Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The Veterinary Quarterly logoLink to The Veterinary Quarterly
. 2023 Mar 14;43(1):1–9. doi: 10.1080/01652176.2023.2185695

Prevalence of babesiosis in bovines of India: a meta-analytical approach for 30 years (1990–2019)

Udipta Borthakur a, Med Ram Verma a,✉, Yash Pal Singh a, Sanjay Kumar a, Dinesh Kumar a, Yogesh Chandrakant Bangar b, Khan Sharun c, Kuldeep Dhama d,✉
PMCID: PMC10026754  PMID: 36846918

Abstract

Background

India has a massive population of bovines, which makes the framework of the economy mainly relying on milk and meat production. Parasitic diseases such as babesiosis are detrimental to bovines by decreasing animal welfare and production efficiency.

Aim

Performing a meta-analysis of the prevalence of babesiosis over 30 years viz 1990 to 2019 within India to pool out individual studies from different country regions.

Material and methods

The studies were reviewed thoroughly to assess the quality, and it was done by following the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) and MOOSE protocols. The prevalence of babesiosis in cattle and buffaloes was calculated using meta-analysis tools using R-software and Q Statistics.

Results

The systematic review and meta-analysis performed on 47 studies among bovine, 48 studies among cattle, and 13 studies among buffaloes revealed the (pooled) prevalence of babesiosis in India as 10.9% (6.3%–18.2%; Q = 5132.03, d.f. = 46, P < 0.001), 11.9% (6.9%–19.8%; Q = 5060.2, d.f.=47, P < 0.001), and 6.0% (2.6%–13.2%; Q = 500.55, d.f.=12, P < 0.001), respectively, which provides a rather exact scenario of the prevalence of this haemoparasitic disease across the country. In addition, cattle were having higher risk of babesiosis than buffalo.

Conclusion

The findings from the meta-analysis showed that the disease is prevalent across the country, and that bovines are highly affected by it.

Clinical relevance

Appropriate prevention and control measures should be taken to mitigate this disease and enhance welfare and production performances of bovines.

Keywords: Cow, cattle, bovine, buffalo, babesiosis, India, meta-analysis, prevalence, systematic review

1. Introduction

In India, since the ancient era, livestock has played a pivotal role in agriculture. For doubling the farmers’ income, livestock has immense importance out of which the bovines, especially cattle and buffaloes, serve the key role to the economy among the livestock. India is the highest livestock owner with diversified genera of breeds of livestock and poultry, which have a pivotal role in the socio-economic development of rural households. The livestock and agriculture sectors are intrinsically linked to producing the consumables and ensuring the food security of the nation.

Several diseases cause a negative impact on livestock health and production as well as have high economical importance (Perry and Grace 2009; Dhama et al. 2014). The consequences of animal diseases in livestock are detrimental and cause producers to lose in terms of production, resources, and maintenance. Parasitic diseases of bovines like babesiosis, an infectious tick-borne haemoprotozoal disease caused by Babesia bigemina and Babesia bovis, can greatly affect the animal’s health status leading to high economic losses and is among the most prevalent and costly tick-borne diseases (TBD’s) of cattle worldwide (Jacob et al. 2020; He et al. 2021). Other babesia species affecting bovids include B. orientalis, B. ovata, B. major, B. motasi, B. U sp. Kashi and B. venatorum. The disease is also termed as bovine babesiosis, piroplasmosis, Texas fever, redwater fever, tick fever, or Tristeza (Zaugg 2009). It was first detected by Babes in 1888. It is common in tropical and sub-tropical regions worldwide with relatively high morbidity and mortality rate, and efforts are being carried out with regards to prevention and control measures (Suarez and Noh 2011; Gohil et al. 2013; Jacob et al. 2020; He et al. 2021). The disease is mechanically transmitted by ticks, in bovines, mainly by the genera of Boophilus and Hyalomma spp. (Ravindran et al. 2002).

Cattle acquire the infection by the introduction of the sporozoite stage of the parasite into the bloodstream from an infected tick during a blood meal (Barman et al. 2018). It has high economic importance as India annually loses around 57.2 million USD in the livestock sector due to this disease. In a case study conducted on an organized farm in Meghalaya in 2012, it has been reported that due to B. bigemina infection in a milch cross-bred cow, a total of 51.6 liters loss of milk and an economic loss worth 1032 rupees (12.92 US dollar) due to decrease in production for 30 days (Laha et al. 2012).

