4.4 Article

Evaluation of Cytauxzoon felis infection status in captive-born wild felids housed in an area endemic for the pathogen

出版社

AMER VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.2460/javma.241.8.1088

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of Missouri
  2. The ALSAM Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective-To determine whether apparently healthy captive-born wild felids that-were not native to North America and were housed in an area endemic for Cytauxzoon felis harbored the pathogen. Design-Prospective observational case series. Animals-11 captive-born wild felids that were (1 bobcat [Lynx anus) and 1 cougar [Puma concolor]) or were not (1 lion [Panthera led and 8 tigers [Panthera tigris]) native to North America and 6 domestic cats (5 pets and 1 feral). Procedures-Blood was collected, and a PCR assay for C felis was performed. The C felis 18S rRNA gene sequence was characterized in samples that tested positive. Blood smears were evaluated microscopically for intraerythrocytic organisms consistent with C felis. Blood smears from an additional 6 feral domestic cats found dead on the study premises were also evaluated. Results-4 tigers and 6 domestic cats without clinical signs of disease tested positive for C felis infection via PCR assay; intraerythrocytic organisms consistent with C felis were identified in smears from 1 C fells-infected tiger (which also had azotemia) and in smears from 11 of 12 domestic cats. Possible erythrocytic inclusions were identified in 1 tiger that tested negative for C felis. Sequences of C felis 18S rRNA amplicons from all infected tigers shared > 99.8% identity with reported C felis sequences from North American domestic cats and were identical to amplicons from domestic cats on the premises. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance-Captive tigers without clinical signs of disease tested positive for C fells. The PCR assay for C felis appeared to be more reliable than cytologic detection of piroplasms in tigers. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2012;241:1088-1092)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据