4.5 Article

Prevalence of antibodies against Toxoplasma gondii in pets and their owners in Shandong province, Eastern China

期刊

BMC INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 18, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-018-3307-2

关键词

Toxoplasma gondii; Seroprevalence; Pet owners; Zoonosis; Eastern China

资金

  1. Shandong Provincial Natural Science Foundation, China [ZR2017PC004]
  2. State Key Laboratory of Veterinary Etiological Biology, Lanzhou Veterinary Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences [SKLVEB2017KFKT007]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Pet ownership in China has been steadily increasing over recent years. However, the risk of pet-associated zoonotic infection with the protozoan parasite Toxoplasma gondii remains poorly defined. Methods: In a cross-sectional survey, we have determined the seroprevalence of T. gondii infection in pet dogs and cats, and pet owners. Serum samples were collected from 360 pets and 460 corresponding pet owners between March 2016 to June 2017, from Shandong province, eastern China. Sera from the animals were tested for anti-T. gondii antibodies using an indirect haemagglutination assay (IHA) and from the pet owners using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Results: Antibodies against T. gondii were detected in 67 of 360 (18.61%) pets. Seroprevalence of T. gondii in pet cats and dogs was 21.67% and 15.56%, respectively. IgG and IgM antibodies were detected in 79 (17.17%) and 4 (0.87%) of pet owners, respectively; with a total of 83 of 460 (18.04%) pet owners testing seropositive for T. gondii. Our seroprevalence data also suggest that cat owners in general and female pet owners in particular could face a higher risk of acquiring T. gondii infection. Conclusions: Significant levels of anti-T. gondii antibodies were detected in the pets and their owners in Shandong province, eastern China, indicating a potential zoonotic risk Prophylactic measures should be implemented to reduce the risk of pet owner's exposure to T. gondii infection.

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

4.5
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