Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
GIUSI MACALUSO
 + 1214 word(s) 1214 2022-03-07 03:51:11 |
2 update layout and references
Amina Yu
 -14 word(s) 1200 2022-03-17 02:38:26 |

Video Upload Options

We provide professional Video Production Services to translate complex research into visually appealing presentations. Would you like to try it?
No, upload directly Yes

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Macaluso, G. Leptospira in Slaughtered Fattening Pigs in Southern Italy. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/20643 (accessed on 19 November 2024).
Macaluso G. Leptospira in Slaughtered Fattening Pigs in Southern Italy. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/20643. Accessed November 19, 2024.
Macaluso, Giusi. "Leptospira in Slaughtered Fattening Pigs in Southern Italy" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/20643 (accessed November 19, 2024).
Macaluso, G. (2022, March 16). Leptospira in Slaughtered Fattening Pigs in Southern Italy. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/20643
Macaluso, Giusi. "Leptospira in Slaughtered Fattening Pigs in Southern Italy." Encyclopedia. Web. 16 March, 2022.
Leptospira in Slaughtered Fattening Pigs in Southern Italy
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/ani12050585

Leptospirosis is a zoonosis occurring worldwide, caused by pathogenic spirochaetes of the genus Leptospira, transmitted through direct contact with the urine of infected animals or a urine-contaminated environment. It has a negative economic impact on farm animals, causing economic losses and serious human diseases and mortality.

leptospirosis MAT genotyping pigs Sicily

1. Introduction

The genus Leptospira contains 64 named species [1]. Leptospira have been classified serologically into more than 250 serovars [2][1][3][4]. Leptospires persist for a long time in the kidneys and genital tracts of domestic animals, including pigs, with intermittent shedding in the urine. This causes infections in humans and other animals [5][6][7]. Animal infections are caused by serovars maintained by the same or other species sharing the same geographical location [7].
Swine infections are caused by these pathogenic species: L. borgpetersenii (serovars Sejroe and Tarassovi), L. interrogans (serovars Pomona, Icterohaemorrhagiae, Canicola, and Bratislava), and L. kirschneri (serovars Grippotyphosa and Mozdok). Infections of L. kirschneri serovar Mozdok have been reported in pigs in various European countries [8][9][10] including Italy [11], and this serovar has been shown to be pathogenic for pigs, causing abortion and stillbirth in swine [12]. Serovars Bratislava and Pomona are uniquely adapted to swine; the others occasionally infect swine, being maintained in other species [13]. L. interrogans serovar Hardjo infects pigs sharing the same habitats with cattle. L. interrogans serovar Bratislava is the most frequent swine strain, with a doubtful role as a cause of disease [14].
Porcine leptospirosis imposes economic losses on pig farms, causing abortion, stillborn and weak piglets, and deaths soon after birth [15]. Leptospires cause serious illnesses depending on the serovar and the animal age [16]. When the infective agent enters a farm, its spread is rapid, mostly among fattening pigs [17].
In Italy, swine have been shown to maintain serovar Pomona (Pomona serogroup) and serovar Bratislava (Australis serogroup); serovar Tarassovi has been shown to be responsible for incidental infections [17]. Until 2010, a trivalent vaccine against these serogroups was available, but it was utilized by few swine farmers. In 2011, vaccinations were completely abandoned, due to poor understanding of the risk of leptospirosis and because of the treatments for more virulent diseases [11].
The Office International des Epizooties (OIE) reports the microscopic agglutination test (MAT) as the serological gold standard method [18]. The selection of antigens should include the serogroup strains and those known to be maintained by the species to be analyzed [11].
Besides the classical conventional reference methods, over the years, several real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods and molecular typing techniques have been developed to directly investigate Leptospira DNA in biological samples, to examine individual genomic profiles and to investigate the epidemiology [11][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. They provide diagnostic advantages, such as reduced turnaround times, low risk of contamination and greater sensitivity and specificity [25].
Following a protocol published by Weiss et al., 2016 [26], multilocus sequence typing (MLST) avoids pathogen isolation, since it can be directly performed on the biological sample DNA.

2. Serological Survey and Molecular Typing

A high percentage of pigs positive for Australis serogroup (63.64%) followed by Pomona and Sejroe (27.27% and 9.09%, respectively) was observed. It was [17] showed that Pomona, Tarassovi, Bratislava and Muenchen are the most common serovars among swine in Italy. These data indicate swine can act as a reservoir host for these serogroups and that Australis is mainly present in pigs in southern Italy, confirming results from many regions worldwide [16]. It was conducted in five provinces in Vietnam showed a seroprevalence of 8.17% among fattening pigs [27].
The detection of serogroups by MAT depends on the investigation phase [28]; the induction of low antibody titers against common antigens of Leptospira spp., as well as cross-reactions of serogroups, are typical of the first phase of infection [28][29]. Titers of 1:100 or 1:200 may be suggestive of an early stage of infection; higher titers can be considered distinctive of endemic infection [30]. The low titers in most samples could suggest a recent exposure to Leptospira spp. Moreover, the presence of positive sera reactions, at the same time, with two serovars (Australis-Pomona), indicated cross-reactions and confirmed the first phase of infection, the latter because the induction of antibodies against common antigens of Leptospira is frequent during the acute phase of infection [11]. It has been shown that serovar Mozdok infection causes serological cross-reactions with the Australis, Icteroahemorrhagiae and Grippotyphosa serogroups [12].
In regions where vaccination against leptospirosis has been practiced, including China, Japan, Cuba, and Europe, declines in overall seroprevalence have been reported [31]. This decrease has also been connected with improved housing, limiting interactions between animals and the environment [32]. In Greece, it was reported a seroprevalence of 17.8% in pig farms [33].
The percentages of positivity observed in Sicily compared with the other analyzed regions could be due to particular environmental conditions, potential risk factors and the abundance of reservoirs in the wild fauna
In Europe have reported an increase in leptospirosis associated with wetter climatic conditions, promoting the prolonged environmental survival of Leptospira bacteria. Moreover, new climatic conditions have induced a change in herd management in Italy, increasing outdoor activities to improve animal welfare [34][30][35]. In the farms of origin, the bacteria could have been transiently present in water streams, rivers and small pools shared between swine and wildlife, and the pigs could have shared watering spots with the rich local wild fauna (wild pigs, wild boars, foxes, martens and so on). Among reservoirs, wild boar (Sus scrofa), as well as all swine, are considered the well-known maintenance host to the Tarassovi Leptospira borgpetersenii serogroup and Pomona and Australis Leptospira interrogans serogroups [13]. Moreover, due to their population abundance in all European countries, this animal species could be a suitable indicator of Leptospira prevalence in a specific area and a potential source of leptospires that then infect humans and domestic animals [36][37][38][39].
Because of their genetic relationship to domestic swine, wild boars play an important role in the transmission of leptospirosis among free living and domestic species [40] and could be identified as a potential source of infection for domestic pigs [41][42], as well as humans [42].
It was conducted across Europe on wild boars have shown variable seroprevalence of Leptospira from 65.4% in Portugal, [38], 45.8% in Slovenia [33] and 31.9% in Croatia [43], to 2.6% in Italy [44] and 3.1% in Sweden [45]. This variation across regions may be due to differences in the populations of wild small mammals acting as maintenance hosts [23].
Slaughterhouses occasionally represent an important surveillance station, mainly for foodborne pathogens (Salmonella, Campylobacter and Trichinella). They can also allow the detection of specific swine infections [35]. Moreover, in order to control Toxoplasma gondii infections in the pork supply chain, recommended measures developed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) include serological testing of pigs for this pathogen at the farms or slaughterhouses and on-farm audits for risk factors associated with this infection [46][47]. For these reasons, slaughterhouses could assume an important epidemiological role in highlighting some important zoonosis not detected in the farms. Moreover, the distribution of serovars in slaughtered pigs could be assumed to reflect the distribution of serovars in pig farms.
Swine vaccination against Leptospira in Italy led to a decrease in this infection in the pig population [29]. Starting from 2011, vaccinations against Leptospira spp. were no longer practiced, and the management of the breeding herd was adopted as strategy. Strong surveillance systems could improve understanding of the disease epidemiology, and the application of rigorous biosecurity controls and an effective specific prevention strategy (vaccination, slaughterhouse screening) together with farm management could limit pathogen transmission in the herd.

References

  1. Vincent, A.T.; Schiettekatte, O.; Goarant, C.; Neela, V.K.; Bernet, E.; Thibeaux, R.; Ismail, N.; Mohd Khalid, M.; Amran, F.; Masuzawa, T.; et al. Revisiting the taxonomy and evolution of pathogenicity of the genus Leptospira through the prism of genomics. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2019, 13, e0007270.
  2. Cerqueira, G.M.; Picardeau, M. A century of Leptospira strain typing. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2009, 9, 760–768.
  3. Leptospirosis Burden Epidemiology Reference Group (LERG). Available online: http://www.who.int/zoonoses/diseases/lerg/en/ (accessed on 17 March 2017).
  4. Evangelista, K.V.; Coburn, J. Leptospira as an emerging pathogen: A review of its biology, pathogenesis and host immune responses. Future Microbiol. 2010, 5, 1413–1425.
  5. Calderón, A.; Rodríguez, V.; Máttar, S.; Arrieta, G. Leptospirosis in pigs, dogs, rodents, humans, and water in an area of the Colombian tropics. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2014, 46, 427–432.
  6. Suepaul, S.M.; Carrington, C.V.; Campbell, M.; Borde, G.; Adesiyun, A.A. Seroepidemiology of leptospirosis in livestock in Trinidad. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2011, 43, 367–375.
  7. Allan, K.J.; Biggs, H.M.; Halliday, J.E.; Kazwala, R.R.; Maro, V.P.; Cleaveland, S.; Crump, J.A. Epidemiology of leptospirosis in Africa: A systematic review of a neglected zoonosis and a paradigm for ‘One Health’ in Africa. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2015, 9, e0003899.
  8. Pritchard, D.G.; Todd, N.; Barlow, A.; Little, S.A. Outbreak of Leptospira interrogans serovar mozdok in sows in Dorset, England. Isr. J. Vet. Med. 1987, 43, 343.
  9. Rocha, T. Isolation of Leptospira interrogans serovar mozdok from aborted swine foetuses in Portugal. Vet. Rec. 1990, 126, 602.
  10. Ferreira, A.S.; Ahmed, A.; Rocha, T.; Vieira, M.L.; Paiva-Cardoso, M.N.; Mesquita, J.R.; van der Linden, H.; Goris, M.; Thompson, G.; Hartskeerl, R.A.; et al. Genetic diversity of pathogenic leptospires from wild, domestic and captive host species in Portugal. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2019, 67, 852–864.
  11. Bertasio, C.; Papetti, A.; Scaltriti, E.; Tagliabue, S.; D’Incau, M.; Boniotti, M.B. Serological Survey and Molecular Typing Reveal New Leptospira Serogroup Pomona Strains among Pigs of Northern Italy. Pathogens 2020, 9, 332.
  12. Rocha, T.; Perestrelo-Vieira, R. Experimental infection of pregnant gilts with Leptospira interrogans serovar mozdok. Vet. Rec. 1992, 131, 197–199.
  13. Cilia, G.; Bertelloni, F.; Angelini, M.; Cerri, D.; Fratini, F. Leptospira Survey in Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) Hunted in Tuscany, Central Italy. Pathogens 2020, 9, 377.
  14. Ngugi, J.N.; Fèvre, E.M.; Mgode, G.F.; Obonyo, M.; Mhamphi, G.G.; Otieno, C.A.; Cook, E.A.J. Seroprevalence and associated risk factors of leptospirosis in slaughter pigs; a neglected public health risk, western Kenya. BMC Vet. Res. 2019, 15, 403.
  15. Boqvist, S.; Thu, H.T.V.; Vågsholm, I.; Magnusson, U. The impact of Leptospira seropositivity on reproductive performance in sows in southern Viet Nam. Theriogenology 2002, 58, 1327–1335.
  16. Strutzberg-Minder, K.; Tschentscher, A.; Beyerbach, M.; Homuth, M.; Kreienbrock, L. Passive surveillance of Leptospira infection in swine in Germany. Porc. Health Manag. 2018, 4, 10.
  17. Nassuato, C.; Cominardi, P.; Tagliabue, S.; Pennelli, D. Gestione di un focolaio di Leptospira interrogans variante Pomona in un allevamento suino da ingrasso 1998. Osservatorio 2006, 9, 4–9.
  18. World Organization of Animal Health—OIE. Chapter 3.1.12. Leptospirosis. In Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals; OIE: Paris, France, 2021; pp. 1–13.
  19. Levett, P.N.; Morey, R.E.; Galloway, R.L.; Turner, D.E.; Steigerwalt, A.G.; Mayer, L.W. Detection of pathogenic leptospires by real-time quantitative PCR. J. Med. Microbiol. 2005, 54, 45–49.
  20. Palaniappan, R.U.M.; Chang, Y.F.; Chang, C.F.; Pan, M.J.; Yang, C.W.; Harpending, P.; McDonough, S.P.; Dubovi, E.; Divers, T.; Qu, J.; et al. Evaluation of lig-based conventional and real time PCR for the detection of pathogenic leptospires. Mol. Cell. Probes 2005, 19, 111–117.
  21. Roczek, A.; Forster, C.; Raschel, H.; Hörmansdorfer, S.; Bogner, K.H.; Hafner-Marx, A.; Lepper, H.; Dobler, G.; Büttner, M.; Sing, A. Severe course of rat bite-associated Weil’s disease in a patient diagnosed with a new Leptospira-specific real-time quantitative LUX-PCR. J. Med. Microbiol. 2008, 57, 658–663.
  22. Stoddard, R.A.; Gee, J.E.; Wilkins, P.P.; McCaustland, K.; Hoffmaster, A.R. Detection of pathogenic Leptospira spp. through TaqMan polymerase chain reaction targeting the LipL32 gene. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2009, 64, 247–255.
  23. Slack, A.T.; Symonds, M.L.; Dohnt, M.F.; Smythe, L.D. Identification of pathogenic Leptospira species by conventional or real-time PCR and sequencing of the DNA gyrase subunit B encoding gene. BMC Microbiol. 2006, 6, 95.
  24. Slack, R.; Krishnamurthy, G.V.; Murag, S.; Venkatesha, M.D.; Krishnappa, G. Differentiation of pathogenic and saprophytic leptospires by polymerase chain reaction. Indian J. Med. Microbiol. 2002, 20, 33.
  25. Kositanont, U.; Rugsasuk, S.; Leelaporn, A.; Phulsuksombati, D.; Tantitanawat, S.; Naigowit, P. Detection and differentiation between pathogenic and saprophytic Leptospira spp. by multiplex polymerase chain reaction. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2007, 57, 117–122.
  26. Weiss, S.; Menezes, A.; Woods, K.; Chanthongthip, A.; Dittrich, S.; Opoku-Boateng, A.; Simuli, M.; Chalke, V. An Extended Multilocus Sequence Typing (MLST) Scheme for Rapid Direct Typing of Leptospira from Clinical Samples. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2016, 10, e0004996.
  27. Lee, H.S.; Khong, N.V.; Xuan, H.N.; Nghia, V.B.; Nguyen-Viet, H.; Grace, D. Seroprevalence of specific Leptospira serovars in fattening pigs from 5 provinces in Vietnam. BMC Vet. Res. 2017, 13, 125.
  28. Levett, P.N. Leptospirosis. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2001, 14, 296–326.
  29. Bolin, C.A.; Cassells, J.A. Isolation of Leptospira interrogans serovars bratislava and hardjo from swine at slaughter. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 1992, 4, 87–89.
  30. Picardeau, M. Diagnosis and epidemiology of leptospirosis. Méd. Mal. Infect. 2013, 43, 1–9.
  31. EUROSTAT. Pig Population. Annual Data. 2017. Available online: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/agriculture/data/main_tables (accessed on 11 January 2021).
  32. Faine, S.; Adler, B.; Bolin, C.; Perolat, P. Leptospira and Leptospirosis, 2nd ed.; Medisci Press: Melbourne, Australia, 1999.
  33. Burriel, A.; Dalley, C.; Woodward, M.J. Prevalence of Leptospira species among farmed and domestic animals in Greece. Vet. Rec. 2003, 153, 146–148.
