• 1

    Uilenberg G. International collaborative research: significance of tick-borne hemoparasitic diseases to world animal health. Vet Parasitol 1995;57:1941.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Dumler JSBarbet AFBekker CP, et al. Reorganization of genera in the families Rickettsiaceae and Anaplasmataceae in the order Rickettsiales: unification of some species of Ehrlichia with Ana-plasma, Cowdria with Ehrlichia and Ehrlichia with Neorickettsia, descriptions of six new species combinations and designation of Ehrlichia equi and ‘HGE agent’ as subjective synonyms of Ehrlichia phagocytophila. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2001;51:21452165.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Kocan KMde la Fuente JGuglielmone AA, et al. Antigens and alternatives for control of Anaplasma marginale infection in cattle. Clin Microbiol Rev 2003;16:698712.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    OIE. Chapter 2.4.1: bovine anaplasmosis. In: Manual of standards for diagnostic tests and vaccines for terrestrial animals. Paris: OIE, 2008. Available at: www.oie.int/eng/normes/mmanual/2008/pdf/2.04.01_bovine_anaplasmosis.pdf.. Accessed Jul 13, 2009.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Rogers RJShiels IA. Epidemiology and control of anaplasmosis in Australia. J S Afr Vet Assoc 1979;50:363366.

  • 6

    Radostits OMGay CCBlood DC, et al. Diseases caused by arthropod parasites. In: Veterinary medicine: a textbook of the diseases of cattle, sheep, pigs, goats and horses. 9th ed. St Louis: WB Saunders Co, 2000; 14011405.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Dennis RAO'Hara PJYoung MF, et al. Neonatal immunohemolytic anemia and icterus of calves. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1970;156:18611869.

  • 8

    Luther D. Anaplasmosis vaccine from University Products LLC Available at: anaplasmosisvaccine.com. Accessed May 1, 2009.

  • 9

    Lincoln SDEckblad WPMagonigle RA. Bovine anaplasmosis: clinical, hematologie, and serologie manifestations in cows given a long-acting oxytetracycline formulation in the prepatent period. Am J Vet Res 1982;43:13601362.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Coetzee JFApley MDKocan KM. Comparison of the efficacy of enrofloxacin, imidocarb, and oxytetracycline for clearance of persistent Anaplasma marginale infections in cattle. Vet Eher 2006;7:347360.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Wilson AJParker RParker M, et al. Chemotherapy of acute bovine anaplasmosis. Aust Vet J 1979;55:7173.

  • 12

    Coetzee JFApley MDKocan KM, et al. Comparison of three oxytetracycline regimes for the treatment of persistent Anaplasma marginale infections in beef cattle. Vet Parasitol 2005;127:6173.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Futse JEUeti MWKnowles D. Jr, et al. Transmission of Anaplasma marginale by Boophilus microplus: retention of vector competence in the absence of vector-pathogen interaction. J Clin Microbiol 2003;41:38293834.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Eriks ISPalmer GHMcGuire TC, et al. Detection and quantitation of Anaplasma marginale in carrier cattle by using a nucleic acid probe. J Clin Microbiol 1989;27:279284.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Reeves JIII, Swift BL.. Iatrogenic transmission of Anaplasma marginale in beef cattle. Vet Med Small Anim Clin 1977;72:911914.

  • 16

    Zaugg JLKuttler KL. Bovine anaplasmosis: in utero transmission and the immunologie significance of ingested colostral antibodies. Am J Vet Res 1984;45:440443.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Zaugg JL. Bovine anaplasmosis: transplacental transmission as it relates to stage of gestation. Am J Vet Res 1985;46:570572.

  • 18

    Potgieter FTvan Rensbur. L. The persistence of colostral Anaplasma antibodies and incidence of in utero transmission of Anaplasma infections in calves under laboratory conditions. Onderstepoort J Vet Res 1987;54:557560.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Norton JHParker RJ, Forbes-Faulkner JC. Neonatal anaplasmosis in a calf. Aust Vet J 1983;60:348.

