ResearchersLinks
Pakistan Journal of ZoologyA ResearchersLinks journal
Submit manuscriptReview for this journal

Short Communication · Volume 54, Issue 4, 26 April 2022 · Open Access

Seroprevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato in Camel (Camelus dromedarius) in Punjab, Pakistan

· · · · · · ·

Affiliations & Notes ⌄
  1. 1Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore 2 Department of Microbiology, University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore 3Department of Pathology, University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore 4Department of Veterinary Surgery and Pet Animal Practice, University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore * Corresponding author: drhmusman@gmail.com
Article Info ⌄
Journal:
Pakistan Journal of Zoology
Published:
26 April 2022
Download PDF ePub eFLIP Set Alert Get Rights Reprints

From the article

  • Out of 270 serum samples collected from district Bhakkar, 1.85% (5/270) samples were positive for B. burgdorferi sensu lato while out of 135 serum samples, 3.70% (5/135) were positive for B. burgdorferi sensu lato.
  • As ticks are the main vectors of B. burgdorferi sensu lato so, positive percentage of B. burgdorferi sensu lato was found significantly (p < 0.0001)) higher in tick infested camels (Table I).
  • The positive percentage of B. burgdoferi sensu lato was found significantly (p < 0.0177) higher in animals of one year and above eight years of age.
  • Different risk factors such as gender, infestation and age were found to be significantly associated with B. burgdorferi sensu lato.

Selected from the article's own text.

Abstract

A seroprevalence study was conducted on the presence of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato antibodies in 405 camels of two districts of Punjab, Pakistan i.e., Bhakkar and Bahawalpur from May 2019 to January 2021. A questionnaire was used to collect data regarding potential risk factors like gender, age and tick infestation. Serological examination revealed the positive percentage of B. burgdorferi sensu lato in camels was 2.47% (10/405). Risk factor analysis showed that gender, age and tick infestation are significantly (p < 0.05) associated with occurrence of borreliosis in camels. This study may play an important role in the transmission of borreliosis in understanding of other animal species as well as humans in Pakistan.

Materials and methods

The present study was carried out in two sites of arid zone (Cholistan and Thal) of the two viz. Bhakkar (31.6082° N, 71.0854° E) and Bahawalpur (29.3544° N, 71.6911° E) of Punjab province, Pakistan from May 2019 to January 2021.

Blood samples (1ml) collected from four hundred and five dromedary camels in vacutainer (Franklin Lakes, USA) were centrifuged at 1300–1800rpm for 20 min for separation of serum.

The study were conducted after approval of the ethical committee, University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, vide letter NO. 894, dated 22-08-2017.

Questionnaire was used to collect data on possible risk factors containing gender, infestation and age of camels in study area.

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kit (SNAP® 4Dx® Plus Test Kit, IDEXX Laboratories, USA) was used for diagnosis of B. burgdorferi sensu lato the manufacturer’s instructions. Sera of camels were analyzed by the ELISA for IgM and IgG antibodies using a commercial set “Enzygnost Borreliosis” (Behring, Marburg, Germany). In this protocol, the antigen mixture contains 100 kD, 39 kD, 17 kD, Osp A, Osp B, 41 kD, and Osp C. This assay is highly sensitive. In this method ultrasonificate of Treponema phagediens was added in sample buffer which minimize the frequency of cross reactions. ELISA reader for this assay was used with a 450 nm filter.

The qualitative data collected were analyzed by Chi Square test. Odd ratio was calculated for determining association of potential risk factor. Statistical analysis was conducted on IBM SPSS software (version 20.0.0).

Results

Table I shows area wise prevalance of borreliosis in camels.

Out of 270 serum samples collected from district Bhakkar, 1.85% (5/270) samples were positive for B. burgdorferi sensu lato while out of 135 serum samples, 3.70% (5/135) were positive for B. burgdorferi sensu lato.

