4.4 Article

Protozoal coinfection in horses with equine protozoal myeloencephalitis in the eastern United States

期刊

JOURNAL OF VETERINARY INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 32, 期 3, 页码 1210-1214

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jvim.15127

关键词

Neospora hughesi; neurology; polyparasitism; Sarcocystis neurona; Toxoplasma gondii

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundInfection by 2 or more protozoa is linked with increased severity of disease in marine mammals with protozoan encephalitis. Hypothesis/ObjectivesTo assess whether horses with equine protozoal myeloencephalitis (EPM) caused by Sarcocystis neurona also have evidence of infection with Neospora hughesi or Toxoplasma gondii. We hypothesized that horses with EPM would be more likely than horses with cervical vertebral stenotic myelopathy (CVSM) to be positive for antibodies to multiple protozoan parasites. AnimalsOne hundred one horses with neurologic disease: 49 with EPM and 52 with CVSM. MethodsCase review. Archived serum and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) from 101 horses were examined. Inclusion criteria included neurologic disease, antemortem or postmortem diagnosis of EPM or CVSM, and availability of serological results or archived samples for testing. Additional testing for antibodies was performed on serum for T. gondii, as well as serum and CSF for N. hughesi. ResultsHorses with EPM were more likely than horses with CVSM to have positive immunologic results for S. neurona on serum (95.9% versus 76.9%, P=.0058), CSF (98.0% versus 44.2%, P<.00001), and serum:CSF titer ratio (91.8% versus 0%, P<.00001). Positive results for Neospora and Toxoplasma were uncommon, with total seroprevalence rates of 12.9% and 14.9%, respectively. The proportions of EPM cases testing positive for Neospora and Toxoplasma (16% and 12%) were not different from the proportions of CVSM cases testing positive (10% and 17%, P=.31 and .47, respectively). ConclusionResults do not indicate an important role for protozoal coinfection in EPM in the eastern United States.

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