Ehrlichiosis in Dogs: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Muhammad Umair Aziz
,
Sabir Hussain
,
Baolin Song
,
Hammad Nayyar Ghauri
,
Jehan Zeb
,
Olivier Andre Sparagano

In dogs, ehrlichiosis is caused by three Ehrlichial species, namely Ehrlichia canis, E. ewingii, and E. chaffeensis; however, E. canis is the pathogen that most affects platelets, monocytes, and granulocytes. Globally, Rhipicephalus sanguineus is mainly responsible for vectoring the Ehrlichia species; however, Haemaphysalis longicornis is also involved in vectoring this species in east Asian countries. This disease causes acute, sub-clinical, and chronic clinical complications. There is no preferable age or sex for ehrlichiosis. The disease can be diagnosed by various methods including microscopy, indirect immunofluorescence test (IFAT), and polymerase chain reaction (PCR). 

  • Ehrlichia canis
  • Ehrlichia chaffeensis
  • Ehrlichia ewingii
  • dog
  • epidemiology
  • tick borne diseases

1. Introduction

Ehrlichiosis is induced by a group of emerging rickettsial tick-borne pathogens of public importance that are Gram-negative obligate intracellular bacteria of the genus Ehrlichia, family Anaplasmataceae [1]. Ehrlichiosis in dogs is a significant vector-borne bacterial ailment spreading worldwide. It is also recognized as canine rickettsiosis, canine typhus, canine hemorrhagic fever, tropical canine pancytopenia, and tracker dog disease [2]. Numerous species of Ehrlichia are famous for infecting a wide range of animals. Among them, E. canis is the well-known etiological pathogen of canine ehrlichiosis affecting platelets, monocytes, and granulocytes [3][4]. Although E. chaffeensis is considered the main etiological agent of human monocytic ehrlichiosis (HME), it is also reported in canines [5]. A minimum of five different species of ticks (Amblyomma americanum, Haemaphysalis longicornis, Rhipicephalus sanguineus, Haemaphysalis yeni, and Dermacentor variabilis) have been identified as vectors transmitting clinical ehrlichiosis in dogs [6]. These disease-transmitting vectors become more potent during summer and spring seasons [7]. Rhipicephalus sanguineus (the brown tick of dogs) is generally considered the main vector responsible for canine ehrlichiosis [8][9]. In recent years, ehrlichiosis has been expanded to new regions which were thought to be disease free, such as northern China, temperate regions of the Indian sub-continent, and central and northern states of the USA [10].
Ticks are considered the second most prevalent hematophagous parasites after mosquitoes. Along with causing anemia, they also act as vectors for the transmission of many protozoan, bacterial, and viral diseases [11][12]. In recent years, ecological variations due to global warming, exponential increase in human population, deforestation, and frequent transport of pet animals from one continent to another have modified and enhanced the transmission patterns of all vector-borne pathogens around the globe [13]. In south and east Asia, regardless of the suitable climatic conditions for vectors and parasites and huge population of stray and pet dogs, scarce knowledge is available related to diagnosis, epidemiology, prevention, and control strategies associated with ehrlichiosis in dogs. However, with the expansion of a region’s economy and inculcation of foreign culture, the responsibilities of veterinarians have increased to devise control strategies about canine tick-borne ailments [14]. In less developed areas of east and south Asia, almost 75 percent of dogs are categorized as stray dogs, which further increases the risk of emergence of new tick-borne parasitic zoonoses [15].