Table I shows that collected from Bhakkar the highest positive cases was seen from tehsil Mankera (2.5%) and Kaloorkot (3.33%). The blood sera from tehsils, Darya Khan and Bhakkar were 100% negative for Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato in camel. Out of 135 serum samples collected from Bahawalpur, the highest positive samples were seen in tehsil Yazman (11.11%). Tehsil Hasilpur and Khairpur Tame Wali showed only one positive case for Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato, respectively. Tehsil Bahawalpur, Ahmed Pur Sharqia were 100% negative for borrelia.

Table II risk factors associated with B. burgdorferi sensu lato in camels.

Table I. Area wise prevalence of borreliosis in camels.

District

Tehsil (prevalence) (%)

Total

Positive (%)

Bhakkar

Mankera

120

3(2.5%)

Darya khan

60

0(0%)

Kaloorkot

60

2(3.33%)

Bhakkar

30

0(0%)

Subtotal

270

5 (1.85%)

Bahawalpur

Yazman

24(88.89%)

3(11.11%)

Khairpur Tamewali

27

1(3.70%)

Ahmedpur Sharqia

27

0(0%)

Hasilpur

27

1(3.70%)

Bahawalpur

27

0(0%)

Subtotal

135

5(3.7%)

Total

405

10

Table II. Risk factors analysis in field study against Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato in camels.

Risk factors

Total

Positive (%)

OR

p-value

Gender

Male

170

2(1.2%)

5.151

0.02

Female

235

13(5.5%)

Age

<1 years

57

2(3.51%)

2.082

0.0177

(1-8) years

233

4(1.71%)

1

> 8 years

115

9(7.83%)

4.861

Infestation

Infested

405

303

5.125

<0.0001

Statistical analysis showed that there was significant association found in gender, age and in tick infestation. However, the seroprevalence percentage of antibodies against B. burgdorferi was four time higher in > 8 years (odd ratio 4.861, p-value= 0.0177) of camels and below <1 years (odd ratio 2.082) of camels was two time less positive as compared to above eight years old camels. Gender wise risk factor analyzed that seroprevalence in female camels was 13(5.5%) with an odd ratio 5.15 compared with male camels was 1.2 % positive in serum samples.

Discussion

In this study, B. burgdorferi sensu lato was identified in serum samples using ELISA. Out of 270 serum samples from Bhakkar, 1.85% were positive of B. burgdorferi sensu lato while out of 135 samples from Bahawalpur, 3.70% were positive of B. burgdorferi sensu lato in camel. Obaidat et al. (2020) have reported that 1.2% camels were positive for antibodies against B. burgdorferi sensu lato. Current study findings also agreed with the findings of Stoebel et al. (2003) who evaluated different species of camel (Alpaca, Llama and Two-humped camel species) for antibodies against B. burgdorferi sensu lato and found 4.54% positive in each species. A similar study conducted by Praharaj et al. (2008) reported 13% positive cases for Borrelia burgdorferi lgG antibody. Similar findings were reported by Samir et al. (2015) and Stoebel et al. (2003) who reported 20% and 10.4% samples reactive for B. burgdorferi sensu lato. Likiwise this postivity was reported to be 18.4% in Slovakia , 47.8% in Egypt and 26.3% in China .

In this study, 1.85% camels were found antibodies against B. burgdorferi sensu lato positive in district Bhakkar, while 3.70% (5/135) camels were positive for B. burgdorferi sensu lato antibodies in district Bahawalpur. Difference in positive percentage of borreliosis in different regions was also found worldwide including Canada , USA , England , Germany , Belgium and in Finland . This difference may be due to climatic factors such as higher vegetation and humidity level that help in the life cycle of biological vector.

During gender wise study, female camels in this study were found, 5.5% positive for B. burgdorferi sensu lato while male camels, were 1.2% positive for B. burgdorferi sensu lato. Similar findings reported by Praharaj et al. (2008) showed higher prevalence in female camels as compared to male camels (15.86% Vs 10.95%). Seroprevalence between female and male was also observed in Belgium , England and in Finland . Another study in Sweden also revealed that females were at higher risk of infection than males . This higher percentage in females may be due to low number of male camels as our field study confirmed (Table I). Actually, people rear only one or two male camels, as compared to females, for the purpose of reproduction. Furthermore, the rate of tick infestation in male camels was also found lower than in female camels (Table I).

