Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Nasal, oral, and ear swabs detect Leishmania DNA in dogs
By Ferreira, Sidney de Almeida et al.·Published in PLoS neglected tropical diseases·2013·Departamento de Parasitologia·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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Nasal, oral and ear swabs for canine visceral leishmaniasis diagnosis: new practical approaches for detection of Leishmania infantum DNA.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of dogs in Brazil suspected of having canine visceral leishmaniasis (CVL) underwent testing using nasal, oral, and ear swabs to detect the Leishmania infantum parasite. The results showed that nasal swabs were positive in 87% of the infected dogs, while oral swabs had a 79% positivity rate, and ear swabs were positive in 43%. These non-invasive swab tests were found to be as effective as more invasive methods like skin biopsies, making them a promising option for quickly diagnosing CVL in dogs. This could help in screening and managing the disease more effectively.
People also search for: dog leishmaniasis symptoms · how to test for leishmaniasis in dogs · non-invasive leishmaniasis diagnosis in dogs
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential use of nasal, oral, and ear swabs for molecular diagnosis of canine visceral leishmaniasis (CVL) in an endemic urban area in Brazil. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Sixty-two naturally infected and ten healthy dogs were enrolled in this study. Bone marrow aspirates, peripheral blood, skin biopsy, and conjunctival, nasal, oral, and ear swabs were collected. All samples, except blood, were submitted to conventional PCR (cPCR) and quantitative real time PCR (qPCR) to detect and quantify Leishmania infantum DNA, respectively. All dogs were submitted to thorough clinical analysis and were included based on a combination of serological (ELISA immunoassay and immunofluorescent antibody test) and parasitological methods. The cPCR positivity obtained from nasal swab samples was 87% (54/62), equivalent to those from other samples (P>0.05). Positive results were obtained for 79% (22/28) in oral swabs and 43% (12/28) in ear swab samples. A significant difference was observed between these data (P=0.013), and the frequency of positive results from oral swab was equivalent to those from other samples (P>0.05). The use of ear swab samples for cPCR assays is promising because its result was equivalent to skin biopsy data (P>0.05). The qPCR data revealed that parasite loads in mucosal tissues were similar (P>0.05), but significantly lower than the parasite burden observed in bone marrow and skin samples (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Nasal and oral swab samples showed a high potential for the qualitative molecular diagnosis of CVL because their results were equivalent to those observed in samples collected invasively. Considering that mucosae swab collections are painless, noninvasive, fast and practical, the combination of these samples would be useful in massive screening of dogs. This work highlights the potential of practical approaches for molecular diagnosis of CVL and human leishmaniasis infections.
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/23593518/