2. Epidemiology

Ehrlichiosis is a disease of global importance, but it is more prevalent in sub-tropical and tropical regions. However, due to the chronic nature of the disease in some cases, accurate geographical distribution cannot be determined. The reason may be due to the fact that the clinical signs appear years after the first inoculation of the pathogen from ticks and after the canine species has traveled to non-endemic countries where this specific ailment might not be included in differential diagnostic lists by clinicians and scientists [16]. On the basis of different diagnostic methods, the prevalence in the south and east Asia ranges from 0.0% (South Korea) to 86.9% (India) [17][18]. The prevalence percentage of all Ehrlichia spp. related to canines in different countries of south and east Asia is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Prevalence studies on ehrlichiosis in dogs conducted in south and east Asian countries.
Country/Region Sample Source Causative Agent/Species Diagnostic Method Prevalence %
(Positive/Total Number of Samples)		 Reference
South Asia
Pakistan
Blood
Ehrlichia canis
PCR
28 (42/151)		 [19]
Pakistan Blood Ehrlichia canis PCR 24.5 (12/49) [20]
India Blood Ehrlichia canis PCR 8 (12/150) [21]
India Blood Ehrlichia canis PCR 8.40 (70/833) [22]
India Ticks
Blood		 Ehrlichia canis
Ehrlichia canis		 PCR
PCR		 16.1
16.9		 [23]
India Blood Ehrlichia canis PCR 30 (18/60) [24]
India Blood Ehrlichia canis PCR 41.59 (89/214) [25]
India Blood
Serum		 Ehrlichia sp.
Ehrlichia canis		 Microscopy
ELISA		 14.28 (12/84)
86.90 (73/84)		 [17]
India Blood
Blood		 Ehrlichia sp.
Ehrlichia canis		 Microscopy
PCR		 19.38 (19/98)
50 (49/98)		 [26]
India Blood Ehrlichia canis PCR 0.39 (3/778) [27]
India Serum Ehrlichia canis ELISA 48.33 (29/60) [28]
India Blood Ehrlichia canis PCR 20.6 [14]
India Serum
Blood		 Ehrlichia canis
Ehrlichia canis		 ELISA
PCR		 57.5 (293/510)
8.8 (45/510)		 [29]
India Blood
Serum
Blood		 Ehrlichia canis
Ehrlichia canis
Ehrlichia canis		 Microscopy
ELISA
PCR		 1.33 (3/225)
19.11 (43/225)
5.78 (13/225)		 [30]
India Serum Ehrlichia canis ELISA 19 (9/48) [31]
Nepal Blood Ehrlichia canis PCR 27.14 (19/70) [32]
Nepal Blood Ehrlichia spp. Microscopy 8 (4/50) [33]
Bangladesh Blood Anaplasma/
Ehrlichia spp.		 PCR 2.9 (3/68) [34]
East Asia
People’s Republic of China (PRC)		 Serum Ehrlichia canis ELISA 1.29 (4/309) [35]
PRC Blood
Blood		 Ehrlichia canis
Ehrlichia canis		 PCR
PCR		 12.12 (36/297)
15.23 (108/709)		 [36]
PRC Blood
Ticks		 Ehrlichia canis
Ehrlichia canis		 PCR
PCR		 1.4 (15/1114)
4.1 (6/146)		 [37]
PRC Ticks
Serum		 Ehrlichia canis
Ehrlichia canis
Ehrlichia canis
Ehrlichia canis		 PCR
PCR
PCR
ELISA		 11.03 (50/453)
3.29 (3/91)
13.69 (10/73)
1.33 (7/526)		 [38]
PRC Serum Ehrlichia canis SNAP test (EISA) 2.17 (13/600) [39]
PRC Ticks Ehrlichia canis PCR 0.97 (3/308) [40]
PRC Ticks Ehrlichia spp. (E.canis and E.muris like) PCR 28.7 (24/849) [41]
PRC Blood Ehrlichia canis ELISA 1.9% [42]
PRC Blood Ehrlichia canis PCR 0.0 (0/162) [43]
Japan Serum Ehrlichia canis
Ehrlichia chaffeensis
Ehrlichia muris		 IFA
IFA
IFA		 18 (27/150)
18.7 (28/150)
11.3 (17/150)		 [44]
Japan Ticks Ehrlichia platys PCR 9.4 (3/32) [45]
Japan Blood Ehrlichia platys PCR 1.5 (1/67) Yamaguchi
27.6 (24/87)
Okinawa		 [45]
Japan Serum Ehrlichia muris IFA 3.6 (18/499) [46]
Japan Blood Ehrlichia spp./Anaplasma
spp.		 PCR 1.5 (11/722) [47]
Japan Blood Ehrlichia canis PCR+
Electron Microscopy		 100 (1/1) [48]
Japan Ticks Ehrlichia spp PCR 0.25 (3/1211) [49]
Japan Ticks Ehrlichia canis PCR 0.0 (0/1211) [49]
South Korea Serum
Blood		 Ehrlichia canis
Ehrlichia canis		 SNAP test (ELISA)
PCR		 4.7 (25/532)
0.0 (0/25)		 [50]
South Korea Serum Ehrlichia spp. (E. canis/E. ewingii)
Ehrlichia chaffeensis		 ELISA/IFA
ELISA/IFA		 10.3 (228/2215)
2.3 (52/2215)		 [51]
South Korea Serum
Serum
Blood		 Ehrlichia canis
Ehrlichia canis
Ehrlichia canis		 ELISA
IFA
PCR		 0.6 (1/182)
22.5 (41/182)
0.0 (0/182)		 [52]
South Korea Blood Ehrlichia canis ELISA 6.1 (14/229) Rural dogs
0.0 (0/692) Urban dogs		 [53]
South Korea Serum
Blood		 Ehrlichia spp
Ehrlichia chaffeensis		 ELISA
PCR		 7.56 (22/291)
3.09 (9/291)		 [54]
South Korea Blood Ehrlichia chaffeensis PCR 100 (2/2) [5]
South Korea Ticks Ehrlichia chaffeensis PCR 4.2% (26/611) [51]
South Korea Blood Ehrlichia canis (ELISA) 12.3 (29/236) [55]
South Korea Ticks Ehrlichia canis
Ehrlichia chaffeensis		 PCR
PCR		 0.0 (0/1110)
0.0 (0/1110)		 [18]
ROC Taiwan Blood Ehrlichia canis ELISA 2 (2/101) [56]
ROC Taiwan Blood Ehrlichia canis ELISA 1.5 [42]
ROC Taiwan Blood Ehrlichia canis ELISA 9.9 (34/344) [57]
ROC Taiwan Blood
Blood
Ticks		 Ehrlichia canis Ehrlichia canis Ehrlichia canis ELISA
PCR
PCR		 11.4 (20/175)
8.6 (15/175)
1 (3/306)		 [58]
Hong Kong SAR, China Blood Ehrlichia canis PCR 8 (8/100) stray
6 (6/100) Pet		 [59]

3. Risk Factors Associated with Canine Ehrlichiosis

All dog breeds are susceptible to canine monocytic ehrlichiosis (CME). Nevertheless, because Siberian Huskies and German Shepherds are more prone to exhibit severe clinical symptoms, infection in these breeds frequently has the worst prognosis [60][61]. This was demonstrated experimentally by infecting German Shepherd and Beagle dogs with E. canis and seeing that the intensity of the cell-mediated immune response in the German Shepherd breed was lower than that of the Beagle breed dogs [60][61][62]. It seems that there is no predisposition of sex in disease occurrence. Although some published literature has detected increased seroreactivity in males, this can be explained by a higher chance of contact with tick species than females because of behavioral features [63]. There is no strong evidence of high disease prevalence in older dogs as well. However, some epidemiological studies show that seropositivity rates were higher in older dogs [44][64]. These results may be due to the higher likelihood of exposure to the Ehrlichia pathogen as the dog becomes older. Dogs living outdoors are more prone to have ehrlichiosis compared with pet dogs living indoors. Moreover, dogs living in non-sanitized enclosures with tick infestations are at risk of getting E. canis infection. Regular use of ectoparasiticidal drugs also decrease the risk of ehrlichiosis in dogs [65]. Moreover, environmental factors also play a major role in disease prevalence because high temperature and low humidity favors the growth of vectors, so animals living in those circumstances are at greater risk [66].Ticks spreading the disease are mentioning in Table 2.
Table 2. Reported tick species carrying ehrlichiosis in south and east Asian countries/regions.
Country/Region. Tick Vector Reference
India Rhipicephalus sanguineus,
Rhipicephalus haemaphysaloides		 [23]
People’s Republic of China (PRC) Rhipicephalus sanguineus
Haemaphysalis longicornis,
Rhipicephalus haemaphysaloides
Haemaphysalis bispinosa		 [37][38][40][41]
Japan Rhipicephalus sanguineus
Haemaphysalis flava		 [67][68]
South Korea Haemaphysalis longicornis
Ixodes nipponensis		 [18][51]
ROC Taiwan Haemaphysalis hystricis Haemaphysalis longicornis [58]