  34. Bertelloni, F.; Turchi, B.; Vattiata, E.; Viola, P.; Pardini, S.; Cerri, D.; Fratini, F. Serological survey on Leptospira infection in slaughtered swine in NorthCentral Italy. Epidemiol. Infect. 2018, 146, 1275–1280.
  35. Habus, J.; Persic, Z.; Spicic, S.; Vince, S.; Stritof, Z.; Milas, Z.; Cvetnic, Z.; Perharic, M.; Turk, N. New trends in human and animal leptospirosis in Croatia, 2009–2014. Acta Trop. 2017, 168, 1–8.
  36. Vicente, J.; León-Vizcaíno, L.; Gortázar, C.; Cubero, M.J.; González, M.; Martín-Atance, P. Antibodies to selected viral and bacterial pathogens in European wild boars from Southcentral Spain. J. Wildl. Dis. 2002, 38, 649–652.
  37. Pedersen, K.; Pabilonia, K.L.; Anderson, T.D.; Bevins, S.N.; Hicks, C.R.; Kloft, J.M.; Deliberto, T.J. Widespread detection of antibodies to Leptospira in feral swine in the United States. Epidemiol. Infect. 2015, 143, 2131–2136.
  38. Vale-Gonçalves, H.M.; Cabral, J.A.; Faria, M.C.; Nunes-Pereira, M.; Faria, A.S.; Veloso, O.; Vieira, M.L.; Paiva-Cardoso, M.N. Prevalence of leptospira antibodies in wild boars (Sus scrofa) from Northern Portugal: Risk factor analysis. Epidemiol. Infect. 2015, 143, 2126–2130.
  39. Żmudzki, J.; Jabłoński, A.; Nowak, A.; Zębek, S.; Arent, Z.; Bocian, Ł.; Pejsak, Z. First overall report of Leptospira infections in wild boars in Poland. Acta Vet. Scand. 2016, 58, 3.
  40. Krawczyk, M. Serological evidence of leptospirosis in animals in northern Poland. Vet. Rec. 2005, 156, 88–89.
  41. Witmer, G.W.; Sanders, R.B.; Taft, A.C. Feral swine-are they a disease threat to livestock in the United States? In Proceedings of the 10th Wildlife Damage Management Conference, Hot Springs, AR, USA, 6–9 April 2003; Fagerstone, K.A., Witmer, G.W., Eds.; USDA National Wildlife Research Center: Fort Collins, CO, USA; pp. 316–325.
  42. Jansen, A.; Nockler, K.; Schonberg, A.; Luge, E.; Ehlert, D.; Schneider, T. Wild boars as possible source of hemorrhagic leptospirosis in Berlin, Germany. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2006, 25, 544–546.
  43. Slavica, A.; Cvetnić, Ž.; Konjević, D.; Janicki, Z.; Severin, K.; Dežđek, D.; Starešina, V.; Sindičić, M.; Antić, J. Detection of Leptospira spp. serovars in wild boars (Sus scrofa) from continental Croatia. Vet. Arh. 2010, 80, 247–257.
  44. Montagnaro, S.; Sasso, S.; De Martino, L.; Longo, M.; Iovane, V.; Ghiurmino, G.; Pisanelli, G.; Nava, D.; Baldi, L.; Pagnini, U. Prevalence of antibodies to selected viral and bacterial pathogens in wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Campania region Italy. J. Wildl. Dis. 2010, 46, 316–319.
  45. Boqvist, S.; Bergström, K.; Magnusson, U. Prevalence of antibody to six Leptospira servovars in Swedish wild boars. J. Wildl. Dis. 2012, 48, 492–496.
  46. Eppink, D.M.; Wisselink, H.J.; Krijger, I.M.; van der Giessen, J.W.; Swanenburg, M.; van Wagenberg, C.P.; van Asseldonk, M.A.; Bouwknegt, M. Effectiveness and costs of interventions to reduce the within-farm Toxoplasma gondii seroprevalence on pig farms in the Netherlands. Porc. Health Manag. 2021, 7, 44.
  47. EFSA Technical Specifications on Harmonised Epidemiological Indicators for Public Health. Hazards to Be Covered by Meat Inspection of Swine. EFSA J. 2011, 1–125.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Agriculture, Dairy & Animal Science
Contributor MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
GIUSI MACALUSO
View Times: 493
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 17 Mar 2022
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    ScholarVision Creations
    Feedback