%0 Journal Article
%T A survey of canine tick-borne diseases in India
%A Puteri Azaziah Abd Rani
%A Peter J Irwin
%A Glen T Coleman
%A Mukulesh Gatne
%A Rebecca J Traub
%J Parasites & Vectors
%D 2011
%I BioMed Central
%R 10.1186/1756-3305-4-141
%X On microscopy examination, only Hepatozoon gamonts were observed in twelve out of 525 (2.3%; 95% CI: 1.2, 4) blood smears. Using polymerase chain reaction (PCR), a total of 261 from 525 dogs (49.7%; 95% CI: 45.4, 54.1) in this study were infected with one or more canine tick-borne pathogen. Hepatozoon canis (30%; 95% CI: 26.0, 34.0) was the most common TBD pathogen found infecting dogs in India followed by Ehrlichia canis (20.6%; 95% CI: 17.2, 24.3), Mycoplasma haemocanis (12.2%; 95% CI: 9.5, 15.3), Anaplasma platys (6.5%; 95% CI: 4.5, 8.9), Babesia vogeli (5.5%, 95% CI: 3.7, 7.8) and Babesia gibsoni (0.2%, 95% CI: 0.01, 1.06). Concurrent infection with more than one TBD pathogen occurred in 39% of cases. Potential tick vectors, Rhipicephalus (most commonly) and/or Haemaphysalis ticks were found on 278 (53%) of dogs examined.At least 6 species of canine tick-borne pathogens are present in India. Hepatozoon canis was the most common pathogen and ticks belonging to the genus Rhipicephalus were encountered most frequently. Polymerase chain reaction was more sensitive in detecting circulating pathogens compared with peripheral blood smear examination. As co-infections with canine TBD pathogens were common, Indian veterinary practitioners should be cognisant that the discovery of one such pathogen raises the potential for multiple infections which may warrant different clinical management strategies.There is a relative paucity of studies into canine Babesia, Ehrlichia, Anaplasma, Hepatozoon and haemotropic Mycoplasma infections in India and most cases of canine tick-borne diseases (TBD) reported from the Indian subcontinent have been diagnosed by traditional methods using microscopic observation of microorganisms in stained blood smears [1]. This approach, based on morphological characteristics, does not permit reliable identification of the parasites. Serological approaches also have their limitations particularly as species-specific diagnosis is often required; both fa
%U http://www.parasitesandvectors.com/content/4/1/141