Tick-Borne Diseases in Cattle

Version	Summary	Created by	Modification	Content Size	Created at	Operation
1		Sheema Mir	--	3148	2022-05-25 19:47:17	\|
2	format corrected.	Beatrix Zheng	+ 2 word(s)	3150	2022-05-26 04:02:33	\| \|
3	"Description" modified a little.	Beatrix Zheng	+ 15 word(s)	3165	2022-05-27 05:07:41	\|

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/vetsci9050241

Ticks are obligate blood feeding arthropods. They carry bacteria, helminths, protozoa, and viruses that are pathogenic to their vertebrate hosts, including humans, domestic and wild animals. Ticks transfer pathogens from their gut to the host bloodstream by their saliva. Different categories of tick-borne pathogens cause diseases in either human or domestic animals or both. Ticks and tick-borne diseases such as babesiosis, anaplasmosis, ehrlichiosis, Lyme disease, Crimean Congo hemorrhagic fever, and Rocky Mountain spotted fever pose a significant threat to animal and human health. Tick-borne diseases cause billions of dollars of losses to livestock farmers annually. These losses are partially attributed to the lack of sensitive, robust, cost effective and efficient diagnostic approaches that could detect the infectious pathogen at the early stages of illness. The modern nucleic acid-based multiplex diagnostic approaches have been developed in human medicine but are still absent in veterinary medicine. These powerful assays can screen 384 patient samples at one time, simultaneously detect numerous infectious pathogens in each test sample and provide the diagnostic answer in a few hours. Development, commercialization, and wide use of such high throughput multiplex molecular assays in the cattle tick-borne disease surveillance will help in early detection and control of infectious pathogens in the animal reservoir before community spread and spillover to humans. Such approaches in veterinary medicine will save animal life, prevent billions of dollars of economic loss to cattle herders and reduce unwanted stress to both human and animal health care systems.

ticks bacterial viral and protozoal tick-borne diseases multiplex molecular diagnostics PCR cattle

1. Introduction

Different categories of tick-borne pathogens cause diseases in either human or domestic animals or both. On a global scale, the economic loss caused by tick-borne diseases is staggering. Every year, ticks and tick-borne pathogens cause around USD 13.9–19.7 billion in losses in the United States (USA), which includes approximately three billion in losses in cattle tick infestations alone ^[1]^[2]. Cattle and livestock farming is important for the economic and sociocultural wellbeing of any country. Livestock supports the food supply, family nutrition, family income, asset savings, soil productivity, livelihoods, transport, agricultural traction, agricultural diversification and sustainable agricultural production, family and community employment and income, ritual purposes, and social status ^[3]^[4]. National cattle herders have expanded in countries with the highest cattle inventories such as Brazil, Australia, the USA, India, Argentina, and the European Union. On average, the USA imports one million cattle annually from Mexico, which are often affected by ticks and tick-borne diseases ^[5]. Ticks transmit many diseases ^[6] to domestic and livestock animals which includes viral diseases such as Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever and tick-borne encephalitis virus, bacterial diseases such as Q fever, borreliosis and relapsing fever, protozoal diseases such as theileriosis and babesiosis, and rickettsial diseases such as anaplasmosis and ehrlichiosis.

Tick-borne pathogens circulate in enzootic cycles, alternating between ticks and suitable animal hosts. Tick-borne diseases of livestock increase workloads by necessitating the adoption of preventive measures in controlling the disease. In addition, the financial stress to livestock owners due to animal loss contributes to the psychosocial stress, affecting their quality of life. Better global control of tick-borne diseases of livestock and their vectors would contribute substantially to improved meat and milk production ^[7]. There are over 60 tick-borne agents that may be pathogenic to livestock, however few are recognized as being of economic significance ^[8]. In addition, it is now well understood that ticks may be co-infected with more than one pathogen and transmit multiple pathogens simultaneously while taking a blood meal from their hosts ^[9]^[10].

