Detection of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato and Chlamydophila psittaci in throat and cloacal swabs from birds migrating through Slovakia
Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké Médium print
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem
PubMed
17455806
DOI
10.1007/bf02931634
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- MeSH
- Borrelia burgdorferi klasifikace genetika izolace a purifikace MeSH
- Chlamydophila psittaci klasifikace genetika izolace a purifikace MeSH
- DNA bakterií analýza chemie genetika MeSH
- farynx mikrobiologie MeSH
- fylogeneze MeSH
- kloaka mikrobiologie MeSH
- lymeská nemoc epidemiologie mikrobiologie veterinární MeSH
- nemoci ptáků epidemiologie mikrobiologie MeSH
- polymerázová řetězová reakce MeSH
- psitakóza epidemiologie mikrobiologie veterinární MeSH
- ptáci mikrobiologie MeSH
- ribozomální DNA chemie genetika MeSH
- RNA ribozomální 16S genetika MeSH
- sekvenční homologie nukleových kyselin MeSH
- zvířata MeSH
- Check Tag
- zvířata MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
- Geografické názvy
- Slovenská republika epidemiologie MeSH
- Názvy látek
- DNA bakterií MeSH
- ribozomální DNA MeSH
- RNA ribozomální 16S MeSH
We have screened 91 migratory birds representing 32 species during the autumn of 2003 for the presence of the zoonotic pathogens Borrelia and Chlamydophila. Using polymerase chain reaction (PCR), B. burgdorferi sensu stricto was detected in cloacal swabs and, in two causes, also in throat swabs in 8 individuals (8.7 %) representing 7 birds species; B. garinii and B. afzelii were not detected. C. psittaci was detected only in cloacal swabs; 6 birds (6.6 %) from four species were found to be positive. The PCR products were sequenced and the sequences were compared phylogenetically with the gene sequences of 14 Chlamydophila strains retrieved from nucleotide databases; although the sequenced DNA was only 110 bp long, all obtained sequences created a new cluster with sublines branching from a position close to the periphery of the genus. All tested samples appear distinct within the known species and were most similar to C. felis or C. abortis.
Zobrazit více v PubMed
J Wildl Dis. 1989 Jan;25(1):99-102 PubMed
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1998 Apr;64(4):1169-74 PubMed
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1995 Aug;61(8):3082-7 PubMed
Acta Virol. 2005;49(4):287-9 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 1995 Mar;33(3):602-8 PubMed
Folia Parasitol (Praha). 1993;40(3):237-42 PubMed
Folia Microbiol (Praha). 2004;49(3):297-300 PubMed
Nature. 1993 Mar 25;362(6418):340-2 PubMed
Vet Microbiol. 2001 Sep 20;82(2):155-64 PubMed
Med Vet Entomol. 1998 Jan;12(1):103-5 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 2000 Mar;38(3):1085-93 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 1999 Mar;37(3):575-80 PubMed
Zentralbl Bakteriol. 1998 May;287(4):521-38 PubMed
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006 Jan;72(1):976-9 PubMed
Folia Microbiol (Praha). 2005;50(1):31-9 PubMed
N Engl J Med. 1989 Aug 31;321(9):586-96 PubMed
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006 Jun;72(6):4423-5 PubMed
Trends Microbiol. 2002 Feb;10(2):74-9 PubMed
J Wildl Dis. 2004 Oct;40(4):639-59 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 2005 Oct;43(10):5410-1; author reply 5410-1 PubMed
J Med Entomol. 1996 Sep;33(5):766-71 PubMed
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003 May;69(5):2825-30 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 1997 Nov;35(11):2908-14 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 1999 Sep;37(9):3010-2 PubMed