  • 20

    Peter RJVan de. Bossche PPenzhorn BL, et al. Tick, fly, and mosquito control—lessons from the past, solutions for the future. Vet Parasitol 2005;132:205215.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    De Wal. DT Anaplasmosis control and diagnosis in South Africa. Ann NY Acad Sei 2000;916:474483.

  • 22

    Rodriguez-Vivas RIMata-Mendez YPerez-Gutierrez E, et al. The effect of management factors on the seroprevalence of Ana-plasma marginale in Bos indicus cattle in the Mexican tropics. Trop Anim Health Prod 2004;36:135143.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Andrews AHLamport A. A practical method of reducing spread of disease by hypodermic needles. Vet Rec 1985;116:185186.

  • 24

    Makoschey BBeer M. Assessment of the risk of transmission of vaccine viruses by using insufficiently cleaned injection devices. Vet Rec 2004;155:563564.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Hollis LCSmith JFJohnson BJ, et al. A comparison of serological responses when modified-live infectious bovine rhinotracheitis virus vaccine and Mannheimia haemolytica bacterintoxoid are administered with needle-free versus conventional needle-based injection in yearling feedlot steers. Bovine Pract 2005;39:106109.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    Huang YBabiuk LAvan Drunen Littel-van den Hurk S. Immunization with a bovine herpesvirus 1 glycoprotein B DNA vaccine induces cytotoxic T-lymphocyte responses in mice and cattle. J Gen Virol 2005;86:887898.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Manoj SGriebel PJBabiuk LA, et al. Modulation of immune responses to bovine herpesvirus-1 in cattle by immunization with a DNA vaccine encoding glycoprotein D as a fusion protein with bovine CD 154. Immunology 2004;112:328338.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Sweat JMAbdy MWeniger BG, et al. Safety testing of needle free, jet injection devices to detect contamination with blood and other tissue fluids. Ann N Y Acad Sei 2000;916:681682.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    Torioni de Echaide SKnowles DPMcGuire TC, et alDetection of cattle naturally infected with Anaplasma marginale in a region of endemicity by nested PCR and a competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay using recombinant major surface protein 5.] Clin Microbiol 1998;36:777782.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Coetzee JFSchmidt PLApley MD, et al. Comparison of the complement fixation test and competitive ELISA for serodiagnosis of Anaplasma marginale infection in experimentally infected steers. Am J Vet Res 2007;68:872878.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31

    Reinbold JBCoetzee JFSirigireddy KR, et al. Detection of Anaplasma marginale and A. phagocytophilum in bovine peripheral blood samples by duplex real-time reverse transcriptase PCR assay. J Clin Microbiol 2010;48:24242432.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32

    Dohoo IMartin WStryhn H. Screening and diagnostic tests. In: Veterinary epidemiologic research. Charlottetown, PE, Canada: AVC Inc, 2007;101102.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33

    de la Fuente JBlouin EFKocan KM. Infection exclusion of the rickettsial pathogen Anaplasma marginale in the tick vector Dermacentor variabilis. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2003;10:182184.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34

    Teerasaksilp SWiwanitkit VLekngam P Comparative study of blood cell staining with Wright-giemsa stain, field stain, and a new modified stain. Lab Hematol 2005;11:7678.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35

    Kutaish N. Automated staining of bone marrow and peripheral blood by a modified Wright's technique. Am J Clin Pathol 1982;77:319320.

  • 36

    Riley RSBen-Ezra JMGoel R, et al. Reticulocytes and reticulocyte enumeration. J Clin Lab Anal 2001;15:267294.