4. Transmission Cycle

Brown dog tick (Rhipicephalus sanguineus) carries the pathogen from infected dog through blood meal during the acute phase of disease. After the blood meal, E. canis resides in the salivary glands and midgut of the carrier tick and it then spreads the pathogen to another healthy dog via its salivary glands during subsequent feeding [69]. Transstadial transmission is well-established for this pathogen in which the larval stage of tick becomes infected with E. canis, which can pass the bacteria to the next two stages (nymph and adult) and spread the pathogen during blood meals [70][71]. It has been observed that brown dog tick starts transferring the rickettsial pathogens within three hours of its attachment to a host [71]. If the Rhipicephalus sanguineus is transferred to a cold or temperate climate, due to the shifting of hosts, it can still remain active under such man-made protected kennel environments [72][73]. Moreover, enclosures of wild animals, abandoned houses, and kennel environments provide a perfect atmosphere for its reproduction. Under these suitable environmental conditions, only a single female tick was enough to infect and reproduce many subadults [74]. During the chronic or subclinical phase of the disease, the dog seems healthy but still acts as a carrier for this rickettsial pathogen. The only tick that becomes engorged during the acute phase can infect another healthy host. Moreover, this tick can spread the bacteria even after 155 days of its detachment [75]. Many studies have suggested that transovarial spread of the pathogen also occurs in Ixodid ticks and they maintain the bacteria through many generations in nature [76][77]. However, in a recent study, no proof of transovarial spread was found [78].

5. Pathogenicity

Unlike many Gram-negative bacterial pathogens, peptidoglycan and lipopolysaccharide are absent in the cell wall of this bacterium which may help the bacteria in resisting the host’s immune response. The cell wall of E. canis becomes very flexible due to the absence of these two materials, which in turn facilitates the pathogen in avoiding antibody attack from its host immune system. Other characteristic feature of this rickettsial organism is the lack of complex inner structures, which permits the production of sugars. The main energy source of this bacterium are amino acids [79]. The incubation period of Ehrlichia ranges from 8–20 days. This period is sequentially followed by subclinical, acute, or in some cases chronic form.
Pilli are absent in Ehrlichia so the outer membrane of this infectious agent helps in the attachment with the host cell. Once the pathogen enters the host cell and starts infection, it forms membrane-bound partitions (endosomes) and maintains its distinctive cytoplasmic shape. The main target of E. canis are mononuclear phagocytic cells. Monocytes are the most common cells to be infected both in canine and human hosts. In addition, Ehrlichia also attacks the other immune cells such as metamyelocytes, lymphocytes, and promyelocytes. In general, it is assumed that inside the cells only mononuclear phagocytic cells are able to uphold the productive pathogen [80]. On average, a single infected monocyte contains one to two morulae. The endosomal membrane formed by Ehrlichia protects the pathogen from the host and it multiplies within this apartment. The exact mechanism of their survival is still unclear but consequently, the pathogen may survive by modulating the host defense system [81]. In one study, researchers identified two paralogous proteins responsible for immune evasion, which may be due to the presence of poly (G-C) tracts in one of the proteins, suggesting that they have a role in facilitating chronic persistent infections and can help in phase deviation [79].
After infecting the monocytes, E. canis spreads to the whole lymphatic system including the liver and spleen, where it triggers the abnormal fast growth of cells and the increased size of these organs, described as hyperplasia. Further cell division and replication leads to bacteremia and eventually results in hemolysis. At this stage, severe clinical manifestations, such as high fever, anemia, and thrombocytopenia, can be observed [44]. Dogs suffering from persistent infection develop a more lethal form of chronic disease where the pathogen attacks the bone marrow and destroys the immune system. As a result, other opportunistic infectious agents further aggravate the situation. Severe thrombocytopenia leads to massive hemorrhages and death [79].

6. Clinical Signs

Clinical presentation due to ehrlichial infection can be varied and depends on many factors, such as the status of the immune system of the dog, virulence of the strain, and existence of co-infections with other tick/flea-borne diseases. Among all other members of the Anaplasmataceae family, E. canis appears to cause more intense clinical abnormalities [82][83][84]. In dogs, three ehrlichial species, namely E. canis, E. ewingii, and E. chaffeensis, can cause clinical disease [1][3]. The principal host cell targets for E. canis and E. chaffeensis are agranulocytes, while E. ewingii mainly targets the granulocytic white blood cells [2]. These pathogens can induce both clinical and subclinical complications. Clinical signs induced by ehrlichial species are often non-specific and overlapping. The disease can be acute or mild; however, in many cases, the animal becomes a carrier for an extended period of time without presenting any clinical manifestations. Typically, the incubation period for all ehrlichial species ranges from one to three weeks, and results in three possible disease presentations which may be categorized as acute, chronic, and subclinical [85]. The acute phase may last for 2 to 4 weeks and if the animal survives, the signs vanish even without chemotherapeutic treatment. However, some dogs become subclinical carriers after improvement and may become an important source of infection for months and years. In this phase, the animal apparently looks normal and healthy and does not present any clinically visible signs but upon hematological testing, mild thrombocytopenia can be detected [86]. Not all but some subclinically infected dogs may proceed to the chronic stage, which is the most fatal form of the disease, and which cannot be differentiated from the acute phase in clinical settings because most of the clinical manifestations are non-specific. The chronic form is also known as the myelosuppressive form in which it is difficult to distinguish it from acute bone marrow aspiration and complete blood count tests are necessary. Alternatively, hypoplasia of bone marrow and severe pancytopenia will confirm the presence of the chronic phase [87]. The possible factors that cause some dogs to enter the chronic phase are still unclear.
In naturally infected dogs, the common clinical findings are fever, pale mucosa due to anemia, lymphadenomegaly, bleeding disorders, hepatomegaly, lethargy, petechial and ecchymotic hemorrhages, vasculitis, and extended bleeding period during estrus [88][89][90]. Other less common signs of ehrlichiosis have also been defined and include diarrhea, exercise intolerance, neonatal death or abortion, vomiting, and mucopurulent or serous nasal and ocular discharge. Some old studies have mentioned polyarthritis and lameness as a sign of canine ehrlichiosis [91], but it is believed that this manifestation only appears in cases of co-infections. On physical examination, you may observe tick infestation particularly during the acute phase. In addition, other signs like ataxia, vestibular dysfunction and seizures, and chronic or myelosuppressive form also reveal stomatitis, scrotal or hind limb edema, jaundice, glossitis, and pyoderma [92]. Bleeding tendencies are also more frequent and severe in the chronic form of CME [90].

