Next Article in Journal
Risk Factors for the Development of Post-Infectious Bronchiolitis Obliterans in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Next Article in Special Issue
Companion Vector-Borne Pathogens and Associated Risk Factors in Apparently Healthy Pet Animals (Dogs and Cats) in Khukhot City Municipality, Pathum Thani Province, Thailand
Previous Article in Journal
Assessment of the Role of Free-Living and Farmed Fallow Deer (Dama dama) as A Potential Source of Human Infection with Multiple-Drug-Resistant Strains of Yersinia enterocolitica and Yersinia pseudotuberculosis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Molecular Epidemiology and Species Diversity of Tick-Borne Pathogens of Animals in Egypt: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Pathogens
Volume 11
Issue 11
10.3390/pathogens11111267
pathogens-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Epidemiological Survey of the Main Tick-Borne Pathogens Infecting Dogs from the Republic of Moldova

by
Gianluca D’Amico
1,*,
Angela Monica Ionică
1,2,
Adriana Györke
1 and
Mirabela Oana Dumitrache
1
1
Department of Parasitology and Parasitic Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
2
Clinical Hospital of Infectious Diseases of Cluj-Napoca, 400348 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pathogens 2022, 11(11), 1267; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/pathogens11111267
Submission received: 9 October 2022 / Revised: 25 October 2022 / Accepted: 26 October 2022 / Published: 30 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Molecular Epidemiology of Tick-Borne Protozoal and Rickettsial Diseases)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Despite the significant burden of tick-borne diseases (TBDs), epidemiologic studies are missing, and TBD awareness is low in the Republic of Moldova. Our study is the first to assess the prevalence of the main tick-borne pathogens (TBPs) infecting dogs in this country and associated risk factors. In this cross-sectional, multi-centre study (June 2018–July 2019), blood samples were collected from dogs presenting in veterinary clinics (Chişinău: N = 30) and hosted in public dog shelters (Cahul: N = 42; Chişinău: N = 48). TBPs were assessed by molecular techniques and risk factors by the logistic regression model. Hepatozoon canis was the most prevalent TBP (15.8% [19/120]), followed by Babesia canis (11.7% [14/120]), Anaplasma phagocytophilum (5.8% [7/120]), and Bartonella spp. (0.8% [1/120]). Blood samples tested negative for Borrelia spp., Rickettsia spp., Francisella tularensis, Anaplasma platys, and Ehrlichia canis. Dogs originating from the veterinary clinics had a higher prevalence of A. phagocytophilum infection than those from the shelters (16.6% versus 2.2%, respectively, p = 0.0292; OR: 27.0 [95%CI: 1.4–521.9]). Dogs from Chișinău had a higher prevalence of Hepatozoon canis infection versus those from Cahul (19.2% versus 9.5%, respectively, p = 0.0295; OR: 3.9 [95%CI: 1.1–13.4]). We recommend routine use of acaricides and deworming of dogs to prevent or/and limit TBD spread. Further TBD surveillance studies are needed.

1. Introduction

Ticks, order Ixodida, are obligate hematophagous ectoparasites of mammals, birds, and reptiles, and some of them pose a great risk to both animal and public health [1]. Pathogens transmitted by ticks, such as bacteria, viruses, rickettsia, and protozoa, cause most of the vector-borne diseases reported in the temperate regions of Europe, North America, and Asia [2,3]. To date, growing evidence suggests that tick dissemination and tick-borne disease (TBD) transmission is expanding across European countries [4,5,6,7], becoming a significant issue due to individual and societal burdens (e.g., Lyme disease) [8], threats to animal health (both companion and livestock), and financial losses caused by debilitating or lethal TBDs, especially in developing countries (e.g., babesiosis) [2,9].
In the current context, disease surveillance, defined as the systematic collection, analysis, and dissemination of data on infections, plays a key role in planning and implementing suitable actions that can be taken to prevent or limit the spread of TBDs in a specific region [7].
Different studies have shown that Ixodes ricinus (Linnaeus, 1758) and Dermacentor reticulatus (Fabricius, 1794) are the most common ixodid ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) found in dogs across central and eastern European countries [10,11]. Ixodes ricinus is a suitable vector for zoonotic agents such as Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato (B. burgdorferi s. l.), Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Francisella tularensis, tick-borne encephalitis virus, Babesia canis, and Bartonella henselae, while D. reticulatus may transmit B. canis, Rickettsia spp. and A. phagocytophilum [3,10,12]. Even if exposure to tick-borne pathogens (TBPs) does not always result in clinical disease in animals and humans, a greater awareness of TBDs in health professionals, veterinary doctors, and the general population is the first step for better management of patients and affected animals.
In the Republic of Moldova, TBPs were evaluated only in ticks collected from migratory birds and questing ticks. A. phagocytophilum, Borrelia genospecies, and spotted fever group Rickettsia were detected in I. ricinus ticks parasitizing birds [13,14,15] and those from the environment [16]. These findings raise further important questions: What are the infection rates in domestic animals? Are TBDs a risk for animal health? A significant amount of data provide confirmation that dogs may significantly contribute to the circulation of ticks and TBPs in the environment [17]. Despite the medical importance of some TBDs, epidemiological studies in dogs are lacking in this country.
To address this gap in knowledge, our study aimed to assess the prevalence of the main TBPs infecting dogs from the Republic of Moldova and identify associated risk factors.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Sampling

This was a cross-sectional, multi-centre study conducted between June 2018 and July 2019 in veterinary clinics from Chişinău, and in public dog shelters from the south (Cahul, Moldova) and central (Chişinău, Moldova) parts of the Republic of Moldova. All the owned dogs had a mixed indoor–outdoor lifestyle, while stray dogs living in shelters had an outdoor-only lifestyle. Owned dogs occasionally received ectoparasite preventive treatment, whereas the stray dogs were free of any prophylactic treatment as confirmed by shelter personnel. Before study inclusion, informed consent forms were obtained from the owners of the dogs or from the managers of the shelters.
From each dog, a blood sample was collected by cephalic venipuncture. A 5-mL syringe and a sterile 18 to 22-gauge needle size were used according to the dog size. Samples of 2 mL were transferred in labeled tubes with anticoagulant (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid) and stored at −20 °C for subsequent testing of TBPs. Location, sex, age, breed, origin, and travel history were recorded for each dog to assess the risk factors for tick-borne pathogens.
This study (project number: PD35/2018) was approved by the Ethical Committee of the University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca, Cluj, Romania.

