña A, Kohn B, Harrus S, Solano-Gallego L (2015) Guideline for veterinary practitioners on canine ehrlichiosis and anaplasmosis in Europe. Parasit Vectors 8(75)Google Scholar
  22. Tijsse-Klasen E, Pandak N, Hengeveld P, Takumi K, Koopmans MPG, Sprong H (2013) Ability to cause erythema migrans differs between Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato isolates. Parasit Vectors 6:23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Venco L, Manzocchi S, Genchi M, Kramer LH (2017) Heat treatment and false-positive heartworm antigen testing in ex vivo parasites and dogs naturally infected by Dirofilaria repens and Angiostrongylus vasorum. Parasit Vectors 10:476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vojta L, Mrljak V, Ćurković S, Živičnjak T, Marinculić A, Beck R (2009) Molecular epizootiology of canine hepatozoonosis in Croatia. Int J Parasitol 10:1129–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Živičnjak T, Martinković F, Marinculić A, Mrljak V, Kučer N, Matijatko V, Mihaljević Ž, Barić-Rafaj R (2005) A seroepidemiologic survey of canine visceral leishmaniosis among apparently healthy dogs in Croatia. Vet Parasitol 131:35–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daria Jurković
    • 1
  • Ana Beck
    • 2
  • Doroteja Huber
    • 2
  • Željko Mihaljević
    • 3
  • Adam Polkinghorne
    • 4
  • Franjo Martinković
    • 5
  • Damir Lukačević
    • 6
  • Miroslav Pilat
    • 7
  • Renata Brezak
    • 1
  • Sanja Bosnić
    • 1
  • Relja Beck
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department for Bacteriology and ParasitologyCroatian Veterinary InstituteZagrebCroatia
  2. 2.Department of Veterinary Pathology, Faculty of Veterinary MedicineUniversity of ZagrebZagrebCroatia
  3. 3.Department for Pathological MorphologyCroatian Veterinary InstituteZagrebCroatia
  4. 4.Animal Research CentreUniversity of the Sunshine CoastSippy DownsAustralia
  5. 5.Department of Parasitology and Parasitic Diseases with Clinic, Faculty of Veterinary MedicineUniversity of ZagrebZagrebCroatia
  6. 6.Laboratory for DiagnosticsVeterinary Institute SplitSplitCroatia
  7. 7.Veterinary clinics “Daruvar”DaruvarCroatia

Personalised recommendations