7. Clinical Pathology

Hematological abnormalities are variable and overlapping. However, severe drop in platelet count or thrombocytopenia is the principal abnormality observed in canine ehrlichiosis. This hematological finding is consistent in almost 80% of the animals, irrespective of the stage of the ailment. However, normal platelet count may not be the only reason to rule out ehrlichiosis [93][94]. In a retrospective study, decreases in total red blood cell count, pack cell volume (PCV), and platelet count while noticeable increases in basophil count were observed. Moreover, blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and creatinine levels were more elevated than normal [95]. Anemia is mostly non-regenerative along with lymphopenia, monocytosis, thrombocytopathy, hyperproteinemia, hypergammaglobulinemia, hypoalbuminemia, and hyperglobulinemia, which are some additional irregularities [96][97][98]. Values of neutrophils are inconsistent and both neutrophilia and neutropenia have been detected based on the phase of the severity. In the chronic form, aplastic pancytopenia, granular lymphocytosis, mild elevation in liver enzymes, and renal azotemia were found. In regions where this disease is endemic, CME should be the top differential in dogs having persistent lymphocytosis [99][100].
Histopathological and gross abnormalities in experimentally infected dogs include edema of the subcutaneous layer, ascites, anemia, jaundice, and emaciation. Cuffing of the lymphatic fluid in the cerebellum and brain is occasionally seen. Lungs of infected animals display vasculitis and interstitial pneumonia. Additionally, a flabby heart and whole heart dilatation can also be found. Grossly, the most frequent signs include apparent splenomegaly, multifocal lymph node necrosis, and widespread lymadenopathy [101].