2.2. Molecular Techniques for Vector-Borne Pathogen Identification

Genomic DNA was extracted from 200 μL of whole blood using a commercial kit (Isolate II Genomic DNA Kit, meridian Bioscience, London, UK) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. In order to assess and exclude possible contaminations, in each set of extractions, a blank consisting of PCR-grade water was included and subsequently evaluated for the presence of nucleic acids using a NanoDrop spectrophotometer. The DNA samples were screened for the presence of various vector-borne pathogens using the previously published primers and protocols (Table 1). Each amplification set included a positive control consisting of pathogen DNA attained and confirmed by sequencing during previous studies, one negative control (DNA from a healthy dog), and one no-template control (NTC) consisting of PCR-grade water.
The PCR products and controls were visualized by electrophoresis in 2% agarose gels stained with the RedSafe™ 20,000× Nucleic Acid Staining Solution (iNtRON Biotechnology, Seongnam, Korea), and their molecular weight was assessed via comparison with a molecular marker (HyperLadder™ 100 bp, meridian Bioscience, London, UK). All bands of the expected size were excised from the gels and purified using a commercial kit (Isolate II PCR and Gel Kit, meridian Bioscience, London, UK). The purified products were sequenced using an external service (performed by Macrogen Europe B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands). The obtained sequences were compared to those available in the GenBank® database by means of Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST) analysis.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Data were analysed using the statistics software Epi Info™ version 3.5.1. (CDC, 2008) [27]. The demographic and clinical characteristics of the sampled dogs were analysed descriptively. The frequency and prevalence of TBPs were tabulated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A multilogistic regression model was used to determine whether age, sex, breed, location, and origin were risk factors for infection with TBPs. The level of significance was set at p-value ≤ 0.05. Odds ratios with 95% CIs were calculated to compare the magnitude of the risk factor.

3. Results

3.1. Study Population

Of 120 dogs included in this study, 30 originated from veterinary clinics in Chişinău and 90 from public dog shelters from Cahul (n = 42) and Chişinău (n = 48).
The mean age (± SD) of the dogs was 3.6 ± 2.4 years. Other demographic characteristics are shown in Table 2. Vector-borne pathogens were evaluated in blood samples collected from all the dogs.

3.2. Molecular Analysis Outcomes

TBPs were identified by PCR in 41/120 (34%) dogs. The overall prevalence of pathogen species identified in blood samples is shown in Figure 1. All blood samples tested negative for the following pathogens: Borrelia spp., Rickettsia spp., F. tularensis, A. platys, and Ehrlichia canis.
Hepatozoon canis was the most prevalent pathogen, detected in 19 dogs. Five unique DNA sequences of H. canis were obtained. Of these, three were detected from samples collected from three different dogs, the fourth was identified in three dogs, and the fifth in the remaining thirteen dogs. Three of the DNA sequences showed 100% identity similarity with other H. canis isolates from Europe (e.g., KX 712129, MN791088, KY693670, and KU893127), while the other two showed a similarity of 99.25% and 99.81%, respectively.
B. canis was detected in 14 blood samples, and four unique DNA sequences were obtained. Of the latter, one was present in a single dog and was 100% identical to a DNA sequence isolated from bat blood in Romania (MK934420). The remaining sequences were 99.6% (one dog), 99.81% (one dog), and 100% (11 dogs) identical to B. canis isolates from Dermacentor reticulatus ticks and dogs from Romania (HQ662634, MK836022).
A. phagocytophilum was detected in seven positive dogs. Five unique sequences were obtained (one of them being present in three dogs) with a 99.8–100% nucleotide identity to A. phagocytophilum isolates originating from ticks and hosts throughout Europe (e.g., MF372791, KF312357, MW272752, and MW013537).
The Bartonella sp. sequence showed the highest similarity (99.7%) with two unnamed Bartonella sp. isolated from dogs in China (FJ464163, DQ192515), followed by B. vinsonii subsp. Berkhoffii isolated from dog blood in Sweden (99.41%; CP003124).
All sequences obtained in this study were deposited in the GenBank® database, under the following Accession Numbers: OP412819-OP412823 (H. canis), OP412824-OP412827 (B. canis), OP428642-OP428646 (A. phagocytophilum), and OP428647 (Bartonella sp.).

3.3. Risk Factors for Tick-Borne Pathogens

Analysis of the risk factors revealed that the origin of dogs had a significant influence on A. phagocytophilum infection only; dogs originating from the veterinary clinic had a higher prevalence of this TBD than those from the shelters (16.6% versus 2.2%, respectively, p = 0.0292; OR: 27.0 [1.4–521.9]). Location had a significant influence only on H. canis infection: Dogs from Chișinău had a higher prevalence of H. canis infection as compared to those from Cahul (19.2% versus 9.5%, respectively, p = 0.0295; OR: 3.9 [95% CI: 1.1–13.4]). No significant differences were observed with regard to age, sex, and breed, regardless of the pathogen (Table 3).

4. Discussion

The Republic of Moldova is one of the European countries with major gaps in TBD surveillance, due to limited access to diagnostic tools, misdiagnosis, and low awareness with regard to some diseases. This study is the first to investigate the prevalence of A. phagocytophilum, A. platys, B. burgdorferi, B. canis, Bartonella spp., E. canis, F. tularensis, H. canis, and Rickettsia spp. in dogs from this country.
H. canis was the most prevalent TBP (15.8% [19/120]) identified in our study, which is an expected finding given that this protozoan parasite is widely spread in Europe and is endemic in the Mediterranean region and southeastern countries [28,29,30]. The infection rate recorded in our study is similar to those reported in south-central Romania (15% [14/96]) and Croatia (12% [108/924]), but much lower than in southern Romania (47% [163/300]) [28,31,32]. In Hungary, the prevalence is reported as higher (26% [33/126]), with different infection rates observed for shepherd (31%), hunting (8%), and stray (7%) dogs [33]. In Italy, the reported prevalence of H. canis varies from 3.6% (14/385) to 32.5% (38/117), depending on the region, the origin of dogs (kennel or hunting), and period of collection [29,34,35]. Similarly, in our study, the significant difference between the infection rate of the dogs from Chișinău (19.2 [15/78]) and those from Cahul (9.5% [4/42]) (p = 0.0295; OR: 3.9) could be explained by the different sampling periods and the spread of R. sanguineus s.l., the main vector of this pathogen [36]. Its presence in canids has been previously reported in the Chișinău area [37]. Other tick species are also thought to be competent vectors for H. canis [38,39]. The indoor biology of R. sanguineus s.l. may explain why H. canis was recorded in all but one dog from public shelters [40].
H. canis infection is usually asymptomatic in dogs. Clinical signs and symptoms, such as fever, anorexia, weight loss, lymphadenomegaly, anaemia, and lethargy, may be present when a high level of parasitemia is reached or if co-infections with other vector-borne pathogens occur [41]. Co-infections are highly likely to be detected given that the main vector of H. canis, Rhipicephalus sanguineus, can transmit various individual pathogens [41,42].
For B. canis infection, we recorded a prevalence of 11.7% (14/120), which is comparable with the prevalence recorded in a recent comprehensive survey of stray dogs from the south of Romania (9.6% [29/300]) and in a study of suburban and rural dogs in Serbia (13.5% [15/111]) [32,43], and lower than in non-symptomatic dogs screened for tick-borne infections in central Poland (25.3% [21/82]) [44]. The B. canis infection rate was substantially higher when symptomatic dogs were screened: 71.4% (174/49) in Romania and 87.8% (108/123) in Lithuania [45]. The differences in prevalence across European countries are related to the presence of Dermacentor reticulatus tick species, its geographical distribution, and its abundance in certain regions [46,47].
The importance of B. canis infection resides in the moderate to severe disease caused in dogs, which usually manifests with anaemia and haemolysis, fever, vomiting, lymphadenomegaly, hypotension, nephropathy, weight loss, and lethargy, and may progress to multi-organ failure with a high risk of mortality if diagnosis and specific treatment are delayed [46,48]. Máthé and colleagues reported a mortality rate of approximately 50% in dogs with acute kidney injury as a complication of B. canis [49], which highlights the importance of the specific treatment being started as early as possible in the course of the disease.
We found an A. phagocytophilum infection rate of 5.8% (7/120), which is comparable with the prevalence reported in Romania (5.3% [19/357] to 6.2% [16/257]), Slovakia (8% [6/87]), and Italy (up to 6% [3/50]), and lower than that recorded in southern Hungary (11% [14/100]) and Poland (up to 14% [13/92]) [44,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58]. Lower infection rates have been reported in Tirana (1.0% [6/602]), Belgrade municipalities (0.0% [0/111]), and in the Czech Republic (3.4% [10/296]) [43,59,60]. Interestingly, in our study, the infection rate was significantly higher in owned dogs (16.6% [5/30]) compared to those originating from shelters (2.2% [2/90]). This could be explained by the limited access of shelter dogs to natural environments habited by I. ricinus.
The first report of A. phagocytophilum in the Republic of Moldova dates back to 2013, when this pathogen was identified at a prevalence rate of 2.4% (3/126) in the museum-archived I. ricinus female ticks collected in Moldova in 1960 [61]. Since then, A. phagocytophilum was identified at a prevalence ranging from 6.9% (18/262) to 19% (19/131) in ticks collected from migratory birds [14,62]. While these data highlight that A. phagocytophilum is an emerging pathogen in the Republic of Moldova, our study demonstrated that its transmission to dogs already occurred, and that the pathogen circulates among ixodid ticks from highly populated areas of the country. Given that A. phagocytophilum is the causative agent of canine granulocytic anaplasmosis in domestic carnivores, tick-borne fever in ruminants, equine granulocytic anaplasmosis in horses, and human granulocytic anaplasmosis [63], our study highlights the need for raising awareness of this potential disease amongst veterinarians and public health personnel.
Bartonella spp. infection was found in one dog originating from a shelter in Cahul. The overall prevalence of Bartonella spp. of 0.8% was similar to that recorded in a study in Poland (0.3% [1/242]) [58], but lower than that reported in Greece (4% [2/50]), Italy (12% [7/60]), and Spain (27% [8/36]) [64,65]. In a recent study conducted in Portugal, all blood samples collected from dogs (25) tested negative for Bartonella spp. [66]. Even though the majority of acute Bartonella infections are self-limiting, in some cases, persistent infections can lead to various pathologic conditions in dogs and humans. Dogs can be accidental hosts for B. vinsonii subsp. berkhoffii, B. henselae, and other B. species [67]. Bartonella infection is more likely to manifest in dogs compared to cats, with clinical signs and symptoms such as fever, endocarditis and myocarditis, cardiac arrhythmias, pyogranulomatous lymphadenitis, hepatitis and pulmonary nodules, dermatitis, panniculitis, granulomatous rhinitis, and epistaxis [67,68]. It remains unknown whether dogs can transmit infection to humans [67]. Further studies are needed to fill this gap, especially since Bartonella spp. pose a zoonotic risk for immunosuppressed as well as immunocompetent individuals [68].
All samples tested negative for A. platys and E. canis. This was expected given that the transmission route of both pathogens is restricted to Mediterranean countries [40,69,70]. R. sanguineus ticks should be collected and tick DNA analysed to better understand the E. canis distribution in the Republic of Moldova and the vectorial role of R. sanguineus s.l.’s temperate lineage in the maintenance and transmission of this pathogen [71]. However, potential infection with A. platys should be kept in mind for dogs presenting with cyclic thrombocytopenia [72], especially if increased travel activities are reported by owners or if dogs were imported from endemic areas. Similarly, E. canis-related TBD should be kept on the radar due to its clinical importance in dogs. E. canis causes canine monocytic ehrlichiosis, which manifests with clinical (e.g., fever, anorexia, diarrhoea, vomiting, lymphadenopathy, petechial haemorrhages, bleeding tendency) and haematological abnormalities (e.g., anaemia and thrombocytopenia), or can determine chronic infection [69].
Our study’s main strength is its novelty; this is the first study to report the presence of A. phagocytophilum, B. canis, and Bartonella spp. (assessed by PCR from blood samples) in dogs from the Republic of Moldova. Even if the set of inclusion and exclusion criteria was minimal, the sample size of our study was limited. This relatively small sample size did not allow us to draw definitive conclusions or identify fair risk factors. Another limitation of our study originates in the screening method used for TBP identification, i.e., the detection of the pathogens’ genomic DNA in blood by PCR occurs more easily in the acute phase of a disease. However, previous exposure to any pathogen that may have been present but was cleared by the time of blood sampling was not assessed (e.g., serological tests).

