RESUMO
The objective of our study was to survey Babesia infection rates by PCR and tick species on stray dogs to correlate the distribution of Babesia with the distribution of ticks infesting dogs in Taiwan. Three hundred eighty-eight blood samples and 3037 ticks were collected from 388 roaming, and free-ranging owned dogs at residential sites in Taiwan between January 2015 and December 2017. The prevalence of B. gibsoni and B. vogeli was 15.7% (61/388) and 9.5% (37/388), respectively. Most positive B. gibsoni dogs were found in the northern part of the country 56/61 (91.8%), whereas a few were found in the middle 5/61 (8.2%). Babesia vogeli infection rates were 10%, 3.6%, and 18.2% in the northern, central, and southern regions, respectively. Five species of ticks were found: Rhipicephalus sanguineus (throughout Taiwan), Rhipicephalus haemaphysaloides (in the north), Haemaphysalis hystricis (in the north and middle of Taiwan), and Amblyomma testidunarium and Ixodes ovatus (both in the north). None of the dogs in the south were infected with B gibsoni, which correlated with the absence of H. hystricis, a tick recently identified as the local vector for B gibsoni. Babesia vogeli was more equally distributed, coinciding with R. sanguineus, a tick that is present throughout Taiwan. Anaemia was detected in 86.9% of infected dogs; among these dogs, approximately 19.7% showed severe anaemia (HCT < 20). These findings provide useful advice for owners regarding outdoor activities with their dogs and local veterinarians with a regional differential diagnosis of babesiosis in Taiwan.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Babesia gibsoni is the predominant tick-borne protozoan blood parasite affecting dogs throughout the Oriental region. Babesia gibsoni is transmitted by Haemaphysalis longicornis, whereas a similar role has been suggested for Rhipicephalus sanguineus. Haemaphysalis longicornis does not occur in Taiwan, but R. sanguineus is widely distributed on dogs. However, clinical cases of babesiosis are mainly restricted to the northern part of the island. The discrepancy between tick distribution and clinical cases stimulated us to investigate the tick species distribution on dogs in northern Taiwan, with the aim to identify the local vector for canine babesiosis. METHODS: Ticks were collected from stray dogs or free ranging pet dogs in northern Taiwan between 2015 and 2017 and, after identification, were tested for the presence of tick-borne Babesia parasites using PCR and reverse line blot (RLB) hybridisation. Moreover, engorged ticks collected from the dogs were incubated at 28 °C to allow them to oviposit. Their subsequent larval progeny was also examined by PCR/RLB. RESULTS: A total of 1085 ticks collected from 144 stray dogs at different residential areas consisted of 5 different species: H. hystricis (n = 435), R. sanguineus (n = 582), R. haemaphysaloides (n = 43), Amblyomma testudinarium (n = 14) and Ixodes ovatus (n = 11) were identified. Babesia gibsoni DNA was detected in H. hystricis females (10.3%), males (7.0%) and in 2.6% of the nymphs. One R. sanguineus female and one A. testudinarium female tick also carried B. gibsoni DNA. DNA of B. gibsoni was demonstrated in 11 out of 68 (16.2%) batches of larval ticks derived from engorged H. hystricus ticks only. Babesia vogeli DNA was detected only in R. sanguineus females (2.6%) and males (2.4%). DNA of B. vogeli was detected in 13 out of 95 (13.7%) batches of larval ticks derived from engorged R.sanguineus females. CONCLUSIONS: Babesia gibsoni DNA was detected in the larval progeny of H. hystricis ticks only, whereas B. vogeli was restricted to the larvae of R. sanguineus. This provides evidence for transovarial passage of B. gibsoni in H. hystricis and evidence that this tick does act as the local vector for this parasite on dogs in northern Taiwan where most cases of babesiosis are reported. The vectorial capacity of R. sanguineus for babesiosis is probably restricted to the transmission of B. vogeli only.
