Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Acta Parasitologica


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.039
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.121

CiteScore 2018: 1.00

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.500
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.664

More options …
Volume 59, Issue 1

Issues

Comparative study for the detection of antibodies to Neospora caninum in milk and sera in dairy cattle in southern Romania

Violeta Enachescu
  • Department of Parasitology and Parasitic Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine of Bucharest, University of Agronomic Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, 050097, Splaiul Independentei, 105, Bucharest, Romania
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Mariana Ionita
  • Department of Parasitology and Parasitic Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine of Bucharest, University of Agronomic Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, 050097, Splaiul Independentei, 105, Bucharest, Romania
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Ioan Mitrea
  • Department of Parasitology and Parasitic Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine of Bucharest, University of Agronomic Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, 050097, Splaiul Independentei, 105, Bucharest, Romania
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2014-02-26 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/s11686-014-0202-x

Abstract

The study aimed to assess the within-herd Neospora caninum exposure in dairy cattle in southern Romania, based on the detection of specific antibodies in milk and serum. A total of 104 paired samples of milk and serum were collected from four dairy farms. Individual samples were analyzed for N. caninum antibodies by ELISA: IDEXX Neospora Ab (Idx) (three farms: A, B, C; n = 60) and ID-VET Lab (Idv) (farm D; n = 44). Additionally, four pooled milk samples, one per each farm (A, B, C) and a composed one (A+B+C), were analyzed with Idx ELISA. Optimized cut-off values for milk samples were determined by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, with serum results considered as true status. The agreement was expressed by K values. The overall seroprevalence of N. caninum infection was 45% in the farms tested by Idx ELISA and 56.8% in the farm tested by Idv ELISA. A good agreement between serum and milk was obtained for both ELISA kits (K = 0.72 and 0.77, respectively). The specificity and sensitivity at optimized cut-off of S/P>0.704 for Idx and S/P%>7.966% for Idv were 100% and 70.37% for Idx and 89.47% and 88% for Idv. Testing pooled milk samples, there were identified as N. caninum positive the dairy farms with a 15% or higher within-herd seroprevalence at the cut-off value of S/P>0.51. This is the first study in Romania in which milk samples were tested to determine the N. caninum infection status in dairy farms, providing a base for further researches.

Keywords: Cattle; Neospora caninum; IgG antibodies; serum; milk; Romania

  • [1] Altman D.G. 1991. Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman and Hall, London. Google Scholar

  • [2] Bartels C.J.M., van Maanen C., van der Meulen A.M., Dijkstra T., Wouda W. 2005. Evaluation of three enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for detection of antibodies to Neospora caninum in bulk milk. Veterinary Parasitology, 131, 235–246. DOI: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2005.05.011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2005.05.011CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [3] Björkman C., Johannsson O., Stenlund S., Holmdahl O.J.M., Uggla A. 1996. Neospora species infection in a herd of dairy cattle. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 208, 1441–1444. Google Scholar

  • [4] Byrem T.M., Bartlett P.C., Donohue H., Voisinet B.D., Houseman J.T. 2012. Performance of a commercial serum ELISA for the detection of antibodies to Neospora caninum in whole and skim milk samples. Veterinary Parasitology, 190, 249–253. DOI: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2012.06.005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2012.06.005CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [5] Conraths J., Gottstein B. 2007. Neosporosis: General considerations. In: (Eds. L.M. Ortega-Mora, B. Gottstein, F.J. Conraths and D. Buxton) Protozoal abortion in farm ruminants. CAB International, Wallingford, 42–46. Google Scholar

  • [6] Dubey J.P., Schares G. 2006. Diagnosis of bovine neosporosis. Veterinary Parasitology, 140, 1–34. DOI: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2006.03.035. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2006.03.035CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [7] Dubey J.P., Schares G. 2011. Neosporosis in animals — The last five years. Veterinary Parasitology, 180, 90–109. DOI: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2011.05.031. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2011.05.031CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [8] Dubey J.P., Jenkins M.C., Rajendran C., Miska K., Ferreira L.R., Martins J., Kwok O.C., Choudhary S. 2011. Gray wolf (Canis lupus) is a natural definitive host for Neospora caninum. Veterinary Parasitology, 181, 382–187. DOI: 10.1016/j.vetpar. 2011.05.018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2011.05.018CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [9] Frossling J., Lindberg A., Bjorkman C. 2006. Evaluation of an iscom ELISA used for detection of antibodies to Neospora caninum in bulk milk. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 74, 120–129. DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2005.11.012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2005.11.012CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [10] Gavrea R.R., Cozma V. 2010. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum in cows with reproductive failure in Center and Northwest of Romania. Sciencia Parasitologica, 11, 67–70. Google Scholar