5. Conclusions

Our study reported, for the first time, the presence of A. phagocytophilum, H. canis, B. canis, and Bartonella spp. in dogs from the Republic of Moldova, extending the knowledge about the geographic distribution of these TBDs. Suitable actions should be taken to prevent or limit the spread of TBDs in this country and to raise awareness among veterinarians and public health personnel. As a preventive action for the limitation of TBD spread, we would recommend routine use of external deworming and acaricides in both owned dogs and those from public shelters. Further surveillance studies on TBDs in dog populations are needed.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.D.; methodology, G.D. and M.O.D.; formal analysis, G.D.; investigation, G.D., M.O.D. and A.M.I.; supervision, G.D.; data curation, A.G. and A.M.I.; writing—original draft preparation, G.D.; writing—review and editing, G.D., A.G., A.M.I. and M.O.D.; project administration, G.D.; funding acquisition, G.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by CNCS-UEFISCDI Grant Agency Romania, grant number PD35/2018.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the Ethical Committee of the University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca, Cluj, Romania.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the investigators and authorities form the Republic of Moldova involved in this study: Eugeniu Voiniţchi from the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, State Agrarian University of Moldova, 48 Mircești Street, Chişinău, Republic of Moldova—organized sample collection; Marina Nichitovschi from the “Family Vet” Veterinary Clinic, Chişinău, Republic of Moldova—collection of blood samples; and Nicolae Ciavdar from the Ciavdar Veterinary Clinic, Chişinău, Republic of Moldova—collection of blood sample. Writing and editorial support was provided by Ioana Cristina Ilea.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. de la Fuente, J.; Estrada-Pena, A.; Venzal, J.M.; Kocan, K.M.; Sonenshine, D.E. Overview: Ticks as vectors of pathogens that cause disease in humans and animals. Front. Biosci. 2008, 13, 6938–6946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Rochlin, I.; Toledo, A. Emerging tick-borne pathogens of public health importance: A mini-review. J. Med. Microbiol. 2020, 69, 781–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Boulanger, N.; Boyer, P.; Talagrand-Reboul, E.; Hansmann, Y. Ticks and tick-borne diseases. Med. Mal. Infect. 2019, 49, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Jaenson, T.G.; Hjertqvist, M.; Bergström, T.; Lundkvist, A. Why is tick-borne encephalitis increasing? A review of the key factors causing the increasing incidence of human TBE in Sweden. Parasit. Vectors 2012, 5, 184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Cayol, C.; Koskela, E.; Mappes, T.; Siukkola, A.; Kallio, E.R. Temporal dynamics of the tick Ixodes ricinus in northern Europe: Epidemiological implications. Parasit. Vectors 2017, 10, 166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Černý, J.; Lynn, G.; Hrnková, J.; Golovchenko, M.; Rudenko, N.; Grubhoffer, L. Management Options for Ixodes ricinus-Associated Pathogens: A Review of Prevention Strategies. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Johnson, N.; Phipps, L.P.; Hansford, K.M.; Folly, A.J.; Fooks, A.R.; Medlock, J.M.; Mansfield, K.L. One Health Approach to Tick and Tick-Borne Disease Surveillance in the United Kingdom. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 5833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Mac, S.; da Silva, S.R.; Sander, B. The economic burden of Lyme disease and the cost-effectiveness of Lyme disease interventions: A scoping review. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0210280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Estrada-Peña, A.; Salman, M. Current Limitations in the Control and Spread of Ticks that Affect Livestock: A Review. Agriculture 2013, 3, 221–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Rubel, F.; Brugger, K.; Pfeffer, M.; Chitimia-Dobler, L.; Didyk, Y.M.; Leverenz, S.; Dautel, H.; Kahl, O. Geographical distribution of Dermacentor marginatus and Dermacentor reticulatus in Europe. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2016, 7, 224–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cunze, S.; Glock, G.; Kochmann, J.; Klimpel, S. Ticks on the move-climate change-induced range shifts of three tick species in Europe: Current and future habitat suitability for Ixodes ricinus in comparison with Dermacentor reticulatus and Dermacentor marginatus. Parasitol. Res. 2022, 121, 2241–2252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Rigaud, E.; Jaulhac, B.; Garcia-Bonnet, N.; Hunfeld, K.P.; Féménia, F.; Huet, D.; Goulvestre, C.; Vaillant, V.; Deffontaines, G.; Abadia-Benoist, G. Seroprevalence of seven pathogens transmitted by the Ixodes ricinus tick in forestry workers in France. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2016, 22, e731–e739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Capligina, V.; Salmane, I.; Keišs, O.; Vilks, K.; Japina, K.; Baumanis, V.; Ranka, R. Prevalence of tick-borne pathogens in ticks collected from migratory birds in Latvia. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2014, 5, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Morozov, A.; Tischenkov, A.; Silaghi, C.; Proka, A.; Toderas, I.; Movila, A.; Frickmann, H.; Poppert, S. Prevalence of Bacterial and Protozoan Pathogens in Ticks Collected from Birds in the Republic of Moldova. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Movila, A.; Gatewood, A.; Toderas, I.; Duca, M.; Papero, M.; Uspenskaia, I.; Conovalov, J.; Fish, D. Prevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato in Ixodes ricinus and I. lividus ticks collected from wild birds in the Republic of Moldova. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2008, 298, 149–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Movila, A.; Rolain, J.M.; Podavalenko, A.; Toderas, I.; Tkachenco, L.; Naglov, V.; Raoult, D. Detection of spotted fever group Rickettsiae and family Anaplasmataceae in Ixodes ricinus ticks from Republic of Moldova and Eastern Ukraine. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2009, 15 (Suppl. 2), 32–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Skotarczak, B. The role of companion animals in the environmental circulation of tick-borne bacterial pathogens. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2018, 25, 473–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hodžić, A.; Alić, A.; Fuehrer, H.P.; Harl, J.; Wille-Piazzai, W.; Duscher, G.G. A molecular survey of vector-borne pathogens in red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Parasit. Vectors 2015, 8, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Barbour, A.G.; Maupin, G.O.; Teltow, G.J.; Carter, C.J.; Piesman, J. Identification of an uncultivable Borrelia species in the hard tick Amblyomma americanum: Possible agent of a Lyme disease-like illness. J. Infect. Dis. 1996, 173, 403–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Clark, K.L.; Leydet, B.; Hartman, S. Lyme borreliosis in human patients in Florida and Georgia, USA. Int. J. Med. Sci. 2013, 10, 915–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Regnery, R.L.; Spruill, C.L.; Plikaytis, B.D. Genotypic identification of rickettsiae and estimation of intraspecies sequence divergence for portions of two rickettsial genes. J. Bacteriol. 1991, 173, 1576–1589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Norman, A.F.; Regnery, R.; Jameson, P.; Greene, C.; Krause, D.C. Differentiation of Bartonella-like isolates at the species level by PCR-restriction fragment length polymorphism in the citrate synthase gene. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1995, 33, 1797–1803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Sjöstedt, A.; Eriksson, U.; Berglund, L.; Tärnvik, A. Detection of Francisella tularensis in ulcers of patients with tularemia by PCR. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1997, 35, 1045–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Alberti, A.; Zobba, R.; Chessa, B.; Addis, M.F.; Sparagano, O.; Pinna Parpaglia, M.L.; Cubeddu, T.; Pintori, G.; Pittau, M. Equine and canine Anaplasma phagocytophilum strains isolated on the island of Sardinia (Italy) are phylogenetically related to pathogenic strains from the United States. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2005, 71, 6418–6422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Murphy, G.L.; Ewing, S.A.; Whitworth, L.C.; Fox, J.C.; Kocan, A.A. A molecular and serologic survey of Ehrlichia canis, E. chaffeensis, and E. ewingii in dogs and ticks from Oklahoma. Vet. Parasitol. 1998, 79, 325–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Siarkou, V.I.; Mylonakis, M.E.; Bourtzi-Hatzopoulou, E.; Koutinas, A.F. Sequence and phylogenetic analysis of the 16S rRNA gene of Ehrlichia canis strains in dogs with clinical monocytic ehrlichiosis. Vet. Microbiol. 2007, 125, 304–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Epi Info™ 3.5.1. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/epiinfo/support/downloads/prevversions.html (accessed on 7 October 2022).
  28. Andersson, M.O.; Tolf, C.; Tamba, P.; Stefanache, M.; Waldenström, J.; Dobler, G.; Chițimia-Dobler, L. Canine tick-borne diseases in pet dogs from Romania. Parasit. Vectors 2017, 10, 155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Pacifico, L.; Braff, J.; Buono, F.; Beall, M.; Neola, B.; Buch, J.; Sgroi, G.; Piantedosi, D.; Santoro, M.; Tyrrell, P.; et al. Hepatozoon canis in hunting dogs from Southern Italy: Distribution and risk factors. Parasitol. Res. 2020, 119, 3023–3031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hamel, D.; Röhrig, E.; Pfister, K. Canine vector-borne disease in travelled dogs in Germany—A retrospective evaluation of laboratory data from the years 2004–2008. Vet. Parasitol. 2011, 181, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Vojta, L.; Mrljak, V.; Curković, S.; Zivicnjak, T.; Marinculić, A.; Beck, R. Molecular epizootiology of canine hepatozoonosis in Croatia. Int. J. Parasitol. 2009, 39, 1129–1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Cimpan, A.A.; Nachum-Biala, Y.; Ben-Shitrit, B.; Miron, L.; Baneth, G. Epidemiological Study of Canine Babesiosis and Hepatozoonosis in the South of Romania. Acta Parasitol. 2020, 65, 669–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Hornok, S.; Tánczos, B.; Fernández de Mera, I.G.; de la Fuente, J.; Hofmann-Lehmann, R.; Farkas, R. High prevalence of Hepatozoon-infection among shepherd dogs in a region considered to be free of Rhipicephalus sanguineus. Vet. Parasitol. 2013, 196, 189–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Cassini, R.; Zanutto, S.; Frangipane di Regalbono, A.; Gabrielli, S.; Calderini, P.; Moretti, A.; Tampieri, M.P.; Pietrobelli, M. Canine piroplasmosis in Italy: Epidemiological aspects in vertebrate and invertebrate hosts. Vet. Parasitol. 2009, 165, 30–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Ebani, V.V.; Nardoni, S.; Fognani, G.; Mugnaini, L.; Bertelloni, F.; Rocchigiani, G.; Papini, R.A.; Stefani, F.; Mancianti, F. Molecular detection of vector-borne bacteria and protozoa in healthy hunting dogs from Central Italy. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Biomed. 2015, 5, 108–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Baneth, G.; Bourdeau, P.; Bourdoiseau, G.; Bowman, D.; Breitschwerdt, E.; Capelli, G.; Cardoso, L.; Dantas-Torres, F.; Day, M.; Dedet, J.-P. Vector-borne diseases-constant challenge for practicing veterinarians: Recommendations from the CVBD World Forum. Parasit. Vectors 2012, 5, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Talambuta, N.; Oleg, C.; Dumitru, E.; Ştefan, R.; Galina, M.; Maria, Z.; Elena, G.; Tudor, A. Diversitatea parazitofaunei la Canis familiaris din ecosistemul urban, Chişinău. In Actual Problems of Zoology and Parasitology: Achievements and Prospects, Chișinău, Republic of Moldova, 13 October 2017; Institutul de Zoologie: Chișinău, Republic of Moldova, 2017; pp. 212–219. [Google Scholar]
  38. Murata, T.; Inoue, M.; Taura, Y.; Nakama, S.; Abe, H.; Fujisaki, K. Detection of Hepatozoon canis oocyst from ticks collected from the infected dogs. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 1995, 57, 111–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. de Miranda, R.L.; de Castro, J.R.; Olegário, M.M.; Beletti, M.E.; Mundim, A.V.; O’Dwyer, L.H.; Eyal, O.; Talmi-Frank, D.; Cury, M.C.; Baneth, G. Oocysts of Hepatozoon canis in Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus collected from a naturally infected dog. Vet. Parasitol. 2011, 177, 392–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Dantas-Torres, F. Biology and ecology of the brown dog tick, Rhipicephalus sanguineus. Parasit. Vectors 2010, 3, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  41. Schäfer, I.; Müller, E.; Nijhof, A.M.; Aupperle-Lellbach, H.; Loesenbeck, G.; Cramer, S.; Naucke, T.J. First evidence of vertical Hepatozoon canis transmission in dogs in Europe. Parasit. Vectors 2022, 15, 296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Baneth, G.; Harrus, S.; Gal, A.; Aroch, I. Canine vector-borne co-infections: Ehrlichia canis and Hepatozoon canis in the same host monocytes. Vet. Parasitol. 2015, 208, 30–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Kovačević Filipović, M.M.; Beletić, A.D.; Ilić Božović, A.V.; Milanović, Z.; Tyrrell, P.; Buch, J.; Breitschwerdt, E.B.; Birkenheuer, A.J.; Chandrashekar, R. Molecular and Serological Prevalence of Anaplasma phagocytophilum, A. platys, Ehrlichia canis, E. chaffeenses, E. ewingii, Borrelia burgdorferi, Babesia canis, B. gibsoni and B. vogeli among Clinically Healthy Outdoor Dogs in Serbia. Vet. Parasitol. Reg. Stud. Rep. 2018, 14, 117–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Welc-Faleciak, R.; Rodo, A.; Siński, E.; Bajer, A. Babesia canis and other tick-borne infections in dogs in Central Poland. Vet. Parasitol. 2009, 166, 191–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Imre, M.; Farkas, R.; Ilie, M.S.; Imre, K.; Dărăbuş, G. Survey of babesiosis in symptomatic dogs from Romania: Occurrence of Babesia gibsoni associated with breed. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2013, 4, 500–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Solano-Gallego, L.; Sainz, Á.; Roura, X.; Estrada-Peña, A.; Miró, G. A review of canine babesiosis: The European perspective. Parasit. Vectors 2016, 9, 336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Paulauskas, A.; Radzijevskaja, J.; Karvelienė, B.; Grigonis, A.; Aleksandravičienė, A.; Zamokas, G.; Babickaitė, L.; Sabūnas, V.; Petkevičius, S. Detection and molecular characterization of canine babesiosis causative agent Babesia canis in the naturally infected dog in Lithuania. Vet. Parasitol. 2014, 205, 702–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Leica, L.; Mitrea, I.L.; Ionita, M. Clinical Occurrence of Canine Babesiosis in the Coastal Area of the Black Sea (Dobrogea) in Southeastern Romania and Associated Epidemiological Implications. J. Parasitol. 2019, 105, 491–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Máthé, A.; Vörös, K.; Papp, L.; Reiczigel, J. Clinical manifestations of canine babesiosis in Hungary (63 cases). Acta Vet. Hung. 2006, 54, 367–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Mircean, V.; Dumitrache, M.O.; Györke, A.; Pantchev, N.; Jodies, R.; Mihalca, A.D.; Cozma, V. 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. 2012, 12, 595–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Enache, D.; Imre, M.; Ilie, M.S.; Coprean, D. Seroprevalence of Anaplasma phagocytophilum in dogs from Constanţa county. J. Biotechnol. 2015, 208, S95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Majláthová, V.; Majláth, I.; Víchová, B.; Gul’ová, I.; Derdáková, M.; Sesztáková, E.; Pet’ko, B. Polymerase chain reaction confirmation of Babesia canis canis and Anaplasma phagocytophilum in dogs suspected of babesiosis in Slovakia. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2011, 11, 1447–1451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ebani, V.V.; Bertelloni, F.; Turchi, B.; Cerri, D. Serological and molecular survey of Anaplasma phagocytophilum in Italian hunting dogs. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2013, 20, 289–292. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  54. de la Fuente, J.; Torina, A.; Naranjo, V.; Nicosia, S.; Alongi, A.; La Mantia, F.; Kocan, K.M. Molecular characterization of Anaplasma platys strains from dogs in Sicily, Italy. BMC Vet. Res. 2006, 2, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Alberti, A.; Addis, M.F.; Sparagano, O.; Zobba, R.; Chessa, B.; Cubeddu, T.; Parpaglia, M.L.; Ardu, M.; Pittau, M. Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Sardinia, Italy. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2005, 11, 1322–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hornok, S.; Dénes, B.; Meli, M.L.; Tánczos, B.; Fekete, L.; Gyuranecz, M.; de la Fuente, J.; de Mera, I.G.; Farkas, R.; Hofmann-Lehmann, R. Non-pet dogs as sentinels and potential synanthropic reservoirs of tick-borne and zoonotic bacteria. Vet. Microbiol. 2013, 167, 700–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Skotarczak, B.; Adamska, M.; Rymaszewska, A.; Suproń, M.; Sawczuk, M.; Maciejewska, A. Anaplasma phagocytophila and protozoans of Babesia genus in dogs from endemic areas of Lyme disease in north-western Poland. Wiad. Parazytol. 2004, 50, 555–561. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  58. Rymaszewska, A.; Adamska, M. Molecular evidence of vector-borne pathogens coinfecting dogs from Poland. Acta Vet. Hung. 2011, 59, 215–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hamel, D.; Shukullari, E.; Rapti, D.; Silaghi, C.; Pfister, K.; Rehbein, S. Parasites and vector-borne pathogens in client-owned dogs in Albania. Blood pathogens and seroprevalences of parasitic and other infectious agents. Parasitol. Res. 2016, 115, 489–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kybicová, K.; Schánilec, P.; Hulínská, D.; Uherková, L.; Kurzová, Z.; Spejchalová, S. Detection of Anaplasma phagocytophilum and Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato in dogs in the Czech Republic. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2009, 9, 655–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Movila, A.; Toderas, I.; Uspenskaia, I.; Conovalov, J. Molecular detection of tick-borne pathogens in Ixodes ricinus from Moldova collected in 1960. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2013, 4, 359–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Morozov, A.C.; Tischenkov, A.A.; Proka, A.A.; Silaghi, C.; Toderas, I.K.; Movila, A.A.; Poppert, S. Prevalence of tick-borne pathogens in ticks from migratory birds in Republic of Moldova. Parasit. Vectors 2014, 7, P4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Dumler, J.S.; Barbet, A.F.; Bekker, C.P.; Dasch, G.A.; Palmer, G.H.; Ray, S.C.; Rikihisa, Y.; Rurangirwa, F.R. Reorganization of genera in the families Rickettsiaceae and Anaplasmataceae in the order Rickettsiales: Unification of some species of Ehrlichia with Anaplasma, 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, 2145–2165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  64. Roura, X.; Santamarina, G.; Tabar, M.D.; Francino, O.; Altet, L. Polymerase chain reaction detection of Bartonella spp. in dogs from Spain with blood culture-negative infectious endocarditis. J. Vet. Cardiol. 2018, 20, 267–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Diniz, P.P.; Billeter, S.A.; Otranto, D.; De Caprariis, D.; Petanides, T.; Mylonakis, M.E.; Koutinas, A.F.; Breitschwerdt, E.B. Molecular documentation of Bartonella infection in dogs in Greece and Italy. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2009, 47, 1565–1567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Torrejón, E.; Sanches, G.S.; Moerbeck, L.; Santos, L.; André, M.R.; Domingos, A.; Antunes, S. Molecular survey of Bartonella species in stray cats and dogs, humans, and questing ticks from Portugal. Pathogens 2022, 11, 749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. CDC 2020. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/bartonella/veterinarians/ (accessed on 2 October 2022).
  68. Álvarez-Fernández, A.; Breitschwerdt, E.B.; Solano-Gallego, L. Bartonella infections in cats and dogs including zoonotic aspects. Parasit. Vectors 2018, 11, 624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Sainz, Á.; Roura, X.; Miró, G.; Estrada-Peña, A.; Kohn, B.; Harrus, S.; Solano-Gallego, L. Guideline for veterinary practitioners on canine ehrlichiosis and anaplasmosis in Europe. Parasit. Vectors 2015, 8, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  70. Springer, A.; Glass, A.; Topp, A.K.; Strube, C. Zoonotic Tick-Borne Pathogens in Temperate and Cold Regions of Europe-A Review on the Prevalence in Domestic Animals. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020, 7, 604910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Sanches, G.S.; Couto, J.; Silva-Pedrosa, R.; Ferrolho, J.; Santos, A.S.; Santos-Silva, M.M.; Antunes, S.; Domingos, A. Molecular heterogeneity of Rhipicephalus sanguineus sensu lato and screening for Ehrlichia canis in mainland Portugal. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2018, 9, 1383–1390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Atif, F.A.; Mehnaz, S.; Qamar, M.F.; Roheen, T.; Sajid, M.S.; Ehtisham-Ul-Haque, S.; Kashif, M.; Ben Said, M. Epidemiology, Diagnosis, and Control of Canine Infectious Cyclic Thrombocytopenia and Granulocytic Anaplasmosis: Emerging Diseases of Veterinary and Public Health Significance. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pathogens 11 01267 g001 550
Figure 1. Overall prevalence of tick-borne pathogens in dogs from the Republic of Moldova. n, total number of positive samples for a specific pathogen; CI, confidence interval.
Figure 1. Overall prevalence of tick-borne pathogens in dogs from the Republic of Moldova. n, total number of positive samples for a specific pathogen; CI, confidence interval.
Pathogens 11 01267 g001
Table
Table 1. List of vector-borne pathogens tested by PCR and the protocol used.
Table 1. List of vector-borne pathogens tested by PCR and the protocol used.
PathogenTarget GeneProduct Size (bp)Forward PrimerReverse PrimerReferences
Piroplasmids and Hepatozoon spp.
(Nested PCR)		18S rRNA561–620BTH-1 F: CCT GAG AAA CGG CTA CCA CAT CTBTH-1R: TTG CGA CCA TAC TCC CCC CA[18]
GF2: GTC TTG TAA TTG GAA TGA TGGGR2: CCA AAG ACT TTG ATT TCT CTC
Borrelia spp.
(Nested PCR)		flaB350FlaLL: ACA TAT TCA GAT GCA GAC AGA GGTFlaRL: TGT TAG ACG TTA CCG ATA CTA ACG[19,20]
FlaLS: AAC AGC TGA AGA GCT TGG AAT GFlaRS: CGA TAA TCT TAC TAT TCA CTA GTT TC
SFG RickettsiagltA381Rsfg877: GGG GGC CTG CTC ACG GCG GRsfg1258: ATT GCA AAA AGT ACA GTG AAC A[21]
Bartonella spp.gltA380–400bart781: GGG GAC CAG CTC ATG GTG Gbart1137: AAT GCA AAA AGA ACA GTA AAC A[22]
Francisella tularensis17-kDa lipoprotein gene400TUL4-435: GCT GTA TCA TCA TTT AAT AAA CTG CTGTUL4-863: TTG GGA AGC TTG TAT CAT GGC ACT[23]
Anaplasma phagocytophilum
(Heminested PCR)		groEL570EphplgroEL(569)F: ATG GTA TGC AGT TTG ATC GCEphplgroEL(1193)R: TCT ACT CTG TCT TTG CGT TC[24]
EphgroEL(1142)R: TTG AGT ACA GCA ACA CCA CCG GAA
Anaplasma platys16S rRNA349EPLAT5: TTT GTC GTA GCT TGC TAT GATEPLAT3: CTT CTG TGG GTA CCG TC[25]
Ehrlichia canis
(Nested PCR)		16S rRNA389ECC: AGA ACG AAC GCT GGC GGC AAG CCECB: CGT ATT ACC GCG GCT GCT GGC A[26]
«canis»: CAA TTA TTT ATA GCC TCT GGC TAT AGG AHE3: TAT AGG TAC CGT CAT TAT CTT CCC TAT
PCR, polymerase chain reaction; rRNA, ribosomal ribonucleic acid.
Table
Table 2. Demographic characteristics of the dogs included in the study.
Table 2. Demographic characteristics of the dogs included in the study.
CategorySampled Dogs (N = 120)
n (%)
Age (years)
  0 to 111 (9.2)
  1 to 899 (82.5)
  >810 (8.3)
Sex
  Female70 (58.3)
  Male50 (41.7)
Breed
  Pure breed11 (9.2)
  Mixed109 (90.8)
Location
  Chișinău78 (65.0)
  Cahul42 (35.0)
Origin
  Shelter90 (75)
  Clinic30 (25)
N, total number of dogs; n, number of dogs in a given category.
Table
Table 3. Prevalence (%) of tick-borne pathogens in dogs from the Republic of Moldova and analysis of the risk factors.
Table 3. Prevalence (%) of tick-borne pathogens in dogs from the Republic of Moldova and analysis of the risk factors.
CategoryHepatozoon canisBabesia canisAnaplasma
phagocytophilum		Bartonella spp.
Age, n (%)
  0 to 1, N = 112 (18.2)2 (18.2)2 (18.2)0 (0.0)
  1 to 8, N = 9917 (17.2)11 (11.1)4 (4.0)1 (1.0)
  >8, N = 100 (0.0)1 (10.0)1 (10.0)0 (0.0)
  p-value0.260.50.8-
  OR (95% CI)0.5 (0.1–1.7)0.6 (0.1–2.7)0.8 (0.1–5.1)-
Sex; n (%)
  Female, N = 7011 (15.7)6 (8.6)4 (5.7)0 (0.0)
  Male, N = 508 (16.0)8 (16.0)3 (6.0)1 (2.0)
  p-value0.70.20.6-
  OR (95% CI)0.8 (0.3–2.4)2.1 (0.6–6.7)1.6 (0.2–10.3)-
Breed, n (%)
  Pure breed, N = 110 (0.0)0 (0.0)3 (27.3)0 (0.0)
  Mixed, N = 10919 (17.4)14 (12.8)4 (3.7)1 (0.9)
  p-value1.01.00.1-
  OR (95% CI)0.0 (0.0–>1.0 × 10 12)0.0 (0.0–>1.0 × 1012)6.4 (0.5–74.8)-
Location, n (%)
  Chișinău, N = 7815 (19.2)9 (11.5)4 (5.1)0 (0.0)
  Cahul, N = 424 (9.5)5 (11.9)3 (7.1)1 (2.4)
  p-value0.030.80.06-
  OR (95% CI)3.9 (1.1–13.4)1.2 (0.4–4.2)0.04 (0.002–1.2)-
Origin, n (%)
  Shelter, N = 9018 (20.0)13 (14.4)2 (2.2)1 (1.1)
  Vet Clinic, N = 301 (3.3)1 (3.3)5 (16.7)0 (0.0)
  p-value0.10.30.03-
  OR (95% CI)0.2 (0.02–1.4)0.3 (0.04–3.0)27.0 (1.4–521.9)-
N, total number of dogs in a given category; n, number of positive samples in a given category; OR, odd ratio; CI, confidence interval; -, not applicable as only one sample tested positive. Bolded values indicate statistical significance.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

D’Amico, G.; Ionică, A.M.; Györke, A.; Dumitrache, M.O. Epidemiological Survey of the Main Tick-Borne Pathogens Infecting Dogs from the Republic of Moldova. Pathogens 2022, 11, 1267. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/pathogens11111267

AMA Style

D’Amico G, Ionică AM, Györke A, Dumitrache MO. Epidemiological Survey of the Main Tick-Borne Pathogens Infecting Dogs from the Republic of Moldova. Pathogens. 2022; 11(11):1267. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/pathogens11111267

Chicago/Turabian Style

D’Amico, Gianluca, Angela Monica Ionică, Adriana Györke, and Mirabela Oana Dumitrache. 2022. "Epidemiological Survey of the Main Tick-Borne Pathogens Infecting Dogs from the Republic of Moldova" Pathogens 11, no. 11: 1267. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/pathogens11111267

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop