Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Detecting Anaplasma platys in dogs and brown dog ticks with PCR
By Ramos, Rafael Antonio Nascimento et al.·Published in Veterinary parasitology·2014·Department of Veterinary Medicine, Italy·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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Detection of Anaplasma platys in dogs and Rhipicephalus sanguineus group ticks by a quantitative real-time PCR.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of dogs living in an area known for a tick-borne disease called canine infectious cyclic thrombocytopenia (CICT) was tested for a bacteria called Anaplasma platys, which is spread by ticks. Researchers found this bacteria in both the dogs and the ticks that were collected from them. The study suggested that certain ticks, specifically the Rhipicephalus sanguineus group, may play a role in spreading this infection, although the exact relationship is still unclear. This information can help veterinarians understand how to better diagnose and treat dogs affected by this tick-borne illness.
People also search for: dog tick disease symptoms · Anaplasma platys treatment · how to prevent ticks on dogs
Abstract
Anaplasma platys is an obligate intracellular, tick-borne pathogen of dogs, which causes canine infectious cyclic thrombocytopenia (CICT). The vector role of Rhipicephalus sanguineus group ticks has been only suggested, but definitive evidence is lacking. This study aimed to detect and quantify A. platys DNA in infected dogs and in their respective ticks through a quantitative real-time PCR assay. From March to May 2009, blood and tick samples from dogs residing in a CICT-endemic area were collected and molecularly analysed. Differences (p<0.05) were detected in the bacterial load between tick nymphs (3.5 × 10(-2)± 2.5 × 10(-2)) and adults (female: 1.2 × 10(-1) ± 1.1 × 10(-1); male: 9.3 × 10(-2)± 1.2 × 10(-2)) and between unengorged (1.1 × 10(-1) ± 2.8 × 10(-2)) and partially or fully engorged ticks (1.9 × 10(-1) ± 2.7 × 10(-2)). No difference was found between ticks collected from positive (1.1 × 10(-1)± 0.6 × 10(-1)) and negative (1.2 × 10(-1) ± 0.3 × 10(-1)) dogs (p>0.05). The mean bacterial load detected in positive dogs was lower than that in their respective ticks (p>0.05). This study provides circumstantial evidence of the putative role of Rhipicephalus sp. I as a vector of this pathogen.
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/25027609/