Meta-analysis is a statistical technique that combines the results of several related studies over a topic and offers more accurate and reliable information on the effects of certain factors and treatments. In simple language, meta-analysis can be said an analysis of analysis. Meta-analysis of the prevalence of babesiosis in bovine will be useful to obtain pooled estimates of summary estimates from the published studies. It will help to better understand the prevalence of the disease associated with various risk factors. Therefore, the present study was carried out to estimate the prevalence of bovine babesiosis in India by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis compiling the data of 30 years (1990 to 2019).

2. Materials and methods

The systematic review of prevalence and risk factors of babesiosis in bovines was done from 1990 to 2019. Data collected from all the farms were clubbed with published studies to get a pooled estimate. Published studies were collected from various journals, annual reports, and online search engines like PubMed, Science Direct, Google scholar, NCBI, J-Gate, Krishikosh, etc. The studies were reviewed thoroughly to assess the quality, and it was done by following the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) and MOOSE protocols. Accordingly, the inclusion and exclusion criteria for studies were prepared and shown in Table 1. Flow diagram of study selection for meta-analysis of babesiosis in bovine is shown in Figure 1.

Table 1.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria used in the study.

Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria
Studies included specified for the taken diseases, i.e. babesiosis. Studies other than the mentioned diseases
Studies included only about bovines Studies other than bovines
Studies specified to India only Study radius outside India
Studies which were having a definite sample size Studies having an indefinite or inadequate sample size
Random sampling Purposive sampling or non-random sampling if tried
Publication Years (1990-2019) Studies other than the said period
Studies depicted only the prevalence of the diseases of interest which were naturally occurred in an area or state in a given period. Experimental studies or the studies where experimentally causing the disease to conduct clinical trials.
Open in a new tab

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Flow diagram of study selection for meta-analysis of babesiosis in bovine in India respectively, and the outliers can be differentiated.

The prevalence of babesiosis in cattle and buffaloes was calculated using meta-analysis tools using R-software, with 48 published studies across India from 1990 to 2019 after screening and quality assessments. These again were subdivided into cattle and buffalo separately and subsequently 48 and 13 studies were included, respectively. The list of studies included in the meta-analysis of babesiosis is given in Table 2.

Table 2.

Details of studies included in the meta-analysis of babesiosis.

Sl. no. Author Year State Diagnostic test used
1. Chandra and Rajkhowa,1990 1990 Meghalaya Microscopic (blood smear)
2. Ansar Kamran et al. 1991 1991 Karnataka Microscopic (blood smear)
3. Shastri et al. 1991 1991 Maharashtra Microscopic (blood smear)
4 Jithendran 1997 1997 Himachal Pradesh Microscopic (blood smear)
5. Mishra et al. 1998 1998 Uttar Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan Microscopic (blood smear)
6. Sharma et al. 2000 2000 Himachal Pradesh Microscopic (blood smear)
7. Bhikane et al. 2001 2001 Maharashtra Microscopic (blood smear)
8. Ravindran et al. 2002 2002 Kerala Serological (IFAT)
9. Agrawal et al. 2003 2003 Chhattisgarh Microscopic (blood smear)
10. Garg et al. 2004 2004 Uttarakhand Microscopic (blood smear)
11. Saud et al. 2005 2005 Arunachal Pradesh Microscopic (blood smear)
12. Aulakh et al. 2005 2005 Punjab Microscopic (blood smear)
13. Julie et al. 2005 2005 Kerala Microscopic (blood smear)
14. Muraleedharan et al. 2005 2005 Karnataka Microscopic (blood smear)
15. Harish et al. 2006 2006 Karnataka Microscopic (blood smear)
16. Singh et al. 2007a 2007 Uttar Pradesh Serological (IFAT)
17. Singh et al. 2007b 2007 Uttar Pradesh Molecular (PCR)
18. Ananda et al. 2009 2009 Karnataka Microscopic (blood smear)
19. Nair et al. 2011 2011 Kerala Molecular (PCR)
20. Rejitha and Devada 2011 2011 Kerala Serological (IFAT)
21. Singh et al. 2012 2012 Punjab Microscopic (blood smear)
22. Jyothisree et al. 2013 2013 Andhra Pradesh Molecular (PCR)
23. Singh et al. 2013 2013 Punjab Molecular (PCR)
24. Sharma et al. 2013 2013 Punjab Molecular (PCR)
25. Chaudhri et al. 2013 2013 Haryana Microscopic (blood smear)
26. Saravanan et al. 2013 2013 Arunachal Pradesh Molecular (PCR)
27. Ananda et al. 2014 2014 Karnataka Microscopic (blood smear)
28. Krishnamurthy et al. 2014 2014 Karnataka Microscopic (blood smear)
29. Velusamy et al. 2014 2014 Tamil Nadu Microscopic (blood smear)
30. Ananda et al. 2014 2014 Karnataka Microscopic (blood smear)
31. Kakati et al. 2015 2015 Assam Microscopic (blood smear)
32. Bhatnagar et al. 2015 2015 Rajasthan Microscopic (blood smear)
33. Sharma et al. 2016 2016 Punjab Molecular (PCR)
34. Kumar et al. 2016 2016 Gujarat Microscopic (blood smear)
35. Bal et al. 2016 2016 Punjab Microscopic (blood smear)
36. Maharana et al. 2016 2016 Gujarat Microscopic (blood smear)
37. Kaur et al. 2016 2016 Punjab Serological (Indirect ELISA)
38. Ganguly et al. 2017 2017 Haryana Microscopic (blood smear) examination
39. Bhat et al. 2017 2017 Punjab Molecular (PCR)
40. Kolte et al. 2017 2017 Maharashtra Molecular (PCR)
41. Vijayakumar et al. 2017 2017 Karnataka Molecular (PCR)
42. Ponnudurai et al. 2017 2017 Tamil Nadu Microscopic (blood smear)
43. Nimisha et al. 2017 2017 Kerala Microscopic (blood smear)
44. Kumar et al. 2018 2018 Bihar Molecular (PCR)
45. Barman et al. 2018 2018 Assam Microscopic (blood smear)
46. Gaurav et al. 2018 2018 Uttarakhand Microscopic (blood smear)
47. Maharana et al. 2018 2018 Haryana Molecular (PCR)
48. Durairajan and Murugan 2019 2019 Tamil Nadu Microscopic (blood smear)
Open in a new tab