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/vetsci10010021

References

  1. Jafarbekloo, A.; Bakhshi, H.; Faghihi, F.; Telmadarraiy, Z. Molecular Detection of Anaplasma and Ehrlichia Infection in Ticks in Borderline of Iran-Afghanistan. J. Biomed. Sci. Eng. 2014, 7, 919–926.
  2. Beall, M.J.; Alleman, A.R.; Breitschwerdt, E.B.; Cohn, L.A.; Couto, C.G.; Dryden, M.W.; Guptill, L.C.; Iazbik, C.; Kania, S.A.; Lathan, P.; et al. Seroprevalence of Ehrlichia Canis, Ehrlichia Chaffeensis and Ehrlichia Ewingii in Dogs in North America. Parasit Vectors 2012, 5, 29.
  3. Stiles, J. Canine Rickettsial Infections. Vet. Clin. N. Am.-Small Anim. Pract. 2000, 30, 1135–1149.
  4. Lorsirigool, A.; Pumipuntu, N. A Retrospective Study of Dogs Infected with Ehrlichia Canis from 2017–2019 in the Thonburi Area of Bangkok Province, Thailand. Int. J. Vet. Sci. 2020, 9, 578–580.
  5. Yu, D.H.; Li, Y.H.; Yoon, J.S.; Lee, J.H.; Lee, M.J.; Yu, I.J.; Chae, J.S.; Park, J.H. Ehrlichia Chaffeensis Infection in Dogs in South Korea. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2008, 8, 355–357.
  6. Keith, C.; Fuqua, C.; Lively, C.; Wade, M.J. Microbial Community Ecology of Tick-Borne Human Pathogens. In Disease Ecology: Community Structure and Pathogen Dynamics; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2007.
  7. Neer, T.M.; Harrus, S. Canine monocytotropic ehrlichiosis and neorickettsiosis. E. Canis E. Chaffeensis E. Rumin. N. Sennetsu 2006, 203–216.
  8. Groves, M.G.; Dennis, G.L.; Amyx, H.L.; Huxsoll, D.L. Transmission of Ehrlichia Canis to Dogs by Ticks (Rhipicephalus Sanguineus). Am. J. Vet. Res. 1975, 36, 937–940.
  9. Aguiar, D.M.; Cavalcante, G.T.; Pinter, A.; Gennari, S.M.; Camargo, L.M.A.; Labruna, M.B. Prevalence of Ehrlichia Canis (Rickettsiales: Anaplasmataceae) in Dogs and Rhipicephalus Sanguineus (Acari: Ixodidae) Ticks from Brazil. J. Med. Entomol. 2007, 44, 126–132.
  10. Sainz, Á.; Roura, X.; Miró, G.; Estrada-Peña, A.; Kohn, B.; Harrus, S.; Solano-Gallego, L. Guideline for Veterinary Practitioners on Canine Ehrlichiosis and Anaplasmosis in Europe. Parasites Vectors 2015, 8, 75.
  11. de la Fuente, J.; Estrada-Pena, A.; Venzal, J.M.; Kocan, K.M.; Sonenshine, D.E. Overview: Ticks as Vectors of Pathogens That Cause Disease in Humans and Animals. Front. Biosci. 2008, 13, 6938–6946.
  12. Otranto, D.; Dantas-Torres, F.; Giannelli, A.; Latrofa, M.; Cascio, A.; Cazzin, S.; Ravagnan, S.; Montarsi, F.; Zanzani, S.; Manfredi, M.; et al. Ticks Infesting Humans in Italy and Associated Pathogens. Parasites Vectors 2014, 7, 328.
  13. Dantas-Torres, F. Climate Change, Biodiversity, Ticks and Tick-Borne Diseases: The Butterfly Effect. Int. J. Parasitol. Parasites Wildl. 2015, 4, 452–461.
  14. Megat Abd Rani, P.A.; Irwin, P.J.; Gatne, M.; Coleman, G.T.; Traub, R.J. Canine Vector-Borne Diseases in India: A Review of the Literature and Identification of Existing Knowledge Gaps. Parasites Vectors 2010, 3, 28.
  15. Traub, R.J.; Irwin, P.; Dantas-Torres, F.; Tort, G.P.; Labarthe, N.V.; Inpankaew, T.; Gatne, M.; Linh, B.K.; Schwan, V.; Watanabe, M. Toward the Formation of a Companion Animal Parasite Council for the Tropics (CAPCT). Parasites Vectors 2015, 8, 1–5.
  16. Neer, T.M. Canine Monocytic and Granulocytic Ehrlichiosis, 2nd ed.; WB Saunders: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1998; pp. 139–147.
  17. Kottadamane, M.R.; Dhaliwal, P.S.; das Singla, L.; Bansal, B.K.; Uppal, S.K. Clinical and Hematobiochemical Response in Canine Monocytic Ehrlichiosis Seropositive Dogs of Punjab. Vet. World 2017, 10, 255–261.
  18. Truong, A.-T.; Noh, J.; Park, Y.; Seo, H.-J.; Kim, K.-H.; Min, S.; Lim, J.; Yoo, M.-S.; Kim, H.-C.; Klein, T.A. Molecular Detection and Phylogeny of Tick-Borne Pathogens in Ticks Collected from Dogs in the Republic of Korea. Pathogens 2021, 10, 613.
  19. Malik, M.I.; Qamar, M.; Ain, Q.; Hussain, M.F.; Dahmani, M.; Ayaz, M.; Mahmood, A.K.; Davoust, B.; Shaikh, R.S.; Iqbal, F. Molecular Detection of Ehrlichia Canis in Dogs from Three Districts in Punjab (Pakistan). Vet. Med. Sci. 2018, 4, 126–132.
  20. Iatta, R.; Sazmand, A.; Nguyen, V.L.; Nemati, F.; Ayaz, M.M.; Bahiraei, Z.; Zafari, S.; Giannico, A.; Greco, G.; Dantas-Torres, F.; et al. Vector-Borne Pathogens in Dogs of Different Regions of Iran and Pakistan. Parasitol. Res. 2021, 120, 4219–4228.
  21. Kalaivanan, M.; Saravanan, S.; Palanivel, K.M.; Ponnudurai, G.; Veterinary, T.N. Identification of ehrlichia canis by pcr with phylogenetic analysis in dogs from south india. Haryana Vet. 2020, 59, 79–82.
  22. Behera, S.K.; Dimri, U.; Banerjee, P.; Garg, R.; Dandapat, S.; Sharma, B. Molecular Detection and Assessment of Hemato-Biochemistry, Oxidant/Antioxidant Status in Natural Canine Monocytic Ehrlichiosis Cases from Northern India. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. India Sect. B-Biol. Sci. 2017, 87, 361–368.
  23. Manoj, R.R.S.; Iatta, R.; Latrofa, M.S.; Capozzi, L.; Raman, M.; Colella, V.; Otranto, D. Canine Vector-Borne Pathogens from Dogs and Ticks from Tamil Nadu, India. Acta Trop. 2020, 203, 105308.
  24. Bai, L.; Goel, P.; Jhambh, R.; Kumar, P.; Joshi, V.G. Molecular Prevalence and Haemato-Biochemical Profile of Canine Monocytic Ehrlichiosis in Dogs in and around Hisar, Haryana, India. J. Parasit. Dis. 2017, 41, 647–654.
  25. Milanjeet; Singh, H.; Singh, N.K.; Singh, N.D.; Singh, C.; Rath, S.S. Molecular Prevalence and Risk Factors for the Occurrence of Canine Monocytic Ehrlichiosis. Vet. Med. (Praha) 2014, 59, 129–136.
  26. Lakshmanan, B.; John, L.; Gomathinayagam, S.; Dhinakarraj, G. Molecular Detection of Ehrlichia Canis from Blood of Naturally Infected Dogs in India. Vet. Arh. 2007, 77, 307–312.
  27. das Singla, L.; Sumbria, D.; Mandhotra, A.; Bal, M.S.; Kaur, P. Critical Analysis of Vector-Borne Infections in Dogs: Babesia Vogeli, Babesia Gibsoni, Ehrlichia Canis and Hepatozoon Canis in Punjab, India. Acta Parasitol. 2016, 61, 697–706.
  28. Singla, L.D.; Singh, H.; Kaur, P.; Singh, N.D.; Singh, N.K.; Juyal, P.D. Serodetection of Ehrlichia Canis Infection in Dogs from Ludhiana District of Punjab, India. J. Parasit. Dis. 2011, 35, 195–198.
  29. Kukreti, K.; Das, M.K.; Rastogi, A.K.; Dubey, R.; Pandey, L.K.; Sharma, P. Prevalence of Canine Monocytic Ehrlichiosis in Canine Population across India. Arch. Razi Inst. 2018, 73, 87–93.
  30. Mittal, M.; Kundu, K.; Chakravarti, S.; Mohapatra, J.K.; Nehra, K.; Sinha, V.K.; Sanjeeth, B.S.; Churamani, C.P.; Kumar, A. Canine Monocytic Ehrlichiosis among Working Dogs of Organised Kennels in India: A Comprehensive Analyses of Clinico-Pathology, Serological and Molecular Epidemiological Approach. Prev. Vet. Med. 2017, 147, 26–33.
  31. Wise, A.E.; Tarlinton, R.E. Seroprevalence of Vectorborne Diseases in Free-Roaming Dogs in Goa, India. Vet. Rec. 2012, 170, 76.
  32. Díaz-Regañón, D.; Agulla, B.; Piya, B.; Fernández-Ruiz, N.; Villaescusa, A.; García-Sancho, M.; Rodríguez-Franco, F.; Sainz, Á. Stray Dogs in Nepal Have High Prevalence of Vector-Borne Pathogens: A Molecular Survey. Parasites Vectors 2020, 13, 1–8.
  33. Phuyal, S.; Jha, V.C.; Subedi, M. Prevalence of Blood Parasites in Dogs of Kathmandu Valley. Nepal. Vet. J. 2017, 34, 107–112.
  34. Talukder, B.M.H.; Matsuu, A.; Iguchi, A.; Roy, B.C.; Nishii, N.; Hikasa, Y. PCR-Based Survey of Vector-Borne Pathogens in Dogs In. J. Bangladesh. Agril. Univ. 2012, 10, 249–253.
  35. Luo, H.; Lan, Y.; Gan, P.; Zhou, W.; Wang, M.; Hu, B.; Zhang, Z.; Bai, Y.; Li, K. Molecular Identification and Prevalence of Ehrlichia Canis and Rhipicephalus Sanguineus (Acari: Ixodidae) Infecting Pet Dogs in Wenzhou, China. Pak. J. Zool. 2021, 53, 2129.
  36. Mengfan, Q.; Lixia, W.; Ying, L.; Yan, R.; Kuojun, C.; Jinsheng, Z.; Zaichao, Z.; Weiwei, Y.; Yelong, P.; Xuepeng, C.; et al. Molecular Detection and Genetic Variability of Ehrlichia Canis in Pet Dogs in Xinjiang, China. Vet. World 2020, 13, 916–922.
  37. Xu, D.; Zhang, J.; Shi, Z.; Song, C.; Zheng, X.; Zhang, Y.; Hao, Y.; Dong, H.; Wei, L.; El-Mahallawy, H.S.; et al. Molecular Detection of Vector-Borne Agents in Dogs from Ten Provinces of China. Parasites Vectors 2015, 8, 1–7.
  38. Zhang, J.; Liu, Q.; Wang, D.; Li, W.; Beugnet, F.; Zhou, J. Epidemiological Survey of Ticks and Tick-Borne Pathogens in Pet Dogs in South-Eastern China. Parasite 2017, 24, 35.
  39. Xia, Z.; Yu, D.; Mao, J.; Zhang, Z.; Yu, J. The Occurrence of Dirofilaria Immitis, Borrelia Burgdorferi, Ehrlichia Canis and Anaplasma Phagocytophium in Dogs in China. J. Helminthol. 2012, 86, 185–189.
  40. Chen, Z.; Liu, Q.; Liu, J.Q.; Xu, B.L.; Lv, S.; Xia, S.; Zhou, X.N. Tick-Borne Pathogens and Associated Co-Infections in Ticks Collected from Domestic Animals in Central China. Parasites Vectors 2014, 7, 1–8.
  41. Yu, P.F.; Niu, Q.L.; Liu, Z.J.; Yang, J.F.; Chen, Z.; Guan, G.Q.; Liu, G.Y.; Luo, J.X.; Yin, H. Molecular Epidemiological Surveillance to Assess Emergence and Re-Emergence of Tick-Borne Infections in Tick Samples from China Evaluated by Nested PCRs. Acta Trop. 2016, 158, 181–188.
  42. Colella, V.; Nguyen, V.L.; Tan, D.Y.; Lu, N.; Fang, F.; Zhijuan, Y.; Wang, J.; Liu, X.; Chen, X.; Dong, J.; et al. Zoonotic Vectorborne Pathogens and Ectoparasites of Dogs and Cats in Eastern and Southeast Asia. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2020, 26, 1221–1233.
  43. Zheng, W.; Liu, M.; Moumouni, P.F.A.; Liu, X.; Efstratiou, A.; Liu, Z.; Liu, Y.; Tao, H.; Guo, H.; Wang, G.; et al. First Molecular Detection of Tick-Borne Pathogens in Dogs from Jiangxi, China. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 2017, 79, 248–254.
  44. Watanabe, M.; Okuda, M.; Tsuji, M.; Inokuma, H. Seroepidemiological Study of Canine Ehrlichial Infections in Yamaguchi Prefecture and Surrounding Areas of Japan. Vet. Parasitol. 2004, 124, 101–107.
  45. Kawahara, M.; Ito, T.; Suto, C.; Shibata, S.; Rikihisa, Y.; Hata, K.; Hirai, K. Comparison of Ehrlichia Muris Strains Isolated from Wild Mice and Ticks and Serologic Survey of Humans and Animals with E. Muris as Antigen. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1999, 37, 1123–1129.
  46. Kubo, S.; Tateno, M.; Ichikawa, Y.; Endo, Y. A Molecular Epidemiological Survey of Babesia, Hepatozoon, Ehrlichia and Anaplasma Infections of Dogs in Japan. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 2015, 77, 1275–1279.
  47. Suto, Y.; Suto, A.; Inokuma, H.; Obayashi, H.; Hayashi, T. First Ehrlichia Infection. Vetrecord 2001, 148, 809–812.
  48. Inokuma, H.; Beppu, T.; Okuda, M.; Shimada, Y.; Sakata, Y. Epidemiological Survey of Anaplasma Platys and Ehrlichia Canis Using Ticks Collected from Dogs in Japan. Vet. Parasitol. 2003, 115, 343–348.
  49. Suh, G.H.; Ahn, K.S.; Ahn, J.H.; Kim, H.J.; Leutenegger, C.; Shin, S.S. Serological and Molecular Prevalence of Canine Vector-Borne Diseases (CVBDs) in Korea. Parasites Vectors 2017, 10, 1–8.
  50. Lee, S.O.; Na, D.K.; Kim, C.M.; Li, Y.H.; Cho, Y.H.; Park, J.H.; Lee, J.H.; Eo, S.K.; Klein, T.A.; Chae, J.S. Identification and Prevalence of Ehrlichia Chaffeensis Infection in Haemaphysalis Longicornis Ticks from Korea by PCR, Sequencing and Phylogenetic Analysis Based on 16S RRNA Gene. J. Vet. Sci. 2005, 6, 151–155.
  51. Bell, D.R.; Berghaus, R.D.; Patel, S.; Beavers, S.; Fernandez, I.; Sanchez, S. Seroprevalence of Tick-Borne Infections in Military Working Dogs in the Republic of Korea. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2012, 12, 1023–1030.
  52. Lim, S.; Irwin, P.J.; Lee, S.; Oh, M.; Ahn, K.; Myung, B.; Shin, S. Comparison of Selected Canine Vector-Borne Diseases between Urban Animal Shelter and Rural Hunting Dogs in Korea. Parasites Vectors 2010, 3, 3–7.
  53. Hwang, C.Y.; Seo, S.H.; Kang, J.G.; Youn, H.Y.; seok Chae, J. Ehrlichia and Borrelia Spp. Infection in German Shepherd Dogs in Korea. J. Vet. Clin. 2011, 28, 204–210.
  54. Lee, S.-E.; Song, K.-H.; Lee, S.-H. Survey of Ehrlichia Canis and Borrelia Burgdorferi Antibodies in Dogs (German Shepherd) Reared in Korea. Korean J. Vet. Res. 2007, 47, 281–283.
  55. Wu, T.; Sun, H.; Wu, Y.; Huang, H. Prevalence and Risk Factors of Canine Ticks and Tick-Borne Diseases in Taipei, Taiwan. J. Vet. Clin. Sci. 2008, 2, 75–78.
  56. Yuasa, Y.; Tsai, Y.L.; Chang, C.C.; Hsu, T.H.; Chou, C.C. The Prevalence of Anaplasma Platys and a Potential Novel Anaplasma Species Exceed That of Ehrlichia Canis in Asymptomatic Dogs and Rhipicephalus Sanguineus in Taiwan. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 2017, 79, 1494–1502.
  57. Yuasa, Y.; Hsu, T.H.; Chou, C.C.; Huang, C.C.; Huang, W.C.; Chang, C.C. The Comparison of Spatial Variation and Risk Factors between Mosquito-Borne and Tick-Borne Diseases: Seroepidemiology of Ehrlichia Canis, Anaplasma Species, and Dirofilaria Immitis in Dogs. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2012, 35, 599–606.
  58. Wong, S.S.Y.; Teng, J.L.L.; Poon, R.W.S.; Choi, G.K.Y.; Chan, K.H.; Yeung, M.L.; Hui, J.J.Y.; Yuen, K.Y. Comparative Evaluation of a Point-of-Care Immunochromatographic Test SNAP 4Dx with Molecular Detection Tests for Vector-Borne Canine Pathogens in Hong Kong. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2011, 11, 1269–1277.
  59. Little, S.E. Ehrlichiosis and Anaplasmosis in Dogs and Cats. Vet. Clin. N. Am.-Small Anim. Pract. 2010, 40, 1121–1140.
  60. Harrus, S.; Kass, P.H.; Klement, E.; Waner, T. Canine Monocytic Ehrlichiosis: A Retrospective Study of 100 Cases, and an Epidemiological Investigation of Prognostic Indicators for the Disease. Vet. Rec. 1997, 141, 360–363.
  61. Costa, L.M.; Rembeck, K.; Ribeiro, M.F.B.; Beelitz, P.; Pfister, K.; Passos, L.M.F. Sero-Prevalence and Risk Indicators for Canine Ehrlichiosis in Three Rural Areas of Brazil. Vet. J. 2007, 174, 673–676.
  62. Rodriguez-Vivas, R.I.; Albornoz, R.E.F.; Bolio, G.M.E. Ehrlichia Canis in Dogs in Yucatan, Mexico: Seroprevalence, Prevalence of Infection and Associated Factors. Vet. Parasitol. 2005, 127, 75–79.
  63. Selim, A.; Alanazi, A.D.; Sazmand, A.; Otranto, D. Seroprevalence and Associated Risk Factors for Vector-Borne Pathogens in Dogs from Egypt. Parasites Vectors 2021, 14, 175.
  64. Angelou, A.; Gelasakis, A.I.; Verde, N.; Pantchev, N.; Schaper, R.; Chandrashekar, R.; Papadopoulos, E. Prevalence and Risk Factors for Selected Canine Vector-Borne Diseases in Greece. Parasites Vectors 2019, 12, 283.
  65. Bowman, D.; Little, S.E.; Lorentzen, L.; Shields, J.; Sullivan, M.P.; Carlin, E.P. Prevalence and Geographic Distribution of Dirofilaria Immitis, Borrelia Burgdorferi, Ehrlichia Canis, and Anaplasma Phagocytophilum in Dogs in the United States: Results of a National Clinic-Based Serologic Survey. Vet. Parasitol. 2009, 160, 138–148.
  66. Moraes-Filho, J.; Krawczak, F.S.; Costa, F.B.; Soares, J.F.; Labruna, M.B. Comparative Evaluation of the Vector Competence of Four South American Populations of the Rhipicephalus Sanguineus Group for the Bacterium Ehrlichia Canis, the Agent of Canine Monocytic Ehrlichiosis. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0139386.
  67. Greene, C.E. Infectious Diseases of the Dog and Cat; WB Saunders: Philadelphia, PA, USA; Elsevier Science: Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2006; ISBN 072160062X.
  68. Burgio, F.; Meyer, L.; Armstrong, R. A Comparative Laboratory Trial Evaluating the Immediate Efficacy of Fluralaner, Afoxolaner, Sarolaner and Imidacloprid + Permethrin against Adult Rhipicephalus Sanguineus (Sensu Lato) Ticks Attached to Dogs. Parasit Vectors 2016, 9, 626.
  69. Fourie, J.J.; Stanneck, D.; Luus, H.G.; Beugnet, F.; Wijnveld, M.; Jongejan, F. Transmission of Ehrlichia Canis by Rhipicephalus Sanguineus Ticks Feeding on Dogs and on Artificial Membranes. Vet. Parasitol. 2013, 197, 595–603.
  70. Gray, J.S.; Dautel, H.; Estrada-Peña, A.; Kahl, O.; Lindgren, E. Effects of Climate Change on Ticks and Tick-Borne Diseases in Europe. Interdiscip. Perspect. Infect. Dis. 2009, 2009, 593232.
  71. Gray, J.; Dantas-Torres, F.; Estrada-Peña, A.; Levin, M. Systematics and Ecology of the Brown Dog Tick, Rhipicephalus Sanguineus. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2013, 4, 171–180.
  72. Uspensky, I.; Ioffe-Uspensky, I. The Dog Factor in Brown Dog Tick Rhipicephalus Sanguineus (Acari: Ixodidae) Infestations in and near Human Dwellings. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2002, 291, 156–163.
  73. Kidd, L.; Breitschwerdt, E.B. Transmission Times and Prevention of Tick-Borne Diseases in Dogs. Compend. Contin. Educ. Pract. Vet.-N. Am. Ed. 2003, 25, 742–753.
  74. Bremer, W.G.; Schaefer, J.J.; Wagner, E.R.; Ewing, S.A.; Rikihisa, Y.; Needham, G.R.; Jittapalapong, S.; Moore, D.L.; Stich, R.W. Transstadial and Intrastadial Experimental Transmission of Ehrlichia Canis by Male Rhipicephalus Sanguineus. Vet. Parasitol. 2005, 131, 95–105.
  75. Phillips, J. Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever. Workplace Health Saf. 2017, 65, 48.
  76. Ipek, N.D.S.; Özübek, S.; Aktas, M. Molecular Evidence for Transstadial Transmission of Ehrlichia Canis by Rhipicephalus Sanguineus Sensu Lato under Field Conditions. J. Med. Entomol. 2018, 55, 440–444.
  77. Mavromatis, K.; Doyle, C.K.; Lykidis, A.; Ivanova, N.; Francino, M.P.; Chain, P.; Shin, M.; Malfatti, S.; Larimer, F.; Copeland, A.; et al. The Genome of the Obligately Intracellular Bacterium Ehrlichia Canis Reveals Themes of Complex Membrane Structure and Immune Evasion Strategies. J. Bacteriol. 2006, 188, 4015–4023.
  78. Paddock, C.D.; Childs, J.E. Ehrlichia Chaffeensis: A Prototypical Emerging Pathogen. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2003, 16, 37–64.
  79. Ismail, N.; Bloch, K.C.; McBride, J.W. Human Ehrlichiosis and Anaplasmosis. Clin. Lab. Med. 2010, 30, 261–292.
  80. Tabar, M.D.; Francino, O.; Altet, L.; Sánchez, A.; Ferrer, L.; Roura, X. PCR Survey of Vectorborne Pathogens in Dogs Living in and around Barcelona, an Area Endemic for Leishmaniosis. Vet. Rec. 2009, 164, 112–116.
  81. Egenvall, A.; Bjöersdorff, A.; Lilliehöök, I.; Engvall, E.O.; Karlstam, E.; Artursson, K.; Hedhammar, A.; Gunnarsson, A. Early Manifestations of Granulocytic Ehrlichiosis in Dogs Inoculated Experimentally with a Swedish Ehrlichia Species Isolate. Vet. Rec. 1998, 143, 412–417.
  82. Egenvall, A.E.; Hedhammar, Å.A.; Bjöersdorff, A.I. Clinical Features and Serology of 14 Dogs Affected by Granulocytic Ehrlichiosis in Sweden. Vet. Rec. 1997, 140, 222–226.
  83. McClure, J.C.; Crothers, M.L.; Schaefer, J.J.; Stanley, P.D.; Needham, G.R.; Ewing, S.A.; Stich, R.W. Efficacy of a Doxycycline Treatment Regimen Initiated during Three Different Phases of Experimental Ehrlichiosis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2010, 54, 5012–5020.
  84. Waner, T.; Harrus, S.; Bark, H.; Bogin, E.; Avidar, Y.; Keysary, A. Characterization of the Subclinical Phase of Canine Ehrlichiosis in Experimentally Infected Beagle Dogs. Vet. Parasitol. 1997, 69, 307–317.
  85. Mylonakis, M.E.; Koutinas, A.F.; Breitschwerdt, E.B.; Hegarty, B.C.; Billinis, C.D.; Leontides, L.S.; Kontos, V.S. Chronic Canine Ehrlichiosis (Ehrlichia Canis): A Retrospective Study of 19 Natural Cases. J. Am. Anim. Hosp. Assoc. 2004, 40, 174–184.
  86. Maggi, R.G.; Birkenheuer, A.J.; Hegarty, B.C.; Bradley, J.M.; Levy, M.G.; Breitschwerdt, E.B. Comparison of Serological and Molecular Panels for Diagnosis of Vector-Borne Diseases in Dogs. Parasites Vectors 2014, 7, 127.
  87. Pérez, C.; Maggi, R.G.; Diniz, P.P.V.P.; Breitschwerdt, E.B. Molecular and Serological Diagnosis of Bartonella Infection in 61 Dogs from the United States. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2011, 25, 805–810.
  88. Diniz, P.P.V.D.P.; Maggi, R.G.; Schwartz, D.S.; Cadenas, M.B.; Bradley, J.M.; Hegarty, B.; Breutschwerdt, E.B. Canine Bartonellosis: Serological and Molecular Prevalence in Brazil and Evidence of Co-Infection with Bartonella Henselae and Bartonella Vinsonii Subsp. Berkhoffii. Vet. Res. 2007, 38, 697–710.
  89. Cowell, R.L.; Tyler, R.D.; Clinkenbeard, K.D.; Meinkoth, J.H. Ehrlichiosis and Polyarthritis in Three Dogs. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 1988, 192, 1093–1095.
  90. Ecker, D.J.; Massire, C.; Blyn, L.B.; Hofstadler, S.A.; Hannis, J.C.; Eshoo, M.W.; Hall, T.A.; Sampath, R. Molecular Genotyping of Microbes by Multilocus PCR and Mass Spectrometry: A New Tool for Hospital Infection Control and Public Health Surveillance. In Molecular Epidemiology of Microorganisms; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; pp. 71–87.
  91. Codner, E.C.; Farris-Smith, L.L. Characterization of the Subclinical Phase of Ehrlichiosis in Dogs. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 1986, 189, 47–50.
  92. Mylonakis, M.E.; Ceron, J.J.; Leontides, L.; Siarkou, V.I.; Martinez, S.; Tvarijonaviciute, A.; Koutinas, A.F.; Harrus, S. Serum Acute Phase Proteins as Clinical Phase Indicators and Outcome Predictors in Naturally Occurring Canine Monocytic Ehrlichiosis. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2011, 25, 811–817.
  93. Ybañez, A.P.; Ybañez, R.H.D.; Villavelez, R.R.; Malingin, H.P.F.; Barrameda, D.N.M.; Naquila, S.V.; Olimpos, S.M.B. Retrospective Analyses of Dogs Found Serologically Positive for Ehrlichia Canis in Cebu, Philippines from 2003 to 2014. Vet. World 2016, 9, 43–47.
  94. Gianopoulos, A.; Mylonakis, M.E.; Theodorou, K.; Christopher, M.M. Quantitative and Qualitative Leukocyte Abnormalities in Dogs with Experimental and Naturally Occurring Acute Canine Monocytic Ehrlichiosis. Vet. Clin. Pathol. 2016, 45, 281–290.
  95. de Castro, M.B.; Machado, R.Z.; de Aquino, L.P.C.T.; Alessi, A.C.; Costa, M.T. Experimental Acute Canine Monocytic Ehrlichiosis: Clinicopathological and Immunopathological Findings. Vet. Parasitol. 2004, 119, 73–86.
  96. Kohn, B.; Galke, D.; Beelitz, P.; Pfister, K. Clinical Features of Canine Granulocytic Anaplasmosis in 18 Naturally Infected Dogs. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2008, 22, 1289–1295.
  97. Qurollo, B.A.; Davenport, A.C.; Sherbert, B.M.; Grindem, C.B.; Birkenheuer, A.J.; Breitschwerdt, E.B. Infection with Panola Mountain Ehrlichia Sp. in a Dog with Atypical Lymphocytes and Clonal T-Cell Expansion. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2013, 27, 1251–1255.
  98. Villaescusa, A.; Tesouro, M.A.; García-Sancho, M.; Ayllón, T.; Rodríguez-Franco, F.; Sainz, A. Evaluation of Peripheral Blood Lymphocyte Subsets in Family-Owned Dogs Naturally Infected by Ehrlichia Canis. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2012, 35, 391–396.
  99. Rungsipipat, A.; Oda, M.; Kumpoosiri, N.; Wangnaitham, S.; Poosoonthontham, R.; Komkaew, W.; Suksawat, F.; Ryoji, Y. Clinicopathological Study of Experimentally Induced Canine Monocytic Ehrlichiosis. Comp. Clin. Pathol. 2009, 18, 13–22.
  100. Inokuma, H.; Ohno, K.; Onishi, T.; Raoult, D.; Brouqui, P. Detection of Ehrlichial Infection by PCR in Dogs from Yamaguchi and Okinawa Prefectures, Japan. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 2001, 63, 815–817.
  101. Mylonakis, M.E.; Koutinas, A.F.; Billinis, C.; Leontides, L.S.; Kontos, V.; Papadopoulos, O.; Rallis, T.; Fytianou, A. Evaluation of Cytology in the Diagnosis of Acute Canine Monocytic Ehrlichiosis (Ehrlichia Canis): A Comparison between Five Methods. Vet. Microbiol. 2003, 91, 197–204.
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.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback