1. Introduction
Microorganisms in the genus Anaplasma (family Anaplasmataceae, order Rickettsiales) are gram-negative obligate intracellular alphaproteobacteria. They are transtadially transmitted by ixodid tick species belonging to the Rhipicephalus, Dermacentor, Ixodes, Amblyomma, and Haemaphysalis genera to mammal hosts; they infect different blood cells (erythrocytes, monocytes, platelets, and granulocytes) in their hosts [1]. According to the taxonomic reclassification based on the 16S rRNA and groEL genes, the genus Anaplasma comprised seven species: Anaplasma marginale, A. centrale, A. phagocytophilum, A. bovis, A. ovis, A. capra, and A. platys [1,2,3,4]. Anaplasma ovis is present in endemic countries including Türkiye and is known to infect sheep, goats, and wild ruminants [5,6,7,8,9] It is a major threat and worrying disease in almost all Mediterranean countries [10,11], Europe [12], Africa [13], and Asia [14,15]. A human case indicating the zoonotic potential of A. ovis has also been reported in Cyprus [16]. Although A. ovis is one of the rickettsial pathogens that cause common infection in farm animals, it has not been seriously evaluated [14]. The bacterium usually causes subclinical disease with a low-grade fever in sheep and goats [17,18]; however, under stress conditions, clinical disease with fever, hemolytic anemia, jaundice, anorexia, depression, lethargy, fatigue, and a decrease in milk production may occur [14,18,19,20,21]. A recent experimental study showed that A. ovis induces severe normocytic and normochromic anemia; however, evident clinical signs were not observed until the first lambing. Previous reports have indicated that lambs born from infected ewes did not show any clinical symptoms and only slight anemia with a rapid erythrocytic regenerative was observed [11]. Infection with A. ovis has been linked to an increased risk of contracting a variety of bacterial and parasitic diseases [22]. Ticks are the main transmission route for the bacterium, but cases of transmission through biting flies and exposure to fomites contaminated with infected blood have also been reported [12,23,24,25]. Animals that are able to survive acute anaplasmosis become chronically infected with the disease and thus act as reservoir hosts for the propagation of the agent [22,26].
There is a possibility that increases in virulence, pathogenicity, prevalence, and greater transmission are all associated with the increased genetic diversity of Anaplasma species that results in new strains [27,28,29]. Understanding the genetic diversity and different strains of Anaplasma species is essential to comprehending the epidemiology of the diseases they cause and improving their prevention and management. This is because anaplasmosis or tick-borne fever can be caused by various strains, and knowing the specific strain involved is critical in developing effective treatment strategies. In order to genetically identify A. ovis isolates, the 16S rRNA, gltA, and groEL—in particular major surface proteins (MSPs) are analyzed [2,9,30,31,32,33]. There is evidence that the main surface proteins (MSPs) of the Anaplasma species play a role in interactions with both vertebrate and invertebrate hosts [34]. Since MSP1a’s N-terminal region contains a variable number of tandem amino acid repeats, it is more informative than other markers when it comes to detecting genetic diversity in A. ovis [7,15,33].
There is just one report of genetic diversity [7], despite the fact that sheep and goats in Türkiye have a high incidence of A. ovis (ranging from 18.3% to 89.3%) [35,36]. The purpose of this study was to investigate the prevalence of caprine anaplasmosis caused by A. ovis in the Mediterranean region of Türkiye and to determine the genetic diversity of A. ovis based on the Msp1a gene.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Locations and Design
A cross-sectional survey was conducted between May and September 2018 in the Antalya (latitude 36°53′ N, longitude 30°42′ E) and Mersin (latitude 36°47′ N, longitude 34°37′ E) provinces situated in the Mediterranean region of Türkiye (Figure 1). From both provinces, 24 private herds randomly selected from 19 different villages were visited to obtain the desired samples. The region has a climate typical of the Mediterranean, characterized by hot and humid summers, as well as warm and rainy winters. In Antalya, the average annual temperature and rainfall are 18.8 °C and 1061.7 mm, while in Mersin, they are 19.2 °C and 615.5 mm, respectively. In the region, traditional methods are used for breeding goats. During the winter months, the animals are kept in enclosed areas, while in the period from early spring to autumn, they are allowed to graze in pastures. The sample size was calculated using the online tool Sample Size Calculator (
2.2. Collection of Blood and Tick Samples
Sampling was performed from May to September 2018 in 19 villages situated in the Antalya and Mersin provinces. Two hundred and ninety-three apparently healthy goats were randomly sampled in one to two sampling herds from each village. Blood samples were collected into sterile 3 mL vacutainer EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid) tubes from the jugular vein of the goats. The blood samples were kept in a cool box maintained at +4 °C and brought to the Department of Parasitology Laboratory, Firat University, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Türkiye and stored at −20 °C freezer until DNA extraction.