  • [11] Gavrea R.R., Iovu A., Losson B., Cozma V. 2011. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum in dairy cattle from north-west and centre of Romania. Parasite, 18, 349–351. DOI: 10.1051/parasite/2011184349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/parasite/2011184349CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [12] Gondim L.F., McAllister M.M., Pitt W.C., Zemlicka D.E. 2004. Coyotes (Canis latrans) are definitive hosts of Neospora caninum. International journal for Parasitology, 34, 159–161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpara.2004.01.001Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [13] González-Warleta M., Castro-Hermida J.A., Carro-Corral C., Mezo M. 2011. Anti-Neospora caninum antibodies in milk in relation to production losses in dairy cattle. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 101, 58–64. DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed. 2011.04.019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2011.04.019Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [14] Hall C.A., Reichel M.P., Ellis J.T. 2006. Prevalence of Neospora caninum infection in Australian (NSW) dairy cattle estimated by a newly validated ELISA for milk. Veterinary Parasitology, 142, 173–178. DOI: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2006.06.019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2006.06.019CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [15] Hemphill A., Gottstein B. 2006. Neospora caninum and neosporosis — recent achievements in host and parasite cell biology and treatment. Acta Parasitologica, 51, 15–25. DOI:10.2478/s11686-006-0002-z. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/s11686-006-0002-zCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [16] Hurley W.L., Theil P.K. 2011. Perspectives on Immunoglobulins in Colostrum and Milk. Nutrients, 3, 442–474. DOI: 10.3390/nu3040442. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu3040442CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [17] Imre K., Morariu S., Ilie M.S., Imre M., Ferrari N., Genchi C., Dărăbuş G. 2012. Serological survey of Neospora caninum infection in cattle herds from Western Romania. Journal of Parasitology, 98, 683–685. DOI: 10.1645/GE-3023.1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1645/GE-3023.1CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [18] Jenkins M.C., Wouda W., Dubey J.P. 1997. Serological response over time to recombinant Neospora caninum antigens in cattle after a neosporosis-induced abortion. Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, 4, 270–274. Google Scholar

  • [19] King J.S., Slapeta J., Jenkins D.J., Al-Qassab S.E., Ellis J.T., Windsor P.A. 2010. Australian dingoes are definitive hosts of Neospora caninum. International Journal for Parasitology, 40, 945–950. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2010.01.008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpara.2010.01.008CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [20] McAllister M.M., Dubey J.P., Lindsay D.S., Jolley W.R., Wills R.A., McGuire A.M. 1998. Dogs are definitive hosts of Neospora caninum. International Journal for Parasitology, 28, 1473–1478. DOI: 10.1016/S0020-7519(98)00138-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7519(98)00138-6CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [21] Mitrea I.L., Enachescu V., Rădulescu R., Ionita M. 2012. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum infection on dairy cattle in farms from southern Romania. Journal of Parasitology, 98, 69–72. DOI: 10.1645/GE-2972.1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1645/GE-2972.1CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [22] Moore D.P., Pérez A., Agliano S., Brace M., Cantón G., Cano D., Leunda M.R., Odeón A.C., Odriozola E., Campero C.M. 2009. Risk factors associated with Neospora caninum infections in cattle in Argentina. Veterinary Parasitology, 161, 122–125. DOI: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2009.01.003. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2009.01.003Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [23] Paré J., Thurmond M.C., Hietala S.K. 1997. Neospora caninum antibodies in cows during pregnancy as a predictor of congenital infection and abortion. Journal of Parasitology, 83, 82–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3284321Google Scholar

  • [24] Schares G., Barwald A., Staubach C., Wurm R., Rauser M., Conraths F.J., Schroeder C. 2004. Adaptation of a commercial ELISA for the detection of antibodies against Neospora caninum in bovine milk. Veterinary Parasitology, 120, 55–63. DOI: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2003.11.016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2003.11.016CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [25] Wapenaar W., Barkema H.W., O’Handley R.M., Bartels C.J. 2007. Use of an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in bulk milk to estimate the prevalence of Neospora caninum on dairy farms in Prince Edward Island, Canada. Canadian Veterinary Journal, 48, 493–499. Google Scholar

  • [26] Wu J.T.Y., Dreger S., Chow E.Y.W., Bowlby E.E. 2002. Validation of 2 commercial Neospora caninum enzyme linked immunosorbent assays. Canadian Journal for Veterinary Research, 66, 264–271. Google Scholar

  • [27] Zweig M.H., Campbell G. 1993. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clinical Chemistry, 39, 561–577. Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2014-02-26

Published in Print: 2014-03-01


Citation Information: Acta Parasitologica, Volume 59, Issue 1, Pages 5–10, ISSN (Online) 1896-1851, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/s11686-014-0202-x.

Export Citation

© 2014 W. Stefański Institute of Parasitology, PAS. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. BY-NC-ND 3.0

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Claudia Mello Ribeiro, Isabela Ribeiro Soares, Rodrigo Guerrero Mendes, Paula Andrea de Santis Bastos, Satie Katagiri, Renato Bacarin Zavilenski, Hudson Felipe Porto de Abreu, and Vera Afreixo
Tropical Animal Health and Production, 2019, Volume 51, Number 7, Page 1783

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in