3. Results

3.1. Meta-analysis in cattle

Among the selected 48 published references, 56,748 cattle were considered for meta-analysis. Following the quality assessment, the pooled prevalence was found to be 11.9% (95% CI; 6.9; 19.8) with a significant Q statistics value (Q = 5060.2, d.f. = 47, P < 0.001). Variability between the studies was 4.3284 (tau-square), and the measure of heterogeneity was 99.5% (I2 Index). The forest plot (Figure 2) represents the proportion of cattle affected by babesiosis per individual studies and the overall pooled estimate of the prevalence of the disease.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Forest plot showing studies reporting the prevalence of babesiosis in cattle in India.

3.2. Meta-analysis in buffaloes

From 13 published literature, 5370 cattle were included for the following meta-analysis, after the quality assessment and the pooled prevalence was found 6.0% (95% CI; 2.6; 13.2) with significant Q value (Q = 500.55, d.f.=12, P < 0.001), which stated that there was significant heterogeneity in between the 13 published studies. Variability between the studies was 2.3154 (tau-square), and the measure of heterogeneity was 97.1% (I2 Index). The forest plot (Figure 3) represents the proportion of buffalo affected by babesiosis per individual studies and the overall pooled estimate of the prevalence of the disease.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Forest plot showing studies reporting the prevalence of babesiosis in buffaloes in India.

3.3. Meta-analysis in bovines

From 47 published literature, 58,299 cattle were included for the following meta-analysis, after the quality assessment and pooled prevalence were found 10.9% (95% CI; 6.3; 18.2) whereas Q statistics were found significant (Q = 5132.03, d.f. = 46, P < 0.001). Variability between the studies was 2.0519 (tau-square) whereas the measure of heterogeneity was 99.6% (I2 Index). The forest plot (Figure 4) represents the proportion of bovines affected by babesiosis per individual studies and the overall pooled estimate of the prevalence of the disease.

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Open in a new tab

Forest plot showing studies reporting the prevalence of babesiosis in bovines in India.

3.4. Identification of publication bias in meta-analysis of the prevalence of babesiosis

Funnel plot techniques were used to identify the publication bias among the studies where the proportion of each study was plotted on the horizontal axis, while the standard error was on the vertical one. Figures 5, 6, and 7 show the funnel plots for studies taken for babesiosis in cattle, buffaloes, and bovine, respectively, where only a few studies were inside the funnel. In contrast, most of the studies were scattered outside of it, which implied significant publication bias. In addition, the studies are distributed scattered throughout the graph, which implies they have different standard errors.

