SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ankara Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi / 2015 / Cilt: 62 - Sayı: 3

Sı ğır, koyun ve keçi sürülerinde Coxiella burnetii prevalansının saptanması

Detection of Coxiella burnetii prevalence in bovine, ovine and caprine herds

Uğur PARIN
Osman KAYA
Pages
177–181
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In conclusion, PCR analysis was found as the most sensitive method for detecting C. burnetii from bloodsamples taken from animals which seem to be healthy.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, a total of 600 blood samples of 200 cattle, 200 sheep and 200 goats from 4 different farms in AydinProvince were investigated serologically and molecularly for the presence of C. burnetii.
📊
Key Findings & Data:According to ELISA, the number ofpositive samples gathered from cattle, sheep and goats were 40 (20.0%), 58 (29.0 %) and 42 (21.0 %), respectively.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In conclusion, PCR analysis was found as the most sensitive method for detecting C. burnetii from bloodsamples taken from animals which seem to be healthy.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In this study, a total of 600 blood samples of 200 cattle, 200 sheep and 200 goats from 4 different farms in AydinProvince were investigated serologically and molecularly for the presence of C. burnetii. According to ELISA, the number ofpositive samples gathered from cattle, sheep and goats were 40 (20.0%), 58 (29.0 %) and 42 (21.0 %), respectively. According toIFA method, the number of positive samples gathered from cattle, sheep and goats were 44 (22.0%), 58 (29.0 %) and 46 (23.0 %),respectively. According to PCR analysis, the number of PCR positive samples of cattle were 96 (48.0%), sheep were 72 (36.0%) andgoats were 46 (23.0%). In conclusion, PCR analysis was found as the most sensitive method for detecting C. burnetii from bloodsamples taken from animals which seem to be healthy.

Özet

Bu çalışmada Aydın ili ve çevresinde bulunan 4er farklı çiftlikte bulunan 200 adet sığ ır, 200 adet koyun ve 200 adetkeçinin her birinden kan alınmak üzere 600 adet örnekleme yapılarak C. burnetii etkeninin varlığ ı yönünden serolojik ve molekülerolarak incelenmiş tir. ELISA yöntemine göre, sığ ırlardan koyunlardan ve keçilerden elde edilen serum örneklerinde pozitif örneksayısı sırasıyla 40 (% 20.0), 58 (% 29.0) ve 42 (% 21.0) olarak belirlenmiştir. IFA yöntemine göre, sığ ırlardan koyunlardan vekeçilerden elde edilen serum örneklerinde pozitif örnek sayısı sırasıyla 44 (% 22.0), 58 (% 29.0) ve 46 adet (% 23.0) olarakbelirlenmiştir. PCR yöntemine göre, sığ ırlardan elde edilen kan örneklerinde PCR pozitif örnek sayısı 96 (% 48.0), koyunlardan 72(% 36.0), keçilerden ise 46 (% 23.0) olarak belirlenmiş tir. Sonuç olarak sa ğ lıklı görünen hayvanlardan alınan kanlardan C. burnetiivarlığ ının araş tırılması için en duyarlı metodun PCR oldu ğ u ortaya konulmu ştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

PARIN, U., KAYA, O. (2022). Sı ğır, koyun ve keçi sürülerinde Coxiella burnetii prevalansının saptanması. Ankara Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 62 - Sayı: 3, 177–181. https://ajindex.com/articles/444732

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Berberoğlu U, Gozalan A, Kılıç S, Kurtoğlu D, Esen B (2004): A seroprevalence study of in Antalya, Diyarbakir and Samsun provinces. Mikrobiyol Bült,38, 385 -391
  2. Çetinkaya B, Kalender H, Ertas HB, Muz A, Arslan N, Ongor H, Gurcay M (2000):Seroprevalence of coxiellosis in cattle, sheep and people in the east of Turkey. Vet Rec, 29, 146, 131 -6
  3. Domingo P, Munoz C, Franquet T (1999): Acute Q fever in adult patients: report on 63 sporadic cases in an urban area. Clin Infect Dis, 29, 874 –879
  4. Eyigör M, Kırkan Ş, Gültekin B, Yaman S, Tekbıyık S, Aydın N (2006): Q Ateşi İçin Risk Gruplarında Coxiella burnetii’ye Karşı Oluşan Antikorların ELISA ve IFA Testleri İle Saptanması. İnfeksiyon Dergisi (Turkish Journal of Infection), 20, 31 -36
  5. Gökçen SS (1989): Ege Bölgesi sığırları arasında Q- fever vakalarının yaygınlık derecesinin mikroaglütinasyon tekniği ile araştırılması. Etlik Mikrobiyol. Derg., 6, 79-85
  6. Jager C, Willems H, Thiele D, Baljer G (1998): Molecular characterization of Coxiella burnetii isolates. Epidemiol. and Inf., 120, 157-164
  7. Kalender H (2001): Elazığ ve komşu illerdeki koyunlarda Coxiella burnetii enfeksiyonunun yaygınlığı. Turk J Vet Anim Sci, 25, 51 -55
  8. Kılıç S, Pasa S, Babur C, Ozlem MB (2005): Investigation of Coxiella burnetii antibodies in sheep in Aydin region Turkey. Revue Med Vet, 156, 336-340
  9. Kırkan Ş, Kaya O, Tekbıyık S, Parın U (2008): Detection of Coxiella burnetii in cattle by using PCR. Turk J Vet Anim Sci, 32, 215 -220
  10. Lorenz H, Cornelie J, Willems H, Baljer G (1998):PCR Detection of Coxiella burnetii from Different Clinical Specimens, Especially Bovine Milk, on the Basis of DNA Preparation with a Silica Matrix. Appl Environ Microbiol,64, 4234-4237
  11. Marrie TJ (1990): Acute Q fever. 125 -160. In: eRe Press Inc Boca Raton Fla
  12. Nicollet P and Valognes A (2007): Current review of Q fever diagnosis in animals. B. Acad. Vet. France, 160, 289-295
  13. Öngör H, Cetinkaya B, Karahan M, Açik MN, Bulut H, Muz A (2004): Detection of Coxiella burnetii by immunomagnetic separation-PCR in the milk of sheep in Turkey. Vet Rec,154, 570-572
  14. Özgür NY, Hasöksüz M, Yılmaz H, İkiz S, Ilgaz A (1997): Detection of antibodies to Coxiella burnetii in cattle with infertility problems and human sera by ELISA and its seroprevalence. Pendik Vet Mikrobiyol Derg, 28, 207-218
  15. Punda-Polic V, Leko-Grbic J, Radulovic S (2005): Prevalence of antibodies to rickettsiae in the north-western part of Bosnia and Herzeg