Epidemiology and Control of Neosporosis and Neospora caninum

J P Dubey; G Schares; L M Ortega-Mora

doi:10.1128/CMR.00031-06

. 2007 Apr;20(2):323–367. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00031-06

Epidemiology and Control of Neosporosis and Neospora caninum

J P Dubey ^1,^*, G Schares ², L M Ortega-Mora ³

PMCID: PMC1865591 PMID: 17428888

Abstract

Neospora caninum is a protozoan parasite of animals. Until 1988, it was misidentified as Toxoplasma gondii. Since its first recognition in dogs in 1984 and the description of the new genus and species Neospora caninum in 1988, neosporosis has emerged as a serious disease of cattle and dogs worldwide. Abortions and neonatal mortality are a major problem in livestock operations, and neosporosis is a major cause of abortion in cattle. Although antibodies to N. caninum have been reported, the parasite has not been detected in human tissues. Thus, the zoonotic potential is uncertain. This review is focused mainly on the epidemiology and control of neosporosis in cattle, but worldwide seroprevalences of N. caninum in animals and humans are tabulated. The role of wildlife in the life cycle of N. caninum and strategies for the control of neosporosis in cattle are discussed.

INTRODUCTION

Neospora caninum is a protozoan parasite of animals. Until 1988, it was misdiagnosed as Toxoplasma gondii (138). Since its first recognition in 1984 in dogs in Norway (52) and the description of the new genus and species Neospora caninum by Dubey et al. (138), neosporosis has emerged as a serious disease of cattle and dogs worldwide. Abortions and neonatal mortality are a major problem in livestock operations, and neosporosis is a major cause of abortion in cattle. We have previously reviewed the general biology of N. caninum (130) and the pathogenesis and diagnosis of neosporosis in cattle (128, 133, 135, 158, 328). Although antibodies to N. caninum have been reported (275, 440), the parasite has not been demonstrated in human tissues. Thus, the zoonotic potential is uncertain. This review is focused on the epidemiology and control of neosporosis in cattle.

LIFE CYCLE

N. caninum is a coccidian parasite with a wide host range. In general, it is very similar in structure and life cycle to T. gondii, with two important differences: (i) neosporosis is primarily a disease of cattle, and dogs and related canids are definitive hosts of N. caninum, whereas (ii) toxoplasmosis is primarily a disease of humans, sheep, and goats, and felids are the only definitive hosts of T. gondii.

The life cycle is typified by the three known infectious stages: tachyzoites, tissue cysts, and oocysts (Fig. 1 and 2). Tachyzoites and tissue cysts are the stages found in intermediate hosts, and they occur intracellularly (152). Tachyzoites are approximately 6 by 2 μm (Fig. 2). Tissue cysts are often round or oval in shape, up to 107 μm long, and are found primarily in the central nervous system. The tissue cyst wall is up to 4 μm thick, and the enclosed bradyzoites are 7 to 8 by 2 μm. Extraneural tissues, especially muscles, may contain tissue cysts (155, 348).

FIG. 2. — Life cycle stages of *Neospora caninum*. (A) Impression smear of the liver of an experimentally infected mouse depicting numerous tachyzoites (Giemsa stain). Notice that the tachyzoites vary in dimension, depending on the stage of division: (a) a slender tachyzoite, (b) a tachyzoite before division, and (c) three dividing tachyzoites compared with the size of a red blood cell (arrow). (B) Histological section of a tissue cyst inside a neuron in the spinal cord of a congenitally infected calf (hematoxylin and eosin stain). Note the thick cyst wall (opposing arrowheads) enclosing slender bradyzoites (open triangle). The host cell nucleus (arrow) is cut at an angle. (C) Unsporulated oocyst (arrow) with a central undivided mass in the feces of a dog (unstained). Bar, 10 μm. (D) Sporulated oocyst (arrow) with two internal sporocysts (unstained). Bar, 10 μm.

The environmentally resistant stage of the parasite, the oocyst, is excreted in the feces of dogs and coyotes in an unsporulated stage (188, 270, 294). Oocysts sporulate outside the host in as few as 24 h (270). Nothing is known about the survival of N. caninum oocysts in the environment. Because of its close relationship with T. gondii, it is assumed that the environmental resistance of N. caninum oocysts is similar to that of T. gondii oocysts (131).

All three infectious stages of N. caninum (tachyzoites, bradyzoites, and oocysts) are involved in the transmission of the parasite. Carnivores probably become infected by ingesting tissues containing bradyzoites, and herbivores probably become infected by the ingestion of food or drinking water contaminated by N. caninum sporulated oocysts. Transplacental infection can occur when tachyzoites are transmitted from an infected dam to her fetus during pregnancy.

HOST RANGE AND GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION

In order to understand the epidemiology of N. caninum, it is important to identify its host range and geographic distribution. Unlike T. gondii, viable N. caninum is difficult to isolate. Additionally, another species, Neospora hughesi, has been described as being isolated from horses (292). Therefore, we have made an attempt to identify different hosts of N. caninum.

Hosts Proven by Isolation of Viable N. caninum by Bioassays with Animals, Cell Culture, or Both

Viable N. caninum has been isolated from cattle, sheep, dogs, white-tailed deer, and water buffaloes (Table 1). Most of these isolates were from clinically affected animals and from neonatally infected animals, except for the isolates from buffaloes, sheep, and deer, which were from adult asymptomatic animals. Isolation of viable N. caninum has been achieved with a variety of cell cultures and by bioassays of immunosuppressed mice, gerbils, and dogs (135). Isolation in cell culture is limited by the necessity of having materials not contaminated with other microbes, and not all isolates can be adapted to grow in cell culture (457). Bioassays of immunosuppressed mice are expensive because outbred mice are not useful for propagating N. caninum. Isolation of N. caninum by feeding infected tissues to dogs and then examining canine feces for oocysts has the advantage that larger volumes of material can be fed to dogs than can ever be tested with cell culture or rodents. However, the identification of N. caninum in the feces of dogs should be based on the recovery of viable tachyzoites in cell culture or rodents inoculated with oocysts because of the existence of other N. caninum-like parasites in canine feces (403).

TABLE 1.

Intermediate and definitive host ranges and distributions of N. caninum or N. hughesi proven by isolation of the parasite

Host	Location	Tissue/origin	No. of isolates^a	Reference(s)
Intermediate hosts
Cow (Bos taurus)	Australia	Brain and spinal cord of a neonatal calf	1	305
	Brazil	Brains of a fetus and a 3-month-old calf	2	278, 279
	Italy	Brain of a 45-day-old calf	1	287, 288
	Japan	Brains and spinal cords of neonatal calves	5	490, 491
	Korea	Brains of a fetus and a neonatal calf	2	241, 242
	Malaysia	Brain of a neonatal calf	1	79
	New Zealand	Brains of neonatal calves	2	322
	Portugal	Brain of a fetus	1	67
		Spain	Brain of a fetus	1	68
		Sweden	Brain of a neonatal calf	1	421
		United Kingdom	Brains of a fetus and a neonatal calf	2	108, 441
		United States	Brains of fetuses and neonatal calves	8	86, 187, 291, 294, 296, 297
		The Netherlands	Placenta	3^*	120
		Italy	Brain of an 8-month-old calf	1	172
		Japan	Brain of an adult cow	1	390
		New Zealand	Brain of an adult cow	1	322
Sheep (Ovis ovis)	Brazil	4-month-old sheep	1	342a
Sheep (Ovis ovis)	Japan	Adult ewe	1	253
Water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis)	Brazil	Adult buffalo	5	373
Horse (Equus caballus)	United States	Neural tissue of adult horse	3^†	78, 150, 292
White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)	Virginia	Brain of adult deer	3	457
White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)	Illinois	Brain of adult deer	1^‡	189
Dog (Canis familiaris)	Germany	Congenitally infected pup; neural tissue	1	347
	United Kingdom	Congenitally infected pup; neural tissue	1	28
	United States	Congenitally infected pups; neural tissue	10	101, 139, 144, 155, 208, 292
	Australia	Adult dog; skin	1	300
	Brazil	Adult dog; brain	1	186
Definitive host
Dog (Canis familiaris)	Argentina	Feces	1^§	44
	Germany	Feces	5^§	403

Open in a new tab

Symbols:

oocyst isolates (see Table 9)

^†

Neospora hughesi

^‡

oocysts obtained in feces of dogs fed brains of infected deer but viable parasite not obtained in cell culture or mice

^§

oocysts seen

Hosts with N. caninum-like Parasites Demonstrated by Immunohistochemical (IHC) Staining of Parasites by Specific Antibodies, by N. caninum DNA, or by Both but Not by Isolation of Viable Parasites

N. caninum was demonstrated histologically in a few clinically affected deer, a raccoon, a rhinoceros, and goats, and DNA was found in a few animals (Table 2). We stress that finding DNA is not synonymous with finding viable N. caninum. Attempts to isolate viable N. caninum from rodent tissues that had demonstrable DNA were unsuccessful (235).

TABLE 2.

Host range and distribution of N. caninum demonstrated by IHC or DNA but not by isolation in noncanine, nonbovine domestic animals

Host	Location	Remarks	Reference
Red fox (Vulpes vulpes)	Catalonia, Spain	DNA detected in 10.7% of 122 fox brains	6
Red fox (Vulpes vulpes)	Czech Republic	DNA detected in 4.6% of 152 fox brains	226
Raccoon (Procyon lotor)	United States	DNA- and IHC-positive brain of 1 raccoon	262
Antelope (Tragelaphus imberbis)	Germany	Three full-term dead calves; fetal antibody and lesions in all 3, DNA in tissues of 1; IHC negative	349
Black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus)	United States	Tachyzoites found in lung and kidney of a 2-mo-old fawn; IHC-positive tachyzoites	482
Eld's deer (Cervus eldi siamensis)	France Zoological Park, Paris	IHC-positive parasites in the brain of a stillborn	142
Fallow deer (Dama dama)	Switzerland captive group	IHC-positive and PCR-positive parasites in central nervous system of a 3-wk-old calf	417
Llama (Lama glama)	Peru	IHC- and PCR-positive brain in 1 of 9 fetuses	409
Alpaca (Vicugna pacos)	Peru	IHC- and PCR-positive brain in 2 of 6 fetuses	409
Rat (Rattus norvegicus)	United Kingdom	DNA detected in 4.4% of 45 rats from sheep farms	223
	Taiwan	DNA detected in brains of 2 of 55 seropositive rats; parasite detected by bioassay in mice	222
	Grenada, West Indies	DNA detected in brains of 30% of 238 rats	235
Mouse (Mus musculus)	United Kingdom	DNA detected in brains of 3% of 100 mice from sheep farms	223
Mouse (Mus musculus)	United States	DNA detected in brains of 10% of 105 mice from Maryland	235
Rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum)	South Africa	Tachyzoites found in sections of a 16-day-old calf that died suddenly; IHC positive	479
Goat (Capra hircus)	Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil	IHC-positive brain of a 3-day-old dairy goat	91
	Costa Rica	IHC-positive aborted dairy goat fetus	143
	Perugia, Italy	Histology positive, PCR positive	161
	California	IHC-positive brain from 2 aborted pygmy goat fetuses	34
	Pennsylvania	IHC-positive brain from 1 stillborn pygmy goat	141

Open in a new tab

Serologic Prevalence of N. caninum Antibodies in Animals and Humans

Worldwide seroprevalences of N. caninum in dogs (Table 3), dairy cattle (Table 4), beef cattle (Table 5), other domestic animals (Table 6), wildlife and zoo animals (Table 7), and humans (Table 8) are summarized. Although these results are not comparable because of different serologic methods and different cutoff values used, they do provide evidence that many species of mammals have been exposed to this parasite. Many data summarized in Tables 3 to 8 are based on convenience samples obtained for other purposes. Also, the clinical status of the subjects surveyed was not stated, and in many of the reports, the prevalence of N. caninum was consistently higher in rural than in city dogs or pets (Table 3). In a well designed study, seroprevalences were compared in dairy and beef cattle from Germany, The Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden by use of randomized samples and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) that had been previously standardized among laboratories (39, 460). In this study, the seroprevalence in cattle in Sweden was much lower than in neighboring countries and prevalences in beef cattle were lower than in dairy cattle (Tables 4 and 5). As yet, there is no evidence that avian species are natural hosts for N. caninum (183).

TABLE 3.

Prevalence of N. caninum antibodies in dogs

Country	Region	Type	No. tested	% Positive	Test^a	Titer^b	Reference
Argentina	Province of Buenos Aires	Urban	160	26.2	IFAT	1:50	45
		Dairy farm	125	48.0	IFAT	1:50	45
		Beef farm	35	54.2	IFAT	1:50	45
	La Plata	Pet	97	47.4	IFAT	1:50	127
Australia	Melbourne		207	5	IFAT	1:50	29
	Sydney	150	12	IFAT	1:50	29
	Perth	94	14	IFAT	1:50	29
Austria		Rural	433	5.3	IFAT	1:50	470
	Urban	381	2.1	IFAT	1:50	470
	Unknown	956	3.3	IFAT	1:50	470
Belgium		Dairy	56	46.4	ELISA	VMRD	259
				26.8	IFAT	1:100	259
		Clinic	84	18.4	ELISA	VMRD	259
		Asymptomatic		9.7	IFAT	1:100	259
		Sick	71	22.2	ELISA	VMRD	259
				11.3	IFAT	1:100	259
	Antwerp	Random	100	11	IFAT	1:50	30
	Ghent	Clinic	100	11	IFAT	1:50	30
	Ghent	Random	100	12	IFAT	1:50	30
Brazil	Bahia	Pet and street	415	12	IFAT	1:50	236a
	Mato Grosso do Sul	Urban	345	27.2	IFAT	1:50	15
	Mato Grosso do Sul	Pet	245	26.5	IFAT	1:50	117
	Mato Grosso do Sul	Rural	40	30	IFAT	1:100	14
	Maranhão	Street	100	45	IFAT	1:50	427
	Minas Gerais	Urban	300	10.7	IFAT	1:50	164
	Minas Gerais	Periurban	58	18.9	IFAT	1:50	164
	Minas Gerais	Rural	92	21.7	IFAT	1:50	164
	Minas Gerais	Clinical	163	6.7	IFAT	1:50	307
	Minas Gerais	Clinic	275	7.9	ELISA	WT-IH	308
	Minas Gerais	Stray	94	12.8	ELISA	WT-IH	308
	Minas Gerais	Clinic, stray	300	10.7	IFAT	1:25	414
	Paraíba	Domestic	286	8.4	IFAT	1:50	23
	Paraná	Dairy farm	134	21.6	IFAT	1:50	119
	Paraná	Urban, neurological	31	0	IFAT	1:50	184
	Paraná	Sheep farms	24	29.1	IFAT	1:50	374a
	Rondônia	Street	157	8.3	IFAT	1:25	71
	Rondônia	Street	174	12.6	IFAT	1:50	2
	São Paulo	Beef farm	39	58.9	IFAT	1:50	203
	São Paulo	Pet	500	10.0	NAT	1:25	181
	São Paulo	Street	611	25.0	NAT	1:25	181
	São Paulo	Rural and urban	295	8.4	IFAT	1:50	452
	São Paulo	Urban	204	17.6	IFAT	1:50	182a
Chile	IX Region	Rural	81	25.9	IFAT	1:50	341
		Urban	120	12.5	IFAT	1:50	341
		Dairy farm	7	57	IFAT	1:50	341
Czech Republic			80	1.3	ELISA	IH-ISCOM	252
Czech Republic	858	4.9	IFAT	1:50	448
Denmark		Pet	98	15.3	IFAT	1:160	362
Germany		Clinic	200	13	IFAT	1:50	246
Germany	Normal	50	4	IFAT	1:50	246
Falkland Islands			500	0.2	IFAT	1:50	29
France		Dairy farm	22	22.7	IFAT	1:100	354
Hungary		Rural	249	6.0	IFAT	1:80	220
Hungary	Urban	402	1.0	IFAT	1:80	220
Iran		Rural	50	20.0	IFAT	1:50	290
Iran	Urban	50	46.0	IFAT	1:50	290
Italy	Campania	Pet	1,058	6.4	IFAT	50	100
	Campania Parma	Pet	194	28.9	IFAT	1:50	99
	Campania Parma	Pet	282	18.1	IFAT	1:50	254
	Veneto	Kennel and pet	707	10.9	ELISA	VMRD	73
	Southern Italy	Kennel	144	14.6	ELISA	MASTAZYME	334a
	Southern Italy	Farm	162	26.5	ELISA	MASTAZYME	334a
Japan		Urban	198	7.1	IFAT	1:50	389
Japan	Dairy farm	48	31.3	IFAT	1:50	389
Kenya		Rural	140	0	IFAT	1:50	29
Korea		Urban	289	8.3	IFAT	1:50	245
Korea	Dairy farm	51	21.6	IFAT	1:50	245
Mexico	Hidalgo	Farm	27	51	ELISA	IDEXX	385
Mexico	Hidalgo	City	30	20	ELISA	IDEXX	385
The Netherlands		City	344	5.5	ELISA	WT-IH	489
The Netherlands	Farm	152	23.6	ELISA	WT-IH	489
New Zealand		Urban	150	76.0	IFAT	1:50	19
	Dairy farm	161	97.5	IFAT	1:50	19
	Beef/sheep farm	154	100	IFAT	1:50	19
	Farm	200	22	IFAT	1:40	366
Romania	Cluj Napoca	Stray	56	12.5	IFAT	ND	426
Spain	Catalonia	Pet	139	12.2	IFAT	1:50	330
Sweden		Pet	398	0.5	ELISA	IH-ISCOM	53
Switzerland		Pet	1,080	7.3	ELISA	WT-IH	384
Switzerland	Dairy farm	30	20	ELISA	WT-IH	384
Taiwan		Dairy farm	13	23	IFAT	1:50	325
Tanzania		Rural	49	22	IFAT	1:50	29
Thailand		Dairy farm	82	1.2	ELISA	VMRD	256
Turkey	Bursa, Adana	Pet	150	10.0	IFAT	1:50	95
United Kingdom		Pet	104	5.8	IFAT	1:50	260
United Kingdom	Pet	163	16.6	IFAT	1:50	444
United States	Kansas	Pet	229	2	IFAT	1:50	265
United States	35 states	Pet	1,077	7	IFAT	1:50	76
Uruguay			414	20	IFAT	1:50	29

Open in a new tab

NAT, Neospora agglutination test.

WT, whole tachyzoite extract; IH, in house; IDEXX, IDEXX HerdChek Neospora caninum antibody (indirect ELISA, sonicate lysate of tachyzoites; IDEXX Laboratories, The Netherlands); VMRD, Neospora caninum cELISA (competitive ELISA, gp65 surface antigen of tachyzoites; VMRD); IH-ISCOM, detergent-extracted tachyzoite antigen incorporated into immune-stimulating complex particles; MASTAZYME, MASTAZYME NEOSPORA (indirect ELISA, formaldehyde-fixed whole tachyzoites; MAST GROUP, United Kingdom); ND, no data.

TABLE 4.

Serologic prevalence of N. caninum antibodies in dairy cattle

Country	Region	No. of animals (relevant details)	No. of herds	% Positive	Test^a	Titer^b	Reference(s)
Argentina	La Plata	33	3	51.5	IFAT	1:800	455
	La Plata	189 (abortion)	19	64.5	IFAT	1:25	456
		1,048	52	16.6	IFAT	1:200	310, 311
		750 (abortion)	49	43.1	IFAT	1:200	310, 311
Australia	New South Wales	266	1	24	IFAT	1:160	22
Australia	New South Wales	266	1	10.2	ELISA	POURQUIER	200
Belgium		711	52	12.2	IFAT	1:200	112
Brazil	Bahia	447	14	14.0	IFAT	1:200	185
	Goiás	444	11	30.4	IFAT	1:250	304
	Minas Gerais	584	18	18.7	ELISA	IDEXX	114
	Minas Gerais	476	15	12.6	ELISA	IDEXX	115
	Minas Gerais	100	3	46.0	ELISA	IDEXX	115
	Minas Gerais	126	34.4	IFAT	1:25	361
	Minas Gerais	243	2	16.8	ELISA	IH-ISCOM	308a
	Mato Grosso do Sul	23	21.7	IFAT	1:25	361
		Paraná	165 (abortion)	1	42.1	ELISA	IDEXX	276
		Paraná	172	1	34.8	ELISA	IDEXX	277
		Paraná	623	23	14.3	IFAT	1:25	195
		Paraná	75		21.3	IFAT	1:25	361
		Paraná	385	90	12	IFAT	1:200	321a
		Rio Grande do Sul	223 (abortion)		11.2	IFAT	1:200	92
		Rio Grande do Sul	1,549	60	17.8	IFAT	1:200	93
		Rio Grande do Sul	70		18.6	IFAT	1:25	361
		Rio Grande do Sul	781 (dairy and beef)		11.4	ELISA	CHEKIT	459a
		Rio de Janeiro	75		22.7	IFAT	1:25	361
		Rio de Janeiro	563	57	23.2	ELISA	IDEXX	318
		Rondônia	1,011	50	11.2	IFAT	1:25	2
		São Paulo	150		27.3	IFAT	1:25	361
		São Paulo	521		15.9	IFAT	1:200	387
		São Paulo	521		30.5	ELISA	IDEXX	387
		São Paulo	408		35.5	ELISA	IDEXX	388 ^c
Canada	Alberta	2,816	77	18.5	ELISA	IDEXX	406
	Manitoba	1,204	40	8.3	ELISA	IDEXX	451
	New Brunswick	900	30	25.5	ELISA	WT-IHCA	199, 240, 449
	Nova Scotia	900	30	21.3	ELISA	WT-IHCA	199, 240, 449
	Ontario	758	25	6.7	ELISA	WT-IHCA	159
	Ontario	3,412	56	7.0	ELISA	WT-IHCA	98
	Ontario	3,702	82	12.1	ELISA	WT-IHCA	217
	Ontario	3,162	57	10.5	ELISA	WT-IHCA	217
		Ontario	1,704	57	11.2	ELISA	WT-IHCA	217
		Ontario	9,723	125	11.2	ELISA	WT-IHCA	334
		Ontario, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia	3,531	134	12.7	ELISA		439
		Ontario	930	31	8.2	ELISA	BIOVET	199
		Prince Edward Island	900	30	10.4	ELISA	WT-IHCA	199, 240, 449
		Québec	437	11	9.8	ELISA	BIOVET	25
		Québec	2,037	23	21.9	ELISA	BIOVET	47
		Québec	3,059	46	16.6	ELISA	WT-IHCA	339
		Saskatchewan	1,530	51	5.6	ELISA	BIOVET	450
Chile	IX Region	198	1	15.7	IFAT	1:200	340
Chile	IX Region	173	1	30.2	IFAT	1:200	340
Costa Rica		3,002	20	39.7	ELISA	WT-IHCA	376
Costa Rica	2,743	94	43.3	ELISA	WT-IHCA	378
Czech Republic		407 (abortion)	5	3.1	IFAT	1:200	447
Czech Republic	463 (abortion)	137	3.9	ELISA	IDEXX	447
Denmark		1,561	31	22	ELISA, IFAT	IH-ISCOM	236
France	Normandy	575		26	ELISA	IDEXX	247
		1,924	42	5.6	ELISA	IDEXX	248, 333
		895	26	ELISA	IDEXX	353
		1,373	13	10.4	ELISA	IDEXX	353
		1,170	12	11.1	ELISA	IDEXX	354
		2,141	17	ELISA	IDEXX	354
Germany		388 (fecundity problems)	22	4.1	IFAT	1:400	89
	1,357
	100	6.8	ELISA	IDEXX	473
	4,261	1	27	IFAT	1:50	391
			100	1.6	ELISA	IH-p38 (milk samples)	39
Hungary		97 (abortion)		10	ELISA	IH-ISCOM	219
Hungary	518	39	3.3	IFAT	1:100	221
Iran	Mashhad	810 (abortion)	4	15.1	IFAT	1:200	380
Iran	Mashhad	337	30	46	ELISA	IDEXX	364
Ireland		324 (abortion)		12.6	IFAT	1:640	301
Ireland	165 (control)	3.0	IFAT	1:640	301
Italy		5,912 (abortion)		24.4	IFAT	1:640	287
	Parma	820 (abortion)	28.7	IFAT	1:160	165
	Parma	880 (abortion)	85	14	IFAT	1:160	165
	Potenza, Paduna	387	11.4	ELISA	CHEKIT	332
	Italian Apennines	864	81	30.8	ELISA	IDEXX	371
	Southern Italy	350	35	18.8	ELISA	MASTAZYME	334a
Japan		145 (abortion)		20	IFAT	1:200	250
Japan	Nationwide	2,420	5.7	IFAT	1:200	250, 251
Korea	Nine provinces	793	168	20.7	IFAT	1:200	225
		895 (abortion)	30	48.7	IFAT	1:200	225
		492	23.0	ELISA	IgG-IH	24
		852	12.1	ELISA	IH-Ncp43P	3
Mexico	Aguascalientes	187 (abortion)	13	59	ELISA	IDEXX	179
	Coahuila, Chihuahua	813 (abortion)	20	42	ELISA	IDEXX	180
	Hidalgo, Queterado, Jalisco	1,003	50	56	ELISA	WT-IH	315
	Coahuila
	Nuevo Leon
	Tamaulipas	12	185	45	ELISA	WT-IH	302
18		262	40	ELISA	WT-IH	302
11		144	16	ELISA	WT-IH	302
The Netherlands		2,430	18	39.4	ELISA	WT-IH	121
		6,910	108	9.9	ELISA	WT-IH	39
New Zealand		77 (abortion)	1	46.7	IFAT	1:200	430
	97 (abortion)	1	30.7	IFAT	1:200	97
	800	40	7.6	ELISA	WT-IH	366
	194 (abortion)	1	53	ELISA	WT-IH	392
	600 (abortion)	1	50	ELISA	WT-IH	351
	1,199 (abortion)	3	33.6	IFAT	1:200	370
	164 (abortion)	1	10.9	IFAT	1:200	474
Paraguay		297	6	35.7	ELISA	WT-IH	331
People's Republic of China		262	9	17.2	ELISA	CIVTEST	492
Poland		45 (abortion)	6	15.6	ELISA	IDEXX	62
Poland	416	32	9.3	ELISA	IDEXX	475
Portugal		119 (abortion)	1	49	ELISA	IDEXX	429
	114	49	28	NAT	1:40	69
	1,237 (abortion)	36	46	NAT	1:40	69
Russia		391	8	9.9	ELISA		88
Slovakia		105 (abortion)		22.2	ELISA	IDEXX	158a
Spain		889	43	30.6	ELISA	WT-IHCA	289
	1,121	143	36.8	ELISA	WT-IH	359
	237 (abortion)	1	35.4	ELISA	IDEXX	281
	285 (breeder bulls)	11.2	IFAT	1:50	64
	11.2	ELISA	CIVTEST	64
	13.3	ELISA	IDEXX	64
	3,360	291	16.2	ELISA	CIVTEST	39
	2,773	6	15.1	ELISA	CIVTEST	282
			1,970 (abortion)	3	12	ELISA	CIVTEST	283
			1,331	2	26.8	ELISA	CIVTEST	284
Sweden		70 (abortion)	1	63	ELISA	IH-ISCOM	422
Sweden	>1,300	14	5.8-65	ELISA	IH-ISCOM	177
		4,252	112	1.3	ELISA	IH-ISCOM	39
		780		2	ELISA	IH-ISCOM	55
Taiwan		613	25	44.9	IFAT	1:200	325
Thailand	Eleven provinces	904		6	IFAT	1:200	425
	549	59	5.5	ELISA	VMRD	256
	83	16	37.5-70	IFAT	1:100	238
	164	11	15	ELISA	IH-ISCOM	74
Turkey	Ankara	60		10	ELISA	VRMD	255a
	Anatolia	3,287	32	13.9	ELISA	IDEXX	462
	Gebze	97	5.0	ELISA	VMRD	5
	Kars	228 (local)	14	0	ELISA	MASTAZYME	4
	Kars	73 (imported)	3	8.2	ELISA	MASTAZYME	4
	Thrace	274	6	8.0	ELISA	IDEXX	51
	Sakarya	92	9.2	ELISA	VMRD	324
	Sanliurfa	305	7.5	ELISA	VMRD	411
United Kingdom		95 (abortion)	1	60	ELISA	MASTAZYME	103
United Kingdom	4,295	14	17.1	ELISA	MASTAZYME	107
United States	California	176	1	34	IFAT	1:640	335
	California	277	1	43	IFAT	1:640	335
	California	285	2	40.4	ELISA	WT-IHCA	337
	California	254	1	60.6	ELISA	WT-IHCA	338
	Georgia	327	3	32.1	IB	Milk samples	326
	Maryland	1,029	1	28	IFAT	1:200	160
	Five regions	4,907	93 dairy, 5 beef	16	ELISA	IDEXX	374
	Oklahoma	1,000	16	14.7	ELISA	IDEXX	261
		Texas	87	2	10.3	IB	Milk samples	326
Uruguay		155	1	61.3	IFAT	1:200	239
Vietnam		200	>30	5.5	ELISA	IH-ISCOM	224

Open in a new tab

NAT, Neospora agglutination test; IB, immunoblotting.

WT, whole tachyzoite extract; IH, in house; WT-IHCA, kinetic ELISA (336); BIOVET, BIOVET-Neospora caninum, (indirect ELISA, sonicate lysate of tachyzoites; BIOVET Laboratories, Canada); CHEKIT, CHEKIT Neospora (indirect ELISA, detergent lysate of tachyzoites; IDEXX Laboratories, The Netherlands); IDEXX, IDEXX HerdChek Neospora caninum antibody (indirect ELISA, sonicate lysate of tachyzoites; IDEXX Laboratories); MASTAZYME, MASTAZYME NEOSPORA (indirect ELISA, formaldehyde-fixed whole tachyzoites; MAST GROUP, United Kingdom); VMRD, Neospora caninum cELISA (competitive ELISA, gp65 surface antigen of tachyzoites; VMRD); CIVTEST, CIVTEST BOVIS NEOSPORA (indirect ELISA, sonicate lysate of tachyzoites; Laboratorios Hipra S.A., Spain); IH-ISCOM, detergent-extracted tachyzoite antigen incorporated into immune-stimulating complex particles; IH-p38, native immunoaffinity-purified surface antigen NcSRS2; IH-Ncp43P, recombinant NcSRS2; NhSAG1, recombinant NhSAG1.

Summary of other local surveys.

TABLE 5.

Serologic prevalence of N. caninum antibodies in beef cattle

Country	Region	No. of animals (relevant details)	No. of herds	% Positive	Test^a	Titer^b	Reference(s)
Andorra		65	1	9.2	ELISA	CIVTEST	20
Andorra	1,758	26	7.4	ELISA	CIVTEST	20a
Argentina		400	17	4.7	IFAT	1:200	310, 311
	216 (abortion)	39	18.9	IFAT	1:200	310, 311
	305 (bulls)	19	4.9	IFAT	1:200	313
	290 (abortion)	1	20.3	IFAT	1:200	311, 312
Australia	Queensland	1,673	45	14.9	IFAT	1:200	424
Belgium		93		14	IFAT	1:200	113
Brazil	Goiás	456	9	29.6	IFAT	1:250	304
	Mato Grosso do Sul	241	26.1	ELISA	IDEXX	14
	Mato Grosso do Sul	87	29.9	IFAT	1:25	361
	Minas Gerais	36	11.1	IFAT	1:25	361
	Paraná	15	26.7	IFAT	1:25	361
	Rio de Janeiro	75	6.7	IFAT	1:25	361
	Rio Grande do Sul	70	21.4	IFAT	1:25	361
	Rondônia	584	11	9.5	IFAT	1:25	2
		São Paulo	505		20.0	ELISA	IDEXX	388 ^c
		São Paulo	777	8	15.5	IFAT	1:200	202
		São Paulo and Minas Gerais	600		16.8	IFAT	1:200	96
Canada	Alberta	1,806	174	9.0	ELISA	IDEXX	468
	Alberta	1,976 (steers)	4 feed lots	6.5	ELISA	IDEXX	469
	Manitoba	1,425	49	9.1	ELISA	IDEXX	451
	Western Provinces	2,484	200	5.2	ELISA	BIOVET	463
Germany		2,022	106	4.1	ELISA	IH-p38	39
Hungary		545	49	1,8	IFAT	1:100	221
Italy	Potenza, Paduna	385	39	6.0	ELISA	CHEKIT	332
France		219		4.1	ELISA	ND	247
Japan		65		1.5	IFAT	1:200	250
Korea	Nine provinces	438		4.1	IFAT	1:200	243
Mexico	Linares	29	2	10	ELISA	WT-IH	302
Mexico	Pesqueria	30	1	10	ELISA	WT-IH	302
The Netherlands		1,601	82	13.3	ELISA	WT-IH	39
New Zealand		499	40	2.8	ELISA	WT-IH	428
Paraguay		582	5	26.6	ELISA	WT-IH	331
Spain		1,712	216	17.9	ELISA	WT-IH	359
Spain	Galicia	2,407	372	15.8	ELISA	CIVTEST	39
United States	Western states	2,585	55	23	ELISA	VMRD	386
	Texas	1,009	92	12.9	NAT	1:80	31
	Nebraska	208 (abortion)	1	79	ELISA	IH-ISCOM	296
	North Dakota	212	7	5.2	ELISA	IDEXX	240a
Uruguay		4,444	229	13.9	ELISA	WT-IH	26

Open in a new tab

NAT, Neospora agglutination test.

WT, whole tachyzoite extract; IH, in house; BIOVET, BIOVET-Neospora caninum, (indirect ELISA, sonicate lysate of tachyzoites; BIOVET Laboratories, Canada); CHEKIT, CHEKIT Neospora (indirect ELISA, detergent lysate of tachyzoites; IDEXX Laboratories, The Netherlands); IDEXX, IDEXX HerdChek Neospora caninum antibody (indirect ELISA, sonicate lysate of tachyzoites; IDEXX Laboratories); VMRD, Neospora caninum cELISA (competitive ELISA, gp65 surface antigen of tachyzoites; VMRD); CIVTEST, CIVTEST BOVIS NEOSPORA (indirect ELISA, sonicate lysate of tachyzoites; Laboratorios Hipra S.A., Spain); IH-ISCOM, detergent-extracted tachyzoite antigen incorporated into immune-stimulating complex particles; IH-p38, native immunoaffinity-purified surface antigen NcSRS2.

Summary of other local surveys.

TABLE 6.

Prevalence of antibodies to N. caninum in noncanine, nonbovine domestic animals

Host	Location^a	No. examined (relevant details)	% Positive^b	Test^c	Titer^d	Reference
Domestic cat (Felis domesticus)	Brazil	502	11.9	NAT	1:40	151
	Brazil	400	24.5	IFAT	1:16	60
	Italy	282	31.9	NAT	1:40	169
Camel (Camelus dromedarius)	Egypt	161	3.7	NAT	1:40	214
Camel (Camelus dromedarius)	Iran	120	5.8	IFAT	1:20	381
Pig (Sus scrofa)	Germany	2,041 (from 94 farms)	3.3	ELISA	WT-IH	102
	0.04	ELISA/IB*	102
	United Kingdom	454	0	IFAT	1:50	209
Sheep (Ovis ovis)	Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil	62	3.2	ELISA	CHEKIT	459a
	Paraná, Brazil	305	9.5	IFAT	1:50	374a
	São Paulo, Brazil	597	9.2	IFAT	1:50	170
	Switzerland*	117	10.3	IFAT	1:160	207
	United Kingdom	660 (abortion)	0.45	IFAT	1:50	209
	Italy	1,010	2	ELISA	CHEKIT	178a
Goat (Capra hircus)	Costa Rica	81	6.1	IFAT	1:100	143
	Sri Lanka	486	0.7	ELISA†	WT-IH	320
	São Paulo, Brazil	394	6.4	IFAT	1:50	171
	Taiwan	24	0	IFAT	1:200	325
Llama (Lama glama)	Peru	81	1.2	IB		480
	Peru	73	32.9	IFAT	1:50	75
	Germany	20	0	IB	480
Alpaca (Vicugna pacos)	Peru	657	2.6	IB		480
	Peru	78	35.9	IFAT	1:50	75
	Germany	12	0	IB	480
	Minnesota	61	13.1	IFAT	1:50	189
Vicugna (Vicugna vicugna)	Peru	114	0	IB		480
Water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis)	São Paulo, Brazil	222	53	NAT	1:40	178
	Pará, Brazil	196	70.9	IFAT	1:25	182
	São Paulo, Brazil	411	56	IFAT	1:200	118
	Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil	164	14.6	ELISA	CHEKIT	459a
	Egypt	75	60	NAT	1:40	145
	Campana, Italy	1,377	34.6	IFAT	1:200	194
	People's Republic of China	40	0	ELISA	CIVTEST	492
	Vietnam	200	1.5	IFAT	1:640	224
Horse (Equus caballus)	Argentina	76	0	NAT	1:40	148
	Several regions, Brazil	101	0	NAT	1:40	149
	Several regions, Brazil	961	2.5	ELISA	NhSAG1	216
	Paraná, Brazil	36	47	IFAT	1:50	280
	São Paulo, Brazil	1106	10.3	IFAT	1:50	458
	VIII, IX Regions, Chile	145	32	NAT	1:40	342
	France	434	23	NAT	1:40	355
	France	50	6	NAT	1:100	357
		France	54 (abortion)	50	NAT	1:40	356
		France	45 (random)	77.7	NAT	1:40	356
		France	76 (random)	77.6	NAT	1:40	356
		Caserta, Napoli, Salerno, Italy	150	28	IFAT	1:50	81
		Jeju Island, South Korea	191	2	IFAT	1:50	196
		Sweden	414	9	ELISA	IH-ISCOM	231
		Sweden		1*	IB		231
		Alabama	536	11.5	IFAT	1:50	78
		Texas, Nebraska	296	21.3	NAT	1:40	147
		Five geographic areas, United States	208	17	IFAT	1:100	454
		Washington	160 (normal)	8	IFAT	1:50	298
		Washington	140 (abortion)	13	IFAT	1:50	298
		Wyoming	276	31.1	NAT	1:25	153
		Many states, United States	1,917	30.4	ELISA	NhSAG1	215

Open in a new tab

*, flock with endemic abortion.

*, ELISA-positive samples (n = 39) were tested by immunoblotting.

NAT, Neospora agglutination test; IB, immunoblotting. *, ELISA results confirmed by immunoblotting; †, confirmed by IFAT.

WT, whole tachyzoite extract; IH, in house; CIVTEST, CIVTEST BOVIS NEOSPORA (indirect ELISA, sonicate lysate of tachyzoites; Laboratorios Hipra S.A., Spain); IH-ISCOM, detergent-extracted tachyzoite antigen incorporated into immune-stimulating complex particles; NhSAG1, recombinant NhSAG1.

TABLE 7.

Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum antibodies in wildlife

Animal species	Country	Region/setting	No. examined	Test^a	Titer^b	% Positive	Reference
Canids
Australian dingo (Canis familiaris dingo)	Australia	Queensland	52	IFAT	1:50	27	29
Australian dingo (Canis familiaris dingo)	Australia	New South Wales	117	IFAT	1:50	0.9	29
Coyote (Canis latrans)	Canada	Prince Edward Island	183	NAT	1:25	14.8	472
	1:100	0.5	472
	United States	Colorado	28	IFAT	1:50	17.9	189
	United States	Illinois	40	IFAT	1:50	15	189
	United States	Texas	52	IFAT	1:25	10	269
	United States	Utah	45	IFAT	1:50	2.2	189
Eurasian wolf (Canis lupus dingo)	Czech Republic	Zoo	10	IFAT	1:40	20	407
Wolf (Canis lupus)	Brazil	Zoo	59	IFAT	1:25	8.5	413
	Israel	9	IFAT	1:40	0	420
	United States	Alaska	122	NAT	1:40	3.2	136
	United States	Minnesota	164	IFAT	1:40	39	189
Golden jackal (Canis aureus)	Israel		114	IFAT	1:50	1.7	420
Maned wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus)	Brazil	Zoo	59	IFAT	1:25	8.5	459
	Brazil	Zoo	48	IFAT	1:50	0	303
	Czech Republic	Zoo	6	IFAT	1:40	16.6	407
	Israel	9	IFAT	1:400	11.1	420
Red fox (Vulpes vulpes)	Austria		94	IFAT	1:50	0	470
	Belgium	123	IFAT	1:64	78	61
	Canada	Prince Edward Island	270	NAT	1:25	34.8	472
	Canada	Prince Edward Island	270	NAT	1:100	5.6	472
	Germany	Fur farm	122	IB	2.5	395
	Hungary	337	ELISA	IH-ISCOM	1.5	232
	Ireland	70	IFAT	1:20	1.4	481
	Israel	24	IFAT	1:50	4.1	420
		Sweden		221	ELISA	IH-ISCOM	0	230
		United Kingdom		546	IFAT	1:256	0.9	202
		United Kingdom		54	IFAT	1:50	2	29
		United Kingdom		16	IFAT	1:50	6	415
Gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus)	United States	South Carolina	26	NAT	1:25	15.4	272
Chiloe fox (Pseudalopex fulvipes)	Chile	Zoo	2	NAT	1:320	100	341
Fennec (Vulpes zerda)	Czech Republic	Zoo	2	IFAT	1:320	100	407
Azara's fox (Lycalopex gymnocercus)	Brazil		12	IFAT, NAT	1:40-50	41.6	72
Crab-eating fox (Cerdocyon thous)	Brazil		15	IFAT	1:40-50	26.6	72
	Brazil		2	IFAT, NAT	1:40-50	0	72
Hoary fox (Dusicyon vetulus)	Brazil		30	IFAT	1:50	0	303
Raccoon dog (Nyctereute procyonoides)	Korea		26	NAT	1:50	23	245
Felids
Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus)	Czech Republic	Zoo	15	IFAT	1:40	13.3	407
	Kenya		5	NAT	1:40	60	168
	S. Africa		16	IFAT	1:50	6.3	77
Jaguarundi (Herpailurus yaguarondi)	Czech Republic	Zoo	1	IFAT	1:40	100	407
Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx)	Czech Republic	Zoo	2	IFAT	1:40	50	407
Indian lion (Panthera leo goojratensis)	Czech Republic	Zoo	2	IFAT	1:40	50	407
Lion (Panthera leo)	S. Africa		18	IFAT	1:50	16.6	77
	Kenya		20	NAT	1:40	55	168
Other carnivores
Hyena (Crocuta crocuta)	Kenya		3	NAT	1:40	33.3	168
Fisher (Martes pennanti)	Czech Republic	Zoo	2	IFAT	1:40	50	407
Raccoon (Procyon lotor)	United States	Massachusetts, Florida, Pennsylvania, New Jersey	99	NAT	1:50	10	271
Black bear (Ursus americanus)	United States	North Carolina	64	NAT	1:40	0	136
		Pennsylvania	133	NAT	1:40	0	136
Equids
Zebra (Equus burchelli)	Kenya		41	NAT	1:40	70.7	168
Cervids and ruminants
Blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra)	Czech Republic	Zoo	9	IFAT	1:40	22.2	407
Lechwe (Kobus leche)	Czech Republic	Zoo	4	IFAT	1:40	25	407
African buffalo (Syncerus caffer caffer)	Czech Republic	Zoo	5	IFAT	1:40	20	407
African buffalo (Syncerus caffer caffer)	Kenya	4	NAT	1:40	50	168
Impala (Aepyceros melampus)	Kenya		14	NAT	1:40	14.3	168
Gazelle (Gazella thomsoni)	Kenya		26	NAT	1:40	26.9	168
Spanish ibex (Capra pyrenaica hispanica)	Spain		3	ELISA	POURQUIER	0	7
Mouflon (Ovis ammon)	Spain		27	ELISA	POURQUIER	0	7
Barbary sheep (Ammotragus lervia)	Spain		13	ELISA	POURQUIER	7.7	7
Eland (Taurotragus oryx)	Czech Republic	Zoo	12	IFAT	1:40	8.3	407
Eland (Taurotragus oryx)	Kenya	13	NAT	1:40	92.3	168
European bison (Bison bonasus)	Czech Republic	Zoo	4	IFAT	1:40	25	407
European bison (Bison bonasus)	Poland	320	ELISA	IDEXX	7.3	63
Bison (Bison bison)	United States	Alaska	219	NAT	1:40	0.4	136
Bison (Bison bison)	Iowa	30	NAT	1:40	13.3	136
Musk ox (Ovibos moschatus)	United States	Alaska	224	NAT	1:40	0.44	136
Sitatunga (Tragelaphus spekei gratus)	Czech Republic	Zoo	7	IFAT	1:40	14.3	407
Père David's deer (Elaphurus davidianus)	Czech Republic	Zoo	28	IFAT	1:40	25	407
Brocket deer (Mazama sp.)	Brazil		150	IFAT	1:50	42	438
Pampas deer (Ozotoceros bezoarticus)	Brazil	Goiás	23	IFAT	1:50	13	437
Pampas deer (Ozotoceros bezoarticus)	Brazil	Mato Grosso	16	IFAT	1:50	75	437
Thorold's deer (Cervus albirostris)	Czech Republic	Zoo	7	IFAT	1:40	57.1	407
Red deer (Cervus elaphus)	Italy	Italian Alps	102	IFAT	1:40	12.7	167
	Italy	Trentino	125	c-ELISA	VMRD	3.2	59a
	Spain	237	ELISA	POURQUIER	11.8	7
Vietnam sika deer (Cervus nippon pseudaxis)	Czech Republic	Zoo	3	IFAT	1:160	33.3	407
Roe deer (Capreolus capreolus)	Italy	Italian Alps	43	IFAT	1:40	37.2	167
	Italy	Central Italian Alps	117	IFAT	1:50	3	178a
	Italy	Trentino	66	c-ELISA	VMRD	7.6	59a
	Spain	33	ELISA	POURQUIER	6.1	7
Fallow deer (Dama dama)	Spain		79	ELISA	POURQUIER	0	7
White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)	United States	Illinois	400	NAT	1:40	40.5	146
	United States	Illinois	43	IFAT	1:100	46.5	189
	United States	Minnesota	150	IFAT	1:100	20.0	189
	United States	Missouri	23	IB	48	13
	United States	Wisconsin	147	IB	20	13
	United States	14 southwestern states	305	NAT	1:25	48	274
Chamois (Rupicapra pyrenaica)	Spain		40	ELISA	POURQUIER	0	7
Chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra)	Italy	Italian Alps	119	IFAT	1:40	29.4	167
	Italy	Central Italian Alps	67	IFAT	1:50	21	178a
	Italy	Trentino	503	c-ELISA	VMRD	1.4	59a
Eastern elk (Cervus elaphus canadensis)	Czech Republic	Zoo	1	IFAT	1:1280	100	407
Caribou (Rangifer tarandus)	United States	Alaska	160	NAT	1:40	3.1	136
Moose (Alces alces)	United States	Alaska	162	NAT	1:40	2.4	136
Moose (Alces alces)	United States	Minnesota	61	IFAT	1:100	13.1	189
Rodents
Wild rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus)	Spain		251	ELISA	POURQUIER	0	7
Hare (Lepus granatensis)	Spain		53	ELISA	POURQUIER	1.8	7
Hare (Lepus europaeus)	Hungary		93	NAT	1:40	8.6	163
Hare (Lepus europaeus)	Slovakia	44	NAT	1:40	6.8	163
Rat (Rattus norvegicus)	Grenada		242	NAT	1:20	4.6	235
Mouse (Mus musculus)	United States		79	NAT	1:20	5.0	235
Marine mammals
Sea otter (Enhydra lutris) (dead)	United States	California, Washington	115	NAT	1:40	14.8	154
Sea otter (live)	United States	Washington	30	NAT	1:40	36.7	154
Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus)	United States	Alaska	53	NAT	1:40	5.6	154
Sea lion (Zalophus californianus)	United States	Alaska	27	NAT	1:40	3.7	154
Harbor seal (Phoca hispida)	United States	Alaska	331	NAT	1:40	3.5	154
Ringed seal (Phoca vitulina)	United States	Alaska	32	NAT	1:40	12.5	154
Bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus)	United States	Alaska	8	NAT	1:40	12.5	154
Spotted seal (Phoca largha)	United States	Alaska	9	NAT	1:40	0	154
Ribbon seal (Phoca fasciata)	United States	Alaska	14	NAT	1:40	0	154
Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)	United States	Florida	47	NAT	1:40	91.4	154
Killer whale (Orcinus orca)	Japan		8	IB		12.5	323
Other land mammals
Wild boar (Sus scrofa)	Spain		298	ELISA	POURQUIER	0.3	7
Wild boar (Sus scrofa)	Czech Republic	565	cELISA	VMRD	18.3	43
				IFAT	1:40	10.2	43
Warthog (Phacochoerus aethiopicus)	Kenya		6	NAT	1:40	66.7	168
Common brushtail opossum (Trichosurus vulpecula)	Australia		142	NAT	1:25	0	162

Open in a new tab

IB, immunoblotting; NAT, Neospora agglutination test.

WT, whole tachyzoite extract; IH, in house; IDEXX, IDEXX HerdChek Neospora caninum antibody (indirect ELISA, sonicate lysate of tachyzoites; IDEXX Laboratories); VMRD, Neospora caninum cELISA (competitive ELISA, gp65 surface antigen of tachyzoites; VMRD); CIVTEST, CIVTEST BOVIS NEOSPORA (indirect ELISA, sonicate lysate of tachyzoites; Laboratorios Hipra S.A., Spain); IH-ISCOM, detergent-extracted tachyzoite antigen incorporated into immune-stimulating complex particles.

TABLE 8.

Seroprevalence of N. caninum in humans

Country	Source of sample	No. of sera	Test	% Positive	Reference
Brazil	AIDS	61	IFAT (1:50)^a	38	275
	ELISA
	IB
	Neurological disorders	50	18
	Newborns	91	5
	Controls	54	6
Denmark	Repeated miscarriage	76	ELISA		350
	IFAT (1:640) (ISCOM)	0
	IB
Korea	Blood donors	172	IFAT (1:100)	6.7	321
	ELISA
	IB
Northern Ireland	Blood donors	247	IFAT (1:160)	8	193
United Kingdom	Farm workers and women with miscarriage	400	IFAT (1:400)	0	441
United States	Blood donors	1,029	IFAT (1:100)	6.7	440
			(1:200)	0
			IB^b	+

Open in a new tab

Sera were tested by IFAT at a 1:50 serum dilution and by ELISA (whole tachyzoites, in-house test); those with discrepant findings were tested by immunoblotting (IB).

Sixteen of the samples that were positive by IFAT were positive by IB.

None of the serologic tests used to detect N. caninum antibodies have been validated based on recovery of the viable parasite in any host. Therefore, the cutoff values used for serologic diagnosis of N. caninum are presumptive. Because N. caninum is structurally and molecularly related to T. gondii, these parasites are antigenically different and serologic cross-reactivity, if present, is considered minor. It is noteworthy that about 80% of black bears in the United States were found to be infected with T. gondii, but none had antibodies to N. caninum (136, 156).

Zoonotic Aspects of N. caninum

Because two rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) have been successfully infected with N. caninum (35), there is concern about the zoonotic potential of N. caninum. However, at present there is no firm evidence that N. caninum successfully infects humans, because only low levels of antibodies have been reported (Table 8), and neither N. caninum DNA nor the parasite has been demonstrated in human tissues. As yet, no accidental N. caninum infections in persons handling viable organisms have been reported, and thus there are no reference sera with which to compare the results reported in Table 8.

OOCYST SHEDDING BY DOGS AND OTHER DEFINITIVE HOSTS

Oocysts are the key in the epidemiology of neosporosis, but little is known of the biology of N. caninum oocysts. Dogs shed oocysts 5 days or more after ingesting tissues of experimentally or naturally infected animals (Table 9). The total duration of oocyst shedding after primary infection varied from 1 to several days. The total number of oocysts shed, prepatent periods, and duration of oocyst shedding varied tremendously (Table 9). Factors affecting oocyst shedding are largely unknown and difficult to investigate because of the costs involved in housing dogs in a secure facility and the low numbers of oocysts shed and because oocyst shedding is erratic (Table 9). Apparently dogs shed more oocysts after ingesting bovine tissues than when fed murine tissues (187), and pups shed more oocysts than adult dogs (Table 9). Some of the dogs that had been given corticosteroids shed more than 100,000 oocysts after being fed with murine brains, suggesting that immunosuppressed dogs may shed more oocysts than immunocompetent dogs (270, 273). Schares et al. (403) found the highest number of oocysts from a naturally infected dog. This dog was splenectomized. Nothing is known about the effect of different breeds of dogs on oocyst shedding. In most experiments, hounds were used to collect oocysts (Table 9).

TABLE 9.

Details of N. caninum oocyst shedding by dogs

Tissue fed^a	No. of dogs		Days of oocyst shedding^b	No. of oocysts isolated^c	Observation period (no. of days)	Seroconversion (no. of dogs/total)	Reference(s)
Tissue fed^a	Total fed	Shedding oocysts	Days of oocyst shedding^b	No. of oocysts isolated^c	Observation period (no. of days)	Seroconversion (no. of dogs/total)	Reference(s)
Experimentally infected
Mouse brain; NC 2	3	2	8-27	ND	37	3/3	294
Mouse brain; NC 2	13-23
Mouse brain; NC-beef	2	1	13-20	ND	37	1/2	294
Mouse brain; NC-Liverpool	2	1	13-20	ND	37	2/2	294
Mouse brain; NC-beef	2	2	5, 6	4,500,000	42	1/2	270
				Few
Mouse brain; wild CKO	3	1	13	Few	36	3/3	273
Mouse brain; cloned CKO	3	2	7-14	810,000	36	3/3	273
Mouse brain; cloned CKO	8-13, 15	161,000	36	2/3	273
Mouse brain; NC 2	2	2	17, 19, 21, 22, 24	700	30	ND	187
Mouse brain; NC 2	6-11, 13-17	29,900
Mouse brain; NC-beef	2	2	9, 17, 21, 25	500	30	ND	187
Mouse brain; NC-beef	9, 10, 12-14	1,200
Mouse brain; NC-IL	2	2	10, 13, 16, 17	300	30	ND	187
			6	100
BALB/c mouse	1	0			ND	0/1	396, 397
Multimammate rat (all except skin); HY-Berlin-1996*	1	1	9-13	0	ND	ND	396, 397
Guinea pig (all except skin, stomach, and intestine); HY-Berlin-1996*	2	2	5-12	2,000,000	ND	1/2	396, 397
	5-11	1,000,000	ND
Guinea pig (all except skin); HY- Berlin-1996*	1	1	5-14	0	ND	ND	396, 397
Guinea pig (skeletal muscle and bones); HY-Berlin-1996	2	2	8-13	Few	ND	0/2	396, 397
Guinea pig (skeletal muscle and bones); HY-Berlin-1996	11-13	Few	ND
Infected sheep tissue (heart and skeletal muscle); HY-Berlin-1996*	8	7	9-13	1,500,000	ND	0/5	396, 397
	6-10	Few	ND
	6-10	0	ND
	7-11	Few	ND
	7-13	Few	ND
	8-13	0	ND
	8-13	0	ND
Infected goat tissue (heart and skeletal muscle); HY-Berlin-1996*	1	0		0	ND	ND	396, 397
Infected goat tissue (brain, heart, and skeletal muscle); HY-Berlin-1996*	3	3	7-12	0	ND	0/3	396, 397
	7-10	Few	ND
	6-12	80,000	ND
Calf; NC-beef	4	3	5-8, 11, 14-17	54,100	30	ND	187
	5-14, 16, 19	392,800
	5-13, 20-21	503,300
Calf; NC-IL	4	4	8-10, 13-16, 19, 20	25,100	30	ND	187
	7-9	5,700
	10-13, 18-26, 29	345,900
	6-10, 14-16	95,700
Infected cattle tissue	5 (adults)	3	ND	2,000	28	4/5	191
	1,200
	11,400
Infected cattle tissue	3 (pups)	3	ND	504,400	28	2/3	191
	45,200
	500
Naturally infected
Cattle placenta	3	3	13, 15, 16, 25, 27, 30	<10*	60	0/3	120
	11-16, 18	<10*
	10-19, 21	<10*
White-tailed deer brain	4	2	7-14	12,300†	ND	ND	189
White-tailed deer brain	11, 12	500‡
Water buffalo brain	7	4	26*	275,969	30	2/4	373
	17	820,655
	7	21,265
	9	43,500

Open in a new tab

*, N. caninum isolate originally named Hammondia heydorni Berlin-1996 (HY-Berlin-1996), because at the time of isolation the dog had not yet been established as a definitive host of N. caninum.

Days of oocyst shedding after feeding of the infected meal. *, indicates a total of 26 days.

ND, not determined; *, per gram of feces; †, PCR positive and infective to cattle; ‡, PCR and bioassay not done.

Oocyst Shedding by Naturally Infected Dogs

N. caninum-like oocysts have been identified in only a few dogs worldwide. Because N. caninum oocysts structurally resemble another coccidian in dog feces, Hammondia heydorni (403, 416, 419), it is epidemiologically important to properly identify N. caninum oocysts. Available information on oocyst shedding by naturally infected dogs is reviewed. To our knowledge, there are only a few reports of N. caninum oocyst shedding by naturally infected dogs (44, 299, 300, 403, 416). Basso et al. (44) found a few N. caninum oocysts in the feces of a 45-day old Rottweiler from La Plata, Argentina. Viable N. caninum was recovered from the gerbils that were fed these oocysts, and the strain was successfully cultured in vitro.

Šlapeta et al. (416) found 1 million oocysts in a 1-year-old German shepherd from the Czech Republic. The oocysts were considered N. caninum based on PCR, and bioassay was not reported.

McGarry et al. (299) examined a total of 15 fecal samples from two foxhound kennels in the United Kingdom (10 from one kennel of 80 and 5 from the second kennel of 60 dogs) and found N. caninum oocysts in two samples. One of these samples (from the pack of 60 foxhounds) was identified as N. caninum based on PCR; there were approximately 84 oocysts per gram of feces. A second fecal sample from this dog taken 4 months later revealed a few oocysts that were identified as N. caninum based on PCR.

McInnes et al. (300) detected N. caninum DNA in the feces of a dog in New Zealand 2.5 years after they had isolated viable N. caninum from the skin of the dog.

A comprehensive survey of N. caninum infection in the feces of dogs from Germany was reported by Schares et al. (403). N. caninum-like oocysts were found in 47 of 24,089 fecal samples. Twenty-eight of these fecal samples were bioassayed in gerbils. Based on seroconversion in bioassayed gerbils, seven samples were considered to be N. caninum. Five samples were definitively identified as N. caninum, based on successful in vitro cultivation. Among the other isolates, 12 were considered to be H. heydorni, 2 T. gondii, and 2 Hammondia hammondi. T. gondii and H. hammondi are pseudoparasites in dog feces and result from the ingestion of cat feces by dogs. This investigation highlights the difficulties of identification of N. caninum oocysts in canine feces. The number of N. caninum oocysts in naturally infected dog feces varied from a few to 114,000 per gram (in a 13-year-old dog that had been splenectomized). The infected dogs were 2 months to 13 years of age and were of seven different breeds (403).

Coyotes and Other Definitive Hosts of N. caninum

One of four captive-raised coyotes shed a few N. caninum oocysts after ingesting experimentally infected bovine tissues (188). N. caninum DNA was found in the feces of 2 of 85 coyotes and 2 of 271 foxes from Canada (471).

STRAIN VARIATION AND PATHOGENICITY

It is now well established that N. caninum can cause serious illness in cattle and dogs. Isolates of N. caninum from various hosts are genetically similar, although each strain has its own signature (365). Little is known of the strain variation with respect to pathogenicity. There are no suitable animal models for testing strain variation. In limited studies, some N. caninum strains were more pathogenic to mice than others (21, 264, 268, 300). Abortion or fetal infections have been induced in cattle by using a variety of isolates in different laboratories (158), but a meaningful comparison with pregnant cattle would be economically prohibitive. There is the additional complication of the stage of the parasite used and the source of the parasite. Most N. caninum strains are maintained in cell culture, and prolonged passage in culture can alter the pathogenicity and other characteristics of the parasite (42, 346). Additionally, data obtained from rodents may not be applicable to cattle.

TRANSMISSION

Transmission in All Hosts

N. caninum can be transmitted postnatally (horizontally, laterally) by ingestion of tissues infected with tachyzoites or tissue cysts or by ingestion of food or drinking water contaminated by sporulated oocysts, or it can be transmitted transplacentally (vertically, congenitally) from an infected dam to her fetus during pregnancy. Recently, the terms “exogenous transplacental transmission” and “endogenous transplacental transmission” have been proposed to describe more precisely the origin of the transplacental infection of the fetus (442). Exogenous transplacental transmission occurs after a primary, oocyst-derived, infection of a pregnant dam, while endogenous transplacental transmission occurs in a persistently infected dam after reactivation (recrudescence) of the infection during pregnancy. Mice were infected successfully by oral inoculation of tachyzoites or bradyzoites (264). These results are of interest because tachyzoites treated with acidic pepsin were rendered noninfective for cell cultures, whereas bradyzoites survived the acidic pepsin (264). Tissue cysts and bradyzoites can survive up to 2 weeks at refrigeration temperature (4°C) but are killed by freezing (155, 267). Oocysts were orally infective to cattle (111, 190, 443), goats and sheep (397), and rodents such as mice, gerbils (Meriones unguiculatus), and guinea pigs (Cavia porcellanus) (134, 294, 397). Transplacental transmission has been induced experimentally in cattle, dogs, sheep, goats, monkeys, cats, and mice and occurs naturally in many hosts (133). Transplacental transmission occurs when tachyzoites from the dam cross the placenta. The ingestion of oocysts is the only demonstrated mode for postnatal (horizontal) transmission in herbivores. Because of the epidemiological importance, we will discuss the modes of transmission of N. caninum in dogs and cattle separately.

Transmission of N. caninum in Dogs

How dogs become infected with N. caninum in nature is not fully understood. Historically, vertical transmission of neosporosis was first recognized in dogs (52, 140). Three successive litters from a bitch in Norway were found to have neosporosis (52). In a retrospective study, the most severe neosporosis was discovered in four German Shepherds from one owner in 1957 from Ohio (140), and there was evidence that a congenitally infected bitch transmitted the infection to her progeny (140). Transplacental transmission in experimentally infected dogs has been demonstrated (82, 132). In most cases of neonatal neosporosis, clinical signs are not apparent until 5 to 7 weeks after birth (133). These data suggest that N. caninum is transmitted from the dam to the neonates toward the terminal stages of gestation or postnatally via milk. According to Barber and Trees (27), vertical transmission of N. caninum in dogs is considered highly variable and not likely to persist in the absence of horizontal infection. In a prospective study, only 3% (4 of 118) of pups from 17 seropositive bitches were seropositive. Overall, 80% of pups born to seropositive bitches were considered to be uninfected with N. caninum (133). These results are supported by a recent study in which 3 of 11 pups in the first litter and only 1 of 7 pups in the second litter were infected with N. caninum (157). These results obtained with dogs are dramatically different from those obtained with cattle.

Age-related prevalence data indicate that the majority of dogs become infected after birth. Higher prevalences have been documented in older than in younger dogs (15, 45, 73, 117, 119, 290, 334a, 489).

In one report, 51% of 300 foxhounds fed bovine carcasses were found to have N. caninum antibodies (441). While consumption of aborted bovine fetuses does not appear to be an important source of N. caninum infection in dogs (48, 123), the consumption of bovine fetal membranes may be a source of N. caninum for dogs. The parasite has been found in naturally infected placentas (49, 172, 412), and dogs fed placentas from freshly calved seropositive cows may shed N. caninum oocysts (120). That dogs can become infected by ingesting infected tissues has been amply demonstrated (Table 9), but whether they can be infected by the ingestion of oocysts is unknown.

Transmission of N. caninum in Cattle

Transplacental (vertical) transmission.

N. caninum is one of the most efficiently transplacentally transmitted parasites among all known microbes in cattle. In certain herds, virtually all calves are born infected but asymptomatic. Evidence for this efficient transplacental transmission comes from several sources: familial, comparison of antibody status in cows and their progeny, infection status of progeny, and experimental.

Björkman et al. (54) traced the familial history of N. caninum-seropositive dairy cows in a herd in Sweden and found that all infected animals were the progeny of two cows that were bought when the herd was established 16 years earlier. Insemination records suggested that venereal transmission was not a factor. Similar results were obtained in studies performed in Germany (391), Canada (47), Australia (201), and Sweden (176). A strong evidence for transplacental transmission of N. caninum has been obtained by comparison of seroprevalence in dams and their progeny. In cattle and other ruminants, there is no transfer of antibodies from the dam to the fetus, not even through a placenta that has been damaged by an infectious process (137). Therefore, detection of specific antibodies in precolostral serum indicates in utero synthesis of antibodies by the fetus. However, a finding of no antibody in the fetus is not conclusive of the absence of infection, because the fetus might have been infected late in gestation, leaving insufficient time for antibody synthesis. Rarely, it is possible for a seronegative dam to give birth to a seropositive calf; this may be because the cow has been infected for some time and the level of antibodies has declined to an undetectable level (85, 176, 281, 382).

Results obtained from studies with dam and progeny are summarized in Table 10. In this respect, precolostral data are noteworthy (Table 10). Up to 95% of calves were born infected. The actual congenital transmission rate was likely to be higher because, as stated above, a few positive calves are likely to be born from seronegative dams. The data from cow-calf pairs obtained after birth are not absolute, because mismatches are possible.

TABLE 10.

Asymptomatic congenital transmission of N. caninum in cattle

Country	Region	No. of dams or pregnancies (relevant details)^a	% Seropositivity in progeny	Test^b	Remarks	Reference
Argentina		16 (seropositive)	100	IFAT	Dam-progeny	66
Australia		27 (seropositive)	74	ELISA (POURQUIER)	Familial	201
Australia	27 (seronegative)	15
Canada	Ontario	619 (seropositive)	40.7	ELISA (WT-IHCA)	Dam-daughter	334
	Ontario	2,490 (seronegative)	6.7
	Québec	144 (seropositive)	44.4	ELISA (BIOVET)	Dam-daughter	47
	Saskatoon	85 (seropositive)†	90	ELISA (VMRD)	Dam-daughter	466
	Saskatoon	13 (seronegative)†	71
Costa Rica		249 (seropositive)	67.5	WT-IH-ELISA	Dam-daughter	375
Costa Rica	498 (seronegative)	23.5
Germany		15 (seropositive)*	94	IFAT, IB, ELISA (IDEXX)	Dam-progeny	391
Germany	43 (seronegative)*	2
The Netherlands		36 (seropositive)‡	88.9	ELISA (WT-IH)	Dam-calf (precolostral)	486
	14 (seronegative)‡	14.3
	14 (seropositive)§	100
	3 (seronegative)§	0
	204 (seropositive)*	80	ELISA (WT-IH)	Dam-daughter	121
	248 (seronegative)*	16.5
	190 (seropositive)†	56.8	ELISA (WT-IH)	Dam-daughter	121
	195 (seropositive)†	30.8
			500 (seropositive)	73	ELISA (WT-IH)	Dam-daughter	125
New Zealand		115 (dam-daughter pairs)	12.5	IB	Dam-daughter	392
Spain		98 (seropositive)	50	IFAT	Dam-calf (precolostral)	344
	192 (seronegative)	7	IFAT	Dam-calf (precolostral)	344
	25 (seropositive)	48	IFAT	Dam-calf (precolostral)	344
	73 (seronegative)	0	IFAT	Dam-calf (precolostral)	344
	32 (seropositive)	90.9	ELISA (IDEXX)	Dam-progeny	281
Sweden		369 (seropositive)	85.6	ELISA (IH-ISCOM)	Dam-daughter	176
Sweden	952 (seronegative)	13.7
United Kingdom		124 (seropositive)	95	ELISA (MASTAZYME)	Dam-calf (precolostral)	106
United Kingdom	248 (seronegative)	2
United States	California	51 (seropositive)	88.2	ELISA (WT-IHCA)	Dam-calf (precolostral)	337
	California	25 (seropositive)	100	IFAT (1:80)	Dam-progeny	11
	25 (seronegative)	0
	Nebraska	150 (seropositive)	89	ELISA (IH-ISCOM)	Dam-progeny	56
	41 (seronegative)	22
	California	115 (seropositive)	81	ELISA (WT-IHCA)	Dam-calf (precolostral)	337
	Maryland	74 (seropositive)	43	IFAT	Dam-daughter	160

Open in a new tab

Symbols: *, from herds with no evidence of point source exposure to N. caninum; †, from herds with evidence of point source exposure to N. caninum; ‡, F1 progeny of cows that had aborted previously during an outbreak; §, F2 progeny of cows that had aborted previously during an outbreak.

IB, immunoblotting; WT, whole tachyzoite extract; IH, in house; WT-IHCA, kinetic ELISA (316); BIOVET, BIOVET-Neospora caninum, (indirect ELISA, sonicate lysate of tachyzoites; BIOVET Laboratories, Canada); IDEXX, IDEXX HerdChek Neospora caninum antibody (indirect ELISA, sonicate lysate of tachyzoites; IDEXX Laboratories); MASTAZYME, MASTAZYME NEOSPORA (indirect ELISA, formaldehyde-fixed whole tachyzoites; MAST GROUP, United Kingdom); VMRD, Neospora caninum cELISA (competitive ELISA, gp65 surface antigen of tachyzoites; VMRD); CIVTEST, CIVTEST BOVIS NEOSPORA (indirect ELISA, sonicate lysate of tachyzoites; Laboratorios Hipra S.A., Spain); IH-ISCOM, detergent-extracted tachyzoite antigen incorporated into immune-stimulating complex particles.

Anderson et al. (11) provided convincing evidence that chronic persistent infection can be passed to progeny via endogenous transplacental transmission. In their study, 25 seronegative heifers were housed with 25 seropositive heifers beginning at birth, and their progeny were evaluated for N. caninum infection. The seronegative heifers remained seronegative and gave birth to calves not infected with N. caninum. The seropositive heifers remained clinically normal but gave birth to congenitally infected calves. Seven of these congenitally infected calves were necropsied; all had histologic evidence of N. caninum infection, and four were recumbent (11). Presumably, cows remain infected for life and transmit N. caninum infection to their offspring in several consecutive pregnancies (173) or intermittently (58, 197, 486). The rate of endogenous transplacental infection may decrease in subsequent pregnancies, indicating immunity (10, 125, 375).

Although exogenous transplacental N. caninum infection and abortion have been induced in cows experimentally infected with tachyzoites or oocysts by several research groups using many strains (158), little is known of the distribution and persistence of N. caninum in tissues of postnatally infected adult cattle.

Mathematical models of N. caninum infections within dairy herds (175) indicate that even low levels of horizontal transmission may be important in the maintenance of the infection within herds, because transmission by endogenous transplacental infection is below 100% and thus would lead to a continuous decrease in infection prevalence in the infected herds.

Post-natal (horizontal) transmission.

The ingestion of sporulated N. caninum oocysts from the environment is the only demonstrated natural mode of infection in cattle after birth (111, 190, 443). To date, cow-to-cow transmission of N. caninum has not been observed. At present there is no evidence that live N. caninum is present in excretions or secretions of adult asymptomatic cows. Neonatal calves may become infected after ingestion of milk contaminated with tachyzoites (110, 446), and N. caninum-DNA in milk, including colostrum, has been demonstrated (316, 317). However, there is no conclusive evidence that lactogenic transmission of N. caninum occurs in nature (120).

Venereal transmission may be possible, but unlikely, as evidenced recently in heifers experimentally infected by intrauterine inoculation of semen contaminated with tachyzoites (408), and a dose response has been observed in a titration experiment with seroconversion and maintained antibody levels in heifers inoculated with semen contaminated with 5 × 10⁴ tachyzoites (410). Although N. caninum DNA has been found in the semen of naturally exposed bulls (65, 166, 327), results suggest that viable organisms, if present, are few and infrequent. Additionally, cows inseminated with frozen and thawed semen contaminated with N. caninum tachyzoites failed to acquire infection (70).

RISK FACTORS FOR BOVINE NEOSPOROSIS

The knowledge of risk factors for herds to acquire N. caninum infection and N. caninum-associated abortion is important for the development and implementation of measures to control bovine neosporosis. Our knowledge of risk or protective factors with respect to bovine neosporosis is based largely on retrospective cross-sectional or case-control studies. Retrospective assessment generally allows the identification of putative risk or protective factors, but conclusive data can be obtained only by prospective cohort or experimental studies. However, the repeated identification of the same risk or protective factor in several independent retrospective cross-sectional or case-control studies increases the evidence that this factor is a “true” risk or protective factor for an infection or for a disease.