Sampled goats were also examined for the presence of ixodid tick infestations, and the status of tick infestations (presence or absence of ticks) were recorded. The ticks found on visible parts (ear, neck, abdomen, inguinal region) of the infested goats were removed using forceps and placed in 70% alcohol in 15 mL falcon tubes. The ticks were identified under stereomicroscope (SZX16, Olympus, Japan), according to the morphological characters described by [37,38]. During the study, a total of 1091 tick samples were collected from the goats. The sampled goats were grouped into categories according to the presence of ticks (yes/no). In this study, the ethics committee research protocol on animal use was approved by the Animal Ethics Committee of Ministry of Agriculture, Elazig Veterinary Control Institute (protocol number: 2018/02).
2.3. DNA Extraction, PCR Amplification and Reverse Line Blot (RLB) Hybridization
Blood samples were thawed at room temperature and vortexed for 10–15 s to homogenize, and DNA extraction was performed. Genomic DNA was isolated from 200 µL of the blood using the QIAamp DNA Blood Mini Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany), according to the manufacturer’s instructions. As positive and negative controls, Anaplasma ovis DNA isolated from a naturally infected sheep (GenBank accession no. EU191232) and distilled water were used, respectively.
In order to amplify the 16S rRNA gene of A. ovis, a nested PCR combined RLB was utilized, as was described in the previous literature [39,40]. In the first step of the process, outer (EC9/EC12A) and inner (16S8FE/B-GA1B-new) primers were utilized in nested PCR in order to amplify a 492–498-bp fragment of the 16S rRNA gene. After that, 20 µL of nested amplicons obtained from each DNA sample were diluted with 2X SSPE 0.1% SDS buffer to a final volume of 150 µL. These diluted nested amplicons were then hybridized on an RLB membrane that had an A. ovis specific probe covalently linked to a Biodyne C blotting membrane (Pall Corporation). The primers and probes that were utilized for this study are presented in Supplementary Table S1.
2.4. Msp1a PCR
Samples that were positive for the 16S rRNA gene of A. ovis were also screened by using a conventional PCR protocol with primer pairs AoMsp1aF and AoMsp1aR, which amplify the Msp1a gene [7,15]. Under ultraviolet light, amplicons were viewed to determine whether a band of the expected size (300–750 bp) was present after being deposited on an agarose gel containing 1.4% agarose that had been stained with SYBR Safe Gel Dye (Hibrigen, Türkiye). When determining whether different genotypes were present, the size of the bands produced on an agarose gel was one of the factors that was considered.
2.5. Sequencing, and Statistical Analysis
The amplified products of the Msp1a gene with a profile of strong, well-defined bands of varied sizes were chosen for sequencing. The QIAquick PCR Purification Kit was used to isolate twenty-one amplified fragments comprising varied Msp1a gene sequences (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). The purified fragments were bidirectionally sequenced using the identical forward and reverse primers. Each construct was sequenced at least three times. The chromatograms were edited using Chromas Lite v. 2.1.1. (
3. Results
3.1. Tick Infestation
Of the 293 goats examined for the presence of ixodid ticks, 194 (66.2%) were infested with at least 1 tick species. A total of 1091 adult ticks (330 females, 761 males) were collected from goats. The number of ticks per goat ranged from 1 to 49. The morphological identity of the ticks revealed that the sampled goats were infested with five different tick species. Rhipicephalus bursa (888/1091, 81.4%) was the dominant tick species, followed by R. turanicus (96/1091, 8.8%), Dermacentor raskemensis (92/1091, 8.4%), Hyalomma marginatum (9/1091, 0.8%), and R. sanguineus s.l. (6/1091, 0.5%). Dermacentor raskemensis were found to attach to the lower parts of the abdomen, while the other tick species were determined to attach to the ear and inguinal regions of the infested goats.
3.2. Anaplasma ovis Has Been Shown a High Prevalence in Field Samples
In total, 293 blood samples from goats were tested by nested PCR combined RLB for the presence of 16S rRNA gene of A. ovis. Of the DNA-amplified products, 135 (46.1%, CI 40.3–52.0) showed a positive signal to the corresponding A. ovis specific probe. The infection was detected in all 19 villages, representing the 2 provinces included in this study. The prevalence of the bacterium varied from 6.7 to 93.8% in different sampling villages (Table 1). When the data of the two provinces were compared, it was evaluated as statistically insignificant (p > 0.05), but the relationship between the data of the villages was significant (p < 0.05).
Association of the prevalence of A. ovis in goats with tick infestation is presented in Table 2. The prevalence of A. ovis was comparable in tick infestation, and no difference was detected between infection rates in goats (p = 0.73133) (Table 2).
3.3. Three New Tandem Repeats Were Described in A. ovis MSP1a Protein Sequences
A total of 135 samples signaling the A. ovis-specific probe were screened by PCR for the MSP1a gene, and 21 samples with strong, well-defined band profiles of varying sizes were chosen for sequence analysis. Amino acid sequences were obtained using Geneious from the DNA sequences obtained as a result of the sequence analysis (300–354 bp), and the tandem repeat structure in Msp1a amino acid sequences was analyzed by using multiple alignments. All A. ovis isolates obtained in this study had a one-amino acid repeat. A number of 5 distinct Msp1a repeats with 33 to 43 amino acids were determined. This study reported five tandem repeats named Ao8-GQVSSSEQGSSSDVMDTSWSTFSGAATSWSTFSGAATPGGQAS, Ao18-GQVSSSEQGSSSDVMDTSWSTFSGAATPGGQAS, AoTr15 (GQVSSSEQGSSSDVVDTSWSTFSGAATSWSTFSGAATPGGQAS), AoTr16 (GQVSSSEQGSSSDVVDTSWSTFSGAATPGVQAS), and AoTr17 (GQVSSSEQGSSSDVVDTSWSTFSGAATSWSTFSGAATPGVQAS). Out of these, three tandem repeats (AoTr15-16-17) were described for the first time in this study. The most common repeat sequence was Ao8, which was found in 10 of the 20 isolates. Anaplasma ovis MSP1a gene sequences (OL470941-OL470961) showed 99.7–100% sequence identity to the Anaplasma ovis isolate v3 (MG693756.1), Anaplasma ovis isolate hp4 (MG693738.1), and Anaplasma ovis isolate ada46 (MG693760.1) sequences isolated from goats in Türkiye (Figure 2, Table 3).
4. Discussion
Small ruminant anaplasmosis caused by A. ovis is prevalent across the world’s tropical and subtropical climates [7,14,15]. This study provided a thorough assessment of the prevalence, distribution, and genetic diversity of A. ovis in goats from Türkiye’s Mediterranean area. Here, a molecular survey was undertaken to determine the frequency of A. ovis in goats from the Mediterranean region of Türkiye. The finding revealed that the prevalence of A. ovis in the sampled animals was 46.1% (CI 40.3–52.0). The prevalence of A. ovis infection has previously been reported in small ruminants from central Anatolia [32] and southwestern Anatolia [14] with 31.4% and 60%, respectively, indicating that A. ovis is wide-spread in most regions of Türkiye. Compared to some Mediterranean regions, the prevalence in our study was lower than to the findings previously reported from Tunisia with 70.1% [41], Algeria with 78% [42], Corsica with 52% [12], and Sardinia with 81.8% [43]. Difference in reported prevalence rates may vary depending on many factors such as sampling procedure and size, a standardized assay, sampling season, type of farming, tick infestation status in the herd, and the degree of the exposure to tick vectors [41,42,44]. Our finding and the other published data indicate that infections caused by A. ovis are quite common all over the world. However, it is not clear what the impact of the disease is in terms of its clinical significance. It is supposed that A. ovis might be predisposed in the presence of other tick-borne infections [20,22]. Thus, in a recent study, A. ovis was found to be involved in approximately 80% of the mixed infections detected [45].
Tick-borne disease frequency and distribution are influenced by factors such as host, breed, age, sex, sample analysis methods, wildlife reservoir presence, farm management and husbandry practices, tick presence and abundance, and bioclimatic and ecological parameters [41,44,46]. We found no difference in prevalence rates between the two provinces studied because herd management, livestock practices, and bioclimatic and ecological parameters were all similar. The results of this study showed that an infestation of ticks did not increase the risk of infection in goats. This result did not come as a surprise due to the fact that the Anaplasma species is capable of being passed on by blood-feeding flies, contaminated syringes and other surgical equipment, as well as ticks [13]. In addition, the A. ovis was found to remain persistent in its host for more than twenty months following experimental infection [47]. This finding suggests that animals can harbor the A. ovis for a considerable amount of time, even in the absence of ticks.
The basis gltA, 16S rRNA, and msp4 genes have been the primary focus of research [19,46,48] on identifying the genetic diversity of A. ovis; however, it has been reported that these markers are conserved and are not sufficient to discover novel A. ovis genetic variants [2,30]. Msp1a has been utilized quite frequently as a molecular marker to characterize different strains of A. marginale due to the variable N-terminal region that contains repeating peptides [49]. It has been proposed that Msp1a developed as a response to the intensity of the immunological selection pressure, and that it varied between strains due to the varying sequences and quantities of tandem amino acid repeats that are present in the N-terminal region of the protein [30]. To this day, researchers from a variety of countries have identified a significant number of strains and genotypes containing hundreds of A. marginale Msp1a tandem repeats [30,49,50,51]. These strains and genotypes come from different nations. However, it has been emphasized that the Msp1a gene, which encodes the main surface protein 1a (Msp1a), should be utilized to better discriminate strains phylogeographically and to offer a more complete knowledge of the diversity and evolution of A. ovis isolates globally [7,15,33]. This would allow for a better understanding of the evolution of A. ovis isolates around the world. We found a relatively low number of Msp1a repeats of A. ovis in the region that we studied, and we identified five distinct Msp1a repeats there. Our findings were based on an analysis of the Msp1a sequence. As a result of this research, three of the five distinct Msp1a repeats were singled out for the very first time and given the designations Tr15-16-17. The Msp1a repeats that were discovered in this research were found to be highly variable, containing amino acids 33–43, and each isolate was found to contain exactly one repeat. Both of the remaining two tandem repeats, Ao8 and Ao18, were initially described in China in 2017 [15] and were also reported in Türkiye in 2018 [7]. It has been reported that the number of repeats of the A. ovis Msp1a gene ranges anywhere from one to four [7,15,33]. The genotypes of A. ovis were found in different foci, and it is speculated that these genotypes reflect the transfer and movement of ovine animals and vectors between these provinces.
A total of 58 tandem repeats have been reported so far, according to the A. ovis Msp1a sequences; of these, 24 have been found in China, 14 in Türkiye, and 20 in Tunisia. There will be confusion in naming tandem repeats as the number of A. ovis Msp1a sequences increases in different geographical regions [7,15,33]. (Supplementary Table S2). A piece of software known as Repeat-Analyzer has been developed in order to determine and catalog the tandem sequences of A. marginale that are responsible for serious infections in cattle [50]. Researchers investigating tandems for A. marginale can view all tandems in this program. If they find a new tandem, they can save it and give it a name in this section of the program. The A. ovis Msp1a gene was used in a genotyping study in Tunisia, and it was realized that different names were being used for the same tandem repeats (AoTn3-5 and AoTn4-12-14 have the same tandem sequences). In addition, the tandem repeat, which was given the name AoCg1 in the same study [33], was given the name AoTr2 in an earlier study carried out in Türkiye [7]. All of these misunderstandings can be avoided by developing a software program for A. ovis that is analogous to the RepeatAnalyzer software program that is utilized in A. marginale.
5. Conclusions
In this research, a high prevalence of A. ovis DNA was found in clinically healthy goats, and 5 distinct tandem repeats containing 33–43 amino acids were discovered. Three of these tandems are reported for the first time. Msp1a has the potential to be an informative marker for determining which A. ovis strains are present. There is a pressing need for additional research on the genetic diversity, evolution, and phenotypes of host–pathogen and vector–pathogen relationships, as well as the association of these strains with clinical infections.
Conceptualization, S.O., M.C.U. and M.A.; formal analysis, S.O., M.C.U. and M.A.; investigation, S.O., M.C.U. and M.A.; writing—original draft preparation, S.O., M.C.U. and M.A.; writing—review and editing, S.O., M.C.U. and M.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
In this study, the ethics committee research protocol on animal use was approved by the Animal Ethics Committee of Ministry of Agriculture, Elazig Veterinary Control Institute (protocol number: 2018/02).
Not applicable.
Data available in a publicly accessible repository.
We are thankful to the farmers for their cooperation and the veterinary clinician’s Ali Asar for helping with sample collection. We would like to express our gratitude to Aleyna Karoglu for reviewing the English language of the manuscript.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. Map of Turkish provinces, indicating the localities analyzed in the study. (A) Geographical position of the provinces of Antalya and Mersin in Türkiye. (B) Position of localities sampled in the provinces of Antalya and Mersin.
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. The MSP1a tandem repeat regions’ structure. Three novel Msp1a tandem repeat sequences, dubbed AoTr15-16-17, were discovered in A. ovis isolates from Türkiye. Variable amino acids are marked on a black backdrop, while spaces represent deletions/insertions.
Anaplasma ovis investigated in field-collected blood samples of goat from different provinces in Antalya and Mersin.
| Location | No. Infected | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Province | Villages | No. Tested | No. Positive (%) | 95% CI |
| Antalya | Elikesik | 16 | 15 (93.8) | 69.8–99.8 |
| Payallar | 19 | 12 (63.2) | 38.4–83.7 | |
| Asmaca | 20 | 13 (65.0) | 40.8–84.6 | |
| Gençler | 20 | 8 (40.0) | 19.1–63.9 | |
| Güçlüköy | 36 | 19 (52.8) | 35.5–69.6 | |
| Yarpuz | 14 | 2 (14.3) | 1.8–42.8 | |
| Saraçlı | 16 | 8 (50.0) | 24.7–75.3 | |
| Güzelyalı | 14 | 10 (71.4) | 41.9–91.6 | |
| Yavrudoğan | 7 | 2 (28.6) | 3.7–71.0 | |
| Gebece | 9 | 2 (22,2) | 2.8–60.0 | |
| Susuzşahap | 15 | 1 (6.7) | 0.2–31.9 | |
| Oymapınar | 11 | 5 (45.5) | 16.7–76.6 | |
| Sevinçköy | 10 | 1 (10.0) | 0.3–44.5 | |
| Yaylaalan | 13 | 4 (30.8) | 9.1–61.4 | |
| Mersin | Narince | 20 | 5 (25.0) | 8.7–49.1 |
| Derebaşı | 10 | 4 (40.0) | 12.2–73.8 | |
| Çarıklar | 20 | 16 (80.0) | 56.3–94.3 | |
| Emirşah | 13 | 3 (23.1) | 5.0–53.8 | |
| Güneybahşiş | 10 | 5 (50.0) | 18.7–81.3 | |
| Total | 293 | 135 (46.1) | 40.3–52.0 |
Association of the presence (Msp1a PCR-positive and negative) of Anaplasma ovis in goats with tick infestation.