During field study, it was found that out of 405 camel, 74.81% were infested with ticks. Presence of ticks on camels was higher in Bahawalpur as compared to Bhakkar due to a number of factors including higher camel population, less availability of feed and resultant compromised immune system. As ticks are the main vectors of B. burgdorferi sensu lato so, positive percentage of B. burgdorferi sensu lato was found significantly (p < 0.0001)) higher in tick infested camels (Table I). Similar findings have been reported by Said et al. (2016) that 98% camels were infested with ticks and also reported by Barghash et al. (2016) that 53.78% camels were positive for tick infestation.

During age wise study, below one-year-old camel, 3.51% were positive for B. burgdorferi sensu lato while one to eight years old camel, 1.72% were positive for B. burgdorferi sensu lato and above eight years old camel, 7.83% (9/115) were positive for B. burgdorferi sensu lato. These findings supported Abdalla (2007) who reported that animals below one-year and above eight years were highly infected with B. burgdorferi sensu lato. An age wise seroprevalence was also reported in Canada , England , Germany (Wilking and Stark, 2009), and Belgium with highest prevalence in young and old age animals . The positive percentage of B. burgdoferi sensu lato was found significantly (p < 0.0177) higher in animals of one year and above eight years of age.

Conclusion

In this study, we identified antibodies against Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato in camel. Seroprevalence of B. burgdorferi sensu lato was found to be 2.47%. Different risk factors such as gender, infestation and age were found to be significantly associated with B. burgdorferi sensu lato. This pathogen may be part of the natural cycle in arid and Cholistan areas in Pakistan.

Acknowledgments

This study was part of Higher Education Commission approved project No. 1122 titled “Capacity building of vector–borne neglected diseases of livestock.

Data availability

The data will be made available on acceptable request to the corresponding author