Figure 5.

Figure 5.

Open in a new tab

Funnel plot for identification of publication bias in meta-analysis of the prevalence of babesiosis among cattle.

Figure 6.

Figure 6.

Open in a new tab

Funnel plot for identification of publication bias in meta-analysis of the prevalence of babesiosis among buffaloes.

Figure 7.

Figure 7.

Open in a new tab

Funnel plot for identification of publication bias in meta-analysis of the prevalence of babesiosis among bovine.

4. Discussion

The present meta-analysis was performed to review prevalence of babesiosis in cattle, buffaloes and bovine in last 30 years in order to consider maximum number of studies for better conclusions.

Meta-analysis of the prevalence of babesiosis in cattle cited the pooled prevalence was 11.9% (6.9%–19.8%) which was related to the studies done by Ananda et al. (2009), who claimed the prevalence of babesiosis in cattle was about 12.1%. On the other hand, the meta-analysis in terms of buffaloes resulted that the pooled prevalence was 6.0% (2.6%–13.2%) which was found similar to the findings of Agrawal et al. (2003), who stated the prevalence was 7.4% along with other authors like Mishra et al. (1998); Sharma et al. (2013); Krishnamurthy et al. (2014) and Sharma et al. (2016) who also found similar results on the prevalence of babesiosis in buffaloes were 7.4%, 8%, 4.7%, and 7.9% respectively.

Meta-analysis of Babesiosis in bovines resulted in the pooled prevalence estimated as 10.9% (6.3%–18.2%), which was in accordance with Krishnamurthy et al. (2014), who stated that the prevalence of babesiosis in bovines was 10.3% along with the findings of authors, Jithendran (1997), Agrawal et al. (2003), Ananda et al. (2009), Ananda et al. (2014), and Sharma et al. (2016) who stated that the prevalence was 9.8%, 12.9%, 12.1%, 10.2%, and 8.5% respectively.

Meta-analysis of risk of babesiosis in cattle with respect to buffaloes was studied, which showed that cattle were having higher risk of babesiosis than buffalo. Similar findings were observed in many studies reported in India (Agrawal et al. 2003; Aulakh et al. 2005; Muraleedharan et al. 2005; Krishnamurthy et al. 2014; Kaur et al. 2016; Maharana et al. 2016).

5. Conclusion

The systematic review and meta-analysis analysed 47 studies among bovine, 48 studies among cattle, and 13 studies among buffaloes to estimate the prevalence of Babesiosis in India. The findings indicate a pooled prevalence of 10.9% (6.3%–18.2%), 11.9% (6.9%–19.8%), and 6.0% (2.6%–13.2%) in bovine, cattle and buffaloes, respectively. The climatic conditions, topography of the country enhance the growth and transmission of the vector, ultimately affecting the occurrence of the disease. The findings from the meta-analysis showed that the disease is prevalent across the country, and the bovines are highly affected by it. So, to mitigate the disease, appropriate prevention and control measures should be taken to safeguard bovine health and enhance production.

Acknowledgments

The authors are highly thankful to the Director, ICAR-Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar.

Funding Statement

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support was received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Disclosure statement

All authors declare that there exist no commercial or financial relationships that could, in any way, lead to a potential conflict of interest.