| Presence of Ticks on the Goats | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| No | Yes | ||
| Number | 293 | 99 (33.8%) | 194 (66.2%) |
| Positive | 135 (46.07%) | 47 (34.8) | 88 (65.2%) |
| Negative | 158 (53.92%) | 52 (32.9%) | 106 (67.1%) |
| p-value | 0.73133 | ||
MSP1a repeat form, number of repeat and amino acid (aa) variation, and BLAST analysis result in A. ovis isolates.
| Isolates | Repeat Form | Number of Repeats | Number of aa | Accession Number | BLAST Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Akseki1 | Ao8 | 1 | 43 | OL470956 | 99.7% A. ovis (MG693756) |
| Akseki2 | Ao8 | 1 | 43 | OL470959 | 99.4% A. ovis (MG693738) |
| Akseki53 | Ao8 | 1 | 43 | OL470947 | 100.0% A.ovis (MG693738) |
| Akseki65 | Ao18 | 1 | 33 | OL470946 | 98.6% A. ovis (MG693760) |
| Alanya13 | Ao8 | 1 | 43 | OL470949 | 100.0% A. ovis (MG693738) |
| Alanya14 | Ao8 | 1 | 43 | OL470961 | 100.0% A. ovis (MG693738) |
| Alanya39 | Ao8 | 1 | 43 | OL470941 | 99.4% A. ovis (MG693738) |
| Alanya49 | AoTr15 | 1 | 43 | OL470953 | 99.4% A. ovis (MG693738) |
| Alanya50 | Ao8 | 1 | 43 | OL470942 | 99.4% A. ovis (MG693738) |
| Alanya60 | AoTr16 | 1 | 33 | OL470944 | 97.5% A. ovis (MG693760) |
| Anamur7 | Ao8 | 1 | 43 | OL470957 | 100.0% A. ovis (MG693738) |
| Anamur10 | AoTr16 | 1 | 33 | OL470950 | 97.5% A. ovis (MG693760) |
| Anamur55 | AoTr15 | 1 | 43 | OL470951 | 98.7% A. ovis (MG693738) |
| Bozyazi26 | AoTr15 | 1 | 43 | OL470945 | 98.7% A. ovis (MG693738) |
| Bozyazi28 | Ao18 | 1 | 33 | OL470955 | 98.6% A. ovis (MG693760) |
| Cetin6 | Ao8 | 1 | 43 | OL470958 | 100.0% A. ovis (MG693738) |
| Manavgat83 | AoTr15 | 1 | 43 | OL470948 | 98.7% A. ovis (MG693738) |
| Manavgat89 | Ao8 | 1 | 43 | OL470960 | 99.4% A. ovis (MG693738) |
| Manavgat90 | AoTr17 | 1 | 43 | OL470952 | 98.7% A. ovis (MG693738) |
| Manavgat95 | Ao8 | 1 | 43 | OL470943 | 99.4% A. ovis (MG693738) |
| Manavgat130 | Ao18 | 1 | 33 | OL470954 | 98.6% A. ovis (MG693760) |
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at:
References
1. Rar, V.; Tkachev, S.; Tikunova, N. Genetic diversity of Anaplasma bacteria: Twenty years later. Infect. Genet. Evol.; 2021; 91, 104833. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2021.104833]
2. Battilani, M.; De Arcangeli, S.; Balboni, A.; Dondi, F. Genetic diversity and molecular epidemiology of Anaplasma. Infect. Genet. Evol.; 2017; 49, pp. 195-211. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2017.01.021] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28122249]
3. Li, H.; Zheng, Y.C.; Ma, L.; Jia, N.; Jiang, B.G.; Jiang, R.R.; Huo, Q.B.; Wang, Y.W.; Liu, H.B.; Chu, Y.L. et al. Human infection with a novel tick-borne Anaplasma species in China: A surveillance study. Lancet Infect. Dis.; 2015; 15, pp. 663-670. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(15)70051-4] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25833289]
4. Dumler, J.S.; Barbet, A.F.; Bekker, C.; Dasch, G.A.; Palmer, G.H.; Ray, S.C.; Rikihisa, Y.; Rurangirwa, F.R. Reorganization of genera in the families Rickettsiaceae and Anaplasmataceae in the order Rickettsiales: Unification of some species of Ehrlichia with Anaplasma, Cowdria with Ehrlichia and Ehrlichia with Neorickettsia, descriptions of six new species combinations and designation of Ehrlichia equi and ‘HGE agent’ as subjective synonyms of Ehrlichia phagocytophila. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol.; 2001; 51, pp. 2145-2165. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11760958]
5. Alessandra, T.; Santo, C. Tick-borne diseases in sheep and goats: Clinical and diagnostic aspects. Small Rumin. Res.; 2012; 106, pp. S6-S11. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2012.04.026]
6. de la Fuente, J.; Atkinson, M.W.; Hogg, J.T.; Miller, D.S.; Naranjo, V.; Almazán, C.; Anderson, N.; Kocan, K.M. Genetic characterization of Anaplasma ovis strains from bighorn sheep in Montana. J. Wildl. Dis.; 2006; 42, pp. 381-385. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7589/0090-3558-42.2.381]