The overall impact of tick-borne diseases on livestock operations is likely higher because it is difficult to measure the impact of parasites on cattle weight, reduced milk production, aborted calves or other health problems that reduce production. Decades after the identification of causative agents for tick-borne diseases, people still have limited tools to manage the impact of losses incurred by tick-borne diseases. Although the use of antibiotics against bacterial agents has helped reduce certain diseases, animals remain susceptible to reinfection ^[11]. Likewise, the use of dipping techniques for cattle to kill the ticks has helped, but the emergence of acaricide resistance has become a problem ^[12]. Although live attenuated and recombinant vaccines are considered as preferred measures in tick-borne disease control ^[13], none of them have resulted in sterile immunity. Furthermore, the difficulty in isolating and identifying various infectious pathogens have made it a complex problem. A few more drivers of change in these disease dynamics include climate and ecosystem changes, globalization, with movements of people and animals, and an increasing demand for livestock products ^[14], which is likely to have increasing public health implications ^[15]. The costly serology based (singleplex) diagnostic approaches discourage the cattle herders from screening their cattle for potential tick-borne infections ^[16]. Moreover, the homology of epitopes between different infectious pathogens or their strains can generate cross-reactive antibodies that can provide false positive test results ^[17].

2. Multiplex Diagnostics of Tick-Borne Pathogens in Cattle

The quick identification of infectious pathogens in infected animals is profoundly important, as the pathogen can spread in the population and create a global health concern of pandemic origin for both humans and animals. One infected animal can spread the tick-borne infection to the entire herd, especially in the summer months when tick populations are on the rise, causing significant loss to herd owners and the loss of animal life ^[1]^[2]. The situation can worsen if the infectious pathogen spreads to humans, which can trigger the unwanted slaughter of the infected herd to bring the infectious disease under control. The singleplex diagnostic strategies such as culturing of infectious bacterial, viral, and fungal pathogens or identification of pathogen specific antigens or antibodies in the patient serum samples lack sensitivity and are time consuming. Often, the antibody response to the infectious pathogen is dysregulated and the identification of a pathogen-specific antigen or antibody becomes complicated during the early stages of illness ^[18]^[19]^[20]. The frequently used serologic assays for the diagnosis of tick-borne disease include ELISA, IFA, and western blot ^[21]^[22]. However, their diagnostic accuracy is affected by numerous limitations. For example, the recommended two-tiered diagnostic approach for Lyme disease consist of ELISA followed by western blot. This can detect <40% of patients with early disease and can result in up to 28% of IgM western blots yielding false positive results ^[23]. Similarly, the accuracy of IFA, which is recommended for the detection of Babesia, Anaplasma, Ehrlichia and Rickettsia, can vary widely among diagnostic laboratories primarily due to the lack of standardized antigenic targets, cross reactivity, and the subjective establishment of positivity thresholds ^[24]. These limitations, especially the huge cost and poor sensitivity of old singleplex serological diagnostic approaches, can discourage the herd owners from screening their animals for tick-borne infectious diseases. In addition, coinfection with more than one tick-borne pathogen has been reported in animals ^[9]^[10]. The coinfections will require multiple singleplex screening tests on the same sample. Moreover, the screening of numerous tick-borne pathogens in huge reservoir populations for surveillance studies is extremely difficult and costly by singleplex diagnostics approaches.

