English   español  
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/174282
Share/Impact:
Statistics
logo share SHARE logo core CORE   Add this article to your Mendeley library MendeleyBASE

Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL
Exportar a otros formatos:
Title

Guidelines for the direct detection of Anaplasma spp. in diagnosis and epidemiological studies

AuthorsSilaghi, Cornelia; Santos, Ana Sofía; Gomes, Jacinto; Christova, Iva; Matei, Ioana Adriana; Walder, Gernot; Domingos, Ana; Bell-Sakyi, Lesley; Sprong, Hein; Loewenich, Friederike D. von; Oteo, José A.; Fuente, José de la ; Dumler, J. Stephen
KeywordsDirect diagnosis
PCR
Anaplasma spp.
Microscopy
Ticks
Vertebrate hosts
In vitro isolation
Issue Date2017
PublisherMary Ann Liebert
CitationVector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases 17(1): 12-22 (2017)
AbstractThe genus Anaplasma (Rickettsiales: Anaplasmataceae) comprises obligate intracellular Gram-negative bacteria that are mainly transmitted by ticks, and currently includes six species: Anaplasma bovis, Anaplasma centrale, Anaplasma marginale, Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Anaplasma platys, and Anaplasma ovis. These have long been known as etiological agents of veterinary diseases that affect domestic and wild animals worldwide. A zoonotic role has been recognized for A. phagocytophilum, but other species can also be pathogenic for humans. Anaplasma infections are usually challenging to diagnose, clinically presenting with nonspecific symptoms that vary greatly depending on the agent involved, the affected host, and other factors such as immune status and coinfections. The substantial economic impact associated with livestock infection and the growing number of human cases along with the risk of transfusion-transmitted infections, determines the need for accurate laboratory tests. Because hosts are usually seronegative in the initial phase of infection and serological cross-reactions with several Anaplasma species are observed after seroconversion, direct tests are the best approach for both case definition and epidemiological studies. Blood samples are routinely used for Anaplasma spp. screening, but in persistently infected animals with intermittent or low-level bacteremia, other tissues might be useful. These guidelines have been developed as a direct outcome of the COST action TD1303 EURNEGVEC (>European Network of Neglected Vectors and Vector-Borne Diseases>). They review the direct laboratory tests (microscopy, nucleic acid-based detection and in vitro isolation) currently used for Anaplasma detection in ticks and vertebrates and their application.
URIhttp://hdl.handle.net/10261/174282
Identifiersdoi: 10.1089/vbz.2016.1960
e-issn: 1557-7759
issn: 1530-3667
Appears in Collections:(IREC) Artículos
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
accesoRestringido.pdf15,38 kBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open
Show full item record
 

Related articles:


WARNING: Items in Digital.CSIC are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.