7. Aktas, M.; Ozubek, S. Anaplasma ovis genetic diversity detected by major surface protein 1a and its prevalence in small ruminants. Vet. Microbiol.; 2018; 217, pp. 13-17. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2018.02.026]
8. Ben Said, M.; Belkahia, H.; Messadi, L. Anaplasma spp. in North Africa: A review on molecular epidemiology, associated risk factors and genetic characteristics. Ticks Tick-Borne Dis.; 2018; 9, pp. 543-555. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ttbdis.2018.01.003]
9. Selmi, R.; Ben Said, M.; Dhibi, M.; Ben Yahia, H.; Abdelaali, H.; Messadi, L. Genetic diversity of groEL and msp4 sequences of Anaplasma ovis infecting camels from Tunisia. Parasitol. Int.; 2020; 74, 101980. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.parint.2019.101980]
10. Chisu, V.; Zobba, R.; Lecis, R.; Sotgiu, F.; Masala, G.; Foxi, C.; Pisu, D.; Alberti, A. GroEL typing and phylogeny of Anaplasma species in ticks from domestic and wild vertebrates. Ticks Tick-Borne Dis.; 2018; 9, pp. 31-36. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ttbdis.2017.10.012]
11. Jiménez, C.; Benito, A.; Arnal, J.L.; Ortín, A.; Gómez, M.; López, A.; Villanueva-Saz, S.; Lacasta, D. Anaplasma ovis in sheep: Experimental infection, vertical transmission and colostral immunity. Small Rumin. Res.; 2019; 178, pp. 7-14. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2019.07.003]
12. Cabezas-Cruz, A.; Gallois, M.; Fontugne, M.; Allain, E.; Denoual, M.; Moutailler, S.; Devillers, E.; Zientara, S.; Memmi, M.; Chauvin, A. Epidemiology and genetic diversity of Anaplasma ovis in goats in Corsica, France. Parasites Vectors; 2019; 12, 3. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13071-018-3269-7]
13. ElHamdi, S.; Mhadhbi, M.; Ben Said, M.; Mosbah, A.; Gharbi, M.; Klabi, I.; Daaloul-Jedidi, M.; Belkahia, H.; Selmi, R.; Darghouth, M.A. et al. Anaplasma ovis Prevalence Assessment and Cross Validation Using Multiparametric Screening Approach in Sheep from Central Tunisia. Pathogens; 2022; 11, 1358. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11111358]
14. Renneker, S.; Abdo, J.; Salih, D.; Karagenç, T.; Bilgiç, H.; Torina, A.; Oliva, A.; Campos, J.; Kullmann, B.; Ahmed, J. et al. Can Anaplasma ovis in small ruminants be neglected any longer?. Transbound. Emerg. Dis.; 2013; 60, pp. 105-112. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/tbed.12149]
15. Han, R.; Yang, J.; Liu, Z.; Gao, S.; Niu, Q.; Hassan, M.A.; Luo, J.; Yin, H. Characterization of Anaplasma ovis strains using the major surface protein 1a repeat sequences. Parasites Vectors; 2017; 10, 447. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13071-017-2363-6]
16. Chochlakis, D.; Ioannou, I.; Tselentis, Y.; Psaroulaki, A. Human anaplasmosis and Anaplasma ovis variant. Emerg. Infect. Dis.; 2010; 16, 1031. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3201/eid1606.090175]
17. Kuttler, K. Anaplasma infections in wild and domestic ruminants: A review. J. Wildl. Dis.; 1984; 20, pp. 12-20. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7589/0090-3558-20.1.12]
18. Stuen, S.; Longbottom, D. Treatment and control of chlamydial and rickettsial infections in sheep and goats. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Food Anim. Pract.; 2011; 27, pp. 213-233. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cvfa.2010.10.017]
19. Hornok, S.; Elek, V.; de la Fuente, J.; Naranjo, V.; Farkas, R.; Majoros, G.; Földvári, G. First serological and molecular evidence on the endemicity of Anaplasma ovis and A. marginale in Hungary. Vet. Microbiol.; 2007; 122, pp. 316-322. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2007.01.024]
20. Yasini, S.; Khaki, Z.; Rahbari, S.; Kazemi, B.; Amoli, J.S.; Gharabaghi, A.; Jalali, S. Hematologic and clinical aspects of experimental ovine anaplasmosis caused by Anaplasma ovis in Iran. Iran. J. Parasitol.; 2012; 7, 91.
21. Ciani, E.; Alloggio, I.; Petazzi, F.; Pieragostini, E. Looking for prognosticators in ovine anaplasmosis: Discriminant analysis of clinical and haematological parameters in lambs belonging to differently susceptible breeds experimentally infected with Anaplasma ovis. Acta Vet. Scand.; 2013; 55, 71. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1751-0147-55-71] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24053615]
22. Stuen, S. Haemoparasites—Challenging and Wasting Infections in Small Ruminants: A Review. Animals; 2020; 10, 2179. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani10112179] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33266365]
23. Friedhoff, K. Tick-borne diseases of sheep and goats caused by Babesia, Theileria or Anaplasma spp. Parassitologia; 1997; 39, pp. 99-109. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9530692]
24. Aktas, M.; Altay, K.; Dumanli, N.; Kalkan, A. Molecular detection and identification of Ehrlichia and Anaplasma species in ixodid ticks. Parasitol. Res.; 2009; 104, pp. 1243-1248. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00436-009-1377-1]
25. Hornok, S.; de la Fuente, J.; Biró, N.; Fernández de Mera, I.G.; Meli, M.L.; Elek, V.; Gönczi, E.; Meili, T.; Tánczos, B.; Farkas, R. First molecular evidence of Anaplasma ovis and Rickettsia spp. in keds (Diptera: Hippoboscidae) of sheep and wild ruminants. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis.; 2011; 11, pp. 1319-1321. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1089/vbz.2011.0649]
26. Palmer, G.H.; Knowles, D.P., Jr.; Rodriguez, J.-L.; Gnad, D.P.; Hollis, L.C.; Marston, T.; Brayton, K.A. Stochastic transmission of multiple genotypically distinct Anaplasma marginale strains in a herd with high prevalence of Anaplasma infection. J. Clin. Microbiol.; 2004; 42, pp. 5381-5384. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.42.11.5381-5384.2004]
27. Aardema, M.L.; Von Loewenich, F.D. Varying influences of selection and demography in host-adapted populations of the tick-transmitted bacterium, Anaplasma phagocytophilum. BMC Evol. Biol.; 2015; 15, 58. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12862-015-0335-z]
28. Castañeda-Ortiz, E.J.; Ueti, M.W.; Camacho-Nuez, M.; Mosqueda, J.J.; Mousel, M.R.; Johnson, W.C.; Palmer, G.H. Association of Anaplasma marginale strain superinfection with infection prevalence within tropical regions. PLoS ONE; 2015; 10, e0120748. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120748]
29. Noh, S.M.; Brayton, K.A.; Knowles, D.P.; Agnes, J.T.; Dark, M.J.; Brown, W.C.; Baszler, T.V.; Palmer, G.H. Differential expression and sequence conservation of the Anaplasma marginale msp2 gene superfamily outer membrane proteins. Infect. Immun.; 2006; 74, pp. 3471-3479. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1128/IAI.01843-05]
30. de la Fuente, J.; Atkinson, M.W.; Naranjo, V.; de Mera, I.G.F.; Mangold, A.J.; Keating, K.A.; Kocan, K.M. Sequence analysis of the msp4 gene of Anaplasma ovis strains. Vet. Microbiol.; 2007; 119, pp. 375-381. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2006.09.011]
31. Belkahia, H.; Said, M.B.; El Mabrouk, N.; Saidani, M.; Cherni, C.; Hassen, M.B.; Bouattour, A.; Messadi, L. Seasonal dynamics, spatial distribution and genetic analysis of Anaplasma species infecting small ruminants from Northern Tunisia. Infect. Genet. Evol.; 2017; 54, pp. 66-73. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2017.06.016]
32. Zhou, M.; Cao, S.; Sevinc, F.; Sevinc, M.; Ceylan, O.; Ekici, S.; Jirapattharasate, C.; Moumouni, P.F.A.; Liu, M.; Wang, G. Molecular detection and genetic characterization of Babesia, Theileria and Anaplasma amongst apparently healthy sheep and goats in the central region of Türkiye. Ticks Tick-Borne Dis.; 2017; 8, pp. 246-252. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ttbdis.2016.11.006]
33. Said, M.B.; Selmi, R.; Rhouma, M.H.; Belkahia, H.; Messadi, L. Molecular phylogeny and genetic diversity based on msp1a, groEL and gltA genes of Anaplasma ovis Tunisian isolates compared to available worldwide isolates and strains. Ticks Tick-Borne Dis.; 2020; 11, 101447. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ttbdis.2020.101447]
34. Brayton, K.A.; Palmer, G.H.; Brown, W.C. Genomic and proteomic approaches to vaccine candidate identification for Anaplasma marginale. Expert Rev. Vaccines; 2006; 5, pp. 95-101. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1586/14760584.5.1.95]
35. Ceylan, O.; Xuan, X.; Sevinc, F. Primary tick-borne protozoan and rickettsial infections of animals in Türkiye. Pathogens; 2021; 10, 231. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pathogens10020231]
36. Ceylan, C.; Ekici, Ö.D. Molecular Investigation of Ovine and Caprine Anaplasmosis in South-eastern Anatolia Region of Türkiye. Pak. Vet. J.; 2022; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.29261/pakvetj/2022.070]
37. Estrada-Peña, A.; Mihalca, A.D.; Petney, T.N. Ticks of Europe and North Africa; Estrada-Peña, A.; Mihalca, A.D.; Petney, T.N. Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 343-348. ISBN 978-3-319-63759-4
38. Walker, A.; Bouattour, A.; Camicas, J.; Estrada-Pena, A.; Horak, I.; Latif, A. Ticks of Domestic Animals in Africa: A Guide to Identification of Species; Bioscience Reports: London, UK, 2003.