Availability of data and material

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Agrawal R, Singh R, Kumar M, Upadhaya AK.. 2003. Epidemiological features of bovine trypanosomiasis and babesiosis in Durg district of Chattisgarh state. Indian Vet J. 80:314–317. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ananda KJ, D’Souza PF, Puttalakahmamma GC.. 2009. Prevalence of Haemoprotozoan diseases in cross-bred cattle in Bangalore north. Vet World. 2(1):15–16. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ananda KJ, Ganganaik S, Kavitha RB.. 2014. Epidemiological studies on haemoprotozoan diseases in bovines in and around Shimoga: a malnad region of Karnataka. Indian Vet J. 91:29–31. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ansar Kamran C. 1991. Observations on certain immunological and haematological studies influencing pathogenesis of bovine babesiosis [MVSc thesis]. Bangalore: University of Agricultural Sciences. [Google Scholar]
  5. Aulakh GS, Singla LD, Kaur P, Alka A.. 2005. Bovine babesiosis due to Babesiosis bigemina: haematochemical and therapeutic studies. Indian J Anim Sci. 75(6):617–624. [Google Scholar]
  6. Babes V. 1888. Sur l’hémoglobinuriebactérienne du boeuf. C R Acad Sci. 107:692–694. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bal MS, Mahajan V, Filia G, Kaur P, Singh A.. 2016. Diagnosis and management of bovine babesiosis outbreaks in cattle in Punjab state. Vet World. 9(12):1370–1374. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Barman U, Baishya BC, Devi P, Goswami S, Borah P.. 2018. Subclinical babesiosis in a cow and its therapeutic management. Int J Chem Stud. 6(3):1646–1647. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bhat SA, Singh SK, Singh H, Rath SS.. 2017. Molecular Prevalence of Babesia bigemina in Rhipicephalus microplus ticks infesting cross-bred cattle of Punjab, India. Parasite Epidemiol Control. 2(3):85–90. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bhatnagar CS, Bhardawaj B, Sharma DK, Meena S.. 2015. Incidence of Haemoprotozoan diseases in Cattle in Southern Rajasthan, India. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 4(3):509–514. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bhikane AU, Naraladkar BW, Anantwar LG, Bhokare AP.. 2001. Epidemiology, clinico-pathology and treatment of babesiosis in cattle. Indian Vet J. 78:726–729. [Google Scholar]
  12. Chaudhri SS, Bisla RS, Bhanot V, Singh H.. 2013. Prevalence of Haemoprotozoan infections in pyretic dairy animals of eastern Haryana. Indian J Anim Res. 47(4):344–347. [Google Scholar]
  13. Dhama K, Chakraborty S, Tiwari R, Verma AK, Saminathan M, Amarpal Malik YS, Nikousefat Z, Javdani M, Khan RU.. 2014. A concept paper on novel technologies boosting production and safeguarding health of humans and animals. Res Opin Anim Vet Sci. 4:353–370. [Google Scholar]
  14. Durairajan R, Murugan M.. 2019. Incidence of Babesiosis in non descript and crossbred dairy cattle in Kancheepuram District. Indian Vet J. 96(08):78–79. [Google Scholar]
  15. Ganguly A, Bisla RS, Ganguly I, Singh H, Bharat V, Chaudhury SS.. 2017. Direct blood PCR detection of Babesia bigemina and its effect on haematological and biochemical profile in cross-bred cattle of eastern Haryana. Indian J Anim Res. 51(1):141–145. [Google Scholar]
  16. Garg R, Banerjee PS, Yadav CC, Garg A.. 2004. Sub-clinical babesiasis and anaplasmosis in cross-bred cattle in an organized farm. J Vet Parasitol. 18(2):151–153. [Google Scholar]
  17. Gaurav A, Jana C, Upadhyay D, Dangi SS, Sharma AK, Gautam S.. 2018. A retrospective study to disease prevalence in domestic animals of hill region. Indian J Anim Sci. 88(3):276–280. [Google Scholar]
  18. Gohil S, Herrmann S, Günther S, Cooke BM.. 2013. Bovine babesiosis in the 21st century: advances in biology and functional genomics. Int J Parasitol. 43(2):125–132. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Harish BR, Chandra Nail BM, Ranukaprasad C, Jaya Kumar SR, Krishnappa G.. 2006. Incidence of haemoprotozoan diseases in Karnataka. Indian J Vet Med. 26:30–31. [Google Scholar]
