Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Detecting feline haemoplasma infections in cats using PCR
By Georges, Karla et al.·Published in BMC veterinary research·2012·School of Veterinary Medicine·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: A comparison of real-time PCR and reverse line blot hybridization in detecting feline haemoplasmas of domestic cats and an analysis of risk factors associated with haemoplasma infections.
- Species:
- cat
Plain-English summary
A group of cats in Trinidad and Tobago were tested for a type of blood infection caused by tiny bacteria called feline haemoplasmas. The researchers found that older cats and those with a retrovirus infection were more likely to have this condition. They used two different testing methods and discovered that one method (qPCR) was better at detecting the infection than the other. If your cat is older or has a retrovirus, it might be worth discussing testing for haemoplasma with your veterinarian, especially if they show signs of illness.
People also search for: cat blood infection symptoms · older cat retrovirus treatment · feline haemoplasma testing
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Three species of feline haemoplasma are recognised: Mycoplasma haemofelis (Mhf), 'Candidatus Mycoplasma haemominutum' (CMhm) and 'Candidatus Mycoplasma turicensis (CMt). This study compared a reverse line blot hybridization (RLB) assay for simultaneous detection of Mhf, CMhm with three separate quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) assays used for diagnosis of Mhf, CMhm and CMt. The RLB and qPCR assays were applied to DNA extracted from blood samples collected from 154 cats from Trinidad and Tobago. RESULTS: CMhm and Mhf DNA were detected using both RLB and qPCR. CMt DNA was detected by qPCR only. Comparing RLB and qPCR for the detection of CMhm DNA, 40 (26.3%) and 48 (31.6%) cats, respectively, were positive. The difference was more marked for Mhf, with RLB detecting a total of only 11 (7.2%) positive cats whereas qPCR detected 41 (27.0%) positive cats. Using qPCR as a gold standard, haemoplasma infected cats were more likely to be retrovirus positive (OR = 5.68, P = 0.02) and older (median age 5.5 years), than non-infected cats. In addition, CMhm positive cats were more likely to be male (OR = 3.4, P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Overall the qPCR was more sensitive than RLB. In addition, age (median 5.5 years) and retrovirus positivity were risk factors for infection with the feline haemoplasmas in this study population. Further studies on feline haemoplasma infections in cats are needed to determine the significance of detecting small amounts of haemoplasma DNA, feline retrovirus infection and other associated risk factors on the clinical manifestation of disease.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22748125/