美国乔治亚州肉牛群边缘无形体感染的血清阳性率和分子检测

A. L. Jones, R. Berghaus, Allen A. Kalatari, B. Credille, H. Naikare, B. Heins, JeremiahT. Saliki, R. Wilkes
{"title":"美国乔治亚州肉牛群边缘无形体感染的血清阳性率和分子检测","authors":"A. L. Jones, R. Berghaus, Allen A. Kalatari, B. Credille, H. Naikare, B. Heins, JeremiahT. Saliki, R. Wilkes","doi":"10.21423/bovine-vol56no2p70-78","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The objective of the study was to conduct and compare serop­revalence and molecular detection of Anaplasma marginale-in­fected beef herds in Georgia, and to identify herd risk factors associated with A. marginale-positive herds. Herd informa­tion from the beef operations was collected from the sampled herds through a questionnaire to determine practices that may affect the risk of herd infections with A. marginale. Blood samples were collected from 1,059 adult beef cattle (≥ 2 years) from 33 herds. Overall, 8.12% of cattle and 42% of herds were cELISA antibody-positive. Seventy-seven percent of plasma samples from a subset of corresponding seropositive samples (n = 73) were PCR positive. All of the 406 seronegative samples were negative by PCR. There was almost perfect agreement by Cohen’s kappa statistics between PCR and cELISA (k = 0.85). Survey response rate was 100%. Surprisingly, 27% of the pro­ducer respondents had not heard of anaplasmosis. Survey also revealed that many producers had management procedures at their operations that could potentially cause mechanical transmission of A. marginale. About 55% of respondents did not always disin­fect tools between animals and 88% of the operations used the same needle to inject more than one animal. Over 80% of the producer respondents had brought in new cattle onto their op­erations in the last 3 years from the time of this study. Given the 8% seroprevalence in Georgia beef cattle and the reported survey findings from this study, educational programs on ef­fective preventive management practices to control bovine anaplasmosis is warranted.","PeriodicalId":22281,"journal":{"name":"The Bovine practitioner","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Seroprevalence and molecular detection of Anaplasma marginale infected beef herds in Georgia, USA\",\"authors\":\"A. L. Jones, R. Berghaus, Allen A. Kalatari, B. Credille, H. Naikare, B. Heins, JeremiahT. Saliki, R. Wilkes\",\"doi\":\"10.21423/bovine-vol56no2p70-78\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The objective of the study was to conduct and compare serop­revalence and molecular detection of Anaplasma marginale-in­fected beef herds in Georgia, and to identify herd risk factors associated with A. marginale-positive herds. Herd informa­tion from the beef operations was collected from the sampled herds through a questionnaire to determine practices that may affect the risk of herd infections with A. marginale. Blood samples were collected from 1,059 adult beef cattle (≥ 2 years) from 33 herds. Overall, 8.12% of cattle and 42% of herds were cELISA antibody-positive. Seventy-seven percent of plasma samples from a subset of corresponding seropositive samples (n = 73) were PCR positive. All of the 406 seronegative samples were negative by PCR. There was almost perfect agreement by Cohen’s kappa statistics between PCR and cELISA (k = 0.85). Survey response rate was 100%. Surprisingly, 27% of the pro­ducer respondents had not heard of anaplasmosis. Survey also revealed that many producers had management procedures at their operations that could potentially cause mechanical transmission of A. marginale. About 55% of respondents did not always disin­fect tools between animals and 88% of the operations used the same needle to inject more than one animal. Over 80% of the producer respondents had brought in new cattle onto their op­erations in the last 3 years from the time of this study. Given the 8% seroprevalence in Georgia beef cattle and the reported survey findings from this study, educational programs on ef­fective preventive management practices to control bovine anaplasmosis is warranted.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22281,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Bovine practitioner\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Bovine practitioner\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21423/bovine-vol56no2p70-78\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Bovine practitioner","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21423/bovine-vol56no2p70-78","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究的目的是开展并比较乔治亚州边缘无形体感染肉牛群的血清重价和分子检测,并确定边缘无形体阳性肉牛群的相关危险因素。通过问卷调查从取样的牛群中收集牛肉操作的牛群信息,以确定可能影响牛群感染边缘弧菌风险的做法。采集了来自33个畜群的1059头成年肉牛(≥2岁)的血液样本。总体而言,8.12%的牛和42%的牛群cELISA抗体呈阳性。相应血清阳性样本子集中77%的血浆样本(n = 73)为PCR阳性。406份血清阴性标本均经PCR检测为阴性。PCR与cELISA之间的Cohen’s kappa统计几乎完全一致(k = 0.85)。调查回应率为100%。令人惊讶的是,27%的制作人受访者没有听说过无形体病。调查还显示,许多生产者在其操作中有可能导致机械传播的管理程序。约55%的应答者并不总是在动物之间消毒工具,88%的手术使用同一根针注射多只动物。从本研究开始的过去3年里,超过80%的生产者回答者在他们的作业中引进了新的牛。鉴于格鲁吉亚肉牛8%的血清患病率和本研究报告的调查结果,有必要开展有效预防管理措施的教育计划,以控制牛无形体病。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Seroprevalence and molecular detection of Anaplasma marginale infected beef herds in Georgia, USA
The objective of the study was to conduct and compare serop­revalence and molecular detection of Anaplasma marginale-in­fected beef herds in Georgia, and to identify herd risk factors associated with A. marginale-positive herds. Herd informa­tion from the beef operations was collected from the sampled herds through a questionnaire to determine practices that may affect the risk of herd infections with A. marginale. Blood samples were collected from 1,059 adult beef cattle (≥ 2 years) from 33 herds. Overall, 8.12% of cattle and 42% of herds were cELISA antibody-positive. Seventy-seven percent of plasma samples from a subset of corresponding seropositive samples (n = 73) were PCR positive. All of the 406 seronegative samples were negative by PCR. There was almost perfect agreement by Cohen’s kappa statistics between PCR and cELISA (k = 0.85). Survey response rate was 100%. Surprisingly, 27% of the pro­ducer respondents had not heard of anaplasmosis. Survey also revealed that many producers had management procedures at their operations that could potentially cause mechanical transmission of A. marginale. About 55% of respondents did not always disin­fect tools between animals and 88% of the operations used the same needle to inject more than one animal. Over 80% of the producer respondents had brought in new cattle onto their op­erations in the last 3 years from the time of this study. Given the 8% seroprevalence in Georgia beef cattle and the reported survey findings from this study, educational programs on ef­fective preventive management practices to control bovine anaplasmosis is warranted.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Health and performance outcomes from a randomized clinical trial of post-metaphylactic intervals following tildipirosin metaphylaxis for control of naturally occurring BRD in commingled lightweight yearling steers in a commercial feedlot Failed transfer of passive immunity is a component cause of pre-weaning disease in beef and dairy calves: A systematic review and meta-analysis Survey of veterinary involvement in cattle health and production record-keeping on U.S. cow-calf operations Maintenance of the last step of the cold chain: on-farm refrigerator storage and performance Survey of U.S. cow-calf producer access to and use of technology for cattle health and production record-keeping purposes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1