The first multiplex array-based serologic assay called Tick-Borne Disease Serochip (TBD-Serochip) was developed by employing an extensive range of linear peptides that identify key specific immunodominant epitopes ^[25]. The assay discriminates the antibody responses to eight major tick-borne pathogens found in the United States, including A. phagocytophilum, B. microti, B. burgdorferi, B. miyamotoi, E. chaffeensis, Rickettsia rickettsii, Heartland virus and Powassan virus ^[25]. The major limitation of this interesting platform is that it displays only linear peptides and may miss the conformation determinants or non-protein epitopes important for pathogenesis. Although this novel serological platform holds promise for further development as a diagnostic tool, it will need further development and validation by comparing their output test results with existing serologic assays that are primarily used for the diagnosis of tick-borne diseases. In addition, the cost may become a limiting factor for the widespread use of such peptide array-based multiplex diagnostic assays in the veterinary field. The development of small multiplex assays, detecting antibodies against the three surface proteins (OspA, OspC and OspF) of B. burgdorferi in canine ^[26] and horse ^[27], have also been developed. Similar multiplex assay detecting antibodies against five surface proteins of Lyme disease have been reported, where five B. burgdorferi antigens were combined into a fluorescent cytometric bead-based assay for detection of specific IgG antibodies ^[28]. However, the lower sensitivity and cross reactivity of antibodies have created hurdles in the rapid development of serology-based multiplex diagnostic approaches.

In comparison, the sensitive and cost-effective PCR-based diagnostic approaches can detect even a single pathogen in the test sample with high specificity, and they are thus preferred in the diagnostic industry for their reliable test results, especially for the determination of active infection. With this ever-changing world, there is a need to develop reliable diagnostic approaches that can detect multiple pathogens with higher specificity and sensitivity from the same test sample in veterinary medicine. In addition, reporting and sharing of the diagnostic test results with the concerned authorities should be made simple and easy. Surprisingly, the efficient and cost effective multiplex nucleic acid-based diagnostic tests have not been significantly developed in veterinary medicine ^[29] but have taken bigger leaps in human medicine ^[30]^[31]. For example, modern multiplex diagnostic technology has helped clinicians to accurately detect the target pathogen in the infected human patients that helped in the initiation of accurate treatment plans in a timely fashion, resulting in a favorable disease outcome ^[32]^[33]. There is a greater need for the development and commercialization of these tests, since they can provide greater information beyond species identification such as drug resistance, strain divergence, virulence, and the origin of isolates. Unlike serology-based assays, the PCR- based nucleic acid diagnostic assays provide clear insight about the active infection in the patient. Nucleic acid based multiplex diagnostic assays are highly sensitive, cost effective, and have a very short turnaround time. These assays can screen 96 to 384 samples of a cattle herd for almost all-important tick-borne pathogens and provide the diagnostic answer in just 4 to 5 h. These powerful assays can be very helpful in the surveillance studies for the identification of tick-borne pathogens in different tick and animal populations in various geographical areas of the world to gauge prior insights about the potential exposure to a tick-borne infection. Their routine use in the screening of any infectious disease in cattle will revolutionize cattle farming by minimizing the loss to cattle owners.

3. Advantages of the Nucleic Acid Multiplex Diagnostic Approaches

The advantages of the nucleic acid multiplexing platform are (i) the reaction kinetics of multiplex platforms such as the platforms used by barcoded magnetic bead technology (BMB) are rapid, which is favored by the mixing of barcoded magnetic beads with the test samples in liquid suspension ^[30]^[31]. In comparison, the microarray chip-based formats are more expensive and have slower reaction kinetics; (ii) The signal to background ratio of at least 10,000 for BMB technology is markedly high ^[30]^[31], which makes the sample detection easy, clear and highly reliable; (iii) The turnaround time of 4 to 5 h from sample collection to the final delivery of test results for most nucleic acid multiplex assays demonstrates the overall efficiency of this diagnostic approach. This is extremely important in controlling the spread of an infectious disease, which requires the rapid identification and isolation of the positive cases; (iv) The nucleic acid multiplex diagnostic assays are highly sensitive, as they can detect even a single copy of the genome of the infectious pathogen in the test reaction. This helps in the diagnosis at the early stages of illness, which ultimately helps in preventing the spread of the infectious disease; (v) The cost-effective nature of nucleic acid multiplex diagnostic approaches makes them affordable for most patients. Such assays can help the herd owners to screen the entire heard for numerous infectious pathogens at a minimum cost; (vi) The high throughput processing of 96 to 384 samples at one time is of critical significance during a pandemic when an overwhelming number of patient samples burden the diagnostic centers; (vii) Simultaneous detection of all medically important tick-borne pathogens such as A. phagocytophilum, B. microti, B. burgdorferi, B. miyamotoi, E. chaffeensis, Rickettsia rickettsii, TBEV, ASFV and CCHFV, in a single patient sample, will provide the conclusive diagnosis in the shortest time span and will help the veterinarian to initiate the therapeutic or preventive measures in timely fashion; (viii) The multiplex diagnostic approaches identify co-infections which can otherwise remain undetected by classical old diagnostic approaches; (ix) The ability to detect direct pathogens in an extending diagnostic window for many days as compared to serology ^[34]; and (x) The high throughput multiplex diagnostic approach is a personalized diagnostics approach that will guide the implementation of public health measures by quick identification as well as the quarantining of infected patients along with monitoring community exposure rates. The potential for multiplex diagnostics of emerging pathogens is huge, and it is becoming a preferred method of diagnosis among clinicians, especially in human medicine ^[32]^[35].

In the past decade from 2010, multiplex molecular testing in the veterinary field is catching up to those methods routinely practiced in human medicine and is facilitating the ability to perform surveys determining the prevalence of common tick-borne pathogens in cattle. The researchers scouted the literature to report these newly developed molecular assays here. The latest is the development and validation of a novel six-plex assay detection by magnetic capture method using species-specific oligonucleotides to detect six Anaplasma/Ehrlichia spp. pathogens in canine, bovine, caprine and ovine blood samples. The assay uses a16S rRNA gene-based real time quantitative PCR assay combined with Luminex xMAP hybridization technology ^[36]. Another PCR-based multiplex assay using heat shock protein (groEL), the citrate synthase gene (gltA) and the 18s rDNA gene for Anaplasma, Babesia and Theileria spp. was developed in Malawi to study the burden of tick-borne pathogens ^[37]. Another multiplex assay for diagnosis of the co-detection of tropical theileriosis, bovine babesiosis and anaplasmosis was developed using conserved sequences of cytochrome b gene, erythrocyte surface antigen and major surface protein ^[38]. In one more study, clinically healthy cattle with no signs of apathy, jaundice, anemia, or hemoglobinuria were tested using a multiplex PCR test that detects major surface proteins of A. marginale, B. bovis and B. bigemina. About 53.5% of the study population was found to carry one or more pathogenic agents ^[39].

Although multiplex PCR has many advantages, its disadvantages, however, cannot be ignored. Multiplex PCRs are complex, and they require rigorous testing, optimization and the troubleshooting of various PCR components, which often can be very difficult. The optimization of primers can pose several difficulties at times due to the preferential amplification of several targets or nonspecific target amplification ^[40]. A stepwise matrix style approach for primer mixing and testing is often used where a few primers for two or three pathogens are tested and the combination that shows the best sensitivity is then chosen in multiplex. Primers that detect multiple strains are usually selected in order to ensure the identification of as many strains of the target species as possible. However, since there are many primers and amplicons, the possibility of getting cross-hybridized with unintended targets increases almost exponentially. Alterations of PCR components like buffers and polymerases is also done using a trial-and-error approach during feasibility and development testing of a multiplex assay. External and internal quality controls like negative specimens and confirmed positive controls must be used to develop a robust assay ^[35]. All of the above limitations are addressed during the development and validation of multiplex assays, making the process tedious. However, the availability of multiplex assays in underdeveloped countries continues and remains a disadvantage, with many multiplex assays requiring special instruments and trained personnel ^[41].