  20. He L, Bastos RG, Sun Y, Hua G, Guan G, Zhao J, Suarez CE.. 2021. Babesiosis as a potential threat for bovine production in China. Parasit Vectors. 14(1):460. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Jacob SS, Sengupta PP, Paramanandham K, Suresh KP, Chamuah JK, Rudramurthy GR, Roy P.. 2020. Bovine babesiosis: an insight into the global perspective on the disease distribution by systematic review and meta-analysis. Vet Parasitol. 283:109136. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Jithendran KP. 1997. Blood protista of cattle and buffaloes in Kangra valley, Himachal Pradesh. Indian J Anim Sci. 67(3):207–208. [Google Scholar]
  23. Julie B, Harikrishnan VS, Baby PG.. 2005. Mixed haemoprotozoan infections in calves. Indian Vet J. 82:543–544. [Google Scholar]
  24. Jyothisree C, Naik S, Samatha V.. 2013. A study on prevalence and clinico-therapeutic management of babesiosis in H.F. crossbred cattle in Anantapur district of Andhra Pradesh. Int J Food Agric Vet Sci. 3:88–91. [Google Scholar]
  25. Kakati P, Sarmah PC, Ray D, Bhattacharjee K, Sharma RK, Barkalita LM, Sarma DK, Baishya BL, Borah P, Stanley B.. 2015. Emergency of Oriental theileriasis in cattle and its transmission through Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus in Assam. Vet World. 8(9):1099–1104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Kaur P, Juyal PD, Sharma A, Bal MS, Singla LD.. 2016. Seroprevalence of Babesia bigemina in dairy animals from low lying regions of Punjab, India. Indian J Anim Res. 50(3):406–410. [Google Scholar]
  27. Kolte SW, Stephan D, Larcombe S, Jadhab G, Magur SP, Warthi G, Kurkure NV, Glan EJ, Shiels BR.. 2017. PCR diagnosis of tick-borne pathogens in Maharashtra state, Indian indicate fitness cost associated with carrier infections is greater for cross-bred than native cattle breed. PLoS One. 12(3):e0174595. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Krishnamurthy CM, Ananda KJ, Adeppa J.. 2014. Prevalence of haemaprotozoan infections in bovines of Shimoga Region of Karnataka State. J Parasit Dis. 40(3):890–892. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Kumar B, Maharana BR, Prasad A, Joseph JP, Patel B, Patel JS.. 2016. Seasonal incidence of parasitic diseases in bovines of south western Gujarat (Junagadh), India. J Parasit Dis. 40(4):1342–1346. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kumar B, Mondal DB, Jithin MV.. 2018. Prevalence of babesiosis in cattle in Patna region, India. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci Special Issue. 7:5167–5174. [Google Scholar]
  31. Laha R, Das M, Goswami A, Singh P.. 2012. Losses of milk production due to Babesia bigemina infection in a cross bred cow: a case study. J Protozool Res. 22:6–9. [Google Scholar]
  32. Lakshmi Rani N, Sreedevi C, Annapurna P, Kumar KA.. 2010. Clinical management and haemato-biochemical changes in babesiosis in buffaloes. Buffalo Bull. 29(2):92–94. [Google Scholar]
  33. Maharana BR, Kumar B, Prasad A, Patbandha TK, Sudrakar NR, Joseph JP, Patel BR.. 2016. Prevalence and assessment of risk factors for haemoprotozoan infections in cattle and buffaloes of South-West Gujarat, India. Indian J Anim Res. 50(5):733–739. [Google Scholar]
  34. Maharana BR, Ganguly A, Bisla RS, Kumar A, Pottiya S, Arora D.. 2018. Development of a duplex PCR assay for simultaneous detection of Babesia bigemina and Theileria annulata infection in cattle. Indian J Anim Res. 88(4):402–406. [Google Scholar]
  35. Mishra AK, Reddy GGB, Rao JR, Tewari, A. K.. 1998. Detection of Babesia bigemina antibodies by Dot-ELISA in cattle and buffaloes. Acta Parasitol. 43:43–45. [Google Scholar]
  36. Muraleedharan K, Ziauddin KS, Hussain PM, Pattabyatappa B, Mallikarjun GB, Seshadri SJ.. 2005. Incidence of Anaplasma sp., Babesia sp. and Trypanosoma sp. in cattle of Karnataka. J Vet Parasitol. 19(2):135–137. [Google Scholar]
  37. Nair AS, Ravindran R, Lakshmanan B, Kumar SS, Tresamol PV, Sasundranath MR, Senthilvel K, Rao JR, Tiwari AK, Ghosh S.. 2011. Haemoprotozoan of cattle in Northern Kerala, India. Tropic Biomed. 28(1):68–75. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Nimisha M, Pradeep RK, Kurbet PS, Amrutha BM, Varghese A, Deepa CK, Priya MN, Lakshmanan B, Ajith Kumar KG, Ravindran R.. 2017. Parasitic diseases of domestic and wild animals in Northern Kerala: a retrospective study based on clinical samples. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci. 6(11):2381–2392. [Google Scholar]