Statement of conflict of interest

The authors have declared no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abdalla, M.M., 2007. Studies on ticks and tick borne diseases of cattle in south Darfur state, Sudan. MVSc thesis, Department of parasitology, University of Khartoum.
  2. Barbour, A.G., Adrienne, D.P.D. and Jonas, B., 2005. Infect. Immun., 73: 6165–6168. https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.73.9.6165-6168.2005[CrossRef]
  3. Bargash, S., Hahef, A.A., Darwish, A.M. and El-Naga, T.R.A., 2016. J. Bact. Parasitol., 7: 2-7.
  4. Beek, J.V., Sajanti, E., Helve, O., Ollgren, J., Virtanen, M.J., Rissanen, H., Lyytikainen, O., Hytonen, J. and Sane, J., 2018. Ticks Tickborne Dis., 9: 275-280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ttbdis.2017.10.018[CrossRef]
  5. Bennet, L., Stjernberg, L. and Berglund, J., 2007. Vector Borne Zoo. Dis., 7: 34-41. https://doi.org/10.1089/vbz.2006.0533[CrossRef]
  6. Dehnert, M., Fingerle, V., Klier, C., Talaska, T., Schlaud, M., Krause, G., Wilking, H. and Poggensee, G., 2012. PLoS One, 7: 413-421. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0041321[CrossRef]
  7. Elhelw, R., Elhariri, M., Hamza, D., Abuowarda, M., Ismael, E. and Farag, H., 2021. BMC Vet. Res., 17: 2-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-020-02733-5[CrossRef]
  8. Gasmi, S., Ogden, N.H., Lindsay, L.R., Burns, S., Fleming, S., Badcock, J., Hanan, S., Gaulin, C., Leblanc, M.A., Russell, C., Nelder, M., Hobbs, L., Graham-Derham, S., Lachance, L., Scott, A.N., Galanis, E. and Koffi, J.K., 2017. Commun. Dis., 43: 194-199. https://doi.org/10.14745/ccdr.v43i10a01[CrossRef]
  9. Geebelen, L., Cauteren, D.V., Devleesschauwer, B., Moreels, S., Tersago, K., Oyen, V.H., Speybroeck, N. and Lernout, T., 2019. Ticks Tick Borne Dis., 10: 598-605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ttbdis.2018.12.007[CrossRef]
  10. Helmy, N., 2000. J. Egypt. Soc. Parasitol., 30: 607-619. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03022909[CrossRef]
  11. Kingry, L.C., Anacker, M., Pritt, B., Bjork, J., Respicio-Kingry, L., Liu, G., Sheldon, S., Boxrud, D., Strain, A. and Oatman, S.D., 2018. Clin. Infect. Dis., 66: 1864–1871. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix1107[CrossRef]
  12. Labrini, V., Athanasiou, Victoria, M.S., Eleni, G.K. and Panagiotis, D.K., 2021. Pathogens, 10: 2-14.
  13. Liu, R., Wen, Z., Wang, J., Ge, J., Chen, H. and Bu, Z., 2015. Emerg. Microb. Infect., 4: 73-83.
  14. Luo, X.P., 2012. Inner Mong. Agric. Univ., 6: 53-61.
  15. Maraspin, V., Petra, B., Katarina, O., Tereza, R., Eva, R., Andrej, K., Klemen, S., Gary, P.W. and Franc, S., 2021. J. clin. Med., 10: 2-8.
  16. Mohammadpour, R., Mohsen, C., Fateh, T. and Ehsan, M., 2020. Vet. med. Sci., 3: 359–381. https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.239[CrossRef]
  17. Obaidat, M.M., Alshehabat, M.A., Hayajneh, W.A. and Roess, A.A., 2020. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis., 73: 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cimid.2020.101559[CrossRef]
  18. Pasha, R.H., Qureshi, A.S. and Khamas, W.A., 2013. Int. J. Agric. Biol., 15: 62‒68.
  19. Praharaj, S.C.A., Jetley, L.C.S. and Kalghatgi, C.A., 2008. Med J. Armed Forces India, 64: 26-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-1237(08)80140-2[CrossRef]
  20. Said, M.B., Hanene, B., Alberto, A., Khaoula, A., Manel, Z., Monia, D.J. and Lilia, M., 2016. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med., 3: 442-447.
  21. Samir, A., Ahmed, F., Essam, H.M. and Ahmed, O., 2015. Trans. Biomed., 2: 1-4.
  22. Schwartz, A.M., Hinckley, A.F., Mead, P.S., Hook, S.A. and Kugeler, K.J., 2017. MMWR Surveill Summ., 66: 1-12. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss6622a1[CrossRef]
  23. Stefancikova, A., Stepanova, G., Derdakova, M., Petko, B., Kyselova, J., Ciganek, J., Strojny, L., Cislakova, L. and Travnicek, M., 2002. Vet. Res. Commun., 26: 601–611. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020912618950[CrossRef]
  24. Stoebel, K., Schoenberg, A. and Streich, W.J., 2003. Epidemiol. Infect., 131: 975–983. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268803008896[CrossRef]
  25. Travnicek, M., Stefancikova, A. and Nadzamova, D., 2002. Annls. Agric. environ. Med., 9: 153–155.
  26. Tulloch, J.S.P., Decraene, V., Christley, R.M., Radford, A.D., Warner, J.C. and Vivancos, R., 2019. BMC Publ. Hlth., 19: 931-937. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7245-8[CrossRef]
  27. WHO, 2020. Lyme borreliosis (Lyme disease). Available online: https://www.who.int/ith/diseases/lyme/en/ (accessed on 29 December 2020).
  28. Wilking, H. and Stark, K., 2009. Ticks Tick Borne Dis., 5: 219-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ttbdis.2013.10.010[CrossRef]
  29. Yang, J., Liu, Z., Guan, G., Li, Y., Chen, Z., Ma, M., Liu, A., Ren, Q., Wang, J., Luo, J. and Yin, H., 2015. Annls Agric. environ. Med., 22: 208-211. https://doi.org/10.5604/12321966.1152066[CrossRef]

Related articles

Services

Article usage statistics

Loading…

Seroprevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato in Camel (Camelus dromedarius) in Punjab, Pakistan · ResearchersLinks