4. Conclusions

Tick-borne diseases afflict cattle from temperate to tropical regions of the world and the economic losses due to them are considerable, especially in high-yielding dairy breeds and beef cattle due to reduced productivity ^[42]. Ticks transmit a greater diversity of viral, bacterial, and protozoan diseases than any other arthropod vector on earth ^[43]. More than 27 ecologically and epidemiologically distinct tick-borne diseases have been previously identified in the Western Hemisphere ^[44]. The CDC has reported 50,865 human cases of tick-borne diseases (tick-borne diseases surveillance data) in 2019, and this number has been gradually increasing for years ^[45]. Although 19 bacterial, protozoan, and viral agents have been implicated in tick-borne disease, Borrelia burgdorferi, the causative agent of Lyme disease, alone accounts for an estimated 300,000 annual cases of tick-borne disease in both humans and animals ^[46]. The number of annual tick-borne infections is expected to increase in future due to climate change as the warmer weather favors tick growth. Every year, ticks and tick-borne infections cause around USD 13.9–19.7 billion in losses in the United States, and this is expected to increase in future due to global warming ^[2]^[47]. The tick-borne infection of cattle origin spilling over to human populations can trigger unwanted animal slaughter, causing huge economic losses to cattle owners. The widespread nature of tick-borne infections in diverse geographical areas and their accompanying huge economic losses are mostly due to lack of efficient, sensitive, and cost-effective diagnostic approaches in surveillance studies. The frequently used protein based singleplex serologic assays for the diagnosis of tick-borne disease including ELISA, IFA, and western blot have many intrinsic limitations such as poor sensitivity, they are uneconomical, incompetent, and they have long turnaround times. These limitations discourage herd owners from using these assays for routine testing and surveillance studies to gauge prior insights about the potential exposure to tick-borne diseases. As a result, the infection goes unnoticed and infected animals act as silent reservoirs for the pathogen and can spread the disease among the population, ultimately magnifying the economic loss, and increasing the chances of potential spillover to human populations. The need of the hour is to develop highly sensitive, cost effective and efficient nucleic acid based multiplex diagnostic assays that can detect all important tick-borne pathogens in a single test sample and provide the diagnostic answer in 4–5 h. Such assays have been developed in human medicine but are still missing in animal medicine, although no technological or methodical limitations for the development of such assays exist in veterinary science. Such multiplex assays can be effectively used for both surveillance studies and routine testing of the cattle herd. The extremely sensitive nature of these PCR-based multiplex assays will be helpful in the detection of the pathogen at the early stages of illness, enabling the initiation of mitigation strategies and the prevention of community spread. The high throughput and short turnaround time of the nucleic acid multiplex assays will encourage the cattle herders to perform the surveillance studies to gauge prior insight about the potential exposure to tick-borne agents in any geographical area. The future research should focus on the development of countermeasures that will be helpful in controlling the tick-borne disease within the animal or tick reservoir before community spread or spillover to human population occurs. Such countermeasures include surveillance using multiple diagnostic molecular tests which will be extremely beneficial to both human and animal health and will dramatically reduce the economic losses incurred by tick-borne infections. Global warming will enforce the rapid development of both nucleic acid multiplex diagnostic assays and countermeasures in the near future to prevent the overwhelming spread of tick-borne infections to both cattle and human populations.

References

Nuttall, P.A. Tick saliva and its role in pathogen transmission. Wien. Klin. Wochenschr. 2019, 22, 1–12.
Almazan, C.; Tipacamu, G.A.; Rodriguez, S.; Mosqueda, J.; de Leon, A.P. Immunological control of ticks and tick-borne diseases that impact cattle health and production. Front. Biosci. 2018, 23, 1535–1551.
Moyo, S.; Swanepoel, F.J.C. Multifunctionality of livestock in developing communities. Role Livest. Dev. Communities Enhancing Multifunct. 2010, 3, 69.
Robinson, T.P.; William Wint, G.R.; Conchedda, G.; Van Boeckel, T.P.; Ercoli, V.; Palamara, E.; Cinardi, G.; D’Aietti, L.; Hay, S.; Gilbert, M. Mapping the Global Distribution of Livestock. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e96084.
Peel, D.S.; Mathews, K.H., Jr.; Johnson, R.J. Trade, the Expanding Mexican Beef Industry, and Feedlot and Stocker Cattle Production in Mexico. USDA-Economic Research Service 2011, LDP-M-206-01. Available online: http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/118317/ldpm20601.pdf (accessed on 12 March 2022).
Marcelino, I.; Almeida, A.; Ventosa, M.; Pruneau, L.; Meyer, D.; Martinez, D.; Lefrançois, T.; Vachiéry, N.; Coelho, A.V. Tick-borne diseases in cattle: Applications of proteomics to develop new generation vaccines. J. Proteom. 2012, 75, 4232–4250.
Johansson, M.; Mysterud, A.; Flykt, A. Livestock owners’ worry and fear of tick-borne diseases. Parasites Vectors 2020, 13, 331.
Perveen, N.; Muzaffar, S.; Al-Deeb, M. Ticks and Tick-Borne Diseases of Livestock in the Middle East and North Africa: A Review. Insects 2021, 12, 83.
Aguilar-Díaz, H.; Quiroz-Castañeda, R.E.; Cobaxin-Cárdenas, M.; Salinas-Estrella, E.; Amaro-Estrada, I. Advances in the Study of the Tick Cattle Microbiota and the Influence on Vectorial Capacity. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 710352.
Esteve-Gasent, M.D.; Rodríguez-Vivas, R.I.; Medina, R.F.; Ellis, D.; Schwartz, A.; Garcia, B.C.; Hunt, C.; Tietjen, M.; Bonilla, D.; Thomas, D.; et al. Research on Integrated Management for Cattle Fever Ticks and Bovine Babesiosis in the United States and Mexico: Current Status and Opportunities for Binational Coordination. Pathogens 2020, 9, 871.
Blouin, E.F.; de la Fuente, J.; Garcia-Garcia, J.C.; Sauer, J.R.; Saliki, J.T.; Kocan, K.M. Applications of a cell culture system for studying the interaction of Anaplasma marginale with tick cells. Anim. Health Res. Rev. 2002, 3, 57–68.
Rodriguez-Vivas, R.I.; Jonsson, N.N.; Bhushan, C. Strategies for the control of Rhipicephalus microplus ticks in a world of conventional acaricide and macrocyclic lactone resistance. Parasitol. Res. 2017, 117, 3–29.
Merino, O.; Alberdi, P.; De La Lastra, J.M.P.; De La Fuente, J. Tick vaccines and the control of tick-borne pathogens. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2013, 3, 30.
Eogden, N.; Mechai, S.; Margos, G. Changing geographic ranges of ticks and tick-borne pathogens: Drivers, mechanisms and consequences for pathogen diversity. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2013, 3, 46.
Bouchard, C.; Dibernardo, A.; Koffi, J.; Wood, H.; Leighton, P.A.; Lindsay, L.R. Increased risk of tick-borne diseases with climate and environmental changes. Can. Commun. Dis. Rep. 2019, 45, 83–89.
Primus, S.; Akoolo, L.; Schlachter, S.; Gedroic, K.; Rojtman, A.D.; Parveen, N. Efficient detection of symptomatic and asymptomatic patient samples for Babesia microti and Borrelia burgdorferi infection by multiplex qPCR. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0196748.
Okba, N.M.A.; Müller, M.A.; Li, W.; Wang, C.; GeurtsvanKessel, C.H.; Corman, V.M.; Lamers, M.M.; Sikkema, R.S.; De Bruin, E.; Chandler, F.D.; et al. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2−Specific Antibody Responses in Coronavirus Disease Patients. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2020, 26, 478–1488.