  39. Perry B, Grace D.. 2009. The impacts of livestock diseases and their control on growth and development processes that are pro-poor. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 364(1530):2643–2655. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Ponnudurai G, Larcombe S, Velusamy R, Rani N, Kotte SM, Rubinibala B, Alagensan A, Rekha B, Brian S.. 2017. Prevalence of tick-borne pathogens in co-grazed dairy bovine differs by region and host-type in Tamil Nadu, India. J Adv Dairy Res. 5(2):177. [Google Scholar]
  41. Rani NL, Sreedevi C, Annapurna P, Kumar KA.. 2010. Clinical management and haematolo-biochemical changes in babesiasis in buffaloes. Buffalo Bull. 29(2):92–94. [Google Scholar]
  42. Ravindran R, Mishra AK, Rao JR.. 2002. On the high seroprovalence of bovine babesiosis in Wayanad district of Kerala. J Appl Anim Res. 22:43–48. [Google Scholar]
  43. Rejitha TS, Devada K.. 2011. Suitability of IFAT for diagnosis of babesiosis in cattle. Indian Vet J. 88:22–23. [Google Scholar]
  44. Saravanan BC, Das S, Siju SJ, Tewari AK, Sankar M, Kataktalware MA, Ramesha KP.. 2013. Babesia bigemina infection in yak (Poephagus grunniens L.): molecular detection and characterization. Vet Parasitol. 194(1):59–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Saud N, Ahmed FA, Sheikh IU, Bhattacharya M.. 2005. Prevalence of bovine babesiosis in Dirang V alley of Arunachal Pradesh. Indian Vet J. 82:1011–1012. [Google Scholar]
  46. Sharma A, Singla LD, Tuli A, Kaur P, Batth BK, Javed M, Juyal PD.. 2013. Molecular prevalence of Babesia bigemina and Trypanosoma evansi in dairy animals from Punjab, India, by duplex PCR: a step forward to the detection and management of concurrent latent infections. Biomed Res Int. 2013:893862. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Sharma A, Singla LD, Tuli A, Bath BK, Kaur P, Singh H, Jyoti Haque M, Singh NK, Rath SS.. 2016. Clinico-biochemical alterations associated with subclinical babesiosis in dairy animals. J Arthropod Borne Dis. 10(2):259–267. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Sharma AK, Katoch RC, Nagal KB, Kishtwaria RS, Sharma SK.. 2000. Bovine babesiosis in Palam valley of Himachal Paradesh. Indian Vet J. 77:731–732. [Google Scholar]
  49. Shastri U, Degloorkar N, Kulkarni G.. 1991. Bovine babesiosis due to Babesia bovis at Parbhani (Maharashtra), India. J Vet Parasitol. 5:29–34. [Google Scholar]
  50. Singh H, Mishra AK, Rao JR, Cheema PS, Sankar M.. 2007a. Polymerase chain reaction for diagnosis of Babesia bigemina. India Vet J. 84:346–348. [Google Scholar]
  51. Singh H, Mishra AK, Rao JR, Tewari AK.. 2007b. Seroprevalence of babesiosis in cattle and buffaloes by indirect fluorescent antibody test. J Vet Parasitol. 21(1):1–4. [Google Scholar]
  52. Singh H, HaqueJyoti M, Singh NK, Rath SS.. 2013. PCR based detection of subclinical bovine babesiosis in Punjab. Indian J Anim Res. 47(6):543–546. [Google Scholar]
  53. Singh NK, Singh H, Jyoti, Haque M, Rath SS.. 2012. Prevalence of parasitic infections in cattle of Ludhiana district, Punjab. J Parasit Dis. 36(2):256–259. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Suarez CE, Noh S.. 2011. Emerging perspectives in the research of bovine babesiosis and anaplasmosis. Vet Parasitol. 180(1–2):109–125. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Velusamy R, Rani N, Ponnudurai T, Harikrishnan TJ, Anna T, Arunachalam K, Senthilvel K, Anbarasi P.. 2014. Influence of Season, age and breed on prevalence of haemoprotozoan diseases in cattle of Tamil Nadu, India. Vet World. 7(8):574–578. [Google Scholar]
  56. Vijayakumar KU, Puttalakshmamma GC, D’souza PE, Sengupta PP, Chandranaik BM, Renukaprasad C.. 2017. Parasitological and molecular detection of bovine babesiosis in endemic areas of Karnataka state. Indian J Anim Res. 87(4):422–426. [Google Scholar]
  57. Zaugg JL. 2009. Babesiosis. In: Smith BP, editor. Large animal internal medicine. St. Louis: Mosby, Elsevier. p. 1157. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Articles from The Veterinary Quarterly are provided here courtesy of Taylor & Francis

RESOURCES