  • 37

    Strik NIAlleman ARBarbet AF, et al. Characterization of Ana-plasma phagocytophilum major surface protein 5 and the extent of its cross-reactivity with A marginale. Clin Vaccine Immunol 2007;14:262268.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38

    Sirigireddy KRGanta RR. Multiplex detection of Ehrlichia and Anaplasma species pathogens in peripheral blood by real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction. J Mol Diagn 2005;7:308316.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39

    Ginzinger DG. Gene quantification using real-time quantitative PCR: an emerging technology hits the mainstream. Exp Hematol 2002;30:503512.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40

    Le CT. Probability and probability models. In: Introductory bio-statistics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience, 2003;118119.

  • 41

    Wilson AJParker RTrueman KF. Susceptibility of Bos indicus crossbred and Bos taurus cattle to Anaplasma marginale infection. Trop Anim Health Prod 1980;12:9094.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 42

    Bock REKingston TGDe Vo. AJ. Effect of breed of cattle on innate resistance to infection with Anaplasma marginale transmitted by Boophilus microplus. Aust Vet] 1999;77:748751.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 43

    Jonsson NNBock REJorgensen 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;155:19.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 44

    Gonzalez EFLong RFTodorovic RA. Comparisons of the complement-fixation, indirect fluorescent antibody, and card agglutination tests for the diagnosis of bovine anaplasmosis. Am J Vet Res 1978;39:15381541.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 45

    Bradway DSTorioni de Echaide SKnowles DP, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of the complement fixation test for detection of cattle persistently infected with Anaplasma marginale. J Vet Diagn Invest 2001;13:7981.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 46

    Dreher UMde la Fuente JHofmann-Lehmann R, et al. Serologie cross-reactivity between Anaplasma marginale and Anaplasma phagocytophilum. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2005;12:11771183.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 47

    Carelli GDecaro NLorusso A, et al. Detection and quantification of Anaplasma marginale DNA in blood samples of cattle by real-time PCR. Vet Microbiol 2007;124:107114.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 48

    Decaro NCarelli GLorusso E, et al. Duplex real-time polymerase chain reaction for simultaneous detection and quantification of Anaplasma marginale and Anaplasma centrale. J Vet Diagn Invest 2008;20:606611.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 49

    Figueroa JVAlvarez JARamos JA, et al. Bovine babesiosis and anaplasmosis follow-up on cattle relocated in an endemic area for hemoparasitic diseases. Ann N Y Acad Sei 1998;849:110.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 50

    Ge NLKocan KMEwing SA, et al. Use of a nonradioactive DNA probe for detection of Anaplasma marginale infection in field cattle: comparison with complement fixation serology and microscopic examination. J Vet Diagn Invest 1997;9:3943.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 51

    Ge NLKocan KMMurphy GL, et al. Detection of Anaplasma marginale DNA in bovine erythrocytes by slot-blot and in situ hybridization with a PCR-mediated digoxigenin-labeled DNA probe. J Vet Diagn Invest 1995;7:465472.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 52

    Goff WLStiller DRoeder RA, et al. Comparison of a DNA probe, complement-fixation and indirect immunofluorescence tests for diagnosing Anaplasma marginale in suspected carrier cattle. Vet Microbiol 1990;24:381390.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 53

    Hoar BRNieto NCRhodes DM, et al. Evaluation of sequential coinfection with Anaplasma phagocytophilum and Anaplasma marginale in cattle. Am J Vet Res 2008;69:11711178.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 54

    Molad TMazuz MLFleiderovitz L, et al. Molecular and serological detection of A centrale- and A marginale-infected cattle grazing within an endemic area. Vet Microbiol 2006;113:5562.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Comparison of iatrogenic transmission of Anaplasma marginale in Holstein steers via needle and needle-free injection techniques

View More View Less
  • 1 Departments of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology, Kansas State University Manhattan, KS 66502.
  • | 2 Clinical Sciences, Kansas State University Manhattan, KS 66502.
  • | 3 College of Veterinary Medicine, and the Department of Animal Sciences & Industry College of Agriculture, Kansas State University Manhattan, KS 66502.
  • | 4 Departments of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology, Kansas State University Manhattan, KS 66502.
  • | 5 Departments of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology, Kansas State University Manhattan, KS 66502.
  • | 6 Departments of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology, Kansas State University Manhattan, KS 66502.
  • | 7 Departments of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology, Kansas State University Manhattan, KS 66502.

Abstract

Objective—To compare iatrogenic transmission of Anaplasma marginale during sham vaccination between needle and needle-free injection techniques.

Animals—26 Holstein steers confirmed negative for anaplasmosis by use of a competitive ELISA (cELISA) and an A marginale-specific reverse transcription (RT)-PCR assay.

Procedures—An isolate of A marginale was propagated to a circulating parasitemia of 2.0% in a splenectomized steer. Sham vaccination was performed in the left cervical muscles of the splenectomized parasitemic steer with a hypodermic needle fitted to a multiple-dose syringe. The same needle and syringe were used to sham vaccinate a naïve steer. This 2-step procedure was repeated until 10 naïve steers (group ND) were injected. Similarly, sham vaccination of the left cervical muscles of the splenectomized parasitemic steer and another group of 10 naïve steers (group NF) was performed by use of a needle-free injection system. Five control steers were not injected. Disease status was evaluated twice weekly for 61 days by use of light microscopy, a cELISA, and an A marginale-specific RT-PCR assay.

Results—Iatrogenic transmission was detected in 6 of 10 steers in group ND. Disease status did not change in the NF or control steers. Sensitivity of light microscopy, cELISA, and RT-PCR assay was 100% on days 41, 41, and 20 after sham vaccination, respectively; however, only cELISA and RT-PCR assay sustained a sensitivity of 100% thereafter.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Needle-free injection was superior to needle injection for the control of iatrogenic transmission of A marginale. (Am J Vet Res 2010;71 1178-1188)

Abstract

Objective—To compare iatrogenic transmission of Anaplasma marginale during sham vaccination between needle and needle-free injection techniques.

Animals—26 Holstein steers confirmed negative for anaplasmosis by use of a competitive ELISA (cELISA) and an A marginale-specific reverse transcription (RT)-PCR assay.

Procedures—An isolate of A marginale was propagated to a circulating parasitemia of 2.0% in a splenectomized steer. Sham vaccination was performed in the left cervical muscles of the splenectomized parasitemic steer with a hypodermic needle fitted to a multiple-dose syringe. The same needle and syringe were used to sham vaccinate a naïve steer. This 2-step procedure was repeated until 10 naïve steers (group ND) were injected. Similarly, sham vaccination of the left cervical muscles of the splenectomized parasitemic steer and another group of 10 naïve steers (group NF) was performed by use of a needle-free injection system. Five control steers were not injected. Disease status was evaluated twice weekly for 61 days by use of light microscopy, a cELISA, and an A marginale-specific RT-PCR assay.

Results—Iatrogenic transmission was detected in 6 of 10 steers in group ND. Disease status did not change in the NF or control steers. Sensitivity of light microscopy, cELISA, and RT-PCR assay was 100% on days 41, 41, and 20 after sham vaccination, respectively; however, only cELISA and RT-PCR assay sustained a sensitivity of 100% thereafter.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Needle-free injection was superior to needle injection for the control of iatrogenic transmission of A marginale. (Am J Vet Res 2010;71 1178-1188)

Contributor Notes

Supported by grants from Intervet Incorporated; USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (AES project No. 481851); and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NO. AI070908).

The authors thank Drs. David A. Anderson, Anatoly Luskotov, and Brian V Lubbers and Angela Baker, Susan Barnett, Lauren Calland. Pilar Gunter, Kabel Robbins, Gina Scott, Amanda Sherck, and Kara Smith for technical assistance.

Address correspondence to Dr. Coetzee (jcoetzee@vet.k-state.edu).