Kadkhoda, K.; Semus, M.; Jelic, T.; Walkty, A. Case Report: A Case of Colorado Tick Fever Acquired in Southwestern Saskatchewan. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2018, 98, 891–893.
Pace, E.J.; O’Reilly, M. Tickborne Diseases: Diagnosis and Management. Am. Fam. Physician 2020, 101, 530–540.
Sellati, T.J.; Barberio, D.M. Mechanisms of Dysregulated Antibody Response in Lyme Disease. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2020, 10, 567252.
Connally, N.P.; Hinckley, A.F.; Feldman, K.; Kemperman, M.; Neitzel, D.; Wee, S.-B.; White, J.L.; Mead, P.S.; Meek, J.I. Testing practices and volume of non-Lyme tickborne diseases in the United States. Ticks Tick-Borne Dis. 2015, 7, 193–198.
Theel, E.S. The Past, Present, and (Possible) Future of Serologic Testing for Lyme Disease. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2016, 54, 1191–1196.
Seriburi, V.; Ndukwe, N.; Chang, Z.; Cox, M.; Wormser, G. High frequency of false positive IgM immunoblots for Borrelia burgdorferi in Clinical Practice. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2012, 18, 1236–1240.
Biggs, H.M.; Behravesh, C.B.; Bradley, K.K.; Dahlgren, F.; Drexler, N.A.; Dumler, J.S.; Folk, S.M.; Kato, C.Y.; Lash, R.R.; Levin, M.L.; et al. Diagnosis and Management of Tickborne Rickettsial Diseases: Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever and Other Spotted Fever Group Rickettsioses, Ehrlichioses, and Anaplasmosis—United States. MMWR Recomm. Rep. 2016, 65, 1–44.
Tokarz, R.; Mishra, N.; Tagliafierro, T.; Sameroff, S.; Caciula, A.; Chauhan, L.; Patel, J.; Sullivan, E.; Gucwa, A.; Fallon, B.; et al. A multiplex serologic platform for diagnosis of tick-borne diseases. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 3158.
Wagner, B.; Freer, H.; Rollins, A.; Erb, H. A fluorescent bead-based multiplex assay for the simultaneous detection of antibodies to B. burgdorferi outer surface proteins in canine serum. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 2011, 140, 190–198.
Wagner, B.; Freer, H.; Rollins, A.; Erb, H.N.; Lu, Z.; Gröhn, Y. Development of a multiplex assay for the detection of antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi in horses and its validation using Bayesian and conventional statistical methods. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 2011, 144, 374–381.
Embers, M.E.; Hasenkampf, N.R.; Barnes, M.B.; Didier, E.S.; Philipp, M.T.; Tardo, A.C. Five-Antigen Fluorescent Bead-Based Assay for Diagnosis of Lyme Disease. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 2016, 23, 294–303.
Hunt, P.W. Molecular diagnosis of infections and resistance in veterinary and human parasites. Vet. Parasitol. 2011, 180, 12–46.
Applied BioCode, Inc. Respiratory Virus Panel Nucleic Acid Assay System. U.S Food & Drug Adminstration. 2019. Available online: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpmn/pmn.cfm?id=K192485 (accessed on 12 March 2022).
Applied BioCode, Inc. Gastrointestinal Pathogen Panel Multiplex Nucleic Acid-Based Assay System. U.S Food & Drug Adminstration. 2019. Available online: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpmn/pmn.cfm?ID=K190585 (accessed on 12 March 2022).
Huang, H.-S.; Tsai, C.-L.; Chang, J.; Hsu, T.-C.; Lin, S.; Lee, C.-C. Multiplex PCR system for the rapid diagnosis of respiratory virus infection: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2017, 24, 1055–1063.
Wojno, K.J.; Baunoch, D.; Luke, N.; Opel, M.; Korman, H.; Kelly, C.; Jafri, S.M.A.; Keating, P.; Hazelton, D.; Hindu, S.; et al. Multiplex PCR Based Urinary Tract Infection (UTI) Analysis Compared to Traditional Urine Culture in Identifying Significant Pathogens in Symptomatic Patients. Urology 2019, 136, 119–126.
Buchan, B.W.; Jobe, D.A.; Mashock, M.; Gerstbrein, D.; Faron, M.L.; Ledeboer, N.A.; Callister, S.M. Evaluation of a Novel Multiplex High-Definition PCR Assay for Detection of Tick-Borne Pathogens in Whole-Blood Specimens. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2019, 57, e00513–e00519.
Elnifro, E.M.; Ashshi, A.M.; Cooper, R.J.; Klapper, P.E. Multiplex PCR: Optimization and Application in Diagnostic Virology. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2000, 13, 559–570.
Sharma, B.; Ganta, R.R.; Stone, D.; Alhassan, A.; Lanza-Perea, M.; Belmar, V.M.; Karasek, I.; Cooksey, E.; Butler, C.M.; Gibson, K.; et al. Development of a Multiplex PCR and Magnetic DNA Capture Assay for Detecting Six Species Pathogens of the Genera Anaplasma and Ehrlichia in Canine, Bovine, Caprine and Ovine Blood Samples from Grenada, West Indies. Pathogens 2021, 10, 192.
Chatanga, E.; Maganga, E.; Mohamed, W.M.A.; Ogata, S.; Pandey, G.S.; Abdelbaset, A.E.; Hayashida, K.; Sugimoto, C.; Katakura, K.; Nonaka, N.; et al. High infection rate of tick-borne protozoan and rickettsial pathogens of cattle in Malawi and the development of a multiplex PCR for Babesia and Theileria species identification. Acta Trop. 2022, 231, 106413.
Bilgiç, H.B.; Karagenç, T.; Simuunza, M.; Shiels, B.; Tait, A.; Eren, H.; Weir, W. Development of a multiplex PCR assay for simultaneous detection of Theileria annulata, Babesia bovis and Anaplasma marginale in cattle. Exp. Parasitol. 2013, 133, 222–229.
Vieira, L.L.; Canever, M.F.; Cardozo, L.L.; Cardoso, C.P.; Herkenhoff, M.E.; Neto, A.T.; Vogel, C.I.G.; Miletti, L.C. Prevalence of Anaplasma marginale, Babesia bovis, and Babesia bigemina in cattle in the Campos de Lages region, Santa Catarina state, Brazil, estimated by multiplex-PCR. Parasite Epidemiol. Control 2019, 6, e00114.
Polz, M.F.; Cavanaugh, C.M. Bias in Template-to-Product Ratios in Multitemplate PCR. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1998, 64, 3724–3730.
Ahsan, H. Monoplex and multiplex immunoassays: Approval, advancements, and alternatives. Comp. Clin. Pathol. 2021, 31, 333–345.
Goodger, W.J.; Carpenter, T.; Riemann, H. Estimation of economic loss associated with anaplasmosis in California beef cattle. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 1979, 174, 1333–1336.
Critical Needs and Gaps in Understanding Prevention, Amelioration, and Resolution of Lyme and Other Tick-Borne Diseases: The Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes: Workshop Report. In The National Academies Collection: Reports Funded by National Institutes of Health; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2011.
Paddock, C.D.; Lane, R.S.; Staples, J.E.; Labruna, M.B. Changing paradigms for tick-borne diseases in the Americas. In Global Health Impacts of Vector-Borne Diseases: Workshop Summary; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
CDC. Tickborne Disease Surveillance Data Summary. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2019. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/ticks/data-summary/index.html (accessed on 12 March 2022).
Brett, M.E.; Hinckley, A.F.; Zielinski-Gutierrez, E.C.; Mead, P.S. U.S. healthcare providers’ experience with Lyme and other tick-borne diseases. Ticks Tick-Borne Dis. 2014, 5, 404–408.
Karim, S.; Budachetri, K.; Mukherjee, N.; Williams, J.; Kausar, A.; Hassan, M.J.; Adamson, S.; Dowd, S.E.; Apanskevich, D.; Arijo, A.; et al. A study of ticks and tick-borne livestock pathogens in Pakistan. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2017, 11, e0005681.

© 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: Veterinary Sciences

Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :

Sheema Mir

Kathryn Garcia

View Times: 476

Update Date: 27 May 2022

Table of Contents

Video Upload Options

Confirm