39. Bekker, C.P.; De Vos, S.; Taoufik, A.; Sparagano, O.A.; Jongejan, F. Simultaneous detection of Anaplasma and Ehrlichia species in ruminants and detection of Ehrlichia ruminantium in Amblyomma variegatum ticks by reverse line blot hybridization. Vet. Microbiol.; 2002; 89, pp. 223-238. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1135(02)00179-7]
40. Aktas, M.; Altay, K.; Dumanli, N. Molecular detection and identification of Anaplasma and Ehrlichia species in cattle from Türkiye. Ticks Tick-Borne Dis.; 2011; 2, pp. 62-65. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ttbdis.2010.11.002]
41. Belkahia, H.; Said, M.B.; El Hamdi, S.; Yahiaoui, M.; Gharbi, M.; Daaloul-Jedidi, M.; Mhadhbi, M.; Jedidi, M.; Darghouth, M.A.; Klabi, I. First molecular identification and genetic characterization of Anaplasma ovis in sheep from Tunisia. Small Rumin. Res.; 2014; 121, pp. 404-410. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2014.07.009]
42. Reghaissia, N.; Dahmane, A.; Boularias, G.; Ghalmi, F.; Azzag, N. Epidemiological and comparative diagnostic study of Anaplasma spp. Infection in Goats from North-Eastern Algeria. Folia Vet.; 2020; 64, pp. 61-74. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2478/fv-2020-0028]
43. Zobba, R.; Anfossi, A.G.; Pinna Parpaglia, M.L.; Dore, G.M.; Chessa, B.; Spezzigu, A.; Rocca, S.; Visco, S.; Pittau, M.; Alberti, A. Molecular investigation and phylogeny of Anaplasma spp. in Mediterranean ruminants reveal the presence of neutrophil-tropic strains closely related to A. platys. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.; 2014; 80, pp. 271-280. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AEM.03129-13] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24162569]
44. Hakimi, H.; Sarani, A.; Takeda, M.; Kaneko, O.; Asada, M. Epidemiology, risk factors, and co-infection of vector-borne pathogens in goats from Sistan and Baluchestan province, Iran. PLoS ONE; 2019; 14, e0218609. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218609] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31220153]
45. Bilgic, H.B.; Bakırcı, S.; Kose, O.; Unlu, A.H.; Hacılarlıoglu, S.; Eren, H.; Weir, W.; Karagenc, T. Prevalence of tick-borne haemoparasites in small ruminants in Türkiye and diagnostic sensitivity of single-PCR and RLB. Parasites Vectors; 2017; 10, 211. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13071-017-2151-3]
46. Torina, A.; Alongi, A.; Naranjo, V.; Scimeca, S.; Nicosia, S.; Di Marco, V.; Caracappa, S.; Kocan, K.; De La Fuente, J. Characterization of anaplasma infections in Sicily, Italy. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.; 2008; 1149, pp. 90-93. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1196/annals.1428.065]
47. Palmer, G.H.; Abbott, J.R.; French, D.M.; McElwain, T.F. Persistence of Anaplasma ovis infection and conservation of the msp-2 and msp-3 multigene families within the genus Anaplasma. Infect. Immun.; 1998; 66, pp. 6035-6039. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1128/IAI.66.12.6035-6039.1998] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9826393]
48. Liu, Z.; Ma, M.; Wang, Z.; Wang, J.; Peng, Y.; Li, Y.; Guan, G.; Luo, J.; Yin, H. Molecular survey and genetic identification of Anaplasma species in goats from central and southern China. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.; 2012; 78, pp. 464-470. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AEM.06848-11]
49. Cabezas-Cruz, A.; Passos, L.M.; Lis, K.; Kenneil, R.; Valdes, J.J.; Ferrolho, J.; Tonk, M.; Pohl, A.E.; Grubhoffer, L.; Zweygarth, E. Functional and immunological relevance of Anaplasma marginale major surface protein 1a sequence and structural analysis. PLoS ONE; 2013; 8, e65243.
50. Catanese, H.N.; Brayton, K.A.; Gebremedhin, A.H. RepeatAnalyzer: A tool for analysing and managing short-sequence repeat data. BMC Genom.; 2016; 17, 422. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12864-016-2686-2]
51. Aktas, M.; Özübek, S. Outbreak of anaplasmosis associated with novel genetic variants of Anaplasma marginale in a dairy cattle. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis.; 2017; 54, pp. 20-26. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cimid.2017.07.008]
52. Kawahara, M.; Rikihisa, Y.; Lin, Q.; Isogai, E.; Tahara, K.; Itagaki, A.; Hiramitsu, Y.; Tajima, T. Novel genetic variants of Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Anaplasma bovis, Anaplasma centrale, and a novel Ehrlichia sp. in wild deer and ticks on two major islands in Japan. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.; 2006; 72, pp. 1102-1109. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AEM.72.2.1102-1109.2006]
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Ozubek, Sezayi; Aktas, Munir