Polymerase chain reaction evidence of Ehrlichia chaffeensis, an etiologic agent of human ehrlichiosis, in dogs from southeast Virginia

Jacqueline E. Dawson From the Viral and Rickettsial Zoonoses Branch, Division of Viral and Rickettsial Diseases, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Public Health Service, US Department of Health and Human Resources, Atlanta, GA 30333 (Dawson, Biggie, Warner, Olson); Department of Microbiology, Pathology, and Parasitology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606, (Cookson, Levine); and Virginia Department of Health, Richmond, VA 23219 (Jenkins).

Search for other papers by Jacqueline E. Dawson in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 MS
,
Kristine L. Biggie From the Viral and Rickettsial Zoonoses Branch, Division of Viral and Rickettsial Diseases, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Public Health Service, US Department of Health and Human Resources, Atlanta, GA 30333 (Dawson, Biggie, Warner, Olson); Department of Microbiology, Pathology, and Parasitology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606, (Cookson, Levine); and Virginia Department of Health, Richmond, VA 23219 (Jenkins).

Search for other papers by Kristine L. Biggie in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 BS
,
Cynthia K. Warner From the Viral and Rickettsial Zoonoses Branch, Division of Viral and Rickettsial Diseases, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Public Health Service, US Department of Health and Human Resources, Atlanta, GA 30333 (Dawson, Biggie, Warner, Olson); Department of Microbiology, Pathology, and Parasitology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606, (Cookson, Levine); and Virginia Department of Health, Richmond, VA 23219 (Jenkins).

Search for other papers by Cynthia K. Warner in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PhD
,
Kalen Cookson From the Viral and Rickettsial Zoonoses Branch, Division of Viral and Rickettsial Diseases, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Public Health Service, US Department of Health and Human Resources, Atlanta, GA 30333 (Dawson, Biggie, Warner, Olson); Department of Microbiology, Pathology, and Parasitology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606, (Cookson, Levine); and Virginia Department of Health, Richmond, VA 23219 (Jenkins).

Search for other papers by Kalen Cookson in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 BS
,
Suzanne Jenkins From the Viral and Rickettsial Zoonoses Branch, Division of Viral and Rickettsial Diseases, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Public Health Service, US Department of Health and Human Resources, Atlanta, GA 30333 (Dawson, Biggie, Warner, Olson); Department of Microbiology, Pathology, and Parasitology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606, (Cookson, Levine); and Virginia Department of Health, Richmond, VA 23219 (Jenkins).

Search for other papers by Suzanne Jenkins in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM
,
Jay F. Levine From the Viral and Rickettsial Zoonoses Branch, Division of Viral and Rickettsial Diseases, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Public Health Service, US Department of Health and Human Resources, Atlanta, GA 30333 (Dawson, Biggie, Warner, Olson); Department of Microbiology, Pathology, and Parasitology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606, (Cookson, Levine); and Virginia Department of Health, Richmond, VA 23219 (Jenkins).

Search for other papers by Jay F. Levine in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM
, and
James G. Olson From the Viral and Rickettsial Zoonoses Branch, Division of Viral and Rickettsial Diseases, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Public Health Service, US Department of Health and Human Resources, Atlanta, GA 30333 (Dawson, Biggie, Warner, Olson); Department of Microbiology, Pathology, and Parasitology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606, (Cookson, Levine); and Virginia Department of Health, Richmond, VA 23219 (Jenkins).

Search for other papers by James G. Olson in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PhD

Click on author name to view affiliation information

Abstract

Objective

To ascertain whether dogs are naturally infected with Ehrlichia chaffeensis.

Animals

74 dogs from 5 animal shelters and 1 kennel in 3 cities and 3 counties in southeastern Virginia were tested during June 1991.

Procedure

Blood was drawn from 74 dogs; 73 were tested serologically for antibodies reactive to E chaffeensis and E canis, and 38 were tested for the presence of E chaffeensis, E canis, and E ewingii by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Serologic testing by indirect fluorescent antibody assay. Nested PCR used Ehrlichia-wide outside primers to detect initial products, followed by use of species-specific primers for identification.

Results

28 (38.4%) dogs had a positive test result (minimum titer, ≥ 1:64) for antibodies reactive to E chaffeensis, and 28 (38.4%) had a positive reaction to E canis. PCR analysis indicated that 8 (42.1 %) dogs were positive for E chaffeensis and 6 dogs (31.6%) were positive for E ewingii. All dogs had negative results of the PCR test for E canis.

Conclusion

Dogs are potential reservoirs of E chaffeensis.

Clinical Relevance

Canine E chaffeensis infection may be more prevalent than E canis or E ewingii infection in this region of the United States. (Am J Vet Res 1996;57:1175-1179)

Abstract

Objective

To ascertain whether dogs are naturally infected with Ehrlichia chaffeensis.

Animals

74 dogs from 5 animal shelters and 1 kennel in 3 cities and 3 counties in southeastern Virginia were tested during June 1991.

Procedure

Blood was drawn from 74 dogs; 73 were tested serologically for antibodies reactive to E chaffeensis and E canis, and 38 were tested for the presence of E chaffeensis, E canis, and E ewingii by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Serologic testing by indirect fluorescent antibody assay. Nested PCR used Ehrlichia-wide outside primers to detect initial products, followed by use of species-specific primers for identification.

Results

28 (38.4%) dogs had a positive test result (minimum titer, ≥ 1:64) for antibodies reactive to E chaffeensis, and 28 (38.4%) had a positive reaction to E canis. PCR analysis indicated that 8 (42.1 %) dogs were positive for E chaffeensis and 6 dogs (31.6%) were positive for E ewingii. All dogs had negative results of the PCR test for E canis.

Conclusion

Dogs are potential reservoirs of E chaffeensis.

Clinical Relevance

Canine E chaffeensis infection may be more prevalent than E canis or E ewingii infection in this region of the United States. (Am J Vet Res 1996;57:1175-1179)

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 78 78 11
PDF Downloads 79 79 9
Advertisement