The serologic prevalences of N. caninum summarized in Tables 4 and 5 indicate that there are considerable differences among countries, within countries, between regions, and between beef and dairy cattle (39, 112, 250, 311, 359). However, caution should be used in evaluating these results because of differences in serologic techniques, study design, and sample size used. Data reported by Bartels et al. (39) are noteworthy because the sera were tested by standardized serological techniques (460) and similar study designs. From the data it is evident that the seroprevalence of N. caninum is lowest in Sweden, compared with prevalences in other European countries. Results suggest that there are differences in the infection risk among different regions, within a particular region, and among different management systems. Therefore, caution should be used when transferring the results of a risk factor analysis obtained in a particular region or management system to another. One example is that in a multivariate spatial regression analysis, the factors “abundance of coyotes” and “abundance of gray foxes” are both able to explain the differences between ecological regions regarding the N. caninum seroprevalence in beef calves (32). The possible importance of the factor “abundance of coyotes” was corroborated when coyotes were proven to be definitive hosts of N. caninum (188). However, this risk factor is definitively not relevant in European countries because there are no wild living coyotes in Europe.

Epidemic and Endemic N. caninum-Associated Abortion

N. caninum-associated abortion in bovine herds may have an epidemic or an endemic pattern. There are reports that in the years after an epidemic abortion outbreak, the affected herd may experience endemic abortions (56, 309, 352). Abortion outbreaks have been defined as epidemic if the abortion outbreak is temporary and if 15% of the cows at risk abort within 4 weeks, 12.5% of the cows abort within 8 weeks, and 10% of the cows abort within 6 weeks (309, 399, 488). In contrast, an abortion problem is regarded as endemic if it persists in the herd for several months or years. It is likely that these two patterns of N. caninum-associated abortion are related to two routes by which N. caninum infections can cause abortion (Fig. 3) (442).

FIG. 3. — Overview of potential risk or protective factors influencing the horizontal or vertical transmission of *Neospora caninum* and the occurrence of exogenous or endogenous *N. caninum*-associated abortion. In this diagram, naïve cattle are gray, postnatally infected cattle are orange, and vertically infected cattle are red.

Epidemic abortions are thought to be due to a primary infection of naïve dams with N. caninum, probably due to ingestion of feed or water contaminated with oocysts (296, 297). Because pregnant dams may be exposed to contamination with oocysts almost at one time (point source exposure), exogenous transplacental fetal infection and the resulting abortions occur within a short period of time. The finding of low-avidity immunoglobulin G (IgG) responses, suggesting a recent infection (56, 57) in herds with epidemic abortion, supports this hypothesis (233, 296, 383, 399). Recrudescence of a latent infection in the dam during gestation (resulting in endogenous transplacental fetal infection) may cause abortion (197, 338, 422, 474).

Latent infection in dams may have been acquired vertically (11) or postnatally (309). The mechanism of reactivation of latent N. caninum infection is unknown. Whether immune suppression induced by ingestion of toxic feeds or other concurrent infections can cause reactivation has been debated but not supported by data (37, 352, 488). Recently it was shown that progesterone supplementation during midgestation increases the risk of abortion in Neospora-infected dairy cows with high antibody titers (46).

Irrespective of the origin of infection (exogenous or endogenous), not all congenitally infected fetuses die or become sick. In abortion epidemics, up to 57% of aborting dams have been reported (399, 488). However, in The Netherlands, high rates of seroconversion together with low-avidity responses were observed in a dairy herd, suggesting a recent exposure of this herd to N. caninum, though no increased abortion incidence was observed in this herd (122). If epidemic abortion is caused by an exposure to oocyst-contaminated feed or water, the observed variability regarding abortion risk may be explained by factors such as the infection dose (190), the pathogenicity of the parasite strain by which the animals became infected, and by the susceptibility of the dams (e.g., immune status, state of gestation) (190). However, nothing is known of the differences in pathogenicity of N. caninum isolates in cattle. Transplacental infection has been induced in cattle inoculated with N. caninum isolates from different sources (158).

In many cattle herds with endemic abortion due to neosporosis, there is often a positive association between the serostatus of mothers and their progeny; i.e., there is evidence that the major route of transmission in these herds is vertical (47, 54, 56, 121, 201, 391, 399, 436, 486). Several studies demonstrate that chronically infected seropositive cows can have more than a twofold-increased risk of abortion compared to seronegative dams (281, 338, 486). There are indications that the risk of endogenous abortion is influenced by the parity of the dams (284, 434). Thurmond and Hietala (434) observed a markedly increased abortion risk in congenitally infected heifers during their first gestation but not in later gestations, compared to the abortion risk in seronegative controls.

Risk Factor Studies

There are a number of risk factor studies assessing the risk of individual cattle or herds either becoming infected with N. caninum or experiencing N. caninum-associated abortions. We believe that these risks (infection risk and the abortion risk) are positively associated with each other but are influenced differently (Fig. 3). After exogenous transplacental transmission, the abortion risk might be influenced by, e.g., the number of oocysts ingested by the dam and the gestational stage (190), whereas the occurrence of abortions in endogenous transplacental transmission might be influenced by as-yet-unknown factors, e.g., the immune status of the dam.

Several studies have examined N. caninum infection risk at the herd level or animal level with the serostatus of herds or individual cattle (dams, calves) as dependent variables, i.e., as the target or outcome variable (Table 11). The results of these studies have been influenced by the sensitivity and specificity of the serological tests used. Fluctuations in the antibody levels of individual cattle during gestation, the gestational stage, or the gestation number could be a cause of variation (103, 173, 197, 236, 338, 360, 422). The use of seropositivity to identify infected cattle is simple but does not provide information on the viability of infection. Furthermore, rarely, an animal may be infected but seronegative, or a seropositive animal may not have a viable infection. In addition, seropositivity also provides no information on the route of infection (horizontal or vertical) or how recently the infection occurred. To partially overcome the latter problem, some risk factor studies have focused on herds with epidemic abortion (37, 124, 488).

TABLE 11.

Putative risk and protective factors for N. caninum infections and abortions identified in epidemiological studies of dairy and beef cattle

Factor	Reference(s) identifying putative risk or sparing factor(s)^a
	For N. caninum infection		For N. caninum-associated abortion
	Risk	Protective	Risk	Protective
N. caninum-specific antibodies
Seropositivity in individual cattle	NA	NA	10, 92, 107, 109, 180, 206, 213, 236, 249, 281, 282, 289, 309, 312, 314, 338, 393, 394, 399, 422, 436, 447, 464, 474
Level of N. caninum-specific antibodies (titer, ELISA index) in individual cattle	NA	NA	239, 285, 293, 360, 393, 394, 422, 464, 488
Seroprevalence in the herd	NA	NA	37, 174, 218, 339, 382, 402, 465
Age, parity, gestation, and lactation no.
Age of cattle	39†, 107, 160	39†, 465*
Mean age of cows in a herd	386*
Proportion of heifers in a herd		386*
Heifers, adult cattle vs calves	371†
Gestation no.	236
Parity			488
Lactation no.				284, 434
Definitive hosts (dogs, coyotes) and other canids
Dogs
Presence of farm dogs	339, 461	33*	37
Presence of farm dogs in the past 10 yr	461
No. of farm dogs	93, 289, 339, 402, 461		218
Behavior of farm dogs
Defecation on feeding alley	123
Defecation on grass/corn silage storage	123
Feeding on placenta, uterine discharge, colostrum, or milk	123
Frequency of defecation in a feed manger			218
Density of dogs in the district or municipality of farm location	400, 402, 461
Coyotes or foxes
Abundance in the ecological region of the farm	32*
Wild canids
Frequency of observation on farm premises				218
Cats
Presence of cats		333
Frequency of stray cat observation				218
Other (potential) intermediate hosts
Other animal species
Presence of rabbits and/or dogs	333
Presence of poultry by increasing no. of dogs	332†
No. of poultry, >10			37
Presence of horses			218
Contact with sick cattle
Calving pen used to hospitalize sick animals			37
Grazing and fodder
Feeding of moldy maize-silage to dairy cows during summer			37
Feeding of remnant fodder to heifers during summer			37
No grazing	332†
Grazing on rangeland during summer		386*
Use of a hay ring with round bales of hay	33*
Use of self-contained feeders for cow supplement		33*
Wildlife contact with the weaning ration	33*
Source of drinking water
Pond vs well or public water supply	333
Colostrum or milk
Feeding of pooled colostrum to calves	93
Calving management
Spring calving vs fall calving	33*
Calving period of >3 mo		333
Cattle density and cattle stocking density
Stocking density	33, 386
Cattle stocking density during winter	386*
Size of farmland		93
Herd size
Large herds	332†
Large herds by no. of dogs	332†
Herd size	402
Source of replacement heifers
Ranch-raised replacement females	33*
Maternal relationship			206
Breed
Cattle breed (e.g., native breed vs Holstein Friesian, Rubia Gallega, mixed)		39†
Cross-breeding: using beef bull semen to inseminate dairy cattle				285
Failures during and around reproduction
Previous abortion in congenitally infected cattle			434
Annual rate of cows returning to estrus postpregnancy			218
Annual rate of retained fetal membranes in herd			218
Prevalence of retained afterbirths in previous yr, >10%			37
Indicators for other diseases or infections
Somatic cell count of (200-400) × 10³ vs somatic cell count of <200 × 10³		333
Antibodies against BVDV	55		206	206
Antibodies against BHV-1	372†
Antibodies against Coxiella burnetii			206
Antibodies against Chlamydia psittaci				206
Antibodies against Leptospira sp.				206
Type of housing
Tethered vs loose	333
Loose housing			206
Heifers housed on a loafing pack				218
Climate
Mean temp in July (summer, Germany)	402
Mean temp in spring (Italy)	371†
Rainfall			284
Climatic season
Summer (The Netherlands)			488
Winter (California)			435
Vegetation
NDVI	371†
Demographic factors
Human population	400
Proximity to a town or village			206

Open in a new tab

*, study of beef cattle; †, study not differentiating between beef and dairy cattle (studies of dairy cattle are not marked); NA, not applicable.

Infection Risk

In the following, we summarize the results of studies that have assessed risk factors for infection on either the animal or herd level.

Age of cattle.

The risk of being seropositive may increase with age or gestation number in beef and dairy cattle (160, 236, 371, 386), suggesting that horizontal transmission of N. caninum is of particular importance in some herds. Waldner et al. (465) reported a negative age effect on the prevalence of seropositive animals in dairy cattle in Canada. In the same study it was observed that the risk of being culled was significantly greater in seropositive than in seronegative cows, suggesting that selective culling could be a possible reason for the age effect. In a recent European study it was observed that the age effect on seropositivity in dairy cattle may vary in different study areas. In Spain, for instance, the risk of being seropositive increased with age, while in Sweden the situation was the opposite (39). It was hypothesized that the age effect might be influenced by variations in the probability of horizontal transmission (e.g., by the risk of ingesting oocysts), by regional differences regarding replacement rate (influencing the time cattle may be exposed to horizontal transmission), and by management practices such as selective culling of seropositive animals (39). Nonselective culling of animals in a herd with a high seroprevalence could result in a positive relationship between age and prevalence, if the population from which successive external replacement heifers are purchased has a lower seroprevalence than the herd itself. This effect is further strengthened by the fact that the proportion of vertical transmission is often much lower than 100% (106).

A British study of cattle in dairy herds with N. caninum-associated problems revealed a significantly lower seroprevalence in 13- to 24-month-old animals than in cattle 7 to 12 months old and cattle older than 24 months (107). It was hypothesized that some of the 13- to 24-month-old animals (most likely heifers) were congenitally infected with N. caninum, although they were seronegative. Recrudescence during gestation may have caused an elevated seroprevalence in older age groups (107).

Definitive hosts (dogs and coyotes).

In most epidemiological studies of dairy herds, the presence of farm dogs, either currently or within the past 10 years (339, 461), or the number of farm dogs (93, 289, 339, 402, 461) was a risk factor for seropositivity in cattle. This is not surprising, as dogs are definitive hosts of N. caninum. Furthermore, the putative ways by which dogs may pose an infection risk to dairy cattle have been studied (123). Defecation by farm dogs on feeding alleys and on stored grass or corn silage was reported more often by farmers of herds with evidence of postnatal bovine infection than by those of herds with no such evidence (123). Interestingly, in a study of herds with evidence of recent postnatal infection, seropositivity to N. caninum was more often associated with common housing than with common feeding of the seropositive age group (124). Based on these results, it may be justified to assume that contaminations of the feeding area are more closely related to infection than are contaminations of fodder during storage.

Farmers of herds with evidence of postnatal infection more often observed dogs feeding on bovine placenta, uterine discharge, and colostrum or milk than did farmers of control herds (123). This suggests that these materials may pose an infection risk to dogs; i.e., these materials may facilitate dogs becoming infected with N. caninum. In an experimental study, placenta, but not colostrum, has been confirmed as an infection source for dogs (120). Interestingly, feeding on aborted fetuses was not identified as a potential risk factor in herds with evidence of recent postnatal infection (123), and no oocyst shedding was observed when aborted fetuses or brains of fetuses were fed to dogs experimentally (48). However, these results were most likely influenced by the stage of autolysis in the fetus, killing the parasite along with the host cells. Most N. caninum organisms in aborted fetuses die with the host cells, and it is rare to find intact tachyzoites in such tissues (158). Conrad et al. (86) were able to isolate viable N. caninum parasites from only 2 of 49 histologically confirmed fetuses. Dogs have shed oocysts after ingesting a variety of tissues, including neural, muscular, visceral, and fetal membranes (Table 9).

There is some evidence that recently introduced dogs pose a higher risk of transmission of N. caninum than do resident dogs (124). This could be explained by analogy to T. gondii, for which it is well known that naïve definitive hosts are crucial for the life cycle (105). In N. caninum, the situation seems to be similar, as dogs shed no or only few oocysts after being fed repeatedly with infectious material (120, 191, 397). Additionally, higher oocyst numbers are shed by young dogs (10 to 14 weeks old) than by older dogs (2 to 3 years old) (191).

In addition to farm dogs, dogs kept in the neighborhood of farms may pose an infection risk. In a German cross-sectional study, dog densities in districts, cities, or municipalities were predictors of the prevalence of bulk-milk-positive herds (400) or were identified as risk factors for herd seropositivity (402, 461). Recently, coyotes were found to be additional definitive hosts of N. caninum. This was suspected after epidemiological studies of beef calves had shown that the abundance of coyotes or gray foxes in different ecological zones of Texas was associated with the seroprevalence of N. caninum in beef calves (32). Whether gray foxes are also definitive hosts of N. caninum remains to be determined. Although one experimental study indicates that the red fox is not a definitive host for N. caninum (398), there is an ongoing discussion as to whether red foxes or wolves could be important as sources of postnatal infections with N. caninum, and N. caninum-like oocysts in the feces of naturally infected foxes from Canada were reported (471). Recently, it was hypothesized that wolves, because of their close phylogenetic relationship to dogs, may be another potential definitive host of N. caninum (188). The sylvatic (deer-canid) cycle may be important in maintaining the domestic (cattle-dog) cycle of the parasite (189).

For beef cattle, there is as yet no evidence that farm dogs or dogs kept in the surroundings of farms pose an infection risk (461). A possible explanation for this is that on the less intensively managed beef farms, there is in general no close contact between the excretions of farm dogs and beef cattle (33, 332, 386). Moreover, Barling et al. (33) observed that the presence of farm dogs on beef farms was a putative protective factor. That study was conducted in Texas, i.e., in the same region where it was demonstrated that the abundance of wild canids could explain the seroprevalences in beef calves. Possibly the presence of dogs was inversely related to the presence of wild canids on farm land, as suggested by Hobson et al. (218).

Other carnivores.

In experimental studies, cats failed to serve as definitive hosts for N. caninum (295). Interestingly, there is one epidemiological study of dairy cattle that observed a protective effect for the presence of cats on a farm (333). It is possible that this factor is a confounder related to the absence of dogs. However, another possible explanation for the protective effect of the factor “presence of cats” is that cats are predators of putative intermediate hosts of N. caninum (e.g., mice), which could reduce the frequency by which definitive hosts of N. caninum have access to the tissues of infected intermediate hosts.

Intermediate hosts other than cattle.

Not only cattle but also other intermediate hosts of N. caninum may present a source of infection for dogs and other canids. The presence of N. caninum DNA in naturally infected mice and rats suggests that these animals may be important sources of infection for carnivore hosts of N. caninum (Table 2). One study from France reported the presence of rabbits and/or ducks as a putative risk factor for seropositivity in dairy cattle (333). In a study from northern Italy, the risk of seropositivity in individual cattle increased with the number of farm dogs when poultry were present on the farm (332). Bartels et al. (37) also found the presence of poultry on the farm to be a risk factor for the occurrence of N. caninum-associated abortion and discussed their possible role as a vector of canine oocysts. These results warrant further examination of the susceptibility of rabbits, ducks, and other poultry to N. caninum and whether these potential intermediate hosts pose an infection risk to definitive hosts.

Grazing, fodder, and drinking water.

Oocyst-contaminated pastures, fodder, and drinking water are regarded as potential sources for postnatal infection of cattle. Therefore, it is important to know which feeding practices pose an increased infection risk.

In the northwestern United States and Italy, grazing of cattle on rangeland during summer seems to be a protective factor (332, 386). Although wild canids and dogs have free access to rangeland, oocyst contaminations caused by definitive hosts may be too low to pose a significant infection risk or oocysts may not survive during the summer months if they are very hot and dry. Unfortunately, information on the climatic conditions under which N. caninum oocysts are able to survive in the environment is rare.

In beef herds, the use of a hay ring appeared to be a putative risk factor for seropositivity (33). This factor was explained by the observation that cows often calve, abort, or expel placentas near hay feeders. Because these feeders are seldom moved, it was hypothesized that fecal contaminations by definitive hosts that have fed on placentas may be concentrated close to the feeders (33). In the same study, a procedure implemented to avoid the contamination of fodder, i.e., the use of a self-contained feeder for cow supplements, was identified as a probable protective factor (33). Related to this is the observation that ranches with wildlife access to the weaning supplement had an increased risk of calves being N. caninum positive (33).

In a study conducted in France, the use of ponds rather than the use of a well or public water supply for drinking water was found to be a risk factor for N. caninum infection in dairy cattle (333). Seroprevalence data from feral marine mammals suggests that N. caninum oocysts may contaminate surface water and subsequently contaminate seawater (131, 154). Outbreaks of toxoplasmosis in humans have been linked epidemiologically to contaminated drinking water, and T. gondii has been isolated from municipal waters (60, 116).

Feeding colostrum or milk.

Experimental studies have demonstrated that neonatal calves may become infected by the ingestion of milk containing tachyzoites (110, 446). However, cross-suckling of calves born to seronegative mothers on seropositive cows has not led to an infection (110). Because N. caninum DNA was found in bovine milk (316, 317), there is an ongoing debate regarding whether or not the lactogenic transmission of N. caninum is possible. With respect to this, it is interesting that one study in dairy cattle has suggested that feeding of pooled colostrum is a putative risk factor for seropositivity (93).

Calving management.

In one risk factor analysis of beef calves in Texas, the effect of seasonal calving during spring was profound; i.e., the risk of calves of being seropositive was higher than it was on ranches with a fall calving season (33). No explanation for this observation was offered. Possibly, there are seasonal effects in these beef herds on the risk for calves to become infected, either by transplacental or by horizontal (postnatal) transmission. This seasonality may be biologically linked to the whelping season of the putative definitive hosts in Texas, coyotes and gray foxes. Since, naïve or young dogs are more submissive definitive hosts for N. caninum than are older or immune dogs (120, 191, 397), the same may also be true for young coyotes and gray foxes. Further studies are needed to explain the observations with Texas beef calves. Interestingly, in a French study, prolonged herd calving periods of 3 to 6 or 6 to 12 months reduced the risk of herd seropositivity compared to herd calving periods of up to only 3 months (333). There was no explanation for this observation.

Cattle stocking density and size of farmland.

In two studies of beef calves in Texas, a high stocking density was identified as a potential risk factor for seropositivity (32, 33). A similar effect was observed for the stocking density of beef cows during winter in the northwestern United States (Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming) (386). This effect was explained by the observation that ranches with a high density of cattle are more likely to use supplemental feeding practices (32, 33). Places on farms were supplemental feed is stored or fed to cattle may attract rodents that are potential prey for definitive hosts of N. caninum. This could cause these places to have an increased risk of being contaminated with the feces of definitive hosts, thus increasing the risk of postnatal infection (32).

In a study of dairy cattle in southern Brazil, it was observed that with increasing size of farmland, the seroprevalence in herds decreased. However, this protective effect was not linked to the stocking density (93). It was hypothesized that on small farms it is easier for farm dogs to have access to bovine carcasses, aborted fetuses, placenta, and uterine discharge than on larger farms.

Herd size.

In a study from Italy, the risk of individual cattle becoming seropositive increased with the size of the herd. When the analysis was restricted to data from northern Italy, the number of dogs per farm interacted significantly with herd size; i.e., the risk of being seropositive increased in larger herds with an increasing number of dogs per farm (332). In a study conducted in Germany, larger herds had an increased risk of being bulk milk positive (402). Possible explanations are that with increasing size of the herd there is an increasing chance of acquiring N. caninum infection by, for instance, the purchase of external replacement heifers. Another explanation for herd size as a risk factor could be that hygienic measures to prevent dogs from feeding on placentas or other infectious material are more difficult to follow with large herds than with small herds (402).

Source of replacement heifers.

The vertical transmission of N. caninum is very efficient. Thus, the rearing of replacement heifers on the farm rather than purchasing them from outside sources supports the contention that an existing prevalence in a herd may persist for many years (176, 423). If the seroprevalence is higher in the recipient herd than in the population from which the replacement heifers were obtained, the purchase of replacement heifers should reduce infection in the recipient herd. This could explain why, in one of the risk factor studies of beef cattle, “rearing of own replacement heifers” was identified as a potential risk factor for a high seroprevalence in calves (33).

Climate.

In two European studies that analyzed climate effects on the risk of seropositivity in herds or individual cattle, the factors “mean temperature in spring in a buffer zone around farm location” and “mean temperature in July in the municipality where the herd is localized” were identified as putative risk factors (371, 402). These observations can be explained by the effects of climate on sporulation or survival of oocysts. For example, a higher temperature (up to not-yet-defined limits) may favor a faster sporulation of oocysts in fodder or in the environment surrounding the cattle.

Vegetation index.

An Italian study observed that the risk of seropositivity in individual cattle decreased with increasing summer normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) values determined for 3-km buffer zones around the farm location (371). A high summer NDVI is indicative of forests or broadleaved trees. It was assumed that cattle from the respective farms were not pastured and thus had a smaller chance of ingesting N. caninum oocysts. However, this interpretation is not supported by the finding of another Italian study, in which “no grazing” was identified as a risk factor for seropositivity in individual cattle (332).

Human population density.

In Germany, human population density was correlated positively with dog density and could, like dog density, be used to predict the prevalence of bulk-milk-positive herds in districts and cities (400). Because dog density was identified as a putative risk factor for infection, it is not surprising that human population density seems to have the same effect.

Factors related to antibodies against other infectious agents.

Björkman et al. (55) observed in Swedish cows a statistically significant association between antibodies against N. caninum and bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV). From this result it was assumed that risk factors supporting the introduction and spread of BVDV in cattle, such as high cattle density and frequent purchase of animals, also increase the risk of N. caninum infection. In an Italian study, a positive association between antibodies against bovine herpesvirus 1 (BHV-1) and antibodies against N. caninum was demonstrated (372). The possibility of whether BHV-1-induced immunosuppression after natural infection or vaccination could increase the susceptibility of cattle to secondary infection with N. caninum was discussed. However, to prove this hypothesis, experimental or follow-up studies after infection or vaccination are necessary (372). In a Canadian study of 78 dairy herds in Ontario, no significant association between antibodies against N. caninum and serostatus to Leptospira interrogans serovar Hardjo, Icterohaemorrhagiae, or Pomona was observed (343).

Breed.

There are indications from several countries that N. caninum seroprevalences differ according to the cattle breed (39). However, these results must be interpreted with caution, because the differences observed might have been caused by differences in the production systems used for the different breeds and not by differences in breed-related susceptibility to infection. For example, native Spanish breeds were less likely to be seropositive than Holstein Friesian, Rubia Gallega, or mixed breeds. This was explained by differences in the intensity of management (39): in contrast to Holstein Friesian and Rubia Gallega cattle, which in Spain are more intensively managed, native breeds are predominately located on highland pastures with very low stocking densities. In the same study, breed-associated differences from Sweden were reported.

Type of housing.

In a French study, tethered dairy cattle had a higher risk of being seropositive than did dairy cattle kept untethered indoors (333). No explanation for this effect was offered.

Abortion Risk

Factors having an effect on the occurrence of epidemic abortion outbreaks may completely differ from those influencing the risk of endemic abortions. Risk factor analyses often have the disadvantage that there is no information regarding the context (epidemic or endemic) in which the abortions occurred. Consequently, it is not possible to assign the risk or protective factors identified in epidemiological studies to the occurrence of epidemic or endemic abortions. Some risk factor analyses are based on case-control studies limited to herds with epidemic outbreaks (37, 488); therefore, the risk factors identified in such studies can be related only to the occurrence of epidemic abortions.

Seropositivity of individual cattle.

Seropositive cows are more likely to abort than are seronegative cows, as demonstrated in a large number of studies, including retrospective and prospective cohort studies (10, 92, 107, 109, 180, 206, 213, 236, 249, 281, 282, 289, 309, 312, 315, 338, 391, 393, 394, 399, 423, 436, 447, 464, 474).

The strength of the association between seropositivity and abortion in a single group of animals may vary considerably if different serological assays are used or if for the same assay different cutoffs values are applied (392, 465). Consequently the estimates for odds ratios or relative risks may vary in relation to the serological test applied.

The abortion risk increases with increasing levels of N. caninum-specific antibodies in individual animals (239, 285, 293, 360, 393, 394, 423, 464, 488). De Meerschman et al. (113) found a strong association between the level of antibodies in the dam and the occurrence of histopathological lesions in aborted fetuses consistent with N. caninum infection. With respect to postnatal infection, a high antibody level in the individual animal could be indicative of a high infection dose and/or an efficient multiplication of the parasite in the infected host. In the case of a latent infection, a high antibody level or titer could also reflect the intensity of recrudescence of an existing infection. There is evidence from prospective studies of latently infected dams that the intensity and duration of the increase in specific antibodies during gestation could be related to the risk of fetal infection (197, 422). Thus, it might be possible to use information on individual N. caninum-specific antibody levels or antibody titers (and not only seropositivity) as a predictive tool for identifying animals with a high risk of abortion in herds with a high seroprevalence for N. caninum (360).

Seroprevalence in the herd.

There are a number of case-control and cross-sectional studies that have observed that a high N. caninum seroprevalence in herds is associated with an increased risk of abortion at the herd level (37, 174, 218, 339, 382, 402, 488). This is explained by the increased abortion risk in latently infected as well as in recently infected individual dams (see above). However, not all herds with a high seroprevalence suffer from N. caninum-associated abortion (236, 339, 402). Long-term studies of herds that had experienced abortion outbreaks revealed no or only slightly elevated abortion rates in the years after the outbreak (56, 352). Recent exposure to N. caninum infection, as evidenced by seroconversion and low-avidity antibodies, does not necessarily result in an increased abortion rate (122). This supports the hypothesis that, in addition to infection, other factors may influence the abortion risk.

Factors related to infection risk.

A number of factors putatively related to N. caninum-associated abortion are discussed above with respect to infection risk. Moreover, a number of factors identified as putative risk or protective factors for N. caninum infection in cattle also seem to influence the risk of N. caninum-associated abortion.

(i) Age.

A case-control study of herds with epidemic N. caninum-associated abortion reported an increased abortion risk with increasing parity number (484, 488). However, in herds with endemic N. caninum-associated abortion, the association with age seems to be reversed. For example, in a study of the abortion risk in N. caninum-seropositive dairy cows, lactation number was identified as a putative protective factor (284). This finding confirms previous reports of a 7.4-fold-increased abortion risk in congenitally infected heifers during their first gestation but only a 1.7-fold-higher risk of abortion in the first pregnancy of the first lactation in comparison the abortion risk in seronegative controls. In the first pregnancy of the second lactation, congenitally infected cows had the same abortion risk as seronegative cows (434). In another study conducted in a herd with endemic N. caninum-associated abortion where endogenous transplacental infection was the main mode of transmission, Hernandez et al. (211) observed a 2.8-fold-increased abortion risk during the first pregnancy of the second lactation in seropositive dams but not in the first pregnancies of the first, third, and later lactations.

(ii) Farm dogs.

The presence of farm dogs, their number, and the frequency of observation of dogs defecating in a feed manger were associated with an increased abortion risk at the herd level (37, 218). Other studies failed to identify an association between farm dogs and bovine abortion at the herd level (174, 289, 376). However, because N. caninum-associated abortions are not always linked to horizontal transmission but also occur in chronically infected dams, it cannot be expected that there is always a positive association between the presence or number of farm dogs and bovine abortion. One of the studies identifying a positive association between the presence of farm dogs and N. caninum-associated abortion had selectively analyzed risk factors for epidemic abortion. Because epidemic abortion is possibly caused by oocyst-mediated horizontal transmission, the identification of the presence of potential definitive hosts, i.e., farm dogs, as a putative risk factor is expected (37). However, at the time this study was conducted, it had not yet been established that the dog is a definitive host of N. caninum.

Wouda et al. (489) found a positive correlation between the seropositivity of farm dogs and increased seroprevalence in cattle, indicating a relationship between infections in dogs and in cattle. Investigated dogs were present on farms with both epidemic and endemic neosporosis (489).

(iii) Wild canids.

The frequency with which wild canids were observed on farm premises seemed to have a protective effect on the likelihood that farms experienced N. caninum-related abortion (218). The protective effect was explained by hypothesizing a negative interaction between the presence of farm dogs (which seem to pose an infection risk) and wild canids. It was assumed that the more farm dogs are present on a farm, the lower the likelihood that wild canids are observed on the premises.

(iv) Cats.

In accord with a study of infection risk (333), the frequency with which stray cats were observed on the premises was identified as a putative protective factor (218). Hobson et al. (218) assumed that the presence of cats might be an indicator of the absence of dogs, resulting in a reduced risk of horizontal transmission.

(v) Other potential intermediate hosts such as poultry and horses.

Case herds having experienced N. caninum-associated abortion outbreaks in The Netherlands more often kept, in addition to cattle, an increased number of poultry (more than 10). As yet, there is no biological explanation for the increased risk that the presence of poultry may pose, as poultry have not yet been identified as hosts for N. caninum (183). However, as the infection risk seems to increase with the number of farm dogs when poultry are present on a farm (332), further examinations on the susceptibility of poultry to N. caninum are necessary.

Unexpectedly, a Canadian study observed an association between the number of horses on a farm and the occurrence of N. caninum-related abortion (218). The reason for this association is not clear. Horses are known to be intermediate hosts of N. hughesi, which seems to represents a species different from N. caninum (292). As yet, N. hughesi has not been isolated from cattle. Thus, it is unknown whether N. hughesi could be involved in bovine abortion. In addition, there is no definitive evidence that horses act as intermediate hosts for N. caninum.

(vi) Fodder.

Feeding fodder of inferior quality, e.g., “Feeding of moldy maize-silage to dairy cows during summer” or “Feeding of remnant fodder to heifers during summer” seemed to be a risk factor for epidemic N. caninum-associated abortion in The Netherlands (37). The effect of feeding fodder of inferior quality may involve a suspected negative impact of fungal toxins on the immune system of cattle (37, 435, 488). In addition, remnant fodder may contain a higher proportion of contaminants, thus possibly also fecal contaminations of definitive hosts. A further explanation could be that inadequate rations may stress cattle.

(vii) Climate and season.

Thurmond et al. (435) observed a highly significant seasonal pattern regarding the submission of N. caninum-positive aborted fetuses in California. The highest number of positive cases was submitted during winter, which in California is mild and humid in contrast to the summer, which is hot and dry. Wouda et al. (488) observed in The Netherlands that abortion epidemics most often occurred in summer, which is warm and humid. There are several possible explanations for these phenomena. Mild temperatures and humidity favor the sporulation and survival of coccidian oocysts, which may increase the risk of postnatal infection. A further explanation is that mild temperatures and humidity support the growth of fungi. Fungal toxins are suspected to cause immune suppression in cattle, which may favor the recrudescence of N. caninum infections in latently infected dams (37, 435, 488).

A risk factor analysis of abortion risk in N. caninum-seropositive dams in two Spanish dairy herds suggested that there was a significant relationship between rainfall and abortion. It was suspected that increased rainfall may pose direct and indirect stresses to cattle by elevated heat production in response to cold temperatures, behavioral stress, impaired food quality, and diminished hygiene. It was hypothesized that these stresses could trigger N. caninum-associated abortion in latently infected cattle (284).

(viii) Farm-raised replacement heifers.

Rearing of dams affected by abortion and replacement heifers on a single farm was identified as a putative risk factor for N. caninum-associated abortion in a case-control study conducted in Switzerland (206). This finding is in accord with previous findings on infection risk in beef calves (33).

(ix) Proximity to a town or village.

In the same Swiss case-control study, “proximity to a town or village” was observed to be a putative risk factor for N. caninum-associated abortion (206). This observation is in accord with the findings of a German study that showed that herds had an increased risk of being positive in an N. caninum bulk milk ELISA if they were located in districts or cities with a high human population density (400). An increased human population density is correlated with a high dog density (400), which may lead to an increased infection risk of herds located closer to towns or cities.

(x) Factors related to antibodies against other infectious agents.

Infections with agents other than N. caninum could cause stress or immune suppression in animals, thus supporting the recrudescence of chronic infections or postnatal transmission (55, 431). In contrast, vaccination against other infectious agents could reduce the level of stress in a herd and thus reduce also the likelihood of N. caninum-associated abortions if stress triggers such abortions (218). The effect of other infections or vaccination against other infectious agents on the risk of N. caninum-associated abortion is not clear. Both vaccination and infection induce antibodies against infectious agents, and these serological responses can be used to address this question in epidemiological studies. However, the results of risk factor studies based on serological responses to other infectious agents are often difficult to interpret because typically there is no or only limited information regarding whether the antibodies are present because of infection or because of vaccination.

In an univariate analysis, a Swiss case-control study observed that herds with N. caninum-associated abortions were more often positive for antibodies against Coxiella burnetii and less often positive for antibodies against BVDV, Chlamydia psittaci, and Leptospira species than were control herds (206). However, in a final multivariate model, positive BVDV serology appeared to be the only putative serology risk factor for N. caninum-associated abortion at the herd level. The serostatus to Coxiella, Chlamydia, and Leptospira was eliminated from the final model because of the lack of statistical significance.

In a Dutch case-control study, no significant relationship was observed between the herd level seropositivity for BVDV, BHV-1, Leptospira interrogans serovar Hardjo, and Salmonella enterica serovar Dublin and the risk of epidemic N. caninum-associated abortion. However, among the aborting dams there was a negative relationship between seropositivity to BVDV and seropositivity to N. caninum (37).

(xi) Housing.

In two studies, the type of housing had an effect on the risk of N. caninum-associated abortion. In a Swiss study, loose housing of cattle was identified as a putative factor increasing the abortion risk (206). Apparently, loose housing is related to unknown management practices that increase the risk of N. caninum-associated abortion. For example, an association between housing and herd size was identified in a German study, because in large herds cattle were more likely to be kept in pen barns (402). However, it should be mentioned that in study conducted in France, loose housing was identified as a factor that reduced the infection risk (333).

In a Canadian study, the housing of heifers on a loafing pack (a housing pen divided into feed manger, scrape alley, and bedded pack areas) reduced the abortion risk (218). It was assumed that some designs of loafing packs may hinder the access of farm dogs and that the effect is most likely associated with oocyst-mediated horizontal transmission of N. caninum to cattle.

Factors associated with reproduction.

(i) Previous abortions.

In a cohort study of the abortion risk of congenitally infected cows, it was observed that infected cows that had previously aborted had a 5.6-fold-higher abortion risk than did congenitally infected cows that had not experienced an abortion before (434).

(ii) Annual rate of cows returning to estrus postpregnancy.

A Canadian case-control study revealed that there was a positive association between the occurrence of N. caninum-related abortions in a herd and the annual rate of cattle returning to estrus after pregnancy confirmation (218). A high rate of early pregnancy losses could increase the chance for definitive hosts to have access to infectious material, increasing the rate of oocyst-mediated horizontal transmission.

On the other hand, this result could indicate that N. caninum is associated not only with abortion but also with early pregnancy losses. Indeed, there are four other studies, three from Canada, whose results support this view (319, 464, 465, 467). In this context it should be mentioned that cattle experimentally infected at day 70 postinsemination with high doses of N. caninum tachyzoites were more susceptible to abortion than those infected with the same dose at day 140 or 210 postinsemination (476). However, a number of other epidemiological studies observed no indication that N. caninum is able to cause early pregnancy losses (54, 236, 282, 283, 378).

(iii) Retained afterbirths.

Two studies indicate that the risk of N. caninum-associated abortion may increase with in an increasing annual rate of retained afterbirths (37, 218). This factor could be associated with N. caninum infections in two different ways. Firstly, more retained afterbirths could provide more sources of infection for definitive hosts and thus increase the chance that oocyst-mediated horizontal transmission occurs. Secondly, N. caninum may not only be associated with abortion but also be involved in the pathogenesis of retained afterbirth. Further studies are necessary to clarify this point.

(iv) Use of beef bull semen to inseminate dairy cattle.

In a prospective cohort study using dairy or beef bull semen to inseminate N. caninum-seropositive dairy cows, it was observed that the use of beef bull semen reduced the risk of abortion (285), a finding which was confirmed by another study (284). It was hypothesized that placental function might be favored in crossbreed pregnancies, possibly via an increased concentration of pregnancy-associated glycoproteins. In a recent study it was shown that N. caninum infection does not affect PAG-1 (pregnancy-associated glycoprotein 1) concentrations in chronically infected nonaborting cows (286). However, PAG-1 measurement seems to be a useful tool for monitoring the fetoplacental status in aborting animals (286).

(v) Use of calving pens to hospitalize sick animals.

In a Dutch case-control study, it was observed that herds on farms where the calving pen is also used to hospitalize sick animals had a higher risk of having recent N. caninum-associated abortion epidemics than did other herds (37). The biological significance of this finding is not clear. It is very unlikely that N. caninum is transmitted horizontally among adult cattle, for instance via exposure to placenta or uterine effusions. As yet, all experiments aimed at infecting adult cattle or calves via oral ingestion of placental material from seropositive animals have failed (110). Therefore, it must be assumed that the factor “calving pen used to hospitalize sick animals” is linked to another as-yet-unidentified risk factor.

Attendance at cattle shows.

In a Dutch case-control study, it was observed that herds that had attended cattle shows during the previous 2 years had a reduced risk of N. caninum-associated abortion epidemics (37). Possibly, this factor is negatively associated with the factors “rearing of own replacement heifers” (33) or “rearing the dams affected by abortion and replacement heifers on the same farm” (205) because attendance at cattle shows could indicate that a higher proportion of replacement heifers come from external sources. “Rearing of own replacement heifers” was identified as a potential risk factor for high N. caninum seroprevalence in beef cattle (33), and “rearing the dams affected by abortion and replacement heifers on the same farm” was identified as a putative risk factor for N. caninum-associated abortion in a Swiss case-control study (206).

PREVENTION AND CONTROL

Control programs at the national, regional, and farm levels are being developed in different countries to control neosporosis (87, 126, 199, 201, 328). Control programs should incorporate a cost-benefit calculation comparing the expenses of testing and control measures with the benefit of reduced economic losses due to N. caninum infection or abortion (41, 204, 205, 258, 369). Since, at present, neosporosis is not considered a zoonotic disease, no special measures are recommended at this stage from a public health point of view.

A general strategy to control neosporosis worldwide is not applicable because of regional differences in the epidemiology of bovine neosporosis, and it is prudent to thoroughly study regional epidemiology of neosporosis before embarking on a control program.

Economic Losses and Cost-Benefit Analyses

The major economic loss due to neosporosis is reproductive failure in cattle in many countries. In addition to the direct costs involved in fetal loss, indirect costs include professional help and expenses associated with establishing a diagnosis, rebreeding, possible loss of milk yield, and replacement costs if aborted cows are culled. The diagnosis of neosporosis-associated abortion is difficult and expensive (135, 328). Although N. caninum-associated abortions have been diagnosed in many countries (129, 130), there are only a few data based on examination of a large numbers of aborted fetuses. The best available figures are approximately 20% of all bovine abortions in Brazil, California, and The Netherlands (Table 12). The methods used for diagnosis are very important. The detection of N. caninum DNA or the detection of antibodies in the fetus cannot be relied on to establish the cause of abortion because of the high rate of asymptomatic congenital transmission of N. caninum in cattle. The cost of each fetal loss is variable, based on the age and genetic value of the dam and the productive capacity of the progeny.

TABLE 12.

Diagnosis of N. caninum-associated abortion in dairy cattle from selected studies based on fetal examination

Country	No. of fetuses examined	% Infected (method)^a	Reference(s)
Argentina	188	22.8 (H), 15.4 (IHC)	311
Australia	729	21.0 (H, IHC)	58
Brazil	161	23.0 (H, IHC)	94
Germany	135	12.6 (H, IHC), 21.6 (PCR)	418
Iran	100	3 (IHC), 12 (H), 13 (PCR)	363
Korea	180	25 (H), 21.2 (H, PCR, IFAT)	244
Mexico	211	34.5 (H), 19.4 (IHC)	314
The Netherlands	2,053	17.0 (H, IHC)	483, 485
Spain	80	31.3 (H), 10.7 (IFAT, ELISA), 15.3 (PCR)	345
Switzerland	242	21.0 (PCR)	174, 382
	223	16.1 (PCR)	370a
United States	698	24.4 (H, IHC)	9, 435
	266	46.5 (H, IHC)	10

Open in a new tab

H, histology.

Postnatal losses due to neosporosis are difficult to document because there are no obvious ill effects in adult cattle other than fetal loss. Culling perhaps accounts for the major loss associated with neosporosis. Cows are culled for a variety of reasons. In a retrospective study of a 2,000-cow dairy herd in California that had a history of N. caninum-associated abortions, Neospora-seropositive cows were culled 6 months earlier than were Neospora-negative cows. The herd had a history of N. caninum-associated abortions, and N. caninum-seropositive cows were 1.6 times more likely to be culled (432) than were cows that were seronegative. By methods identical to those used in the California study, N. caninum seropositivity was not associated with culling in 3,416 cows from 56 dairy herds in Ontario, Canada (98). Tiwari et al. (439) reported that in four Canadian provinces, N. caninum-seropositive cows were culled at a rate 1.43 times higher than were seronegative dairy cows. These differences in culling rates associated with neosporosis might be influenced by the population studied and the methods used. Bartels et al. (41) studied N. caninum-associated culling in 83 randomly selected Dutch dairy herds with 17 herds that had experienced epidemic abortions. The hazard of culling was 1.7 times more in seropositive cows than in seronegative cows from randomly selected herds; aborted cows in these herds had an additional culling rate 1.2 times higher than in normal cows. Seropositive cows from the epidemic herds were 1.9 times more likely to abort than were seronegative cows; culling data were not provided.

N. caninum may affect milk production. In one study, Neospora-positive cows from a 2,000-cow herd in California produced approximately 1 kg less milk than did their seronegative herd mates (433). In another study, exposure to N. caninum was estimated to cause a 3 to 4% decline in milk production, causing a loss of $128 per cow per lactation in a 700-cow herd in Florida (210). Romero et al. (378) reported that cows seronegative for N. caninum produced an additional 84.7 liters of milk in 305 days of milk production in Costa Rica. In a Canadian study of dairy cattle from the Maritime Provinces, milk production was not associated with N. caninum seropositivity (449). In a large case-control study of N. caninum seropositivity and milk production in 140 dairy herds involving 6,864 cows in Ontario, Canada, abortion status and not seropositivity affected milk production. N. caninum-seropositive cows produced the same amount of milk as did N. caninum-seronegative cows (217). The methods used in this study were the same as those employed in the California study. However, the issue is still unsettled, as a study in New Zealand reported increased milk production in N. caninum-seropositive cows (351). Bartels et al. (41) reported an effect on milk production in herds that had experienced an abortion epidemic. The effect was present in seropositive animals in the first 100 days in milk for only the first year after the abortion epidemic. The pathophysiological pathway of the effect of N. caninum infection on milk production is a mystery.

In general, less is known of the causes of abortion in beef cattle than in dairy cattle because of the difficulty of monitoring when small fetuses are expelled in the first trimester, and so there are no accurate assessments of Neospora-induced losses in beef cattle. While there is also no direct evidence of N. caninum-associated morbidity in adult cattle, a positive association between the N. caninum antibody status of the calf and weight gain and a projected loss of $15.62 per calf has been shown by Barling et al. (31) in a seroepidemiological study. In beef herds, the effects on culling (237, 258), weaning weight (237), average daily weight during the feedlot period (31), and reproductive performance (465) have also been estimated. The risk of being culled for any reason was 1.9 times higher for seropositive cows in eight beef herds in Canada (465). In a simulation model based on endemic N. caninum infection in a beef herd in Missouri, seropositivity was associated with decreased income generated by the sale of beef cattle (258).

Regional differences in cattle management systems, parasite variability and differences in study design, analytical methodology, and parameter definitions may be the cause of the variations discussed above.

Due to the distinct influences of risk factors on infection and abortion in dairy or beef cattle raised in different regions and under different management conditions, control strategies have to be different and should always be adopted on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis at the farm level that takes into account parameters such as herd type (dairy or beef) and management system, within-herd prevalence, the predominant route of transmission, existing biosecurity measures within the farm, and the calculated effects of infection on reproductive and productive performance. As an example, on farms with endogenously related abortion, efforts might be concentrated on the identification of infected animals and their culling or selective breeding. In contrast, on farms with predominantly exogenous transplacental transmission, efforts should be concentrated on reducing the chances of oral infection by oocysts shed from a putative definitive host (442). Therefore, measures to adopt in each case should depend on the estimated economic losses due to infection and abortion within each particular farm. In this sense, several studies have calculated, using deterministic and stochastic models, the production losses in beef (258) and dairy (40, 80, 204, 205, 369) cattle and the benefits obtained after evaluation of several control strategies.

There are no firm data on economic losses due to neosporosis for the cattle industry (18, 445). It has been estimated that in California approximately 40,000 abortions could be due to neosporosis, providing an estimated loss of $35 million per year (36). In Australia and New Zealand, losses are thought to be more than $100 million Australian per year (367). In Switzerland, economic losses due to neosporosis in dairy cattle were estimated to be 9.7 Euros annually (204, 205). It is of interest that in Switzerland neosporosis has been registered as a notifiable disease since 2001 (205). The total annual loss was estimated to be $2,304 for a 50-cow dairy herd in Canada (80). In The Netherlands, 76% of seropositive herds with no episodes of abortion had no economic losses, whereas in the remaining 24% of herds, the economic losses increased notably, to a maximum of 2,000 euros per year (40). Furthermore, in farms with an abortion epidemic, the costs were on average 50 euros per animal per 2 years following the abortion epidemic and excluding the losses at the time of the abortion epidemic but including premature culling, prolonged calving interval and age of first calving, milk production losses, treatment, and diagnosis (40). In beef cattle in the United States, a 5-year simulation model evaluating different control strategies concluded that in endemic N. caninum infected-herds, testing the entire herd and excluding the female offspring of seropositive cows as potential replacements provided the best economic return (258). In the New Zealand and Australian dairy situation, a control strategy of “no intervention” has been reported as the optimal economic choice up to a within-herd prevalence of 18% or 21% over a 1-year or 5-year horizon, respectively. For a higher within-herd prevalence, vaccination provided the best economic result (369). In a Swiss study, the best control strategy currently available has been shown to be discontinuing breeding with offspring from seropositive cows (204, 205).

Use of Diagnostic Tools in the Control of N. caninum

Abortion is a major problem for livestock operations worldwide. Even in well-established and well-equipped diagnostic laboratories, the causes of more than 50% of abortions remain undiagnosed (9, 12). Establishing a cause-effect relationship between abortion and N. caninum is even more complex because asymptomatic congenital N. caninum infections are common and finding the presence of the parasite or parasite DNA does not mean that N. caninum caused the abortion. We have extensively reviewed the diagnosis of bovine abortions and proposed guidelines for diagnosis (135, 328). It is important to note that the figure of 20% N. caninum-associated abortions in cattle from California and The Netherlands (Table 12) is based on the exclusion of all other causes of abortion and the observation of N. caninum-associated lesions and parasites in aborted fetuses (9, 485).

Detection of antibodies in serum and in individual or bulk milk samples by techniques such as the indirect fluorescent antibody test (IFAT) and various ELISAs are optimal for the identification of infected herds (38, 57, 234, 328, 460). Serological tests can aid in the control of neosporosis in the international animal trade (310, 328), as infected animals can introduce the parasite to naïve herds or in areas where the disease does not exist or prevalence is very low. For example, N. caninum antibodies were not found in local breeds of cattle in Turkey (4), but imported cattle were seropositive (Table 4).

In countries with control programs under way, national or regional reference laboratories should be promoted. This idea is particularly important since the World Organization for Animal Health does not have standardized protocols for bovine neosporosis, although regional initiatives, such as COST-Action 854, “Protozoal Abortifacients in Farm Ruminants,” are promoting the standardization of diagnostic measures in bovine neosporosis among official and private institutions in the European Union. Along these lines, a manual of guidelines is being prepared by several European laboratories for the diagnosis of protozoal abortifacients in farm ruminants. These guidelines will contain recommendations concerning the diagnostic procedures to be followed when dealing with neosporosis (329).

Detection of the infection and infection-abortion relationship.

On farms with abortion problems, both maternal serology and abortion examinations should be carried out. In dairy herds, bulk milk testing could be used as an inexpensive tool for monitoring seroprevalence in lactating cows (38, 74, 177, 401, 453). This technique could adequately detect a 15% or higher intraherd seroprevalence in lactating cows (38). At the individual level, seropositivity in the cow denotes that an animal is infected, although the presence of antibodies does not prove that the infection caused the abortion, as many chronically infected cows are serologically positive (360); additionally, in a relatively high percentage of herds with endemic neosporosis, the infection could not be associated with economic losses (40). Therefore, antibody levels may decrease below the cutoff level after abortion (234). Once N. caninum infection and/or abortion in a herd has been demonstrated, estimation of the within-herd seroprevalence and investigation of the abortion pattern in the herd are highly recommended.

Investigation of the route of transmission.

Intraherd seroprevalence provides information about the infection status and is to some extent related to the economic impact in the herd. However, it is the seropositivity rate in aborting cows that is essential to establishing the relationship between N. caninum infection and abortions (431). This rate should be significantly higher in aborting cows than in nonaborting cows. In addition, to investigate the pattern of abortion produced by N. caninum in the herd, it is necessary to estimate the odds ratio, which is a parameter indicative of the abortion risk for endemic or epidemic abortion. Cows and heifers were considered at risk if they had been pregnant for at least 58 to 260 days when the abortion storm started (399). An endemic pattern of abortion is often but not always related with an odds ratio of lower than 10, whereas a higher odds ratio might be indicative of an epidemic pattern (399, 431).

In the analysis of paired samples from dams and their daughters, samples from precolostral calves and the age distribution of seropositive animals contribute to determine whether the vertical or horizontal route of transmission is predominant in the herd (Table 10). If the transmission is predominantly vertical, dams and their female offspring are seropositive, as are precolostral calves, and there is a uniform distribution of seropositive animals across the age groups. In horizontal transmission of the infection, seropositive animals are in age clusters and there is a lack of association between the serological status of dams and their offspring. Age clusters of N. caninum-seropositive cattle may have either seronegative dams or seronegative offspring (121). Analysis of the housing and feeding history of infected groups may help to define the most probable period of postnatal infection (124). In addition, the abortion pattern and avidity values in aborting dams are essential data (56, 233, 296). To determine the avidity value of antibodies, samples obtained immediately after the abortion from a representative number (8 to 10 animals) of seropositive aborted cows should be used. In herds with an endemic pattern of abortion and high-avidity antibodies in aborting dams, the vertical route should be considered the principal route of transmission. In contrast, the presence of low-avidity antibodies with an epidemic abortion pattern must be indicative of recent exposure to N. caninum by the horizontal route (1, 57, 122, 399).

Testing of replacements.

In addition to the identification of the main route of transmission of N. caninum infection in a herd, serological techniques may also help to adopt some basic measures concerning replacements. In some cases, such as with purchase or sale, a study of N. caninum infection in nonaborting cows is needed. It should be taken into account that in cattle antibodies may fluctuate substantially and may even drop below the cutoff value of the serological test used (85, 234, 360, 422). In some cases, sampling after a period of 4 to 6 weeks is recommended; for doubtful samples, the use of an a posteriori method such as immunoblotting is also useful (8, 39). Examination of dam-offspring paired samples could help to define false positives and negatives in herds in which vertical transmission is predominant. Antibody detection could also be used to determine whether a newborn calf is congenitally infected (486). In such cases, a serum sample should be taken before suckling, or 6 months after birth, as colostral antibodies may cause false-positive results and maternal antibodies may persist for several months. In precolostral calves, a positive result would confirm transplacental transmission.

Control Measures

In N. caninum-free herds, prevention of the introduction of the infection through standard biosecurity measures is the primary goal (199), whereas in N. caninum-infected herds, control programs are based on decreasing the vertical transmission in a herd by reduction of the number of seropositive cattle and/or decreasing the risk of horizontal transmission of N. caninum principally by controlling the definitive host population as a source of oocyst contamination (87, 199, 201, 258, 368). Different control measures have been suggested, ranging from no action taken to the improvement of biosecurity on the farm, the introduction of new alternatives in the reproductive management of the herd, vaccination, and the so-called “test and cull” strategies (87, 90, 199, 201, 258, 368).

Farm biosecurity.

Biosecurity is the outcome of all activities undertaken to preclude the introduction of certain disease agents into an animal population. For bovine neosporosis, the following measures are recommended to avoid the entrance of infected animals in free or infected farms and to avoid or diminish the chances of vertical and horizontal transmission in those with the presence of N. caninum-infected cattle.

(i) Quarantine and testing of replacement and purchased cattle.

Due to the importance of vertical transmission in maintaining the infection within a herd and the potential infective role of infected bovine tissues for the definitive host, one of the most relevant tools is to purchase replacement cattle from disease-free herds or herds with records of excellent reproductive performance and to test all potential replacements. The latter measure is particularly important in N. caninum-free closed herds.

(ii) Prevention of transmission from dogs and other potential definitive hosts.

Prevention of dogs and other potential definitive hosts from contaminating pastures and feedstuff with feces is recommended. Dog control on cattle farms has also been proposed as a mechanism for reducing infection transmission to livestock. In intensively managed dairy farms, the presence of dogs should be avoided, or at least dog-proof fencing should be provided in appropriate areas and the access of dogs to the housing zone and the barn and feed storage areas should be avoided. Appropriate hygiene regarding dog feces on pastures is also recommended. In extensively managed farms, the role of feral dogs and other putative canids as definitive hosts should be considered. On these farms, the presence of dogs could be of help to reduce the number of other wild canids (189, 379) Since young dogs shed more oocysts after infection than older dogs (191), the presence of pregnant bitches or bitches carrying litters should also be prevented in the areas mentioned above.

Dogs and other potential definitive hosts should not have access to infected tissues of intermediate hosts. The infection risk for definitive hosts can be diminished if aborted fetuses, fetal membranes, and other tissues of potentially infected cattle, which may be intermediate hosts, are disposed of safely so that dogs and other carnivores have no access to them. At least in North America, transmission between wild and domestic animals is possible, including the potential role of hunted deer in N. caninum transmission to hunting dogs and ultimately to domestic livestock (189). The seroprevalence of N. caninum antibodies in white-tailed deer in the United States is very high (Table 7). In a study from northeastern Illinois, antibodies to N. caninum were found in 40% of 400 deer from four sites (146), and more importantly, half of the seropositive deer had high antibody titers. The lack of association between age and seropositivity indicated transplacental transmission of infection. As of yet there is no report of N. caninum-associated abortion in white-tailed deer. The isolates of viable N. caninum from white-tailed deer were genetically similar to the isolates from cattle and dogs (457). Dogs fed infected deer tissues shed N. caninum oocysts (189). Thousands of white-tailed deer are hunted every year in the United States, and most of them are eviscerated in the field. Thus, deer tissues may be sources of infection in the carnivores, including dogs and coyotes, that are proven definitive hosts for N. caninum. These data indicate that N. caninum has become endemic in this host, and control of bovine neosporosis in the United States may be difficult because of the overpopulation of white-tailed deer and coyotes, which are moving toward cities. As a preventive measure in other parts of the world, it may be important to safely dispose of putative infected organs and tissues from hunted animals (deer and others) and to prevent the ingestion of these tissues by hunting dogs and wild carnivores.

(iii) Prevention of waterborne transmission.

Since the source of water (pond versus well or public water supply) has been shown to be a probable risk factor for N. caninum in cattle (333) and waterborne transmission has been demonstrated for the closely related parasite T. gondii (59, 116), measures to prevent water contamination by feces from the definitive hosts should be implemented.

(iv) Rodent control.

Regular rodent control by appropriate measures should be implemented to reduce the potential risk of infection that may exist in a reservoir for N. caninum in rodents.

(v) Prevention of putative factors for disease recrudescence in congenitally infected cattle.

Giving feed of moldy fodder, which may contain mycotoxins, should be avoided. Other factors that may alter the immunity balance during gestation, such as stress and dietary imbalances, are difficult to control (37).

Reproductive management.

Several reproductive management measures have been proposed to reduce the chances and the economic impact of endogenous transplacental transmission in infected herds.

(i) Embryo transfer.

Transfer of embryos from infected dams into uninfected recipients can prevent endogenous transplacental transmission of N. caninum (25). Embryo transfer should be done only to seronegative recipient cows. N. caninum infection was not demonstrable in any of 70 fetuses or calves born to seronegative cows that received embryos from seropositive donors, whereas 5 of 6 calves resulting from embryo transfer from seronegative donors to seropositive recipients were infected with N. caninum (25). Landmann et al. (257) confirmed these findings and showed that commercially used embryo transfer procedures also prevented transfer of N. caninum from seropositive cows to seronegative recipients. Additionally, preimplantation-stage bovine embryos are protected by the zona pellucida against N. caninum invasion (50). Thus, this technique may be used to recover uninfected calves from genetically valuable but N. caninum-infected dams. As a consequence, pretransfer testing of recipients for infection with N. caninum is highly recommended. Only uninfected cows should be used as recipients.

(ii) Artificial insemination of seropositive dams with semen from beef bulls.

The results of a study conducted in Spain on two high-producing dairy farms with a mean seroprevalence of 28% suggested that the use of beef bull semen could reduce the risk of abortion in dairy cows on those farms and proposed that this effect might be due to the favorable effect of cross-breed pregnancies on placental function (285).

Testing and culling.

N. caninum-infected cows must be considered a reservoir that may allow the parasite to spread to other cattle in the herd slowly by endogenous transplacental transmission or rapidly by horizontal spread, e.g., via ingestion of contaminated foodstuff or water. As a consequence, farmers may decide to remove infected cows or their progeny from the herd. The culling of infected cows is a control option that is effective but not always economically realistic. The “test and cull” strategy includes the following options: (i) test and cull seropositive dams or seropositive aborting dams; (ii) test and inseminate the progeny of seropositive dams with beef bull semen only; and (iii) test and exclude the progeny of seropositive dams from breeding. These options have been successfully applied, also from an economic point of view, in a few situations (201). Moreover, simulation models have estimated the economic return in endemically infected herds of beef cattle after the use of different test and cull strategies, such as culling females that fail to calve, selling seropositive females and purchasing seronegative replacements, and excluding the female offspring of seropositive dams as potential replacements. Regarding the assumptions in this model, testing of the entire herd and excluding the female offspring of seropositive dams as potential replacements provided the best economic return (258). It must be considered that these approaches can be recommended only for herds with predominantly endogenous transplacental (vertical) transmission of the infection. Culled dams or dams excluded from breeding must be replaced only by seronegative animals. Before a test and cull strategy is adopted, the risk factors for infection (main route of transmission, i.e., endogenous transplacental transmission; presence of dogs; presence of other domestic or wildlife reservoirs) must be analyzed (199). A cost-benefit analysis for each farm should be performed before any of these options is chosen. Computer programs are needed to facilitate these cost-benefit analyses.

Chemotherapy.

Treatment of cattle appears to be uneconomical due to the fact that it can be used only as a preventive measure and hence must be long term, likely producing unacceptable milk or meat residues or withdrawal periods (368). However, better knowledge of host-parasite interactions during gestation may reveal strategic periods for application of short-period treatments, and different treatment strategies could be suggested for herds with predominant exogenous or endogenous transplacental transmission. Currently, there is no chemotherapy for bovine neosporosis that has been shown to be safe and effective, and any effort to treat cattle with existing drugs must therefore be discouraged at this stage. However, interesting experimental studies that may result in an option for chemotherapeutic control at a later stage have been conducted. An effect of toltrazuril and its derivative ponazuril on tachyzoites of N. caninum has been shown in vitro (104) and in vivo in calves (200, 255). In calves treated with ponazuril, the parasite was no longer detectable in the brain and other organs (255). In experimentally infected mice, evidence that treatment with toltrazuril may be able to block transplacental transmission of the infection was obtained (192).

Vaccination.

Ideally, any vaccine developed against bovine neosporosis should protect against fetal (embryonic) loss and avoid vertical transmission. Additionally, this vaccine should allow discrimination between infected and vaccinated animals with serological tools in an integrated control approach. There is accumulating evidence that some N. caninum-infected cows can develop a degree of protective immunity against abortion and transmission, indicating that immunoprophylaxis is a feasible target. However, the situation seems to be different in animals or herds with predominant exogenous or endogenous transplacental transmission. In herds with endemic N. caninum-associated abortion, the abortion risk has been shown to be higher in heifers than in subsequent gestations in dams (211, 283), and the proportion of congenitally infected calves decreased with the increasing parity of the dams (125, 376). However, a cow can abort more than once, and infection can be transmitted to the fetus in some or all parities (10, 486). In contrast, the situation appears to be distinct in the case of exogenous transplacental transmission. On a farm with suspected point source infection, chronically infected cattle were less likely to abort than were naïve cattle (296). Moreover, naïve cattle experimentally infected prior to pregnancy did not transmit the parasite to their offspring (198, 227, 476) and induced sufficient immunity to protect against abortion when challenged on day 70 of gestation (198, 478). Vertical transmission did not occur when cows were challenged midgestation (227), showing that it is possible to induce protective immunity against exogenous transplacental transmission. This information suggests that the age at which cattle become infected is very important in determining the nature of the immune response (227, 477) and that some form of immunotolerance to parasite development in the bovine fetus exists when the infection is acquired in utero.

(i) Key points of vaccine design for bovine neosporosis.

Several key points should then be considered in the design of vaccines to protect against bovine neosporosis in cattle. Firstly, N. caninum is an obligate intracellular parasite, and cell-mediated immunity plays a major role in protection (228). Critical components of the immune response for combating infection in cattle are gamma interferon and CD4 T cells (228, 477). The effect of antibodies in immunity remains to be determined, but a likely role would be to help control the spread of extracellular parasite stages (228). Interestingly, abortion or transmission occurs during gestation, a time when the immune response to infection can influence the success of the pregnancy, and the immunomodulation occurring in the dam to avoid rejection of the conceptus may affect the ability of the dam to control infection (228, 358). At present, it is well known that the time when infection occurs during gestation is critical to the outcome of pregnancy (344, 360, 476). This observation has been related to the immunocompetence of the fetus at the time of N. caninum infection (83, 228) and to the fact that an immune response to N. caninum in the dam may be incompatible with survival of the fetus (228, 229, 358). Therefore, a fetus may become infected as a result of reactivation of a persistent infection in the dam (endogenous transplacental infection), following infection of the mother during pregnancy (exogenous transplacental transmission), or from a nonpregnant, naïve postnatally infected dam that gives birth to a congenitally infected offspring in a subsequent pregnancy. These are situations with fundamental differences concerning their epidemiological and control implications (442). Finally, it should be considered that different N. caninum strains or isolates can show notable differences in virulence, as has already been demonstrated in the mouse model (21, 84, 264, 305, 405) and observed in preliminary experimental infections of cattle (L. M. Ortega-Mora, unpublished results).

(ii) Live versus dead vaccines.

The advantages and drawbacks of live and dead (or nonliving) vaccines have been reviewed extensively (228, 404, 477). Different approaches have been followed in vaccine development for bovine neosporosis, and several groups have shown that it is possible to induce at least partial protection in cattle. Andrianarivo et al. (16) reported that a POLYGEN-adjuvanted, killed N. caninum tachyzoite preparation failed to prevent fetal infection in pregnant cattle following intravenous or intramuscular experimental tachyzoite challenge. A HAVLOGEN-adjuvanted, killed vaccine (NeoGuard) available in a number of countries yielded protection in a field study in two out of five herds in New Zealand with an overall efficacy of 5.2% to 54% (212). The same vaccine had a “reasonable effect on abortion” when tested in Costa Rica (377), where protection was observed in 15 out of 25 herds in another field study. However, a slight negative effect was reported for six herds. The overall efficacy of the vaccine was calculated at 46%. Recently, protection against fetal death was reported for cows vaccinated with live N. caninum (198, 478). These results confirmed previous vaccination studies with mice, in which live infection prior to gestation protected against challenge during gestation (263, 306). However, at present, protection from endogenous transplacental transmission in controlled cattle has not been shown for any vaccine. When pregnant heifers naturally infected with N. caninum were immunized with killed tachyzoites or left untreated, the results suggested that reactivation of a latent infection had occurred in the naturally infected heifers, regardless of their immunization status, and that immunization with the POLYGEN-adjuvanted, killed N. caninum tachyzoite preparation had not been not able to prevent vertical transmission in naturally infected heifers (17).

(iii) Perspectives and recommendations.

It must be emphasized that currently available vaccines do not permit discrimination of vaccinated from infected cattle with serological assays. As a consequence, after application of the vaccine, the infection status of an animal can no longer be reliably determined. All vaccinated cattle will have to be treated as infected animals, e.g., for trade purposes. Cattle vaccinated against N. caninum should therefore not be introduced into a Neospora-free herd. Seroepidemiological approaches cannot be used in vaccinated herds to determine seroprevalence in the herd regarding infection by N. caninum. As a consequence, diagnostic tools are restricted to analyzing aborted fetuses and to testing precolostral samples of newborn calves in vaccinated herds.

At the World Association for the Advancement of Veterinary Parasitology Conference held in Christchurch, New Zealand, in October 2005, it was agreed in the workshop “Options for Control of Protozoal Abortion in Ruminants: Practical Experience” that a document that describes the scientific information required before a vaccine against bovine neosporosis can be licensed should be prepared (87). This information should include (i) a statement on the objective of vaccination (i.e., protection against abortion, transplacental transmission, or infection in general), (ii) proof of efficacy in experimental studies performed with cattle, (iii) proof of efficacy in field studies, (iv) proof of safety, and (v) proof of compatibility with diagnostic techniques allowing testers to distinguish vaccinated from infected cattle (e.g., the addition of a marker to the vaccine or a companion test). In addition, instructions for the use of a vaccine (time, frequency of vaccination, and mode of application, etc.) must be verified by studies conducted according to scientific standards. Finally, for N. caninum isolates derived from bovine tissue, or from dogs that have been fed with bovine material, the absence of prions of bovine spongiform encephalopathy must be confirmed.

Acknowledgments

We thank C. Bartels, E. Bártová, D. Dijkstra, S. Gennari, D. Hill, S. Nishi, A. Peregrine, M. Reichel, and W. Wouda for help in preparation of this paper.

This work was part of COST-Action 854, “Protozoal Reproduction Losses in Farm Ruminants.”

REFERENCES

1.Aguado-Martínez, A., G. Álvarez-García, I. Arnaiz-Seco, E. Innes, and L. M. Ortega-Mora. 2005. Use of avidity enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and avidity Western blot to discriminate between acute and chronic Neospora caninum infection in cattle. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 17:442-450. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Aguiar, D. M., G. T. Cavalcante, A. A. R. Rodrigues, M. B. Labruna, L. M. A. Camargo, E. P. Camargo, and S. M. Gennari. 2006. Prevalence of anti-Neospora caninum antibodies in cattle and dogs from Western Amazon, Brazil, in association with some possible risk factors. Vet. Parasitol. 142:71-77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Ahn, H. J., S. Kim, D. Y. Kim, and H. W. Nam. 2003. ELISA detection of IgG antibody against a recombinant major surface antigen (Nc-p43) fragment of Neospora caninum in bovine sera. Korean J. Parasitol. 41:175-177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Akca, A., H. I. Gokce, C. S. Guy, J. W. McGarry, and D. J. L. Williams. 2005. Prevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum in local and imported cattle breeds in the Kars province of Turkey. Res. Vet. Sci. 78:123-126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Aktas, F., G. Vural, and I. Y. Sezen. Serological survey of Neospora caninum infection in dairy cattle herds in Gebze, Turkey. Indian Vet. J., in press.
6.Almería, S., D. Ferrer, M. Pabón, J. Castellà, and S. Mañas. 2002. Red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) are a natural intermediate host of Neospora caninum. Vet. Parasitol. 107:287-294. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Almería, S., D. Vidal, D. Ferrer, M. Pabón, M. I. G. Fernández-de-Mera, F. Ruiz-Fons, V. Alzaga, I. Marco, C. Calvete, S. Lavin, C. Gortazar, F. López-Gatius, and J. P. Dubey. 2007. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum in non-carnivorous wildlife from Spain. Vet. Parasitol. 143:21-28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Álvarez-García, G., E. Collantes-Fernández, E. Costas, X. Rebordosa, and L. M. Ortega-Mora. 2003. Influence of age and purpose for testing on the cut-off selection of serological methods in bovine neosporosis. Vet. Res. 34:341-352. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Anderson, M. L., P. C. Blanchard, B. C. Barr, J. P. Dubey, R. L. Hoffman, and P. A. Conrad. 1991. Neospora-like protozoan infection as a major cause of abortion in California dairy cattle. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 198:241-244. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Anderson, M. L., C. W. Palmer, M. C. Thurmond, J. P. Picanso, P. C. Blanchard, R. E. Breitmeyer, A. W. Layton, M. McAllister, B. Daft, H. Kinde, D. H. Read, J. P. Dubey, P. A. Conrad, and B. C. Barr. 1995. Evaluation of abortions in cattle attributable to neosporosis in selected dairy herds in California. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 207:1206-1210. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Anderson, M. L., J. P. Reynolds, J. D. Rowe, K. W. Sverlow, A. E. Packham, B. C. Barr, and P. A. Conrad. 1997. Evidence of vertical transmission of Neospora sp. infection in dairy cattle. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 210:1169-1172. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Anderson, M. L., A. G. Andrianarivo, and P. A. Conrad. 2000. Neosporosis in cattle. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 60-61:417-431. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Anderson, T., A. Dejardin, D. K. Howe, J. P. Dubey, and M. L. Michalski. 2007. Neospora caninum antibodies detected in midwestern white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) by Western blot and ELISA. Vet. Parasitol. 145:152-155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Andreotti, R., R. D. Pinckney, P. P. Pires, and E. A. E. Silva. 2004. Evidence of Neospora caninum in beef cattle and dogs in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul, center-western region, Brazil. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 13:129-131. [Google Scholar]
15.Andreotti, R., J. M. Oliveira, E. Araujo e Silva, L. M. Oshiro, and M. F. C. Matos. 2006. Occurrence of Neospora caninum in dogs and its correlation with visceral leishmaniasis in the urban area of Campo Grande, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 135:375-379. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Andrianarivo, A. G., J. D. Rowe, B. C. Barr, M. L. Anderson, A. E. Packham, K. W. Sverlow, L. Choromanski, C. Loui, A. Grace, and P. A. Conrad. 2000. A POLYGEN-adjuvanted killed Neospora caninum tachyzoite preparation failed to prevent foetal infection in pregnant cattle following i.v./i.m. experimental tachyzoite challenge. Int. J. Parasitol. 30:985-990. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Andrianarivo, A. G., M. L. Anderson, J. D. Rowe, I. A. Gardner, J. P. Reynolds, L. Choromanski, and P. A. Conrad. 2005. Immune responses during pregnancy in heifers naturally infected with Neospora caninum with and without immunization. Parasitol. Res. 96:24-31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Antony, A., and N. B. Williamson. 2001. Recent advances in understanding the epidemiology of Neospora caninum in cattle. N. Z. Vet. J. 49:42-47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Antony, A., and N. B. Williamson. 2003. Prevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum in dogs of rural or urban origin in central New Zealand. N. Z. Vet. J. 51:232-237. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Armengol, R., M. Pabón, C. Adelantado, F. López-Gatius, and S. Almería. 2006. First report of Neospora caninum abortion in a beef cow-calf herd from Andorra, Europe. J. Parasitol. 92:1361-1362. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20a.Armengol, R., M. Pabón, P. Santolaria, O. Cabezón, C. Adelantado, J. Yániz, F. López-Gatius, and S. Almería. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum infection in cow-calf herds in Andorra and risk factors associated with seropositivity. J. Parasitol., in press. [DOI] [PubMed]
21.Atkinson, R., P. A. W. Harper, C. Ryce, D. A. Morrison, and J. T. Ellis. 1999. Comparison of the biological characteristics of two isolates of Neospora caninum. Parasitology 118:363-370. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Atkinson, R. A., R. W. Cook, L. A. Reddacliff, J. Rothwell, K. W. Broady, P. A. W. Harper, and J. T. Ellis. 2000. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum infection following an abortion outbreak in a dairy cattle herd. Aust. Vet. J. 78:262-266. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Azevedo, S. S., C. S. A. Batista, S. A. Vasconcellos, D. M. Aguiar, A. M. A. Ragozo, A. A. R. Rodgrigues, C. J. Alves, and S. M. Gennari. 2006. Seroepidemiology of Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum in dogs from the state of Paraíba, northeast region of Brazil. Res. Vet. Sci. 79:51-56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Bae, J. S., D. Y. Kim, W. S. Hwang, J. H. Kim, N. S. Lee, and H. W. Nam. 2000. Detection of IgG antibody against Neospora caninum in cattle in Korea. Korean J. Parasitol. 38:245-249. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Baillargeon, P., G. Fecteau, J. Paré, P. Lamothe, and R. Sauvé. 2001. Evaluation of the embryo transfer procedure proposed by the International Embryo Transfer Society as a method of controlling vertical transmission of Neospora caninum in cattle. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 218:1803-1806. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Bañales, P., L. Fernandez, M. V. Repiso, A. Gil, D. A. Dargatz, and T. Osawa. 2006. A nationwide survey on seroprevalence of Neospora caninum infection in beef cattle in Uruguay. Vet. Parasitol. 139:15-20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Barber, J. S., and A. J. Trees. 1998. Naturally occurring vertical transmission of Neospora caninum in dogs. Int. J. Parasitol. 28:57-64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Barber, J. S., O. J. M. Holmdahl, M. R. Owen, F. Guy, A. Uggla, and A. J. Trees. 1995. Characterization of the first European isolate of Neospora caninum (Dubey, Carpenter, Speer, Topper and Uggla). Parasitology 111:563-568. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Barber, J. S., R. B. Gasser, J. Ellis, M. P. Reichel, D. McMillan, and A. J. Trees. 1997. Prevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum in different canid populations. J. Parasitol. 83:1056-1058. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.Barber, J. S., L. van Ham, I. Polis, and A. J. Trees. 1997. Seroprevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum in Belgian dogs. J. Small Anim. Pract. 38:15-16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31.Barling, K. S., J. W. McNeill, J. A. Thompson, J. C. Paschal, E. T. McCollum, T. M. Craig, and L. G. Adams. 2000. Association of serologic status for Neospora caninum with post weaning weight gain and carcass measurements in beef calves. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 217:1356-1360. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Barling, K. S., M. Sherman, M. J. Peterson, J. A. Thompson, J. W. McNeill, T. M. Craig, and L. G. Adams. 2000. Spatial associations among density of cattle, abundance of wild canids, and seroprevalence to Neospora caninum in a population of beef calves. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 217:1361-1365. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.Barling, K. S., J. W. McNeill, J. C. Paschal, F. T. McCollum III, T. M. Craig, L. G. Adams, and J. A. Thompson. 2001. Ranch-management factors associated with antibody seropositivity for Neospora caninum in consignments of beef calves in Texas, USA Prev. Vet. Med. 52:53-61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.Barr, B. C., M. L. Anderson, L. W. Woods, J. P. Dubey, and P. A. Conrad. 1992. Neospora-like protozoal infections associated with abortion in goats. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 4:365-367. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35.Barr, B. C., P. A. Conrad, K. W. Sverlow, A. F. Tarantal, and A. G. Hendrickx. 1994. Experimental fetal and transplacental Neospora infection in the nonhuman primate. Lab. Investig. 71:236-242. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Barr, B. C., J. P. Dubey, D. S. Lindsay, J. P. Reynolds, and S. J. Wells. 1998. Neosporosis: its prevalence and economic impact. Comp. Cont. Edu. Pract. Vet. 20:1-16. [Google Scholar]
37.Bartels, C. J. M., W. Wouda, and Y. H. Schukken. 1999. Risk factors for Neospora caninum-associated abortion storms in dairy herds in the Netherlands (1995 to 1997). Theriogenology 52:247-257. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.Bartels, C. J. M., C. van Maanen, A. M. van der Meulen, T. Dijkstra, and W. Wouda. 2005. Evaluation of three enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for detection of antibodies to Neospora caninum in bulk milk. Vet. Parasitol. 131:235-246. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39.Bartels, C. J. M., J. I. Arnaiz-Seco, A. Ruiz-Santa-Quitera, C. Björkman, J. Frössling, D. von Blumröder, F. J. Conraths, G. Schares, C. van Maanen, W. Wouda, and L. M. Ortega-Mora. 2006. Supranational comparison of Neospora caninum seroprevalences in cattle in Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden. Vet. Parasitol. 137:17-27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Bartels, C. J. M., H. Hogeveen, G. van Schaik, W. Wouda, and T. Dijkstra. 2006. Estimated economic losses due to Neospora caninum infection in dairy herds with and without a history of Neospora caninum associated abortion epidemics, p. 191-201. SVEPM Ann. Meet., Exeter University, Devon, United Kingdom, 29-31 March 2006.
41.Bartels, C. J. M., G. van Schaik, J. P. Veldhuisen, B. H. P. van den Borne, W. Wouda, and T. Dijkstra. 2006. Effect of Neospora caninum-serostatus on culling, reproductive performance and milk production in Dutch dairy herds with and without a history of Neospora caninum associated abortion epidemics. Prev. Vet. Med. 77:186-198. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42.Bartley, P. M., S. Wright, J. Sales, F. Chianini, D. Buxton, and E. A. Innes. 2006. Long-term passage of tachyzoites in tissue culture can attenuate virulence of Neospora caninum in vivo. Parasitology 133:421-432. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43.Bártová, E., K. Sedlák, and I. Literák. 2006. Prevalence of Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum antibodies in wild boars in the Czech Republic. Vet. Parasitol. 142:150-153. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44.Basso, W., L. Venturini, M. C. Venturini, D. E. Hill, O. C. H. Kwok, S. K. Shen, and J. P. Dubey. 2001. First isolation of Neospora caninum from the feces of a naturally infected dog. J. Parasitol. 87:612-618. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45.Basso, W., L. Venturini, M. C. Venturini, P. Moore, M. Rambeau, J. M. Unzaga, C. Campero, D. Bacigalupe, and J. P. Dubey. 2001. Prevalence of Neospora caninum infection in dogs from beef-cattle farms, dairy farms, and from urban areas of Argentina. J. Parasitol. 87:906-907. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46.Bech-Sabat, G., F. Lopez-Gatius, P. Santolaria, I. Garcia-Ispierto, M. Pabon, C. Nogareda, J. L. Yaniz, and S. Almeria. 2007. Progesterone supplementation during mid-gestation increases the risk of abortion in Neospora-infected dairy cows with high antibody titres. Vet. Parasitol. 145:164-167. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47.Bergeron, N., G. Fecteau, J. Paré, R. Martineau, and A. Villeneuve. 2000. Vertical and horizontal transmission of Neospora caninum in dairy herds in Québec. Can. Vet. J. 41:464-467. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48.Bergeron, N., G. Fecteau, A. Villeneuve, C. Girard, and J. Paré. 2001. Failure of dogs to shed oocysts after being fed bovine fetuses naturally infected by Neospora caninum. Vet. Parasitol. 97:145-152. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49.Bergeron, N., C. Girard, J. Paré, G. Fecteau, J. Robinson, and P. Baillargeon. 2001. Rare detection of Neospora caninum in placentas from seropositive dams giving birth to full-term calves. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 13:173-175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50.Bielanski, A., J. Robinson, and B. Phipps-Todd. 2002. Effect of Neospora caninum on in vitro development of preimplantation stage bovine embryos and adherence to the zona pellucida. Vet. Rec. 150:316-318. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51.Biyikoglu, G., T. Oncel, and O. Bagci. 2005. Serological survey of Neospora caninum infection. Indian Vet. J. 82:345-346. [Google Scholar]
52.Bjerkås, I., S. F. Mohn, and J. Presthus. 1984. Unidentified cyst-forming sporozoon causing encephalomyelitis and myositis in dogs. Z. Parasitenkd. 70:271-274. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53.Björkman, C., A. Lundén, and A. Uggla. 1994. Prevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii in Swedish dogs. Acta Vet. Scand. 35:445-447. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54.Björkman, C., O. Johansson, S. Stenlund, O. J. M. Holmdahl, and A. Uggla. 1996. Neospora species infection in a herd of dairy cattle. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 208:1441-1444. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
55.Björkman, C., S. Alenius, U. Emanuelsson, and A. Uggla. 2000. Neospora caninum and bovine virus diarrhea virus infections in Swedish dairy cows in relation to abortion. Vet. J. 159:201-206. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56.Björkman, C., M. M. McAllister, J. Frössling, K. Näslund, F. Leung, and A. Uggla. 2003. Application of the Neospora caninum IgG avidity ELISA in assessment of chronic reproductive losses after an outbreak of neosporosis in a herd of beef cattle. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 15:3-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57.Björkman, C., G. Álvarez-García, F. J. Conraths, J. G. Mattsson, L. M. Ortega-Mora, H. Sager, and G. Schares. 2006. Neospora caninum IgG avidity tests: an interlaboratory comparison. Vet. Parasitol. 140:273-280. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58.Boulton, J. G., P. A. Gill, R. W. Cook, G. C. Fraser, P. A. W. Harper, and J. P. Dubey. 1995. Bovine Neospora abortion in north-eastern New South Wales. Aust. Vet. J. 72:119-120. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
59.Bowie, W. R., A. S. King, D. H. Werker, J. L. Isaac-Renton, A. Bell, S. B. Eng, and S. A. Marion. 1997. Outbreak of toxoplasmosis associated with municipal drinking water. Lancet 350:173-177. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
59a.Bregoli, M., C. Gioia, N. Stefano, C. Mariapia, and P. Claudio. 2006. Serological survey of Neospora caninum in free-ranging wild ruminants. Vet. Arh. 76:S111-S115. [Google Scholar]
60.Bresciani, K. D. S., S. M. Gennari, A. C. M. Serrano, A. A. R. Rodrigues, T. Ueno, L. G. Franco, S. H. V. Perri, and A. F. T. Amarante. 2007. Antibodies to Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii in domestic cats from Brazil. Parasitol. Res. 100:281-285. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
61.Buxton, D., S. W. Maley, P. P. Pastoret, B. Brochier, and E. A. Innes. 1997. Examination of red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) from Belgium for antibody to Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii. Vet. Rec. 141:308-309. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
62.Cabaj, W., L. Choromanski, S. Rodgers, B. E. Moskwa, and A. Malczewski. 2000. Neospora caninum infections in aborting dairy cows in Poland. Acta Parasitol. 45:113-114. [Google Scholar]
63.Cabaj, W., B. Moskwa, K. Pastusiak, and J. Gill. 2005. Antibodies to Neospora caninum in the blood of European bison (Bison bonasus bonasus L.) living in Poland. Vet. Parasitol. 128:163-168. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
64.Caetano-da-Silva, A., I. Ferre, G. Aduriz, G. Álvarez-García, I. del-Pozo, R. Atxaerandio, J. Regidor-Cerrillo, C. Ugarte-Garagalza, and L. M. Ortega-Mora. 2004. Neospora caninum infection in breeder bulls: seroprevalence and comparison of serological methods used for diagnosis. Vet. Parasitol. 124:19-24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
65.Caetano-da-Silva, A., I. Ferre, E. Collantes-Fernández, V. Navarro, G. Aduriz, C. Ugarte-Garagalza, and L. M. Ortega-Mora. 2004. Occasional detection of Neospora caninum DNA in frozen extended semen from naturally infected bulls. Theriogenology 62:1329-1336. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
66.Campero, C. M., D. P. Moore, H. Lagomarsino, A. C. Odeón, M. Castro, and H. Visca. 2003. Serological status and abortion rate in progeny obtained by natural service or embryo transfer from Neospora caninum-seropositive cows. J. Vet. Med. B 50:458-460. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
67.Canada, N., C. S. Meireles, A. Rocha, S. Sousa, G. Thompson, J. P. Dubey, S. Romand, P. Thulliez, and J. M. Correia da Costa. 2002. First Portuguese isolate of Neospora caninum from an aborted fetus from a dairy herd with endemic neosporosis. Vet. Parasitol. 110:11-15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
68.Canada, N., C. S. Meireles, M. Mezo, M. González-Warleta, J. M. Correia da Costa, C. Sreekumar, D. E. Hill, K. B. Miska, and J. P. Dubey. 2004. First isolation of Neospora caninum from an aborted bovine fetus in Spain. J. Parasitol. 90:863-864. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
69.Canada, N., J. Carvalheira, C. S. Meireles, J. M. Correia da Costa, and A. Rocha. 2004. Prevalence of Neospora caninum infection in dairy cows and its consequences for reproductive management. Theriogenology 62:1229-1235. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
70.Canada, N., C. S. Meireles, P. Ferreira, J. M. C. da Costa, and A. Rocha. 2006. Artificial insemination of cows with semen in vitro contaminated with Neospora caninum tachyzoites failed to induce neosporosis. Vet. Parasitol. 139:109-114. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
71.Cañón-Franco, W. A., D. P. Bergamaschi, M. B. Labruna, L. M. A. Camargo, S. L. P. Souza, J. C. R. Silva, A. Pinter, J. P. Dubey, and S. M. Gennari. 2003. Prevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum in dogs from Amazon, Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 115:71-74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
72.Cañón-Franco, W. A., L. E. O. Yai, S. L. P. Souza, L. C. Santos, N. A. R. Farias, J. Ruas, F. W. Rossi, A. A. B. Gomes, J. P. Dubey, and S. M. Gennari. 2004. Detection of antibodies to Neospora caninum in two species of wild canids, Lycalopex gymnocercus and Cerdocyon thous from Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 123:275-277. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
73.Capelli, G., S. Nardelli, A. F. di Regalbono, A. Scala, and M. Pietrobelli. 2004. Sero-epidemiological survey of Neospora caninum infection in dogs in north-eastern Italy. Vet. Parasitol. 123:143-148. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
74.Chanlun, A., K. Näslund, S. Aiumlamai, and C. Björkman. 2002. Use of bulk milk for detection of Neospora caninum infection in dairy herds in Thailand. Vet. Parasitol. 110:35-44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
75.Chávez-Velásquez, A., G. Álvarez-García, E. Collantes-Fernández, E. Casas-Astos, R. Rosadio-Alcántara, E. Serrano-Martínez, and L. M. Ortega-Mora. 2004. First report of Neospora caninum infection in adult alpacas (Vicugna pacos) and llamas (Lama glama). J. Parasitol. 90:864-866. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
76.Cheadle, M. A., D. S. Lindsay, and B. L. Blagburn. 1999. Prevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum in dogs. Vet. Parasitol. 85:325-330. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
77.Cheadle, M. A., J. A. Spencer, and B. L. Blackburn. 1999. Seroprevalences of Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii in non-domestic felids from southern Africa. J. Zoo Wildl. Med. 30:248-251. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
78.Cheadle, M. A., D. S. Lindsay, S. Rowe, C. C. Dykstra, M. A. Williams, J. A. Spencer, M. A. Toivio-Kinnucan, S. D. Lenz, J. C. Newton, M. D. Rolsma, and B. L. Blagburn. 1999. Prevalence of antibodies to Neospora sp. in horses from Alabama and characterization of an isolate recovered from a naturally infected horse. Int. J. Parasitol. 29:1537-1543. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
79.Cheah, T. S., J. G. Mattsson, M. Zaini, R. A. Sani, E. B. Jakubek, A. Uggla, and P. Chandrawathani. 2004. Isolation of Neospora caninum from a calf in Malaysia. Vet. Parasitol. 126:263-269. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
80.Chi, J., J. A. VanLeeuwen, A. Weersink, and G. P. Keefe. 2002. Direct production losses and treatment costs from bovine viral diarrhea virus, bovine leukosis virus, Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis, and Neospora caninum. Prev. Vet. Med. 55:137-153. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
81.Ciaramella, P., M. Corona, L. Cortese, D. Piantedosi, D. Santoro, A. di Loria, and R. Rigato. 2004. Seroprevalence of Neospora spp. in asymptomatic horses in Italy. Vet. Parasitol. 123:11-15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
82.Cole, R. A., D. S. Lindsay, B. L. Blagburn, D. C. Sorjonen, and J. P. Dubey. 1995. Vertical transmission of Neospora caninum in dogs. J. Parasitol. 81:208-211. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
83.Collantes-Fernández, E., A. Rodríguez-Bertos, I. Arnáiz-Seco, B. Moreno, G. Aduriz, and L. M. Ortega-Mora. 2006. Influence of the stage of pregnancy on Neospora caninum distribution, parasite loads and lesions in aborted bovine foetuses. Theriogenology 65:629-641. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
84.Collantes-Fernández, E., I. López-Pérez, G. Álvarez-García, and L. M. Ortega-Mora. 2006. Temporal distribution and parasite load kinetics in blood and tissues during Neospora caninum infection in mice. Infect. Immun. 74:2491-2494. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
85.Conrad, P. A., K. Sverlow, M. Anderson, J. Rowe, R. BonDurant, G. Tuter, R. Breitmeyer, C. Palmer, M. Thurmond, A. Ardans, J. P. Dubey, G. Duhamel, and B. Barr. 1993. Detection of serum antibody responses in cattle with natural or experimental Neospora infections. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 5:572-578. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
86.Conrad, P. A., B. C. Barr, K. W. Sverlow, M. Anderson, B. Daft, H. Kinde, J. P. Dubey, L. Munson, and A. Ardans. 1993. In vitro isolation and characterization of a Neospora sp. from aborted bovine foetuses. Parasitology 106:239-249. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
87.Conraths, F. J., and L. M. Ortega-Mora. 2005. Options for control of protozoal abortion in ruminants: practical experience. Conclusions, p. 229. Workshop Session T. 20th Int. Conf. World Assoc. Adv. Vet. Parasitol. Christchurch, New Zealand, 16 to 20 October 2005.
88.Conraths, F. J., G. Schares, G. Tchernychova, and O. A. S. Bessonov. 2000. Seroepidemiological evidence for bovine neosporosis and Neospora caninum-associated abortions in the Russian Federation. Int. J. Parasitol. 30:890-891. [Google Scholar]
89.Conraths, F. J., C. Bauer, and W. Becker. 1996. Nachweis von Antikörpern gegen Neospora caninum bei Kühen in hessischen Betrieben mit Abort- und Fruchtbarkeitsproblemen. Dtsch. Tierärztl. Wochenschr. 103:221-224. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
90.Conraths, F. J., G. Schares, L. M. Ortega-Mora, and B. Gottstein. 2007. Control measures: neosporosis, p. 279-287. In L. M. Ortega-Mora, B. Gottstein, F. J. Conraths, and D. Buxton (ed.), Protozoal abortion in farm ruminants. Guidelines for diagnosis and control. CAB International, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom.
91.Corbellini, L. G., E. M. Colodel, and D. Driemeier. 2001. Granulomatous encephalitis in a neurologically impaired goat kid associated with degeneration of Neospora caninum tissue cysts. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 13:416-419. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
92.Corbellini, L. G., D. Driemeier, C. F. E. Cruz, L. F. P. Gondim, and V. Wald. 2002. Neosporosis as a cause of abortion in dairy cattle in Rio Grande do Sul, southern Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 103:195-202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
93.Corbellini, L. G., D. R. Smith, C. A. Pescador, M. Schmitz, A. Correa, D. J. Steffen, and D. Driemeier. 2006. Herd-level risk factors for Neospora caninum seroprevalence in dairy farms in southern Brazil. Prev. Vet. Med. 74:130-141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
94.Corbellini, L. G., C. A. Pescador, F. Frantz, E. Wunder, D. Steffen, D. R. Smith, and D. Driemeier. 2006. Diagnostic survey of bovine abortion with special reference to Neospora caninum infection: importance, repeated abortion and concurrent infection in aborted fetuses in Southern Brazil. Vet. J. 172:114-120. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
95.Çoškun, S. Z., L. Aydyn, and C. Bauer. 2000. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum infection in domestic dogs in Turkey. Vet. Rec. 146:649. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
96.Costa, G. H. N., D. D. Cabral, N. P. Varandas, E. A. Sobral, F. A. Borges, and K. C. Castagnolli. 2001. Freqüência de anticorpos anti-Neospora caninum e anti-Toxoplasma gondii em soros de bovinos pertencentes aos estados de São Paulo e de Minas Gerais. Semina 22:61-66. [Google Scholar]
97.Cox, B. T., M. P. Reichel, and L. M. Griffiths. 1998. Serology of a Neospora abortion outbreak on a dairy farm in New Zealand: a case study. N. Z. Vet. J. 46:28-31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
98.Cramer, G., D. Kelton, T. F. Duffield, J. C. Hobson, K. Lissemore, S. K. Hietala, and A. S. Peregrine. 2002. Neospora caninum serostatus and culling of Holstein cattle. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 221:1165-1168. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
99.Cringoli, G., F. Capuano, V. Veneziano, L. Romano, R. Solimene, J. S. Barber, and A. J. Trees. 1996. Prevalence of antibodies against Neospora caninum in dog sera. Parassitologia 38:282. [Google Scholar]
100.Cringoli, G., E. Rinaldi, F. Capuano, L. Baldi, V. Veneziano, and G. Capelli. 2002. Serological survey of Neospora caninum and Leishmania infantum co-infection in dogs. Vet. Parasitol. 106:307-313. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
101.Cuddon, P., D. S. Lin, D. D. Bowman, D. S. Lindsay, T. K. Miller, I. D. Duncan, A. DeLahunta, J. Cummings, M. Suter, B. Cooper, J. M. King, and J. P. Dubey. 1992. Neospora caninum infection in English springer spaniel littermates: diagnostic evaluation and organism isolation. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 6:325-332. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
102.Damriyasa, I. M., C. Bauer, R. Edelhofer, K. Failing, P. Lind, E. Petersen, G. Schares, A. M. Tenter, R. Volmer, and H. Zahner. 2004. Cross-sectional survey in pig breeding farms in Hesse, Germany: seroprevalence and risk factors of infections with Toxoplasma gondii, Sarcocystis spp. and Neospora caninum in sows. Vet. Parasitol. 126:271-286. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
103.Dannatt, L. 1997. Neospora caninum antibody levels in an endemically-infected dairy herd. Cattle Practice 5:335-337. [Google Scholar]
104.Darius, A. K., H. Mehlhorn, and A. O. Heydorn. 2004. Effects of toltrazuril and ponazuril on the fine structure and multiplication of tachyzoites of the NC-1 strain of Neospora caninum (a synonym of Hammondia heydorni) in cell cultures. Parasitol. Res. 92:453-458. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
105.Davis, S. W., and J. P. Dubey. 1995. Mediation of immunity to Toxoplasma gondii oocyst shedding in cats. J. Parasitol. 81:882-886. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
106.Davison, H. C., A. Otter, and A. J. Trees. 1999. Estimation of vertical and horizontal transmission parameters of Neospora caninum infections in dairy cattle. Int. J. Parasitol. 29:1683-1689. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
107.Davison, H. C., N. P. French, and A. J. Trees. 1999. Herd-specific and age-specific seroprevalence of Neospora caninum in 14 British dairy herds. Vet. Rec. 144:547-550. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
108.Davison, H. C., F. Guy, A. J. Trees, C. Ryce, J. T. Ellis, A. Otter, M. Jeffrey, V. R. Simpson, and J. J. Holt. 1999. In vitro isolation of Neospora caninum from a stillborn calf in the United Kingdom. Res. Vet. Sci. 67:103-105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
109.Davison, H. C., A. Otter, and A. J. Trees. 1999. Significance of Neospora caninum in British dairy cattle determined by estimation of seroprevalence in normally calving cattle and aborting cattle. Int. J. Parasitol. 29:1189-1194. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
110.Davison, H. C., C. S. Guy, J. W. McGarry, F. Guy, D. J. L. Williams, D. F. Kelly, and A. J. Trees. 2001. Experimental studies on the transmission of Neospora caninum between cattle. Res. Vet. Sci. 70:163-168. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
111.de Marez, T., S. Liddell, J. P. Dubey, M. C. Jenkins, and L. Gasbarre. 1999. Oral infection of calves with Neospora caninum oocysts from dogs: humoral and cellular immune responses. Int. J. Parasitol. 29:1647-1657. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
112.De Meerschman, F., C. Focant, R. Boreux, T. Leclipteux, and B. Losson. 2000. Cattle neosporosis in Belgium: a case-control study in dairy and beef cattle. Int. J. Parasitol. 30:887-890. [Google Scholar]
113.De Meerschman, F., N. Speybroeck, D. Berkvens, C. Rettigner, C. Focant, T. Leclipteux, D. Cassart, and B. Losson. 2002. Fetal infection with Neospora caninum in dairy and beef cattle in Belgium. Theriogenology 58:933-945. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
114.de Melo, C. B., R. C. Leite, G. N. de Souza, and R. C. Leite. 2001. Freqüência de infecção por Neospora caninum em dois diferentes sistemas de produção de leite e fatores predisponentes à infecção em bovinos em Minas Gerais. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 10:67-74. [Google Scholar]
115.de Melo, C. B., R. C. Leite, Z. I. P. Lobato, and R. C. Leite. 2004. Infection by Neospora caninum associated with bovine herpes virus 1 and bovine viral diarrhea virus in cattle from Minas Gerais State, Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 119:97-105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
116.de Moura, L., L. M. G. Bahia-Oliveira, M. Y. Wada, J. L. Jones, S. H. Tuboi, E. H. Carmo, W. M. Ramalho, N. J. Camargo, R. Trevisan, R. M. T. Graça, A. J. da Silva, I. Moura, J. P. Dubey, and D. O. Garrett. 2006. Waterborne outbreak of toxoplasmosis, Brazil, from field to gene. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 12:326-329. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
117.de Oliveira, J. M., M. F. C. Matos, L. M. Oshiro, and R. Andreotti. 2004. Prevalence of anti-Neospora caninum antibodies in dogs in the urban area of Campo Grande, MS, Brazil. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 13:155-158. [Google Scholar]
118.de Souza, L. M., A. A. Nascimento, P. I. Furuta, L. M. S. Basso, D. M. Silveira, and A. J. Costa. 2001. Detecção de anticorpos contra Neospora caninum e Toxoplasma gondii em soros de bubalinos (Bubalus bubalis) no Estado de São Paulo, Brasil. Semina 22:39-48. [Google Scholar]
119.de Souza, S. L. P., J. S. Guimarães, F. Ferreira, J. P. Dubey, and S. M. Gennari. 2002. Prevalence of Neospora caninum antibodies in dogs from dairy cattle farms in Parana, Brazil. J. Parasitol. 88:408-409. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
120.Dijkstra, T., M. Eysker, G. Schares, F. J. Conraths, W. Wouda, and H. W. Barkema. 2001. Dogs shed Neospora caninum oocysts after ingestion of naturally infected bovine placenta but not after ingestion of colostrum spiked with Neospora caninum tachyzoites. Int. J. Parasitol. 31:747-752. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
121.Dijkstra, T., H. W. Barkema, M. Eysker, and W. Wouda. 2001. Evidence of post-natal transmission of Neospora caninum in Dutch dairy herds. Int. J. Parasitol. 31:209-215. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
122.Dijkstra, T., H. W. Barkema, C. Björkman, and W. Wouda. 2002. A high rate of seroconversion for Neospora caninum in a dairy herd without an obvious increased incidence of abortions. Vet. Parasitol. 109:203-211. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
123.Dijkstra, T., H. W. Barkema, M. Eysker, J. W. Hesselink, and W. Wouda. 2002. Natural transmission routes of Neospora caninum between farm dogs and cattle. Vet. Parasitol. 105:99-104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
124.Dijkstra, T., H. W. Barkema, J. W. Hesselink, and W. Wouda. 2002. Point source exposure of cattle to Neospora caninum consistent with periods of common housing and feeding and related to the introduction of a dog. Vet. Parasitol. 105:89-98. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
125.Dijkstra, T., H. W. Barkema, M. Eysker, M. L. Beiboer, and W. Wouda. 2003. Evaluation of a single serological screening of dairy herds for Neospora caninum antibodies. Vet. Parasitol. 110:161-169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
126.Dijkstra, T., C. J. M. Bartels, and W. Wouda. 2005. Control of bovine neosporosis: experiences from The Netherlands. Session M. Diagnosis and control of protozoan-associated abortion in ruminants, p. 191. 20th Int. Conf. World Assoc. Adv. Vet. Parasitol., Christchurch, New Zealand, 16 to 20 October 2005.
127.Di Lorenzo, C., C. Venturini, C. Castellano, L. Venturini, J. M. Unzaga, and D. Bacigalupe. 1997. Detección de anticuerpos anti-Neospora caninum y anti-Toxoplasma gondii en perros de área urbana. Rev. Med. Vet. 78:325-326. [Google Scholar]
128.Dubey, J. P. 1999. Neosporosis in cattle: biology and economic impact. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 214:1160-1163. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
129.Dubey, J. P. 2003. Neosporosis in cattle. J. Parasitol. 89(Suppl.):S42-S46. [Google Scholar]
130.Dubey, J. P. 2003. Review of Neospora caninum and neosporosis in animals. Korean J. Parasitol. 41:1-16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
131.Dubey, J. P. 2004. Toxoplasmosis—a waterborne zoonosis. Vet. Parasitol. 126:57-72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
132.Dubey, J. P., and D. S. Lindsay. 1989. Transplacental Neospora caninum infection in dogs. Am. J. Vet. Res. 50:1578-1579. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
133.Dubey, J. P., and D. S. Lindsay. 1996. A review of Neospora caninum and neosporosis. Vet. Parasitol. 67:1-59. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
134.Dubey, J. P., and D. S. Lindsay. 2000. Gerbils (Meriones unguiculatus) are highly susceptible to oral infection with Neospora caninum oocysts. Parasitol. Res. 86:165-168. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
135.Dubey, J. P., and G. Schares. 2006. Diagnosis of bovine neosporosis. Vet. Parasitol. 141:1-34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
136.Dubey, J. P., and P. Thulliez. 2005. Prevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum in wild animals. J. Parasitol. 91:1217-1218. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
137.Dubey, J. P., H. P. A. Hughes, H. S. Lillehoj, H. R. Gamble, and B. L. Munday. 1987. Placental transfer of specific antibodies during ovine congenital toxoplasmosis. Am. J. Vet. Res. 48:474-476. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
138.Dubey, J. P., J. L. Carpenter, C. A. Speer, M. J. Topper, and A. Uggla. 1988. Newly recognized fatal protozoan disease of dogs. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 192:1269-1285. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
139.Dubey, J. P., A. L. Hattel, D. S. Lindsay, and M. J. Topper. 1988. Neonatal Neospora caninum infection in dogs: isolation of the causative agent and experimental transmission. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 193:1259-1263. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
140.Dubey, J. P., A. Koestner, and R. C. Piper. 1990. Repeated transplacental transmission of Neospora caninum in dogs. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 197:857-860. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
141.Dubey, J. P., H. M. Acland, and A. N. Hamir. 1992. Neospora caninum (apicomplexa) in a stillborn goat. J. Parasitol. 78:532-534. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
142.Dubey, J. P., J. Rigoulet, P. Lagourette, C. George, L. Longeart, and J. L. LeNet. 1996. Fatal transplacental neosporosis in a deer (Cervus eldi siamensis). J. Parasitol. 82:338-339. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
143.Dubey, J. P., J. A. Morales, P. Villalobos, D. S. Lindsay, B. L. Blagburn, and M. J. Topper. 1996. Neosporosis-associated abortion in a dairy goat. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 208:263-265. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
144.Dubey, J. P., K. R. Dorough, M. C. Jenkins, S. Liddell, C. A. Speer, O. C. H. Kwok, and S. K. Shen. 1998. Canine neosporosis: clinical signs, diagnosis, treatment and isolation of Neospora caninum in mice and cell culture. Int. J. Parasitol. 28:1293-1304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
145.Dubey, J. P., S. Romand, M. Hilali, O. C. H. Kwok, and P. Thulliez. 1998. Seroprevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii in water buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis) from Egypt. Int. J. Parasitol. 28:527-529. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
146.Dubey, J. P., K. Hollis, S. Romand, P. Thulliez, O. C. H. Kwok, L. Hungerford, C. Anchor, and D. Etter. 1999. High prevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum in white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Int. J. Parasitol. 29:1709-1711. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
147.Dubey, J. P., S. Romand, P. Thulliez, O. C. H. Kwok, S. K. Shen, and H. R. Gamble. 1999. Prevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum in horses in North America. J. Parasitol. 85:968-969. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
148.Dubey, J. P., M. C. Venturini, L. Venturini, J. McKinney, and M. Pecoraro. 1999. Prevalence of antibodies to Sarcocystis neurona, Toxoplasma gondii, and Neospora caninum in horses from Argentina. Vet. Parasitol. 86:59-62. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
149.Dubey, J. P., C. E. Kerber, and D. E. Granstrom. 1999. Serologic prevalence of Sarcocystis neurona, Toxoplasma gondii, and Neospora caninum in horses in Brazil. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 215:970-972. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
150.Dubey, J. P., S. Liddell, D. Mattson, C. A. Speer, D. K. Howe, and M. C. Jenkins. 2001. Characterization of the Oregon isolate of Neospora hughesi from a horse. J. Parasitol. 87:345-353. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
151.Dubey, J. P., D. S. Lindsay, D. Hill, S. Romand, P. Thulliez, O. C. H. Kwok, J. C. R. Silva, M. C. Oliveira-Camargo, and S. M. Gennari. 2002. Prevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum and Sarcocystis neurona in sera of domestic cats from Brazil. J. Parasitol. 88:1251-1252. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
152.Dubey, J. P., B. C. Barr, J. R. Barta, I. Bjerkås, C. Björkman, B. L. Blagburn, D. D. Bowman, D. Buxton, J. T. Ellis, B. Gottstein, A. Hemphill, D. E. Hill, D. K. Howe, M. C. Jenkins, Y. Kobayashi, B. Koudela, A. E. Marsh, J. G. Mattsson, M. M. McAllister, D. Modrý, Y. Omata, L. D. Sibley, C. A. Speer, A. J. Trees, A. Uggla, S. J. Upton, D. J. L. Williams, and D. S. Lindsay. 2002. Redescription of Neospora caninum and its differentiation from related coccidia. Int. J. Parasitol. 32:929-946. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
153.Dubey, J. P., S. M. Mitchell, J. K. Morrow, J. C. Rhyan, L. M. Stewart, D. E. Granstrom, S. Romand, P. Thulliez, W. J. Saville, and D. S. Lindsay. 2003. Prevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum, Sarcocystis neurona, and Toxoplasma gondii in wild horses from central Wyoming. J. Parasitol. 89:716-720. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
154.Dubey, J. P., R. Zarnke, N. J. Thomas, S. K. Wong, W. Van Bonn, M. Briggs, J. W. Davis, R. Ewing, M. Mensea, O. C. H. Kwok, S. Romand, and P. Thulliez. 2003. Toxoplasma gondii, Neospora caninum, Sarcocystis neurona, and Sarcocystis canis-like infections in marine mammals. Vet. Parasitol. 116:275-296. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
155.Dubey, J. P., C. Sreekumar, E. Knickman, K. B. Miska, M. C. B. Vianna, O. C. H. Kwok, D. E. Hill, M. C. Jenkins, D. S. Lindsay, and C. E. Greene. 2004. Biologic, morphologic, and molecular characterization of Neospora caninum isolates from littermate dogs. Int. J. Parasitol. 34:1157-1167. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
156.Dubey, J. P., D. H. Graham, R. W. de Young, E. Dahl, M. L. Eberhard, E. K. Nace, K. Won, H. Bishop, G. Punkosdy, C. Sreekumar, M. C. B. Vianna, S. K. Shen, O. C. H. Kwok, J. A. Sumners, S. Demarais, J. G. Humphreys, and T. Lehmann. 2004. Molecular and biologic characteristics of Toxoplasma gondii isolates from wildlife in the United States. J. Parasitol. 90:67-71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
157.Dubey, J. P., E. Knickman, and C. E. Greene. 2005. Neonatal Neospora caninum infections in dogs. Acta Parasitol. 50:176-179. [Google Scholar]
158.Dubey, J. P., D. Buxton, and W. Wouda. 2006. Pathogenesis of bovine neosporosis. J. Comp. Pathol. 134:267-289. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
158a.Dubinsky, P., K. Reiterova, B. Moskwa, M. Bobakova, R. Durecko, and W. Cabaj. 2006. Neospora caninum as a potential cause of abortions in dairy cows. Slov. Vet. Cas. 31:175-177. [Google Scholar]
159.Duffield, T. F., A. S. Peregrine, B. J. McEwen, S. K. Hietala, R. Bagg, and P. Dick. 2001. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum infection in 25 Ontario dairy herds and its association with periparturient health and production. Bovine Pract. 35:8-12. [Google Scholar]
160.Dyer, R. M., M. C. Jenkins, O. C. H. Kwok, L. W. Douglas, and J. P. Dubey. 2000. Serologic survey of Neospora caninum infection in a closed dairy cattle herd in Maryland: risk of serologic reactivity by production groups. Vet. Parasitol. 90:171-181. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
161.Eleni, C., S. Crotti, E. Manuali, S. Costarelli, G. Filippini, L. Moscati, and S. Magnino. 2004. Detection of Neospora caninum in an aborted goat foetus. Vet. Parasitol. 123:271-274. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
162.Eymann, J., C. A. Herbert, D. W. Cooper, and J. P. Dubey. 2006. Serologic survey for Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum in the common brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) from urban Sydney, Australia. J. Parasitol. 92:267-272. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
163.Ezio, F., and T. Anna. 2003. Antibodies to Neospora caninum in European brown hare (Lepus europaeus). Vet. Parasitol. 115:75-78. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
164.Fernandes, B. C. T. M., S. M. Gennari, S. L. P. Souza, J. M. Carvalho, W. G. Oliveira, and M. C. Cury. 2004. Prevalence of anti-Neospora caninum antibodies in dogs from urban, periurban and rural areas of the city of Uberlândia, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 123:33-40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
165.Ferrari, A., G. Donofrio, M. Dellepiane, C. S. Cabassi, E. Bigliardi, and S. Cavirani. 1997. Anticorpi verso Neospora caninum in bovine da latte con aborto a carattere enzootico. Atti Soc. Ital. Buiatria 29:223-227. [Google Scholar]
166.Ferre, I., G. Aduriz, I. del-Pozo, J. Regidor-Cerrillo, R. Atxaerandio, E. Collantes-Fernández, A. Hurtado, C. Ugarte-Garagalza, and L. M. Ortega-Mora. 2005. Detection of Neospora caninum in the semen and blood of naturally infected bulls. Theriogenology 63:1504-1518. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
167.Ferroglio, E., and L. Rossi. 2001. Prevalence of Neospora caninum antibodies in wild ruminants from the Italian Alps. Vet. Rec. 148:754-755. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
168.Ferroglio, E., E. Wambwa, M. Castiello, A. Trisciuoglio, A. Prouteau, E. Pradere, S. Ndungu, and D. De Meneghi. 2003. Antibodies to Neospora caninum in wild animals from Kenya, East Africa. Vet. Parasitol. 118:43-49. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
169.Ferroglio, E., P. Guiso, M. Pasino, A. Accossato, and A. Trisciuoglio. 2005. Antibodies to Neospora caninum in stray cats from north Italy. Vet. Parasitol. 131:31-34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
170.Figliuolo, L. P. C., N. Kasai, A. M. A. Ragozo, V. S. O. de Paula, R. A. Dias, S. L. P. Souza, and S. M. Gennari. 2004. Prevalence of anti-Toxoplasma gondii and anti-Neospora caninum antibodies in ovine from São Paulo State, Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 123:161-166. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
171.Figliuolo, L. P. C., A. A. R. Rodrigues, R. B. Viana, D. M. Aguiar, N. Kasai, and S. M. Gennari. 2004. Prevalence of anti-Toxoplasma gondii and anti-Neospora caninum antibodies in goat from São Paulo State, Brazil. Small Ruminant Res. 55:29-32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
172.Fioretti, D. P., L. Rosignoli, G. Ricci, A. Moretti, P. Pasquali, and G. A. Polidori. 2000. Neospora caninum infection in a clinically healthy calf: parasitological study and serological follow-up. J. Vet. Med. B 47:47-53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
173.Fioretti, D. P., P. Pasquai, M. Diaferia, V. Mangili, and L. Rosignoli. 2003. Neospora caninum infection and congenital transmission: serological and parasitological study of cows up to the fourth gestation. J. Vet. Med. B 50:399-404. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
174.Fischer, I., K. Furrer, L. Audigé, A. Fritsche, T. Giger, B. Gottstein, and H. Sager. 2003. Von der Bedeutung der bovinen Neosporose beim Abortgeschehen in der Schweiz. Schweiz. Arch. Tierheilkd. 145:114-123. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
175.French, N. P., D. Clancy, H. C. Davison, and A. J. Trees. 1999. Mathematical models of Neospora caninum infection in dairy cattle: transmission and options for control. Int. J. Parasitol. 29:1691-1704. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
176.Frössling, J., A. Uggla, and C. Björkman. 2005. Prevalence and transmission of Neospora caninum within infected Swedish dairy herds. Vet. Parasitol. 128:209-218. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
177.Frössling, J., A. Lindberg, and C. Björkman. 2006. Evaluation of an iscom ELISA used for detection of antibodies to Neospora caninum in bulk milk. Prev. Vet. Med. 74:120-129. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
178.Fujii, T. U., N. Kasai, S. M. Nishi, J. P. Dubey, and S. M. Gennari. 2001. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum in female water buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis) from the southeastern region of Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 99:331-334. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
178a.Gaffari, A., M. Giacometti, V. M. Tranquillo, S. Magnito, P. Cordioli, and P. Lanfranchi. 2006. Serosurvey of roe deer, chamois, and domestic sheep in the central Italian Alps. J. Wildl. Dis. 42:685-690. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
179.García-Vázquez, Z., C. Cruz-Vázquez, L. Medina-Espinoza, D. García-Tapia, and B. Chavarria-Martinez. 2002. Serological survey of Neospora caninum infection in dairy cattle herds in Aguascalientes, Mexico. Vet. Parasitol. 106:115-120. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
180.García-Vázquez, Z., R. Rosario-Cruz, A. Ramos-Aragon, C. Cruz-Vazquez, and G. Mapes-Sanchez. 2005. Neospora caninum seropositivity and association with abortions in dairy cows in Mexico. Vet. Parasitol. 134:61-65. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
181.Gennari, S. M., L. E. O. Yai, S. N. R. D'Áuria, S. M. S. Cardoso, O. C. H. Kwok, M. C. Jenkins, and J. P. Dubey. 2002. Occurrence of Neospora caninum antibodies in sera from dogs of the city of São Paulo, Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 106:177-179. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
182.Gennari, S. M., A. A. R. Rodgrigues, R. B. Viana, and E. C. Cardoso. 2005. Occurrence of anti-Neospora caninum antibodies in water buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis) from the northern region of Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 134:169-171. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
182a.Gennari, S. M., W. A. Cañón-Franco, M. M. Feitosa, F. A. Ikeda, F. R. A. Lima, and M. Amaku. 2006. Presence of anti-Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii antibodies in dogs with visceral leishmaniosis from the region of Araçatuba, São Paulo, Brazil. Braz. J. Vet. Res. Anim. Sci. 43:613-615. [Google Scholar]
183.Gondim, L. F. P. 2006. Neospora caninum in wildlife. Trends Parasitol. 22:247-252. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
184.Giraldi, J. H., A. P. F. R. L. Bracarense, O. Vidotto, E. A. Tudury, T. Navarro, and T. N. Batista. 2002. Sorologia e histopatologia de Toxoplasma gondii e Neospora caninum em cães portadores de distúrbios neurológicos. Semina 23:9-14. [Google Scholar]
185.Gondim, L. F. P., I. F. Sartor, M. Hasegawa, and I. Yamane. 1999. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum in dairy cattle in Bahia, Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 86:71-75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
186.Gondim, L. F. P., A. M. Pinheiro, P. O. M. Santos, E. E. V. Jesus, M. B. Ribeiro, H. S. Fernandes, M. A. O. Almeida, S. M. Freire, R. Meyer, and M. M. McAllister. 2001. Isolation of Neospora caninum from the brain of a naturally infected dog, and production of encysted bradyzoites in gerbils. Vet. Parasitol. 101:1-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
187.Gondim, L. F. P., L. Gao, and M. M. McAllister. 2002. Improved production of Neospora caninum oocysts, cyclical oral transmission between dogs and cattle, and in vitro isolation from oocysts. J. Parasitol. 88:1159-1163. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
188.Gondim, L. F. P., M. M. McAllister, W. C. Pitt, and D. E. Zemlicka. 2004. Coyotes (Canis latrans) are definitive hosts of Neospora caninum. Int. J. Parasitol. 34:159-161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
189.Gondim, L. F. P., M. M. McAllister, N. E. Mateus-Pinilla, W. C. Pitt, L. D. Mech, and M. E. Nelson. 2004. Transmission of Neospora caninum between wild and domestic animals. J. Parasitol. 90:1361-1365. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
190.Gondim, L. F. P., M. M. McAllister, R. C. Anderson-Sprecher, C. Björkman, T. F. Lock, L. D. Firkins, L. Gao, and W. R. Fischer. 2004. Transplacental transmission and abortion in cows administered Neospora caninum oocysts. J. Parasitol. 90:1394-1400. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
191.Gondim, L. F. P., M. M. McAllister, and L. Gao. 2005. Effects of host maturity and prior exposure history on the production of Neospora caninum oocysts by dogs. Vet. Parasitol. 134:33-39. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
192.Gottstein, B., G. R. Razmi, P. Ammann, H. Sager, and N. Müller. 2005. Toltrazuril treatment to control diaplacental Neospora caninum transmission in experimentally infected pregnant mice. Parasitology 130:41-48. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
193.Graham, D. A., V. Calvert, M. Whyte, and J. Marks. 1999. Absence of serological evidence for human Neospora caninum infection. Vet. Rec. 144:672-673. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
194.Guarino, A., G. Fusco, G. Savini, G. Di Francesco, and G. Cringoli. 2000. Neosporosis in water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) in southern Italy. Vet. Parasitol. 91:15-21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
195.Guimarães, J. S., S. L. P. Souza, D. P. Bergamaschi, and S. M. Gennari. 2004. Prevalence of Neospora caninum antibodies and factors associated with their presence in dairy cattle of the north of Paraná state, Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 124:1-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
196.Gupta, G. D., J. Lakritz, J. H. Kim, D. Y. Kim, J. K. Kim, and A. E. Marsh. 2002. Seroprevalence of Neospora, Toxoplasma gondii, and Sarcocystis neurona antibodies in horses from Jeju island, South Korea. Vet. Parasitol. 106:193-201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
197.Guy, C. S., D. J. L. Williams, D. F. Kelly, J. W. McGarry, F. Guy, C. Björkman, R. F. Smith, and A. J. Trees. 2001. Neospora caninum in persistently infected, pregnant cows: spontaneous transplacental infection is associated with an acute increase in maternal antibody. Vet. Rec. 149:443-449. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
198.Guy, C. S., J. Ellis, D. J. L. Williams, R. Smith, and A. J. Trees. 2005. Vaccination against Neospora-associated abortion in cattle. Session M. Diagnosis and control of protozoan-associated abortion in ruminants, p. 191. 20th Int. Conf. World Assoc. Adv. Vet. Parasitol., Christchurch, New Zealand, 16 to 20 October 2005.
199.Haddad, J. P. A., I. R. Dohoo, and J. A. VanLeewen. 2005. A review of Neospora caninum in dairy and beef cattle—a Canadian perspective. Can. Vet. J. 46:230-243. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
200.Haerdi, C., M. Haessig, H. Sager, G. Greif, D. Staubli, and B. Gottstein. 2006. Humoral immune reaction of newborn calves congenitally infected with Neospora caninum and experimentally treated with toltrazuril. Parasitol. Res. 99:534-540. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
201.Hall, C. A., M. P. Reichel, and J. T. Ellis. 2005. Neospora abortions in dairy cattle: diagnosis, mode of transmission and control. Vet. Parasitol. 128:231-241. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
202.Hamilton, C. M., R. Gray, S. E. Wright, B. Gangadharin, K. Laurenson, and E. A. Innes. 2005. Prevalence of antibodies to Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum in red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) from around the United Kingdom. Vet. Parasitol. 130:169-173.15893084 [Google Scholar]
203.Hasegawa, M. Y., I. F. Sartor, A. M. Oliveira Canavessi, and R. D. Pinckney. 2004. Occurrence of Neospora caninum antibodies in beef cattle and in farm dogs from Avaré Region of São Paulo, Brazil. Semina 25:45-50. [Google Scholar]
204.Häsler, B., G. Regula, K. D. C. Stärk, H. Sager, B. Gottstein, and M. Reist. 2006. Financial analysis of various strategies for the control of Neospora caninum in dairy cattle in Switzerland. Prev. Vet. Med. 77:230-253. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
205.Häsler, B., K. D. C. Stärk, H. Sager, B. Gottstein, and M. Reist. 2006. Simulating the impact of four control strategies on the population dynamics of Neospora caninum infection in Swiss dairy cattle. Prev. Vet. Med. 77:254-283. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
206.Hässig, M., and B. Gottstein. 2002. Epidemiological investigations of abortions due to Neospora caninum on Swiss dairy farms. Vet. Rec. 150:538-542. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
207.Hässig, M., H. Sager, K. Reitt, D. Ziegler, D. Strabel, and B. Gottstein. 2003. Neospora caninum in sheep: a herd case report. Vet. Parasitol. 117:213-220. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
208.Hay, W. H., L. G. Shell, D. S. Lindsay, and J. P. Dubey. 1990. Diagnosis and treatment of Neospora caninum infection in a dog. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 197:87-89. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
209.Helmick, B., A. Otter, J. McGarry, and D. Buxton. 2002. Serological investigation of aborted sheep and pigs for infection by Neospora caninum. Res. Vet. Sci. 73:187-189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
210.Hernandez, J., C. Risco, and A. Donovan. 2001. Association between exposure to Neospora caninum and milk production in dairy cows. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 219:632-635. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
211.Hernandez, J., C. Risco, and A. Donovan. 2002. Risk of abortion associated with Neospora caninum during different lactations and evidence of congenital transmission in dairy cows. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 221:1742-1746. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
212.Heuer, C., C. Nicholson, D. Russel, and J. Weston. 2004. Field study in dairy cattle from New Zealand. Vet. Parasitol. 125:137-146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
213.Hietala, S. K., and M. C. Thurmond. 1999. Postnatal Neospora caninum transmission and transient serologic responses in two dairies. Int. J. Parasitol. 29:1669-1676. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
214.Hilali, M., S. Romand, P. Thulliez, O. C. H. Kwok, and J. P. Dubey. 1998. Prevalence of Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii antibodies in sera from camels from Egypt. Vet. Parasitol. 75:269-271. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
215.Hoane, J. S., M. R. Yeargan, S. Stamper, W. J. Saville, J. K. Morrow, D. S. Lindsay, and D. K. Howe. 2005. Recombinant NhSAG1 ELISA: a sensitive and specific assay for detecting antibodies against Neospora hughesi in equine serum. J. Parasitol. 91:446-452. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
216.Hoane, J. S., S. M. Gennari, J. P. Dubey, M. G. Ribeiro, A. S. Borges, L. E. O. Yai, D. M. Aguiar, G. T. Cavalcante, G. L. Bonesi, and D. K. Howe. 2006. Prevalence of Sarcocystis neurona and Neospora spp. infection in horses from Brazil based on presence of serum antibodies to parasite surface antigen. Vet. Parasitol. 136:155-159. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
217.Hobson, J. C., T. F. Duffield, D. Kelton, K. Lissemore, S. K. Hietala, K. E. Leslie, B. McEwen, G. Cramer, and A. S. Peregrine. 2002. Neospora caninum serostatus and milk production of Holstein cattle. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 221:1160-1164. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
218.Hobson, J. C., T. F. Duffield, D. Kelton, K. Lissemore, S. K. Hietala, K. E. Leslie, B. McEwen, and A. S. Peregrine. 2005. Risk factors associated with Neospora caninum abortion in Ontario Holstein dairy herds. Vet. Parasitol. 127:177-188. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
219.Hornok, S., K. Näslund, I. Hajtós, J. Tanyi, L. Tekes, I. Varga, A. Uggla, and C. Björkman. 1998. Detection of antibodies to Neospora caninum in bovine postabortion blood samples from Hungary. Acta Vet. Hung. 46:431-436. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
220.Hornok, S., R. Edelhofer, É. Fok, K. Berta, P. Fejes, A. Répási, and R. Farkas. 2006. Canine neosporosis in Hungary: screening for seroconversion of household, herding and stray dogs. Vet. Parasitol. 137:197-201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
221.Hornok, S., R. Edelhofer, and I. Hajtos. 2006. Seroprevalence of neosporosis in beef and dairy cattle breeds in Northeast Hungary. Acta Vet. Hung. 54:485-491. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
222.Huang, C. C., C. H. Yang, Y. Watanabe, Y. K. Liao, and H. K. Ooi. 2004. Finding of Neospora caninum in the wild brown rat (Rattus norvegicus). Vet. Res. 35:283-290. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
223.Hughes, J. M., R. H. Williams, E. K. Morley, D. A. N. Cook, R. S. Terry, R. G. Murphy, J. E. Smith, and G. Hide. 2006. The prevalence of Neospora caninum and co-infection with Toxoplasma gondii by PCR analysis in naturally occurring mammal populations. Parasitology 132:29-36. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
224.Huong, L. T. T., B. L. Ljungström, A. Uggla, and C. Björkman. 1998. Prevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii in cattle and water buffaloes in southern Vietnam. Vet. Parasitol. 75:53-57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
225.Hur, K., J. H. Kim, W. S. Hwang, E. K. Hwang, Y. H. Jean, B. C. Lee, J. S. Bae, Y. B. Kang, I. Yamane, and D. Y. Kim. 1998. Seroepidemiological study of Neospora caninum in Korean dairy cattle by indirect immunofluroescent antibody assay. Korean J. Vet. Res. 38:859-866. [Google Scholar]
226.Hůrková, L., and D. Modrý. 2006. PCR detection of Neospora caninum, Toxoplasma gondii and Encephalitozoon cuniculi in brains of wild carnivores. Vet. Parasitol. 137:150-154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
227.Innes, E. A., S. E. Wright, S. Maley, A. Rae, A. Schock, E. Kirvar, P. Bartley, C. Hamilton, I. M. Carey, and D. Buxton. 2001. Protection against vertical transmission in bovine neosporosis. Int. J. Parasitol. 31:1523-1534. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
228.Innes, E. A., A. G. Andrianarivo, C. Björkman, D. J. L. Williams, and P. A. Conrad. 2002. Immune responses to Neospora caninum and prospects for vaccination. Trends Parasitol. 18:497-504. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
229.Innes, E. A., S. Wright, P. Bartley, S. Maley, C. Macaldowie, I. Esteban-Redondo, and D. Buxton. 2005. The host-parasite relationship in bovine neosporosis. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 108:29-36. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
230.Jakubek, E. B., C. Bröjer, C. Regnersen, A. Uggla, G. Schares, and C. Björkman. 2001. Seroprevalences of Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum in Swedish red foxes (Vulpes vulpes). Vet. Parasitol. 102:167-172. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
231.Jakubek, E. B., A. Lundén, and A. Uggla. 2006. Seroprevalences in Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora sp. infections in Swedish horses. Vet. Parasitol. 138:194-199. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
232.Jakubek, E. B., R. Farkas, V. Pálfi, and J. G. Mattsson. 2007. Prevalence of antibodies against Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum in Hungarian red foxes (Vulpes vulpes). Vet. Parasitol. 144:39-44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
233.Jenkins, M. C., J. A. Caver, C. Björkman, T. C. Anderson, S. Romand, B. Vinyard, A. Uggla, P. Thulliez, and J. P. Dubey. 2000. Serological investigation of an outbreak of Neospora caninum-associated abortion in a dairy herd in southeastern United States. Vet. Parasitol. 94:17-26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
234.Jenkins, M. C., T. Baszler, C. Björkman, G. Schares, and D. Williams. 2002. Diagnosis and seroepidemiology of Neospora caninum-associated bovine abortion. Int. J. Parasitol. 32:631-636. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
235.Jenkins, M. C., C. Parker, D. Hill, R. D. Pinckney, and J. P. Dubey. 2007. Neospora caninum detected in wild rodents. Vet. Parasitol. 143:161-165. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
236.Jensen, A. M., C. Björkman, A. M. Kjeldsen, A. Wedderkopp, C. Willadsen, A. Uggla, and P. Lind. 1999. Associations of Neospora caninum seropositivity with gestation number and pregnancy outcome in Danish dairy herds. Prev. Vet. Med. 40:151-163. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
236a.Jesus, E. E. V., P. O. M. Santos, M. V. F. Barbosa, A. M. Pinheiro, L. F. P. Gondim, J. E. Guimarães, and M. A. O. Almeida. 2006. Frequência de anticorpos anti-Neospora caninum em cães nos municípios de Salvador e Lauro de Freitas, Estado da Bahia—Brasil. Braz. J. Vet. Res. Anim. Sci. 43:5-10. [Google Scholar]
237.Kasari, T. R., K. Barling, and J. M. McGrann. 1999. Estimated production and economic losses from Neospora caninum infection in Texas beef herds. Bovine Pract. 33:113-120. [Google Scholar]
238.Kashiwazaki, Y., S. Pholpark, A. Charoenchai, C. Polsar, S. Teeverapanya, and M. Pholpark. 2001. Postnatal neosporosis in dairy cattle in northeast Thailand. Vet. Parasitol. 94:217-220. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
239.Kashiwazaki, Y., R. E. Gianneechini, M. Lust, and J. Gil. 2004. Seroepidemiology of neosporosis in dairy cattle in Uruguay. Vet. Parasitol. 120:139-144. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
240.Keefe, G. P., and J. A. VanLeeuwen. 2000. Neospora then and now: prevalence of Neospora caninum in maritime Canada. Can. Vet. J. 41:864-866. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
240a.Khaitsa, M. L., R. Barigye, N. W. Dyer, D. M. Doetkott, and J. R. Foster. 2006. Serologic and other diagnostic evidence of Neospora caninum presence in North Dakota beef herds. Bovine Pract. 40:51-56. [Google Scholar]
241.Kim, J. H., H. J. Sohn, E. K. Hwang, W. S. Hwang, K. Hur, Y. H. Jean, B. C. Lee, J. C. Rhee, Y. B. Kang, I. Yamane, and D. J. Kim. 1998. In vitro isolation of a bovine Neospora in Korea. Korean J. Vet. Res. 38:139-145. [Google Scholar]
242.Kim, J. H., H. J. Sohn, W. S. Hwang, E. K. Hwang, Y. H. Jean, I. Yamane, and D. Y. Kim. 2000. In vitro isolation and characterization of bovine Neospora caninum in Korea. Vet. Parasitol. 90:147-154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
243.Kim, J. H., J. K. Lee, E. K. Hwang, and D. Y. Kim. 2002. Prevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum in Korean native beef cattle. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 64:941-943. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
244.Kim, J. H., J. K. Lee, B. C. Lee, B. K. Park, H. S. Yoo, W. S. Hwang, N. R. Shin, M. S. Kang, Y. H. Jean, H. J. Yoon, S. K. Kang, and D. Y. Kim. 2002. Diagnostic survey of bovine abortion in Korea: with special emphasis on Neospora caninum. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 64:1123-1127. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
245.Kim, J. H., M. S. Kang, B. C. Lee, W. S. Hwang, C. W. Lee, B. J. So, J. P. Dubey, and D. Y. Kim. 2003. Seroprevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum in dogs and raccoon dogs in Korea. Korean J. Parasitol. 41:243-245. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
246.Klein, B. U., and E. Müller. 2001. Seroprävalenz von Antikörpern gegen Neospora caninum bei Hunden mit und ohne klinischem Neosporoseverdacht in Deutschland. Prakt. Tierarzt 82:437-440. [Google Scholar]
247.Klein, F., S. K. Hietala, H. Berthet, P. Very, and D. Gradinaru. 1997. Neospora caninum: enquête sérologique sur les avortements des bovins normands et charolais. Le Point Vet. 28:1283-1286. [Google Scholar]
248.Klein, F., A. Ould-Amrouche, C. Osdoit, A. Touratier, and M. Sanaa. 2000. Neospora caninum: une enquête séroépidémiologique dans l'Orne. Bull. GTV 7:41-45. [Google Scholar]
249.Koiwai, M., T. Hamaoka, M. Haritani, S. Shimizu, and K. Kimura. 2005. Proportion of abortions due to neosporosis among dairy cattle in Japan. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 67:1173-1175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
250.Koiwai, M., T. Hamaoka, M. Haritani, S. Shimizu, T. Tsutsui, M. Eto, and I. Yamane. 2005. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum in dairy and beef cattle with reproductive disorders in Japan. Vet. Parasitol. 130:15-18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
251.Koiwai, M., T. Hamaoka, M. Haritani, S. Shimizu, Y. Zeniya, M. Eto, R. Yokoyama, T. Tsutsui, K. Kimura, and I. Yamane. 2006. Nationwide seroprevalence of Neospora caninum among dairy cattle in Japan. Vet. Parasitol. 135:175-179. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
252.Koudela, B., M. Svoboda, C. Björkman, and A. Uggla. 1998. Neosporosis in dogs: the first case report in the Czech Republic. Vet. Med. Czech. 43:51-54. [Google Scholar]
253.Koyama, T., Y. Kobayashi, Y. Omata, M. Yamada, H. Furuoka, R. Maeda, T. Matsui, A. Saito, and T. Mikami. 2001. Isolation of Neospora caninum from the brain of a pregnant sheep. J. Parasitol. 87:1486-1488. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
254.Kramer, L., L. de Risio, V. M. Tranquillo, S. Magnino, and C. Genchi. 2004. Analysis of risk factors associated with seropositivity to Neospora caninum in dogs. Vet. Rec. 154:692-693. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
255.Kritzner, S., H. Sager, J. Blum, R. Krebber, G. Greif, and B. Gottstein. 2002. An explorative study to assess the efficacy of toltrazuril-sulfone (Ponazuril) in calves experimentally infected with Neospora caninum. Ann. Clin. Microbiol. Antimicrob. 1:4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
255a.Kurtdede, A., S. Kuplulu, K. Ural, C. C. Cingi, M. Guzel, M. C. Karakurum, and A. E. Haydardedeoglu. 2006. Serodiagnosis of bovine neosporosis with immunocomb assay in Ankara region. Ankara Univ. Vet. Fak. Derg. 53:207-209. [Google Scholar]
256.Kyaw, T., P. Virakul, M. Muangyai, and J. Suwimonteerabutr. 2004. Neospora caninum seroprevalence in dairy cattle in central Thailand. Vet. Parasitol. 121:255-263. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
257.Landmann, J. K., D. Jillella, P. J. O'Donoghue, and M. R. McGowan. 2002. Confirmation of the prevention of vertical transmission of Neospora caninum in cattle by the use of embryo transfer. Aust. Vet. J. 80:502-503. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
258.Larson, R. L., D. K. Hardin, and V. L. Pierce. 2004. Economic considerations for diagnostic and control options for Neospora caninum-induced abortions in endemically infected herds of beef cattle. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 224:1597-1604. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
259.Lasri, S., F. De Meerschman, C. Rettigner, C. Focant, and B. Losson. 2004. Comparison of three techniques for the serological diagnosis of Neospora caninum in the dog and their use for epidemiological studies. Vet. Parasitol. 123:25-32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
260.Lathe, C. L. 1994. Neospora caninum in British dogs. Vet. Rec. 134:532. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
261.Lehenbauer, T. W., S. J. Rodgers, R. G. Helman, and J. T. Saliki. 1998. Epidemiology of Neospora caninum infection in Oklahoma beef and dairy cattle. Proc. 31st Ann. Conv. Am. Assoc. Bovine Pract. 31:225. [Google Scholar]
262.Lemberger, K. Y., L. F. P. Gondim, A. P. Pessier, M. M. McAllister, and M. J. Kinsel. 2005. Neospora caninum infection in a free-ranging raccoon (Procyon lotor) with concurrent canine distemper virus infection. J. Parasitol. 91:960-961. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
263.Liddell, S., M. C. Jenkins, C. M. Collica, and J. P. Dubey. 1999. Prevention of vertical transfer of Neospora caninum in BALB/c mice by vaccination. J. Parasitol. 85:1072-1075. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
264.Lindsay, D. S., and J. P. Dubey. 1990. Infections in mice with tachyzoites and bradyzoites of Neospora caninum (Protozoa: Apicomplexa). J. Parasitol. 76:410-413. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
265.Lindsay, D. S., J. P. Dubey, S. J. Upton, and R. K. Ridley. 1990. Serological prevalence of Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii in dogs from Kansas. J. Helminthol. Soc. Wash. 57:86-88. [Google Scholar]
266.Lindsay, D. S., J. P. Dubey, and B. L. Blagburn. 1991. Characterization of a Neospora caninum (Protozoa: Apicomplexa) isolate (NC3) in mice. J. Alabama Acad. Sci. 62:1-8. [Google Scholar]
267.Lindsay, D. S., B. L. Blagburn, and J. P. Dubey. 1992. Factors affecting the survival of Neospora caninum bradyzoites in murine tissues. J. Parasitol. 78:70-72. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
268.Lindsay, D. S., S. D. Lenz, R. A. Cole, J. P. Dubey, and B. L. Blagburn. 1995. Mouse model for central nervous system Neospora caninum infections. J. Parasitol. 81:313-315. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
269.Lindsay, D. S., E. J. Kelly, R. McKown, F. J. Stein, J. Plozer, J. Herman, B. L. Blagburn, and J. P. Dubey. 1996. Prevalence of Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii antibodies in coyotes (Canis latrans) and experimental infections of coyotes with Neospora caninum. J. Parasitol. 82:657-659. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
270.Lindsay, D. S., J. P. Dubey, and R. B. Duncan. 1999. Confirmation that the dog is a definitive host for Neospora caninum. Vet. Parasitol. 82:327-333. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
271.Lindsay, D. S., J. Spencer, C. E. Rupprecht, and B. L. Blagburn. 2001. Prevalence of agglutinating antibodies to Neospora caninum in raccoons, Procyon lotor. J. Parasitol. 87:1197-1198. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
272.Lindsay, D. S., J. L. Weston, and S. E. Little. 2001. Prevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii in gray foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) from South Carolina. Vet. Parasitol. 97:159-164. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
273.Lindsay, D. S., D. M. Ritter, and D. Brake. 2001. Oocyst excretion in dogs fed mouse brains containing tissue cysts of a cloned line of Neospora caninum. J. Parasitol. 87:909-911. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
274.Lindsay, D. S., S. E. Little, and W. R. Davidson. 2002. Prevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum in white-tailed deer, Odocoileus virginianus, from the Southeastern United States. J. Parasitol. 88:415-417. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
275.Lobato, J., D. A. O. Silva, T. W. P. Mineo, J. D. H. F. Amaral, G. R. S. Segundo, J. M. Costa-Cruz, M. S. Ferreira, A. S. Borges, and J. R. Mineo. 2006. Detection of immunoglobulin G antibodies to Neospora caninum in humans: high seropositivity rates in patients who are infected by human immunodeficiency virus or have neurological disorders. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 13:84-89. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
276.Locatelli-Dittrich, R., V. Thomaz Soccol, R. R. T. B. Richartz, M. E. Gasino-Joineau, R. van der Vinne, R. Silva, L. C. Leite, and R. Pinckney. 2001. Detecção de anticorpos contra Neospora caninum em vacas leiteiras e bezerros no estado do Paraná. Arch. Vet. Sci. 6:37-41. [Google Scholar]
277.Locatelli-Dittrich, R., V. T. Soccol, R. R. T. B. Richartz, M. E. Gasino-Joineau, R. Vinne, and R. D. Pinckney. 2001. Serological diagnosis of neosporosis in a herd of dairy cattle in southern Brazil. J. Parasitol. 87:1493-1494. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
278.Locatelli-Dittrich, R., R. R. T. B. Richartz, M. E. Gasino-Joineau, R. D. Pinckney, R. S. de Sousa, L. C. Leite, and V. Thomaz-Soccol. 2003. Isolation of Neospora caninum from a blind calf in Paraná, southern Brazil. Vet. Rec. 153:366-367. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
279.Locatelli-Dittrich, R., V. Thomaz-Soccol, R. R. T. B. Richartz, M. E. Gasino-Joineau, R. vander Vinne, and R. D. Pinckney. 2004. Isolamento de Neospora caninum de feto bovino de rebanho leiteiro no Paraná. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 13:103-109. [Google Scholar]
280.Locatelli-Dittrich, R., J. R. Dittrich, R. R. T. B. Richartz, M. E. Gasino Joineau, J. Antunes, R. D. Pinckney, I. Deconto, D. C. S. Hoffmann, and V. Thomaz-Soccol. 2006. Investigation of Neospora sp. and Toxoplasma gondii antibodies in mares and in precolostral foals from Parana State, Southern Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 135:215-221. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
281.López-Gatius, F., M. López-Béjar, K. Murugavel, M. Pabón, D. Ferrer, and S. Almería. 2004. Neospora-associated abortion episode over a 1-year period in a dairy herd in north-east Spain. J. Vet. Med. B 51:348-352. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
282.López-Gatius, F., M. Pabón, and S. Almería. 2004. Neospora caninum infection does not affect early pregnancy in dairy cattle. Theriogenology 62:606-613. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
283.López-Gatius, F., P. Santolaria, and S. Almería. 2005. Neospora caninum infection does not affect the fertility of dairy cows in herds with high incidence of Neospora-associated abortions. J. Vet. Med. B 52:51-53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
284.López-Gatius, F., I. García-Ispierto, P. Santolaria, J. L. Yániz, M. López-Béjar, C. Norgareda, and S. Almería. 2005. Relationship between rainfall and Neospora caninum-associated abortion in two dairy herds in a dry environment. J. Vet. Med. B 52:147-152. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
285.López-Gatius, F., P. Santolaria, J. L. Yániz, J. M. Garbayo, and S. Almería. 2005. The use of beef bull semen reduced the risk of abortion in Neospora-seropositive dairy cows. J. Vet. Med. B 52:88-92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
286.Lopez-Gatius, F., J. M. Garbayo, P. Santolaria, J. L. Yaniz, S. Almeria, A. Ayad, N. M. de Sousa, and J. F. Beckers. 2007. Plasma pregnancy-associated glycoprotein-1 (PAG-1) concentrations during gestation in Neospora-infected dairy cows. Theriogenology 67:502-508. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
287.Magnino, S., P. G. Vigo, M. Fabbi, M. Colombo, C. Bandi, and C. Genchi. 1999. Isolation of a bovine Neospora from a newborn calf in Italy. Vet. Rec. 144:456. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
288.Magnino, S., P. G. Vigo, C. Bandi, C. Bazzocchi, M. Fabbi, and C. Genchi. 2000. Small-subunit rDNA sequencing of the Italian bovine Neospora caninum isolate (NC-PV1 strain). Parassitologia 42:191-192. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
289.Mainar-Jaime, R. C., M. C. Thurmond, B. Berzal-Herranz, and S. K. Hietala. 1999. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum and abortion in dairy cows in northern Spain. Vet. Rec. 145:72-75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
290.Malmasi, A., M. Hosseininejad, H. Haddadzadeh, A. Badii, and A. Bahonar. 22 November 2006, posting date. Serologic study of anti-Neospora caninum antibodies in household dogs and dogs living in dairy and beef cattle farms in Tehran, Iran. Parasitol. Res. doi: 10.1007/s00436-006-0385-7. [DOI] [PubMed]
291.Marsh, A. E., B. C. Barr, K. Sverlow, M. Ho, J. P. Dubey, and P. A. Conrad. 1995. Sequence analysis and comparison of ribosomal DNA from bovine Neospora to similar coccidial parasites. J. Parasitol. 81:530-535. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
292.Marsh, A. E., B. C. Barr, A. E. Packham, and P. A. Conrad. 1998. Description of a new Neospora species (Protozoa: Apicomplexa: Sarcocystidae). J. Parasitol. 84:983-991. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
293.McAllister, M., E. M. Huffman, S. K. Hietala, P. A. Conrad, M. L. Anderson, and M. D. Salman. 1996. Evidence suggesting a point source exposure in an outbreak of bovine abortion due to neosporosis. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 8:355-357. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
294.McAllister, M. M., J. P. Dubey, D. S. Lindsay, W. R. Jolley, R. A. Wills, and A. M. McGuire. 1998. Dogs are definitive hosts of Neospora caninum. Int. J. Parasitol. 28:1473-1478. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
295.McAllister, M. M., W. R. Jolley, R. A. Wills, D. S. Lindsay, A. M. McGuire, and J. D. Tranas. 1998. Oral inoculation of cats with tissue cysts of Neospora caninum. Am. J. Vet. Res. 59:441-444. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
296.McAllister, M. M., C. Björkman, R. Anderson-Sprecher, and D. G. Rogers. 2000. Evidence of point-source exposure to Neospora caninum and protective immunity in a herd of beef cows. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 217:881-887. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
297.McAllister, M. M., R. L. Wallace, C. Björkman, L. Gao, and L. D. Firkins. 2005. A probable source of Neospora caninum infection in an abortion outbreak in dairy cows. Bovine Pract. 39:69-74. [Google Scholar]
298.McDole, M. G., and J. M. Gay. 2002. Seroprevalence of antibodies against Neospora caninum in diagnostic equine serum samples and their possible association with fetal loss. Vet. Parasitol. 105:257-260. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
299.McGarry, J. W., C. M. Stockton, D. J. L. Williams, and A. J. Trees. 2003. Protracted shedding of oocysts of Neospora caninum by a naturally infected foxhound. J. Parasitol. 89:628-630. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
300.McInnes, L. M., P. Irwin, D. G. Palmer, and U. M. Ryan. 2006. In vitro isolation and characterization of the first canine Neospora caninum isolate in Australia. Vet. Parasitol. 137:355-363. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
301.McNamee, P. T., A. J. Trees, F. Guy, D. Moffett, and D. Kilpatrick. 1996. Diagnosis and prevalence of neosporosis in cattle in Northern Ireland. Vet. Rec. 138:419-420. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
302.Meléndez, J. A. S., J. J. M. García, J. J. Z. Ramos, V. M. R. Valdés, G. H. Vidal, G. D. Aranda, R. R. Romero, L. C. G. Alejo, and R. Á. Ramírez. 2005. Frecuencia de anticuerpos contra Neospora caninum en ganado bovino del noreste de México. Vet. Méx. 36:303-311. [Google Scholar]
303.Melo, C. B., R. C. Leite, F. S. C. Leite, and R. C. Leite. 2002. Serological surveillance on South American wild canids for Neospora caninum. Arq. Bras. Med. Vet. Zootec. 54:444-447. [Google Scholar]
304.Melo, D. P. G., A. C. Silva, L. M. Ortega-Mora, S. A. Bastos, and C. M. Boaventura. 2006. Prevalência de anticorpos anti-Neospora caninum em bovinos das microrregiões de Goiânia e Anápolis, Goiás, Brasil. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 15:105-109. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
305.Miller, C. M. D., H. E. Quinn, P. A. Windsor, and J. T. Ellis. 2002. Characterization of the first Australian isolate of Neospora caninum from cattle. Aust. Vet. J. 80:620-625. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
306.Miller, C. M. D., H. Quinn, C. Ryce, M. P. Reichel, and J. T. Ellis. 2005. Reduction in transplacental transmission of Neospora caninum in outbred mice by vaccination. Int. J. Parasitol. 35:821-828. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
307.Mineo, T. W. P., D. A. O. Silva, G. H. N. Costa, A. C. B. von Ancken, L. H. Kasper, M. A. Souza, D. D. Cabral, A. J. Costa, and J. R. Mineo. 2001. Detection of IgG antibodies to Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii in dogs examined in veterinary hospital from Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 98:239-245. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
308.Mineo, T. W. P., D. A. O. Silva, K. Naslund, C. Bjorkman, A. Uggla, and J. R. Mineo. 2004. Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum serological status of different canine populations from Uberlândia, Minas Gerais. Arq. Bras. Med. Vet. Zootec. 56:414-417. [Google Scholar]
308a.Mineo, T. W. P., S. Alenius, K. Näslund, H. J. Montassier, and C. Björkman. 2006. Distribution of antibodies against Neospora caninum, BVDV and BHV-1 among cows in Brazilian dairy herds with reproductive disorders. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 15:188-192. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
309.Moen, A. R., W. Wouda, M. F. Mul, E. A. M. Graat, and T. van Werven. 1998. Increased risk of abortion following Neospora caninum abortion outbreaks: a retrospective and prospective cohort study in four dairy herds. Theriogenology 49:1301-1309. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
310.Moore, D. P. 2005. Neosporosis in South America. Vet. Parasitol. 127:87-97. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
311.Moore, D. P., C. M. Campero, A. C. Odeón, M. A. Posso, D. Cano, M. R. Leunda, W. Basso, M. C. Venturini, and E. Späth. 2002. Seroepidemiology of beef and dairy herds and fetal study of Neospora caninum in Argentina. Vet. Parasitol. 107:303-316. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
312.Moore, D. P., C. M. Campero, A. C. Odeón, R. Chayer, and M. A. Bianco. 2003. Reproductive losses due to Neospora caninum in a beef herd in Argentina. J. Vet. Med. B 50:304-308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
313.Moore, D. P., M. G. Draghi, C. M. Campero, B. Cetrá, A. C. Odeón, E. Alcaraz, and E. A. J. Späth. 2003. Serological evidence of Neospora caninum infections in beef bulls in six counties of the Corrientes province, Argentina. Vet. Parasitol. 114:247-252. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
314.Morales, E., F. J. Trigo, F. Ibarra, E. Puente, and M. Santacruz. 2001. Neosporosis in Mexican dairy herds: lesions and immunohistochemical detection of Neospora caninum in fetuses. J. Comp. Pathol. 125:58-63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
315.Morales, E., F. J. Trigo, F. Ibarra, E. Puente, and M. Santacruz. 2001. Seroprevalence study of bovine neosporosis in Mexico. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 13:413-415. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
316.Moskwa, B., W. Cabaj, K. Pastusiak, and J. Bien. 2003. The suitability of milk in detection of Neospora caninum infection in cows. Acta Parasitol. 48:138-141. [Google Scholar]
317.Moskwa, B., K. Pastusiak, J. Bien, and W. Cabaj. 2007. The first detection of Neospora caninum DNA in the colostrum of infected cows. Parasitol. Res. 100:633-636. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
318.Munhoz, A. D., W. Flausino, R. T. Silva, C. R. R. Almeida, and C. W. G. Lopes. 2006. Distribuição de anticorpos contra Neospora caninum em vacas leiteiras dos municípios de Resende e Rio Claro, Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 15:101-104. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
319.Muñoz-Zanzi, C. A., M. C. Thurmond, and S. K. Hietala. 2004. Effect of bovine viral diarrhea virus infection on fertility of dairy heifers. Theriogenology 61:1085-1099. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
320.Naguleswaran, A., A. Hemphill, R. P. V. J. Rajapakse, and H. Sager. 2004. Elaboration of a crude antigen ELISA for serodiagnosis of caprine neosporosis: validation of the test by detection of Neospora caninum-specific antibodies in goats from Sri Lanka. Vet. Parasitol. 126:257-262. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
321.Nam, H. W., S. W. Kang, and W. Y. Choi. 1998. Antibody reaction of human anti-Toxoplasma gondii positive and negative sera with Neospora caninum antigens. Korean J. Parasitol. 36:269-275. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
321a.Ogawa, L., R. L. Freire, O. Vidotto, L. F. P. Gondim, and I. T. Navarro. 2005. Occurrence of antibodies to Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii in dairy cattle from the northern region of the Paraná State, Brazil. Arq. Bras. Med. Vet. Zootec. 57:312-316. [Google Scholar]
322.Okeoma, C. M., N. B. Williamson, W. E. Pomroy, K. M. Stowell, and L. M. Gillespie. 2004. Isolation and molecular characterization of Neospora caninum in cattle in New Zealand. N. Z. Vet. J. 52:364-370. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
323.Omata, Y., Y. Umeshita, M. Watarai, M. Tachibana, M. Sasaki, K. Murata, and T. K. Yamada. 2006. Investigation for presence of Neospora caninum, Toxoplasma gondii and Brucella species infection in killer whales (Orcinus orca) mass-stranded on the coast of Shiretoko, Hokkaido, Japan. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 68:523-526. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
324.Oncel, T., and G. Biyikoglu. 2003. Neosporosis in dairy cattle in Sakarya, Turkey. Uludag Univ. J. Fac. Vet. Med. 22:87-89. (In Turkish.) [Google Scholar]
325.Ooi, H. K., C. C. Huang, C. H. Yang, and S. H. Lee. 2000. Serological survey and first finding of Neospora caninum in Taiwan, and the detection of its antibodies in various body fluids of cattle. Vet. Parasitol. 90:47-55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
326.Ortega, Y. R., M. P. Torres, and K. D. Mena. 2007. Presence of Neospora caninum specific antibodies in three dairy farms in Georgia and two in Texas. Vet. Parasitol. 144:353-355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
327.Ortega-Mora, L. M., I. Ferre, I. del Pozo, A. Caetano da Silva, E. Collantes-Fernández, J. Regidor-Cerrillo, C. Ugarte-Garagalza, and G. Aduriz. 2003. Detection of Neospora caninum in semen of bulls. Vet. Parasitol. 117:301-308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
328.Ortega-Mora, L. M., A. Fernández-García, and M. Gómez-Bautista. 2006. Diagnosis of bovine neosporosis: recent advances and perspectives. Acta Parasitol. 51:1-14. [Google Scholar]
329.Ortega-Mora, L. M. B. Gottstein, F. J. Conraths, and D. Buxton (ed.). 2007. Protozoal abortion in farm ruminants. Guidelines for diagnosis and control. CAB International, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom.
330.Ortuño, A., J. Castella, and S. Almeria. 2002. Seroprevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum in dogs from Spain. J. Parasitol. 88:1263-1266. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
331.Osawa, T., J. Wastling, L. Acosta, C. Ortellado, J. Ibarra, and E. A. Innes. 2002. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum infection in dairy and beef cattle in Paraguay. Vet. Parasitol. 110:17-23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
332.Otranto, D., A. Llazari, G. Testini, D. Traversa, A. F. di Regalbono, M. Badan, and G. Capelli. 2003. Seroprevalence and associated risk factors of neosporosis in beef and dairy cattle in Italy. Vet. Parasitol. 118:7-18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
333.Ould-Amrouche, A., F. Klein, C. Osdoit, H. O. Mohamed, A. Touratier, M. Sanaa, and J. P. Mialot. 1999. Estimation of Neospora caninum seroprevalence in dairy cattle from Normandy, France. Vet. Res. 30:531-538. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
334.Pan, Y., G. B. Jansen, T. F. Duffield, S. Hietala, D. Kelton, C. Y. Lin, and A. S. Peregrine. 2004. Genetic susceptibility to Neospora caninum infection in Holstein cattle in Ontario. J. Dairy Sci. 87:3967-3975. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
334a.Paradies, P., G. Capelli, G. Testini, C. Cantacessi, A. J. Trees, and D. Otranto. Risk factors for canine neosporosis in farm and kennel dogs in southern Italy. Vet. Parasitol., in press. [DOI] [PubMed]
335.Paré, J., M. C. Thurmond, and S. K. Hietala. 1994. Congenital Neospora infection in dairy cattle. Vet. Rec. 134:531-532. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
336.Paré, J., S. K. Hietala, and M. C. Thurmond. 1995. An enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for serological diagnosis of Neospora sp. infection in cattle. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 7:352-359. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
337.Paré, J., M. C. Thurmond, and S. K. Hietala. 1996. Congenital Neospora caninum infection in dairy cattle and associated calf hood mortality. Can. J. Vet. Res. 60:133-139. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
338.Paré, J., M. C. Thurmond, and S. K. Hietala. 1997. Neospora caninum antibodies in cows during pregnancy as a predictor of congenital infection and abortion. J. Parasitol. 83:82-87. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
339.Paré, J., G. Fecteau, M. Fortin, and G. Marsolais. 1998. Seroepidemiologic study of Neospora caninum in dairy herds. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 213:1595-1598. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
340.Patitucci, A. N., M. J. Pérez, K. F. Israel, and M. A. Rozas. 2000. Prevalencia de anticuerpos séricos contra Neospora caninum en dos rebaños lecheros de la IX región de Chile. Arch. Med. Vet. 32:209-214. [Google Scholar]
341.Patitucci, A. N., M. Phil, M. J. Pérez, M. A. Rozas, and K. F. Israel. 2001. Neosporosis canina: presencia de anticuerpos séricos en poblaciones caninas rurales y urbanas de Chile. Arch. Med. Vet. 33:227-232. [Google Scholar]
342.Patitucci, A. N., M. J. Perez, C. M. Carcamo, and L. Baeza. 2004. Presencia de anticuerpos séricos contra Neospora caninum en equinos en Chile. Arch. Med. Vet. 36:203-206. [Google Scholar]
342a.Pena, J. H. J., R. M. Soares, A. M. A. Ragozo, R. M. Monteiro, L. E. O. Yai, S. M. Nishi, and S. M. Gennari. Isolation and molecular detection of Neospora caninum from naturally infected sheep from Brazil. Vet. Parasitol., in press. [DOI] [PubMed]
343.Peregrine, A. S., S. W. Martin, D. A. Hopwood, T. F. Duffield, B. McEwen, J. C. Hobson, and S. K. Hietala. 2006. Neospora caninum and Leptospira serovar serostatus in dairy cattle in Ontario. Can. Vet. J. 47:467-470. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
344.Pereira-Bueno, J., A. Quintanilla-Gozalo, A. Seijas-Carballedo, E. Costas, and L. M. Ortega-Mora. 2000. Observational studies in Neospora caninum infected dairy cattle: pattern of transmission and age-related antibody fluctuations. Int. J. Parasitol. 30:906-909. [Google Scholar]
345.Pereira-Bueno, J., A. Quintanilla-Gozalo, V. Pérez-Pérez, A. Espi-Felgueroso, G. Álvarez-García, E. Collantes-Fernández, and L. M. Ortega-Mora. 2003. Evaluation by different diagnostic techniques of bovine abortion associated with Neospora caninum in Spain. Vet. Parasitol. 111:143-152. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
346.Pérez-Zaballos, F. J., L. M. Ortega-Mora, G. Álvarez-García, E. Collantes-Fernández, V. Navarro-Lozano, L. García-Villada, and E. Costas. 2005. Adaptation of Neospora caninum isolates to cell-culture changes: an argument in favor of its clonal population structure. J. Parasitol. 91:507-510. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
347.Peters, M., F. Wagner, and G. Schares. 2000. Canine neosporosis: clinical and pathological findings and first isolation of Neospora caninum in Germany. Parasitol. Res. 86:1-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
348.Peters, M., E. Lütkefels, A. R. Heckeroth, and G. Schares. 2001. Immunohistochemical and ultrastructural evidence for Neospora caninum tissue cysts in skeletal muscles of naturally infected dogs and cattle. Int. J. Parasitol. 31:1144-1148. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
349.Peters, M., P. Wohlsein, A. Knieriem, and G. Schares. 2001. Neospora caninum infection associated with stillbirths in captive antelopes (Tragelaphus imberbis). Vet. Parasitol. 97:153-157. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
350.Petersen, E., M. Lebech, L. Jensen, P. Lind, M. Rask, P. Bagger, C. Björkman, and A. Uggla. 1999. Neospora caninum infection and repeated abortions in humans. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 5:278-280. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
351.Pfeiffer, D. U., N. B. Williamson, and M. P. Reichel. 2000. Long-term serological monitoring as a tool for epidemiological investigation of Neospora caninum infection in a New Zealand dairy herd, p. 616-618. Proceedings of the 9th Symposium of the International Society for Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics, Breckenridge, CO.
352.Pfeiffer, D. U., N. B. Williamson, M. P. Reichel, J. J. Wichtel, and W. R. Teague. 2002. A longitudinal study of Neospora caninum infection on a dairy farm in New Zealand. Prev. Vet. Med. 54:11-24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
353.Pitel, P. H., S. Pronost, M. F. Legendre, G. Chatagnon, D. Tainturier, and G. Fortier. 2000. Infection des bovins par Neospora caninum: deux années d'observations dans l'Ouest de la France. Le Point Vet. 31:53-58. [Google Scholar]
354.Pitel, P. H., S. Pronost, G. Chatagnon, D. Tainturier, G. Fortier, and J. J. Ballet. 2001. Neosporosis in bovine dairy herds from the west of France: detection of Neospora caninum DNA in aborted fetuses, seroepidemiology of N. caninum in cattle and dogs. Vet. Parasitol. 102:269-277. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
355.Pitel, P. H., S. Pronost, S. Romand, P. Thulliez, G. Fortier, and J. J. Ballet. 2001. Prevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum in horses in France. Equine Vet. J. 33:205-207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
356.Pitel, P. H., S. Romand, S. Pronost, N. Foucher, G. Gargala, K. Maillard, P. Thulliez, C. Collobert-Laugier, D. Tainturier, G. Fortier, and J. J. Ballet. 2003. Investigation of Neospora sp. antibodies in aborted mares from Normandy, France. Vet. Parasitol. 118:1-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
357.Pitel, P. H., D. S. Lindsay, S. Caure, S. Romand, S. Pronost, G. Gargala, S. M. Mitchell, C. Hary, P. Thulliez, G. Fortier, and J. J. Ballet. 2003. Reactivity against Sarcocystis neurona and Neospora by serum antibodies in healthy French horses from two farms with previous equine protozoal myeloencephalitis-like cases. Vet. Parasitol. 111:1-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
358.Quinn, H. E., C. M. D. Miller, and J. T. Ellis. 2004. The cell-mediated immune response to Neospora caninum during pregnancy in the mouse is associated with a bias towards production of interleukin-4. Int. J. Parasitol. 34:723-732. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
359.Quintanilla-Gozalo, A., J. Pereira-Bueno, E. Tabarés, E. A. Innes, R. González-Paniello, and L. M. Ortega-Mora. 1999. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum infection in dairy and beef cattle in Spain. Int. J. Parasitol. 29:1201-1208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
360.Quintanilla-Gozalo, A., J. Pereira-Bueno, A. Seijas-Carballedo, E. Costas, and L. M. Ortega-Mora. 2000. Observational studies in Neospora caninum infected dairy cattle: relationship infection-abortion and gestational antibody fluctuations. Int. J. Parasitol. 30:900-906. [Google Scholar]
361.Ragozo, A. M. A., V. S. O. Paula, S. L. P. Souza, D. P. Bergamaschi, and S. M. Gennari. 2003. Ocorrência de anticorpos anti-Neospora caninum em soros bovinos procedentes de seis estados Brasileiros. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 12:33-37. [Google Scholar]
362.Rasmussen, K., and A. L. Jensen. 1996. Some epidemiologic features of canine neosporosis in Denmark. Vet. Parasitol. 62:345-349. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
363.Razmi, G. R., M. Maleki, N. Farzaneh, G. M. Talebkhan, and A. H. Fallah. 6 October 2006, posting date. First report of Neospora caninum-associated bovine abortion in Mashhad area, Iran. Parasitol. Res. doi: 10.1007/s00436-006-0325-6. [DOI] [PubMed]
364.Razmi, G. R., G. R. Mohammadi, T. Garrosi, N. Farzaneh, A. H. Fallah, and M. Maleki. 2006. Seroepidemiology of Neospora caninum infection in dairy cattle herds in Mashhad area, Iran. Vet. Parasitol. 135:187-189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
365.Regidor-Cerrillo, J., S. Pedraza-Díaz, M. Gómez-Bautista, and L. M. Ortega-Mora. 2006. Multilocus microsatellite analysis reveals extensive genetic diversity in Neospora caninum. J. Parasitol. 92:517-524. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
366.Reichel, M. P. 1998. Prevalence of Neospora antibodies in New Zealand dairy cattle and dogs. N. Z. Vet. J. 46:38. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
367.Reichel, M. P. 2000. Neospora caninum infections in Australia and New Zealand. Aust. Vet. J. 78:258-261. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
368.Reichel, M. P., and J. T. Ellis. 2002. Control options for Neospora caninum infections in cattle—current state of knowledge. N. Z. Vet. J. 50:86-92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
369.Reichel, M. P., and J. T. Ellis. 2006. If control of Neospora caninum infection is technically feasible does it make economic sense? Vet. Parasitol. 142:23-34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
370.Reichel, M. P., and D. U. Pfeiffer. 2002. An analysis of the performance characterisics of serological tests for the diagnosis of Neospora caninum infection in cattle. Vet. Parasitol. 107:197-207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
370a.Reitt, K., M. Hilbe, A. Voegtlin, L. Corboz, M. Haessig, and A. Pospischil. 2007. Aetiology of bovine abortion in Switzerland from 1986 to 1995—a retrospective study with emphasis on detection of Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii by PCR. J. Vet. Med. A 54:15-22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
371.Rinaldi, L., G. Fusco, V. Musella, V. Veneziano, A. Guarino, R. Taddei, and G. Cringoli. 2005. Neospora caninum in pastured cattle: determination of climatic, environmental, farm management and individual animal risk factors using remote sensing and geographical information systems. Vet. Parasitol. 128:219-230. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
372.Rinaldi, L., F. Pacelli, G. Iovane, U. Pagnini, V. Veneziano, G. Fusco, and G. Cingoli. 2007. Survey of Neospora caninum and bovine herpes virus 1 coinfection in cattle. Parasitol. Res. 100:359-364. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
373.Rodrigues, A. A. R., S. M. Gennari, D. M. Aguiar, C. Sreekumar, D. E. Hill, K. B. Miska, M. C. B. Vianna, and J. P. Dubey. 2004. Shedding of Neospora caninum oocysts by dogs fed tissues from naturally infected water buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis) from Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 124:139-150. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
374.Rodriguez, I., L. Choromanski, S. Rodgers, and D. Weinstock. 2003. Survey of Neospora caninum antibodies in dairy and beef cattle from five regions of the United States. Vet. Ther. 3:396-401. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
374a.Romanelli, P. R., R. L. Freire, O. Vidotto, E. R. M. Marana, L. Ogawa, V. S. O. de Paula, J. L. Garcia, and I. T. Navarro. 2007. Prevalence of Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii in sheep and dogs from Guarapuava farms, Paraná State, Brazil. Res. Vet. Sci. 82:202-207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
375.Romero, J. J., and K. Frankena. 2003. The effect of the dam-calf relationship on serostatus to Neospora caninum on 20 Costa Rican dairy farms. Vet. Parasitol. 114:159-171. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
376.Romero, J. J., E. Perez, G. Dolz, and K. Frankena. 2002. Factors associated with Neospora caninum serostatus in cattle of 20 specialized Costa Rican dairy herds. Prev. Vet. Med. 53:263-273. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
377.Romero, J. J., E. Pérez, and K. Frankena. 2004. Effect of a killed whole Neospora caninum tachyzoite vaccine on the crude abortion rate of Costa Rican dairy cows under field conditions. Vet. Parasitol. 123:149-159. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
378.Romero, J. J., S. Van Breda, B. Vargas, G. Dolz, and K. Frankena. 2005. Effect of neosporosis on productive and reproductive performance of dairy cattle in Costa Rica. Theriogenology 64:1928-1939. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
379.Rosypal, A. C., and D. S. Lindsay. 2005. The sylvatic cycle of Neospora caninum: where do we go from here? Trends Parasitol. 21:439-440. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
380.Sadrebazzaz, A., H. Haddadzadeh, K. Esmailnia, G. Habibi, M. Vojgani, and R. Hashemifesharaki. 2004. Serological prevalence of Neospora caninum in healthy and aborted dairy cattle in Mashhad, Iran. Vet. Parasitol. 124:201-204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
381.Sadrebazzaz, A., H. Haddadzadeh, and P. Shayan. 2006. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii in camels (Camelus dromedarius) in Mashhad, Iran. Parasitol. Res. 98:600-601. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
382.Sager, H., I. Fischer, K. Furrer, M. Strasser, A. Waldvogel, P. Boerlin, L. Audigé, and B. Gottstein. 2001. A Swiss case-control study to assess Neospora caninum-associated bovine abortions by PCR, histopathology and serology. Vet. Parasitol. 102:1-15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
383.Sager, H., D. Hüssy, A. Kuffer, F. Schreve, and B. Gottstein. 2005. Mise en évidence d'un de “abortion storm” (transmission transplacentaire exogéne de Neospora caninum) dans une exploitation de vaches laitières: une première en Suisse. Schweiz. Arch. Tierheilkd. 147:113-120. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
384.Sager, H., C. Steiner-Moret, N. Müller, D. Staubli, M. Esposito, G. Schares, M. Hässig, K. Stärk, and B. Gottstein. 2006. Incidence of Neospora caninum and other intestinal protozoan parasites in populations of Swiss dogs. Vet. Parasitol. 139:84-92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
385.Sanchez, G. F., E. Morales, M. J. Martinez, and J. F. Trigo. 2003. Determination and correlation of anti-Neospora caninum antibodies in dogs and cattle from Mexico. Can. J. Vet. Res. 67:142-145. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
386.Sanderson, M. W., J. M. Gay, and T. V. Baszler. 2000. Neospora caninum seroprevalence and associated risk factors in beef cattle in the northwestern United States. Vet. Parasitol. 90:15-24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
387.Sartor, I. F., M. Y. Hasegawa, A. M. O. Canavessi, and R. D. Pinckney. 2003. Ocorrência de anticorpos de Neospora caninum em vacas leiteiras avaliados pelos métodos ELISA e RIFI no município de Avaré, SP. Semina 24:3-10. [Google Scholar]
388.Sartor, I. F., A. Garcia Filho, L. C. Vianna, E. M. Pituco, V. Dal Pai, and R. Sartor. 2005. Ocorrência de anticorpos anti-Neospora caninum em bovinos leiteiros e de corte da região de Presidente Prudente, sp. Arq. Inst. Biol. (São Paulo) 72:413-418. [Google Scholar]
389.Sawada, M., C. H. Park, H. Kondo, T. Morita, A. Shimada, I. Yamane, and T. Umemura. 1998. Serological survey of antibody to Neospora caninum in Japanese dogs. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 60:853-854. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
390.Sawada, M., H. Kondo, Y. Tomioka, C. H. Park, T. Morita, A. Shimada, and T. Umemura. 2000. Isolation of Neospora caninum from the brain of a naturally infected adult dairy cow. Vet. Parasitol. 90:247-252. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
391.Schares, G., M. Peters, R. Wurm, A. Bärwald, and F. J. Conraths. 1998. The efficiency of vertical transmission of Neospora caninum in dairy cattle analyzed by serological techniques. Vet. Parasitol. 80:87-98. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
392.Schares, G., F. J. Conraths, and M. P. Reichel. 1999. Bovine neosporosis: comparison of serological methods using outbreak sera from a dairy herd in New Zealand. Int. J. Parasitol. 29:1659-1667. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
393.Schares, G., M. Rauser, K. Zimmer, M. Peters, R. Wurm, J. P. Dubey, D. C. de Graaf, R. Edelhofer, C. Mertens, G. Hess, and F. J. Conraths. 1999. Serological differences in Neospora caninum-associated epidemic and endemic abortions. J. Parasitol. 85:688-694. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
394.Schares, G., M. Rauser, P. Söndgen, P. Rehberg, A. Bärwald, J. P. Dubey, R. Edelhofer, and F. J. Conraths. 2000. Use of purified tachyzoite surface antigen p38 in an ELISA to diagnose bovine neosporosis. Int. J. Parasitol. 30:1123-1130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
395.Schares, G., U. Wenzel, T. Müller, and F. J. Conraths. 2001. Serological evidence for naturally occurring transmission of Neospora caninum among foxes (Vulpes vulpes). Int. J. Parasitol. 31:418-423. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
396.Schares, G., A. O. Heydorn, A. Cüppers, F. J. Conraths, and H. Mehlhorn. 2001. Cyclic transmission of Neospora caninum: serological findings in dogs shedding oocysts. Parasitol. Res. 87:873-877. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
397.Schares, G., A. O. Heydorn, A. Cüppers, F. J. Conraths, and H. Mehlhorn. 2001. Hammondia heydorni-like oocysts shed by a naturally infected dog and Neospora caninum NC-1 cannot be distinguished. Parasitol. Res. 87:808-816. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
398.Schares, G., A. O. Heydorn, A. Cüppers, H. Mehlhorn, L. Geue, M. Peters, and F. J. Conraths. 2002. In contrast to dogs, red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) did not shed Neospora caninum upon feeding of intermediate host tissues. Parasitol. Res. 88:44-52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
399.Schares, G., A. Bärwald, C. Staubach, P. Söndgen, M. Rauser, R. Schröder, M. Peters, R. Wurm, T. Selhorst, and F. J. Conraths. 2002. p38-avidity-ELISA: examination of herds experiencing epidemic or endemic Neospora caninum-associated bovine abortion. Vet. Parasitol. 106:293-305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
400.Schares, G., A. Bärwald, C. Staubach, M. Ziller, D. Klöss, R. Wurm, M. Rauser, R. Labohm, K. Dräger, W. Fasen, R. G. Hess, and F. J. Conraths. 2003. Regional distribution of bovine Neospora caninum infection in the German state of Rhineland-Palatinate modeled by logistic regression. Int. J. Parasitol. 33:1631-1640. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
401.Schares, G., A. Bärwald, C. Staubach, R. Wurm, M. Rauser, F. J. Conraths, and C. Schroeder. 2004. Adaptation of a commercial ELISA for the detection of antibodies against Neospora caninum in bovine milk. Vet. Parasitol. 120:55-63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
402.Schares, G., A. Bärwald, C. Staubach, M. Ziller, D. Klöss, R. Schroder, R. Labohm, K. Dräger, W. Fasen, R. G. Hess, and F. J. Conraths. 2004. Potential risk factors for bovine Neospora caninum infection in Germany are not under the control of the farmers. Parasitology 129:301-309. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
403.Schares, G., N. Pantchev, D. Barutzki, A. O. Heydorn, C. Bauer, and F. J. Conraths. 2005. Oocysts of Neospora caninum, Hammondia heydorni, Toxoplasma gondii and Hammondida hammondi in faeces collected from dogs in Germany. Int. J. Parasitol. 35:1525-1537. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
404.Schetters, T. 2004. Intervet symposium: bovine neosporosis. Vet. Parasitol. 125:137-146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
405.Schock, A., E. A. Innes, I. Yamane, S. M. Latham, and J. M. Wastling. 2001. Genetic and biological diversity among isolates of Neospora caninum. Parasitology 123:13-23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
406.Scott, H. M., O. Sorensen, J. T. Wu, E. Y. Chow, K. Manninen, and J. A. VanLeeuwen. 2006. Seroprevalence of Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis, Neospora caninum, bovine leukemia virus, and bovine viral diarrhea virus infection among dairy cattle and herds in Alberta and agroecological risk factors associated with seropositivity. Can. Vet. J. 47:981-991. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
407.Sedlák, K., and E. Bártová. 2006. Seroprevalences of antibodies to Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii in zoo animals. Vet. Parasitol. 136:223-231. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
408.Serrano, E., I. Ferre, K. Osoro, G. Aduriz, A. Mateos-Sanz, A. Martínez, R. Atxaerandio, C. O. Hidalgo, and L. M. Ortega-Mora. 2006. Intrauterine Neospora caninum inoculation of heifers. Vet. Parasitol. 135:197-203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
409.Serrano-Martínez, E., E. Collantes-Fernández, A. Rodríguez-Bertos, E. Casas-Astos, G. Álvarez-García, A. Chávez-Velásquez, and L. M. Ortega-Mora. 2004. Neospora species-associated abortion in alpacas (Vicugna pacos) and llamas (Llama glama). Vet. Rec. 155:748-749. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
410.Serrano-Martínez, E., I. Ferre, K. Osoro, G. Aduriz, R. A. Mota, A. Martínez, I. del-Pozo, C. O. Hidalgo, and L. M. Ortega-Mora. 2007. Intrauterine Neospora caninum inoculation of heifers and cows using contaminated semen with different numbers of tachyzoites. Theriogenology 67:729-737. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
411.Sevgili, M., M. G. Altas, and O. Keskin. 2005. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum in cattle in the province of Sanliurfa. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 29:127-130. [Google Scholar]
412.Shivaprasad, H. L., R. Ely, and J. P. Dubey. 1989. A Neospora-like protozoon found in an aborted bovine placenta. Vet. Parasitol. 34:145-148. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
413.Silva, D. A. O., S. N. Vitaliano, T. W. P. Mineo, R. A. Ferreira, E. Bevilacqua, and J. R. Mineo. 2005. Evaluation of homologous, heterologous, and affinity conjugates from the serodiagnosis of Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum in maned wolves (Chrysocyon brachyurus). J. Parasitol. 91:1212-1216. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
414.Silva, D. A. O., J. Lobato, T. W. P. Mineo, and J. R. Mineo. 2007. Evaluation of serological tests for the diagnosis of Neospora caninum infection in dogs: optimization of cut off titers and inhibition studies of cross-reactivity with Toxoplasma gondii. Vet. Parasitol. 143:234-244. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
415.Simpson, V. R., R. J. Monies, P. Riley, and D. S. Cromey. 1997. Foxes and neosporosis. Vet. Rec. 141:503. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
416.Šlapeta, J. R., D. Modrý, I. Kyselová, R. Hořejš, J. Lukeš, and B. Koudela. 2002. Dog shedding oocysts of Neospora caninum: PCR diagnosis and molecular phylogenetic approach. Vet. Parasitol. 109:157-167. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
417.Soldati, S., M. Kiupel, A. Wise, R. Maes, C. Botteron, and N. Robert. 2004. Meningoencephalomyelitis caused by Neospora caninum in a juvenile fallow deer (Dama dama). J. Vet. Med. A 51:280-283. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
418.Söndgen, P., M. Peters, A. Bärwald, R. Wurm, F. Holling, F. J. Conraths, and G. Schares. 2001. Bovine neosporosis: immunoblot improves foetal serology. Vet. Parasitol. 102:279-290. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
419.Sreekumar, C., D. E. Hill, K. B. Miska, B. M. Rosenthal, M. C. B. Vianna, L. Venturini, W. Basso, S. M. Gennari, D. S. Lindsay, and J. P. Dubey. 2004. Hammondia heydorni: evidence of genetic diversity among isolates from dogs. Exp. Parasitol. 107:65-71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
420.Steinman, A., N. Y. Shpigel, S. Mazar, R. King, G. Baneth, I. Savitsky, and V. Shkap. 2006. Low seroprevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum in wild canids in Israel. Vet. Parasitol. 137:155-158. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
421.Stenlund, S., C. Björkman, O. J. M. Holmdahl, H. Kindahl, and A. Uggla. 1997. Characterisation of a Swedish bovine isolate of Neospora caninum. Parasitol. Res. 83:214-219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
422.Stenlund, S., H. Kindahl, U. Magnusson, A. Uggla, and C. Björkman. 1999. Serum antibody profile and reproductive performance during two consecutive pregnancies of cows naturally infected with Neospora caninum. Vet. Parasitol. 85:227-234. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
423.Stenlund, S., H. Kindahl, A. Uggla, and C. Björkman. 2003. A long-term study of Neospora caninum infection in a Swedish dairy herd. Acta Vet. Scand. 44:63-71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
424.Stoessel, Z., L. F. Taylor, M. R. McGowan, G. T. Coleman, and J. K. Landmann. 2003. Prevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum within central Queensland beef cattle. Aust. Vet. J. 81:165-166. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
425.Suteeraparp, P., S. Pholpark, M. Pholpark, A. Charoenchai, T. Chompoochan, I. Yamane, and Y. Kashiwazaki. 1999. Seroprevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum and associated abortion in dairy cattle from central Thailand. Vet. Parasitol. 86:49-57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
426.Suteu, O., B. Losson, M. Oltean, and V. Cozma. 2005. First serological survey for canine neosporosis in Romania. Bul. Univ. Stiint. Agric. Med. 62:591-592. [Google Scholar]
427.Teixeira, W. C., M. I. S. Silva, J. G. Pereira, A. M. Pinheiro, M. A. O. Almeida, and L. F. P. Gondim. 2006. Freqüência de cães reagentes para Neospora caninum em São Luís, Maranhão. Arq. Bras. Med. Vet. Zootec. 58:685-687. [Google Scholar]
428.Tennent-Brown, B. S., W. E. Pomroy, M. P. Reichel, P. L. Gray, T. S. Marshall, P. A. Moffat, M. Rogers, V. A. Driscoll, O. F. Reeve, A. L. Ridler, and S. Ritavanen. 2000. Prevalence of Neospora caninum abtibodies in beef cattle in New Zealand. N. Z. Vet. J. 48:149-150. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
429.Thompson, G., N. Canada, M. do Carmo Topa, E. Silva, F. Vaz, and A. Rocha. 2001. First confirmed case of Neospora caninum-associated abortion outbreak in Portugal. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 36:309-312. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
430.Thornton, R. N., A. Gajadhar, and J. Evans. 1994. Neospora abortion epidemic in a dairy herd. N. Z. Vet. J. 42:190-191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
431.Thurmond, M., and S. K. Hietala. 1995. Strategies to control Neospora infection in cattle. Bovine Pract. 29:60-63. [Google Scholar]
432.Thurmond, M. C., and S. K. Hietala. 1996. Culling associated with Neospora caninum infection in dairy cows. Am. J. Vet. Res. 57:1559-1562. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
433.Thurmond, M. C., and S. K. Hietala. 1997. Effect of Neospora caninum infection on milk production in first-lactation dairy cows. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 210:672-674. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
434.Thurmond, M. C., and S. K. Hietala. 1997. Effect of congenitally acquired Neospora caninum infection on risk of abortion and subsequent abortions in dairy cattle. Am. J. Vet. Res. 58:1381-1385. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
435.Thurmond, M. C., M. L. Anderson, and P. C. Blanchard. 1995. Secular and seasonal trends of Neospora abortion in California dairy cows. J. Parasitol. 81:364-367. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
436.Thurmond, M. C., S. K. Hietala, and P. C. Blanchard. 1997. Herd-based diagnosis of Neospora caninum-induced endemic and epidemic abortion in cows and evidence for congenital and postnatal transmission. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 9:44-49. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
437.Tiemann, J. C. H., S. L. P. Souza, A. A. R. Rodrigues, J. M. B. Duarte, and S. M. Gennari. 2005. Environmental effect on the occurrence of anti-Neospora caninum antibodies in pampas-deer (Ozotoceros bezoarticus). Vet. Parasitol. 134:73-76. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
438.Tiemann, J. C. H., A. A. R. Rodrigues, S. L. P. de Souza, J. M. B. Duart, and S. M. Gennari. 2005. Occurrence of anti-Neospora caninum antibodies in Brazilian cervids kept in captivity. Vet. Parasitol. 129:341-343. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
439.Tiwari, A., J. A. VanLeeuwen, I. R. Dohoo, H. Stryhn, G. P. Keefe, and J. P. Haddad. 2005. Effects of seropositivity for bovine leukemia virus, bovine viral diarrhea virus, Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis, and Neospora caninum on culling in dairy cattle in four Canadian provinces. Vet. Microbiol. 109:147-158. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
440.Tranas, J., R. A. Heinzen, L. M. Weiss, and M. M. McAllister. 1999. Serological evidence of human infection with the protozoan Neospora caninum. Clin. Diagn. Lab. Immunol. 6:765-767. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
441.Trees, A. J., and D. J. L. Williams. 2000. Neosporosis in the United Kingdom. Int. J. Parasitol. 30:891-893. [Google Scholar]
442.Trees, A. J., and D. J. L. Williams. 2005. Endogenous and exogenous transplacental infection in Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii. Trends Parasitol. 21:558-561. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
443.Trees, A. J., M. M. McAllister, C. S. Guy, J. W. McGarry, R. F. Smith, and D. J. L. Williams. 2002. Neospora caninum: oocyst challenge of pregnant cows. Vet. Parasitol. 109:147-154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
444.Trees, A. J., F. Guy, B. J. Tennant, A. H. Balfour, and J. P. Dubey. 1993. Prevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum in a population of urban dogs in England. Vet. Rec. 132:125-126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
445.Trees, A. J., H. C. Davison, E. A. Innes, and J. M. Wastling. 1999. Towards evaluating the economic impact of bovine neosporosis. Int. J. Parasitol. 29:1195-1200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
446.Uggla, A., S. Stenlund, O. J. M. Holmdahl, E. B. Jakubek, P. Thebo, H. Kindahl, and C. Björkman. 1998. Oral Neospora caninum inoculation of neonatal calves. Int. J. Parasitol. 28:1467-1472. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
447.Václavek, P., B. Koudela, D. Modrý, and K. Sedlák. 2003. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum in aborting dairy cattle in the Czech Republic. Vet. Parasitol. 115:239-245. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
448.Václavek, P., K. Sedlák, L. Hůrková, P. Vodráka, R. Sebesta, and B. Koudela. 2007. Serological survey of Neospora caninum in dogs in the Czech Republic and a long-term study of dynamics of antibodies. Vet. Parasitol. 143:35-41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
449.VanLeeuwen, J. A., G. P. Keefe, and A. Tiwari. 2002. Seroprevalence and productivity effects of infection with bovine leukemia virus, Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis, and Neospora caninum in maritime Canadian dairy cattle. Bovine Pract. 36:86-91. [Google Scholar]
450.VanLeeuwen, J. A., L. Forsythe, A. Tiwari, and R. Chartier. 2005. Seroprevalence of antibodies against bovine leukemia virus, bovine viral diarrhea virus, Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis, and Neospora caninum in dairy cattle in Saskatchewan. Can. Vet. J. 46:56-58. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
451.VanLeeuwen, J. A., A. Tiwari, J. C. Plaizier, and T. L. Whiting. 2006. Seroprevalences of antibodies against bovine leukemia virus, bovine viral diarrhea virus, Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis, and Neospora caninum in beef and dairy cattle in Manitoba. Can. Vet. J. 47:783-786. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
452.Varandas, N. P., P. A. Rached, G. H. N. Costa, L. M. Souza, K. C. Castagnolli, and A. J. Costa. 2001. Freqüência de anticorpos anti-Neospora caninum e anti-Toxoplasma gondii em cães da região nordeste do Estado de São Paulo. Correlação com neuropatias. Semina 22:105-111. [Google Scholar]
453.Varcasia, A., G. Capelli, A. Ruiu, M. Ladu, A. Scala, and C. Bjorkman. 2006. Prevalence of Neospora caninum infection in Sardinian dairy farms (Italy) detected by iscom ELISA on tank bulk milk. Parasitol. Res. 98:264-267. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
454.Vardeleon, D., A. E. Marsh, J. G. Thorne, W. Loch, R. Young, and P. J. Johnson. 2001. Prevalence of Neospora hughesi and Sarcocystis neurona antibodies in horses from various geographical locations. Vet. Parasitol. 95:273-282. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
455.Venturini, L., C. Di Lorenzo, C. Venturini, and J. Romero. 1995. Anticuerpos anti Neospora sp., en vacas que abortaron. Vet. Arg. 12:167-170. [Google Scholar]
456.Venturini, M. C., L. Venturini, D. Bacigalupe, M. Machuca, I. Echaide, W. Basso, J. M. Unzaga, C. Di Lorenzo, A. Guglielmone, M. C. Jenkins, and J. P. Dubey. 1999. Neospora caninum infections in bovine foetuses and dairy cows with abortions in Argentina. Int. J. Parasitol. 29:1705-1708. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
457.Vianna, M. C. B., C. Sreekumar, K. B. Miska, D. E. Hill, and J. P. Dubey. 2005. Isolation of Neospora caninum from naturally infected white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Vet. Parasitol. 129:253-257. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
458.Villalobos, E. M. C., T. E. H. Ueno, S. L. P. de Souza, E. M. S. Cunha, M. C. C. S. H. Lara, S. M. Gennari, and R. M. Soares. 2006. Association between the presence of serum antibodies against Neospora spp. and fetal loss in equines. Vet. Parasitol. 142:372-375. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
459.Vitaliano, S. N., D. A. O. Silva, T. W. P. Mineo, R. A. Ferreira, E. Bevilacqua, and J. R. Mineo. 2004. Seroprevalence of Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum in captive maned wolves (Chrysocyon brachyurus) from southeastern and midwestern regions of Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 122:253-260. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
459a.Vogel, F. S. F., S. Arenhart, and F. V. Bauermann. 2006. Anticorpos anti-Neospora caninum em bovinos, ovinos e ubalinos no Estado do Rio Grande do Sul. Cienc. Rural 36:1948-1951. [Google Scholar]
460.von Blumröder, D., G. Schares, R. Norton, D. J. L. Williams, I. Esteban-Redondo, S. Wright, C. Björkman, J. Frössling, V. Risco-Castillo, A. Fernández-García, L. M. Ortega-Mora, H. Sager, A. Hemphill, C. van Maanen, W. Wouda, and F. J. Conraths. 2004. Comparison and standardisation of serological methods for the diagnosis of Neospora caninum infection in bovines. Vet. Parasitol. 120:11-22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
461.von Blumröder, D., R. Stambusch, R. Labohm, W. Klawonn, K. Dräger, W. Fasen, F. J. Conraths, and G. Schares. 2006. Potential risk factors for the serological detection of Neospora caninum-infections in cattle in Rhineland-Palatinate (Germany). Tierärztl. Prax. G 34:141-147. [Google Scholar]
462.Vural, G., E. Aksoy, M. Bozkir, U. Kuçukayan, and A. Erturk. 2006. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum in dairy cattle herds in Central Anatolia, Turkey. Vet. Arh. 76:343-349. [Google Scholar]
463.Waldner, C. L. 2002. Pre-colostral antibodies to Neospora caninum in beef calves following an abortion outbreak and associated fall weaning weights. Bovine Pract. 36:81-85. [Google Scholar]
464.Waldner, C. L. 2005. Serological status for Neospora caninum, bovine viral diarrhea virus, and infectious bovine rhinotracheitis virus at pregnancy testing and reproductive performance in beef herds. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 90:219-242. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
465.Waldner, C. L., E. D. Janzen, and C. S. Ribble. 1998. Determination of the association between Neospora caninum infection and reproductive performance in beef herds. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 213:685-690. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
466.Waldner, C. L., E. D. Janzen, J. Henderson, and D. M. Haines. 1999. Outbreak of abortion associated with Neospora caninum infection in a beef herd. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 215:1485-1490. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
467.Waldner, C. L., J. Henderson, J. T. Y. Wu, K. Breker, and E. Y. W. Chow. 2001. Reproductive performance of a cow-calf herd following a Neospora caninum-associated abortion epidemic. Can. Vet. J. 42:355-360. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
468.Waldner, C. L., J. Henderson, J. T. Y. Wu, R. Coupland, and E. Y. W. Chow. 2001. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum in beef cattle in northern Alberta. Can. Vet. J. 42:130-132. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
469.Waldner, C. L., B. K. Wildman, B. W. Hill, R. K. Fenton, T. J. Pittman, O. C. Schunicht, G. K. Jim, P. T. Guichon, and C. W. Booker. 2004. Determination of the seroprevalence of Neospora caninum in feedlot steers in Alberta. Can. Vet. J. 45:218-224. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
470.Wanha, K., R. Edelhofer, C. Gabler-Eduardo, and H. Prosl. 2005. Prevalence of antibodies against Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii in dogs and foxes in Austria. Vet. Parasitol. 128:189-193. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
471.Wapenaar, W., M. C. Jenkins, R. M. O'Handley, and H. W. Barkema. 2006. Neospora caninum-like oocysts observed in feces of free ranging red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and coyotes (Canis latrans) based on microscopic examination, PCR and DNA-sequencing. J. Parasitol. 92:1270-1274. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
472.Wapenaar, W., H. W. Barkema, G. Schares, K. Rouvinen-Watt, L. Zeijlemaker, B. Poorter, R. M. O'Handley, O. C. H., Kwok, and J. P. Dubey. 2007. Evaluation of four serological techniques to determine the seroprevalence of Neospora caninum in foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and coyotes (Canis latrans) in Prince Edward Island, Canada. Vet. Parasitol. 145:51-58. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
473.Weber, A., K. Zetzmann, and T. Ewringmann. 2000. Vorkommen von Antikörpern gegen Neospora caninum bei Kühen in nordbayerischen Beständen mit Abortproblemen. Tierärztl. Umsch. 55:28-29. [Google Scholar]
474.Weston, J. F., N. B. Williamson, and W. E. Pomroy. 2005. Associations between pregnancy outcome and serological response to Neospora caninum among a group of dairy heifers. N. Z. Vet. J. 53:142-148. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
475.Wierzchon, M., M. Katkiewicz, and K. Marciniak. 2006. Neosporosis occurrence in cattle. Med. Weter. 62:1041-1044. [Google Scholar]
476.Williams, D. J. L., C. S. Guy, J. W. McGarry, F. Guy, L. Tasker, R. F. Smith, K. MacEachern, P. J. Cripps, D. F. Kelly, and A. J. Trees. 2000. Neospora caninum-associated abortion in cattle: the time of experimentally-induced parasitaemia during gestation determines foetal survival. Parasitology 121:347-358. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
477.Williams, D. J. L., and A. J. Trees. 2006. Protecting babies: vaccine srategies to prevent foetopathy in Neospora caninum-infected cattle. Parasite Immunol. 28:61-67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
478.Williams, D. J. L., C. S. Guy, R. F. Smith, J. Ellis, C. Björkman, M. P. Reichel, and A. J. Trees. 2007. Immunization of cattle with live tachyzoites of Neospora caninum confers protection against fetal death. Infect. Immun. 75:1343-1348. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
479.Williams, J. H., I. Espie, E. van Wilpe, and A. Matthee. 2002. Neosporosis in a white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum) calf. Tydskr. S. Afr. Vet. Ver. 73:38-43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
480.Wolf, D., G. Schares, O. Cardenas, W. Huanca, A. Cordero, A. Bärwald, F. J. Conraths, M. Gauly, H. Zahner, and C. Bauer. 2005. Detection of specific antibodies to Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii in naturally infected alpacas (Lama pacos), llamas (Lama glama) and vicuñas (Lama vicugna) from Peru and Germany. Vet. Parasitol. 130:81-87. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
481.Wolfe, A., S. Hogan, D. Maguire, C. Fitzpatrick, L. Vaughan, D. Wall, T. J. Hayden, and G. Mulcahy. 2001. Red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in Ireland as hosts for parasites of potential zoonotic and veterinary significance. Vet. Rec. 149:759-763. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
482.Woods, L. W., M. L. Anderson, P. K. Swift, and K. W. Sverlow. 1994. Systemic neosporosis in a California black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus). J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 6:508-510. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
483.Wouda, W., A. R. Moen, A. Damsma, I. J. R. Visser, and F. van Knapen. 1994. Lesions and parasites in aborted fetuses. Repeated transplacental transmission. Proc. Meet. Eur. Soc. Vet. Pathol. 12:29. [Google Scholar]
484.Wouda, W. 1998. Neospora abortion in cattle: aspects of diagnosis and epidemiology. Thesis/dissertation. Universiteit van Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
485.Wouda, W., A. R. Moen, I. J. R. Visser, and F. van Knapen. 1997. Bovine fetal neosporosis: a comparison of epizootic and sporadic abortion cases and different age classes with regard to lesion severity and immunohistochemical identification of organisms in brain, heart, and liver. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 9:180-185. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
486.Wouda, W., A. R. Moen, and Y. H. Schukken. 1998. Abortion risk in progeny of cows after a Neospora caninum epidemic. Theriogenology 49:1311-1316. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
487.Wouda, W., J. Brinkhof, C. van Maanen, A. L. W. de Gee, and A. R. Moen. 1998. Serodiagnosis of neosporosis in individual cows and dairy herds: a comparative study of three enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. Clin. Diagn. Lab. Immunol. 5:711-716. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
488.Wouda, W., C. J. M. Bartels, and A. R. Moen. 1999. Characteristics of Neospora caninum-associated abortion storms in dairy herds in the Netherlands (1995-1997). Theriogenology 52:233-245. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
489.Wouda, W., T. Dijkstra, A. M. H. Kramer, C. van Maanen, and J. M. A. Brinkhof. 1999. Seroepidemiological evidence for a relationship between Neospora caninum infections in dogs and cattle. Int. J. Parasitol. 29:1677-1682. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
490.Yamane, I., T. Kokuho, K. Shimura, M. Eto, T. Shibahara, M. Haritani, Y. Ouchi, K. Sverlow, and P. A. Conrad. 1997. In vitro isolation and characterization of a bovine Neospora species in Japan. Res. Vet. Sci. 63:77-80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
491.Yamane, I., T. Shibahara, T. Kokuho, K. Shimura, T. Hamaoka, M. Haritani, P. A. Conrad, C. H. Park, M. Sawada, and T. Umemura. 1998. An improved isolation technique for bovine Neospora species. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 10:364-368. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
492.Yu, J., Q. Liu, and Z. Xia. 2007. Seroepidemiology of Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii in cattle and water buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis) in the People's Republic of China. Vet. Parasitol. 143:79-85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r1] 1.Aguado-Martínez, A., G. Álvarez-García, I. Arnaiz-Seco, E. Innes, and L. M. Ortega-Mora. 2005. Use of avidity enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and avidity Western blot to discriminate between acute and chronic Neospora caninum infection in cattle. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 17:442-450. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r2] 2.Aguiar, D. M., G. T. Cavalcante, A. A. R. Rodrigues, M. B. Labruna, L. M. A. Camargo, E. P. Camargo, and S. M. Gennari. 2006. Prevalence of anti-Neospora caninum antibodies in cattle and dogs from Western Amazon, Brazil, in association with some possible risk factors. Vet. Parasitol. 142:71-77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r3] 3.Ahn, H. J., S. Kim, D. Y. Kim, and H. W. Nam. 2003. ELISA detection of IgG antibody against a recombinant major surface antigen (Nc-p43) fragment of Neospora caninum in bovine sera. Korean J. Parasitol. 41:175-177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r4] 4.Akca, A., H. I. Gokce, C. S. Guy, J. W. McGarry, and D. J. L. Williams. 2005. Prevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum in local and imported cattle breeds in the Kars province of Turkey. Res. Vet. Sci. 78:123-126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r5] 5.Aktas, F., G. Vural, and I. Y. Sezen. Serological survey of Neospora caninum infection in dairy cattle herds in Gebze, Turkey. Indian Vet. J., in press.

[r6] 6.Almería, S., D. Ferrer, M. Pabón, J. Castellà, and S. Mañas. 2002. Red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) are a natural intermediate host of Neospora caninum. Vet. Parasitol. 107:287-294. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r7] 7.Almería, S., D. Vidal, D. Ferrer, M. Pabón, M. I. G. Fernández-de-Mera, F. Ruiz-Fons, V. Alzaga, I. Marco, C. Calvete, S. Lavin, C. Gortazar, F. López-Gatius, and J. P. Dubey. 2007. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum in non-carnivorous wildlife from Spain. Vet. Parasitol. 143:21-28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r8] 8.Álvarez-García, G., E. Collantes-Fernández, E. Costas, X. Rebordosa, and L. M. Ortega-Mora. 2003. Influence of age and purpose for testing on the cut-off selection of serological methods in bovine neosporosis. Vet. Res. 34:341-352. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r9] 9.Anderson, M. L., P. C. Blanchard, B. C. Barr, J. P. Dubey, R. L. Hoffman, and P. A. Conrad. 1991. Neospora-like protozoan infection as a major cause of abortion in California dairy cattle. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 198:241-244. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r10] 10.Anderson, M. L., C. W. Palmer, M. C. Thurmond, J. P. Picanso, P. C. Blanchard, R. E. Breitmeyer, A. W. Layton, M. McAllister, B. Daft, H. Kinde, D. H. Read, J. P. Dubey, P. A. Conrad, and B. C. Barr. 1995. Evaluation of abortions in cattle attributable to neosporosis in selected dairy herds in California. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 207:1206-1210. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r11] 11.Anderson, M. L., J. P. Reynolds, J. D. Rowe, K. W. Sverlow, A. E. Packham, B. C. Barr, and P. A. Conrad. 1997. Evidence of vertical transmission of Neospora sp. infection in dairy cattle. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 210:1169-1172. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r12] 12.Anderson, M. L., A. G. Andrianarivo, and P. A. Conrad. 2000. Neosporosis in cattle. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 60-61:417-431. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r13] 13.Anderson, T., A. Dejardin, D. K. Howe, J. P. Dubey, and M. L. Michalski. 2007. Neospora caninum antibodies detected in midwestern white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) by Western blot and ELISA. Vet. Parasitol. 145:152-155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r14] 14.Andreotti, R., R. D. Pinckney, P. P. Pires, and E. A. E. Silva. 2004. Evidence of Neospora caninum in beef cattle and dogs in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul, center-western region, Brazil. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 13:129-131. [Google Scholar]

[r15] 15.Andreotti, R., J. M. Oliveira, E. Araujo e Silva, L. M. Oshiro, and M. F. C. Matos. 2006. Occurrence of Neospora caninum in dogs and its correlation with visceral leishmaniasis in the urban area of Campo Grande, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 135:375-379. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r16] 16.Andrianarivo, A. G., J. D. Rowe, B. C. Barr, M. L. Anderson, A. E. Packham, K. W. Sverlow, L. Choromanski, C. Loui, A. Grace, and P. A. Conrad. 2000. A POLYGEN-adjuvanted killed Neospora caninum tachyzoite preparation failed to prevent foetal infection in pregnant cattle following i.v./i.m. experimental tachyzoite challenge. Int. J. Parasitol. 30:985-990. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r17] 17.Andrianarivo, A. G., M. L. Anderson, J. D. Rowe, I. A. Gardner, J. P. Reynolds, L. Choromanski, and P. A. Conrad. 2005. Immune responses during pregnancy in heifers naturally infected with Neospora caninum with and without immunization. Parasitol. Res. 96:24-31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r18] 18.Antony, A., and N. B. Williamson. 2001. Recent advances in understanding the epidemiology of Neospora caninum in cattle. N. Z. Vet. J. 49:42-47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r19] 19.Antony, A., and N. B. Williamson. 2003. Prevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum in dogs of rural or urban origin in central New Zealand. N. Z. Vet. J. 51:232-237. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r20] 20.Armengol, R., M. Pabón, C. Adelantado, F. López-Gatius, and S. Almería. 2006. First report of Neospora caninum abortion in a beef cow-calf herd from Andorra, Europe. J. Parasitol. 92:1361-1362. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r20a] 20a.Armengol, R., M. Pabón, P. Santolaria, O. Cabezón, C. Adelantado, J. Yániz, F. López-Gatius, and S. Almería. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum infection in cow-calf herds in Andorra and risk factors associated with seropositivity. J. Parasitol., in press. [DOI] [PubMed]

[r21] 21.Atkinson, R., P. A. W. Harper, C. Ryce, D. A. Morrison, and J. T. Ellis. 1999. Comparison of the biological characteristics of two isolates of Neospora caninum. Parasitology 118:363-370. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r22] 22.Atkinson, R. A., R. W. Cook, L. A. Reddacliff, J. Rothwell, K. W. Broady, P. A. W. Harper, and J. T. Ellis. 2000. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum infection following an abortion outbreak in a dairy cattle herd. Aust. Vet. J. 78:262-266. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r23] 23.Azevedo, S. S., C. S. A. Batista, S. A. Vasconcellos, D. M. Aguiar, A. M. A. Ragozo, A. A. R. Rodgrigues, C. J. Alves, and S. M. Gennari. 2006. Seroepidemiology of Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum in dogs from the state of Paraíba, northeast region of Brazil. Res. Vet. Sci. 79:51-56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r24] 24.Bae, J. S., D. Y. Kim, W. S. Hwang, J. H. Kim, N. S. Lee, and H. W. Nam. 2000. Detection of IgG antibody against Neospora caninum in cattle in Korea. Korean J. Parasitol. 38:245-249. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r25] 25.Baillargeon, P., G. Fecteau, J. Paré, P. Lamothe, and R. Sauvé. 2001. Evaluation of the embryo transfer procedure proposed by the International Embryo Transfer Society as a method of controlling vertical transmission of Neospora caninum in cattle. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 218:1803-1806. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r26] 26.Bañales, P., L. Fernandez, M. V. Repiso, A. Gil, D. A. Dargatz, and T. Osawa. 2006. A nationwide survey on seroprevalence of Neospora caninum infection in beef cattle in Uruguay. Vet. Parasitol. 139:15-20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r27] 27.Barber, J. S., and A. J. Trees. 1998. Naturally occurring vertical transmission of Neospora caninum in dogs. Int. J. Parasitol. 28:57-64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r28] 28.Barber, J. S., O. J. M. Holmdahl, M. R. Owen, F. Guy, A. Uggla, and A. J. Trees. 1995. Characterization of the first European isolate of Neospora caninum (Dubey, Carpenter, Speer, Topper and Uggla). Parasitology 111:563-568. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r29] 29.Barber, J. S., R. B. Gasser, J. Ellis, M. P. Reichel, D. McMillan, and A. J. Trees. 1997. Prevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum in different canid populations. J. Parasitol. 83:1056-1058. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r30] 30.Barber, J. S., L. van Ham, I. Polis, and A. J. Trees. 1997. Seroprevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum in Belgian dogs. J. Small Anim. Pract. 38:15-16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r31] 31.Barling, K. S., J. W. McNeill, J. A. Thompson, J. C. Paschal, E. T. McCollum, T. M. Craig, and L. G. Adams. 2000. Association of serologic status for Neospora caninum with post weaning weight gain and carcass measurements in beef calves. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 217:1356-1360. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r32] 32.Barling, K. S., M. Sherman, M. J. Peterson, J. A. Thompson, J. W. McNeill, T. M. Craig, and L. G. Adams. 2000. Spatial associations among density of cattle, abundance of wild canids, and seroprevalence to Neospora caninum in a population of beef calves. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 217:1361-1365. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r33] 33.Barling, K. S., J. W. McNeill, J. C. Paschal, F. T. McCollum III, T. M. Craig, L. G. Adams, and J. A. Thompson. 2001. Ranch-management factors associated with antibody seropositivity for Neospora caninum in consignments of beef calves in Texas, USA Prev. Vet. Med. 52:53-61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r34] 34.Barr, B. C., M. L. Anderson, L. W. Woods, J. P. Dubey, and P. A. Conrad. 1992. Neospora-like protozoal infections associated with abortion in goats. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 4:365-367. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r35] 35.Barr, B. C., P. A. Conrad, K. W. Sverlow, A. F. Tarantal, and A. G. Hendrickx. 1994. Experimental fetal and transplacental Neospora infection in the nonhuman primate. Lab. Investig. 71:236-242. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r36] 36.Barr, B. C., J. P. Dubey, D. S. Lindsay, J. P. Reynolds, and S. J. Wells. 1998. Neosporosis: its prevalence and economic impact. Comp. Cont. Edu. Pract. Vet. 20:1-16. [Google Scholar]

[r37] 37.Bartels, C. J. M., W. Wouda, and Y. H. Schukken. 1999. Risk factors for Neospora caninum-associated abortion storms in dairy herds in the Netherlands (1995 to 1997). Theriogenology 52:247-257. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r38] 38.Bartels, C. J. M., C. van Maanen, A. M. van der Meulen, T. Dijkstra, and W. Wouda. 2005. Evaluation of three enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for detection of antibodies to Neospora caninum in bulk milk. Vet. Parasitol. 131:235-246. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r39] 39.Bartels, C. J. M., J. I. Arnaiz-Seco, A. Ruiz-Santa-Quitera, C. Björkman, J. Frössling, D. von Blumröder, F. J. Conraths, G. Schares, C. van Maanen, W. Wouda, and L. M. Ortega-Mora. 2006. Supranational comparison of Neospora caninum seroprevalences in cattle in Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden. Vet. Parasitol. 137:17-27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r40] 40.Bartels, C. J. M., H. Hogeveen, G. van Schaik, W. Wouda, and T. Dijkstra. 2006. Estimated economic losses due to Neospora caninum infection in dairy herds with and without a history of Neospora caninum associated abortion epidemics, p. 191-201. SVEPM Ann. Meet., Exeter University, Devon, United Kingdom, 29-31 March 2006.

[r41] 41.Bartels, C. J. M., G. van Schaik, J. P. Veldhuisen, B. H. P. van den Borne, W. Wouda, and T. Dijkstra. 2006. Effect of Neospora caninum-serostatus on culling, reproductive performance and milk production in Dutch dairy herds with and without a history of Neospora caninum associated abortion epidemics. Prev. Vet. Med. 77:186-198. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r42] 42.Bartley, P. M., S. Wright, J. Sales, F. Chianini, D. Buxton, and E. A. Innes. 2006. Long-term passage of tachyzoites in tissue culture can attenuate virulence of Neospora caninum in vivo. Parasitology 133:421-432. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r43] 43.Bártová, E., K. Sedlák, and I. Literák. 2006. Prevalence of Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum antibodies in wild boars in the Czech Republic. Vet. Parasitol. 142:150-153. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r44] 44.Basso, W., L. Venturini, M. C. Venturini, D. E. Hill, O. C. H. Kwok, S. K. Shen, and J. P. Dubey. 2001. First isolation of Neospora caninum from the feces of a naturally infected dog. J. Parasitol. 87:612-618. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r45] 45.Basso, W., L. Venturini, M. C. Venturini, P. Moore, M. Rambeau, J. M. Unzaga, C. Campero, D. Bacigalupe, and J. P. Dubey. 2001. Prevalence of Neospora caninum infection in dogs from beef-cattle farms, dairy farms, and from urban areas of Argentina. J. Parasitol. 87:906-907. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r46] 46.Bech-Sabat, G., F. Lopez-Gatius, P. Santolaria, I. Garcia-Ispierto, M. Pabon, C. Nogareda, J. L. Yaniz, and S. Almeria. 2007. Progesterone supplementation during mid-gestation increases the risk of abortion in Neospora-infected dairy cows with high antibody titres. Vet. Parasitol. 145:164-167. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r47] 47.Bergeron, N., G. Fecteau, J. Paré, R. Martineau, and A. Villeneuve. 2000. Vertical and horizontal transmission of Neospora caninum in dairy herds in Québec. Can. Vet. J. 41:464-467. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r48] 48.Bergeron, N., G. Fecteau, A. Villeneuve, C. Girard, and J. Paré. 2001. Failure of dogs to shed oocysts after being fed bovine fetuses naturally infected by Neospora caninum. Vet. Parasitol. 97:145-152. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r49] 49.Bergeron, N., C. Girard, J. Paré, G. Fecteau, J. Robinson, and P. Baillargeon. 2001. Rare detection of Neospora caninum in placentas from seropositive dams giving birth to full-term calves. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 13:173-175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r50] 50.Bielanski, A., J. Robinson, and B. Phipps-Todd. 2002. Effect of Neospora caninum on in vitro development of preimplantation stage bovine embryos and adherence to the zona pellucida. Vet. Rec. 150:316-318. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r51] 51.Biyikoglu, G., T. Oncel, and O. Bagci. 2005. Serological survey of Neospora caninum infection. Indian Vet. J. 82:345-346. [Google Scholar]

[r52] 52.Bjerkås, I., S. F. Mohn, and J. Presthus. 1984. Unidentified cyst-forming sporozoon causing encephalomyelitis and myositis in dogs. Z. Parasitenkd. 70:271-274. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r53] 53.Björkman, C., A. Lundén, and A. Uggla. 1994. Prevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii in Swedish dogs. Acta Vet. Scand. 35:445-447. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r54] 54.Björkman, C., O. Johansson, S. Stenlund, O. J. M. Holmdahl, and A. Uggla. 1996. Neospora species infection in a herd of dairy cattle. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 208:1441-1444. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r55] 55.Björkman, C., S. Alenius, U. Emanuelsson, and A. Uggla. 2000. Neospora caninum and bovine virus diarrhea virus infections in Swedish dairy cows in relation to abortion. Vet. J. 159:201-206. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r56] 56.Björkman, C., M. M. McAllister, J. Frössling, K. Näslund, F. Leung, and A. Uggla. 2003. Application of the Neospora caninum IgG avidity ELISA in assessment of chronic reproductive losses after an outbreak of neosporosis in a herd of beef cattle. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 15:3-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r57] 57.Björkman, C., G. Álvarez-García, F. J. Conraths, J. G. Mattsson, L. M. Ortega-Mora, H. Sager, and G. Schares. 2006. Neospora caninum IgG avidity tests: an interlaboratory comparison. Vet. Parasitol. 140:273-280. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r58] 58.Boulton, J. G., P. A. Gill, R. W. Cook, G. C. Fraser, P. A. W. Harper, and J. P. Dubey. 1995. Bovine Neospora abortion in north-eastern New South Wales. Aust. Vet. J. 72:119-120. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r59] 59.Bowie, W. R., A. S. King, D. H. Werker, J. L. Isaac-Renton, A. Bell, S. B. Eng, and S. A. Marion. 1997. Outbreak of toxoplasmosis associated with municipal drinking water. Lancet 350:173-177. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r59a] 59a.Bregoli, M., C. Gioia, N. Stefano, C. Mariapia, and P. Claudio. 2006. Serological survey of Neospora caninum in free-ranging wild ruminants. Vet. Arh. 76:S111-S115. [Google Scholar]

[r60] 60.Bresciani, K. D. S., S. M. Gennari, A. C. M. Serrano, A. A. R. Rodrigues, T. Ueno, L. G. Franco, S. H. V. Perri, and A. F. T. Amarante. 2007. Antibodies to Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii in domestic cats from Brazil. Parasitol. Res. 100:281-285. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r61] 61.Buxton, D., S. W. Maley, P. P. Pastoret, B. Brochier, and E. A. Innes. 1997. Examination of red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) from Belgium for antibody to Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii. Vet. Rec. 141:308-309. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r62] 62.Cabaj, W., L. Choromanski, S. Rodgers, B. E. Moskwa, and A. Malczewski. 2000. Neospora caninum infections in aborting dairy cows in Poland. Acta Parasitol. 45:113-114. [Google Scholar]

[r63] 63.Cabaj, W., B. Moskwa, K. Pastusiak, and J. Gill. 2005. Antibodies to Neospora caninum in the blood of European bison (Bison bonasus bonasus L.) living in Poland. Vet. Parasitol. 128:163-168. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r64] 64.Caetano-da-Silva, A., I. Ferre, G. Aduriz, G. Álvarez-García, I. del-Pozo, R. Atxaerandio, J. Regidor-Cerrillo, C. Ugarte-Garagalza, and L. M. Ortega-Mora. 2004. Neospora caninum infection in breeder bulls: seroprevalence and comparison of serological methods used for diagnosis. Vet. Parasitol. 124:19-24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r65] 65.Caetano-da-Silva, A., I. Ferre, E. Collantes-Fernández, V. Navarro, G. Aduriz, C. Ugarte-Garagalza, and L. M. Ortega-Mora. 2004. Occasional detection of Neospora caninum DNA in frozen extended semen from naturally infected bulls. Theriogenology 62:1329-1336. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r66] 66.Campero, C. M., D. P. Moore, H. Lagomarsino, A. C. Odeón, M. Castro, and H. Visca. 2003. Serological status and abortion rate in progeny obtained by natural service or embryo transfer from Neospora caninum-seropositive cows. J. Vet. Med. B 50:458-460. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r67] 67.Canada, N., C. S. Meireles, A. Rocha, S. Sousa, G. Thompson, J. P. Dubey, S. Romand, P. Thulliez, and J. M. Correia da Costa. 2002. First Portuguese isolate of Neospora caninum from an aborted fetus from a dairy herd with endemic neosporosis. Vet. Parasitol. 110:11-15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r68] 68.Canada, N., C. S. Meireles, M. Mezo, M. González-Warleta, J. M. Correia da Costa, C. Sreekumar, D. E. Hill, K. B. Miska, and J. P. Dubey. 2004. First isolation of Neospora caninum from an aborted bovine fetus in Spain. J. Parasitol. 90:863-864. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r69] 69.Canada, N., J. Carvalheira, C. S. Meireles, J. M. Correia da Costa, and A. Rocha. 2004. Prevalence of Neospora caninum infection in dairy cows and its consequences for reproductive management. Theriogenology 62:1229-1235. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r70] 70.Canada, N., C. S. Meireles, P. Ferreira, J. M. C. da Costa, and A. Rocha. 2006. Artificial insemination of cows with semen in vitro contaminated with Neospora caninum tachyzoites failed to induce neosporosis. Vet. Parasitol. 139:109-114. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r71] 71.Cañón-Franco, W. A., D. P. Bergamaschi, M. B. Labruna, L. M. A. Camargo, S. L. P. Souza, J. C. R. Silva, A. Pinter, J. P. Dubey, and S. M. Gennari. 2003. Prevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum in dogs from Amazon, Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 115:71-74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r72] 72.Cañón-Franco, W. A., L. E. O. Yai, S. L. P. Souza, L. C. Santos, N. A. R. Farias, J. Ruas, F. W. Rossi, A. A. B. Gomes, J. P. Dubey, and S. M. Gennari. 2004. Detection of antibodies to Neospora caninum in two species of wild canids, Lycalopex gymnocercus and Cerdocyon thous from Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 123:275-277. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r73] 73.Capelli, G., S. Nardelli, A. F. di Regalbono, A. Scala, and M. Pietrobelli. 2004. Sero-epidemiological survey of Neospora caninum infection in dogs in north-eastern Italy. Vet. Parasitol. 123:143-148. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r74] 74.Chanlun, A., K. Näslund, S. Aiumlamai, and C. Björkman. 2002. Use of bulk milk for detection of Neospora caninum infection in dairy herds in Thailand. Vet. Parasitol. 110:35-44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r75] 75.Chávez-Velásquez, A., G. Álvarez-García, E. Collantes-Fernández, E. Casas-Astos, R. Rosadio-Alcántara, E. Serrano-Martínez, and L. M. Ortega-Mora. 2004. First report of Neospora caninum infection in adult alpacas (Vicugna pacos) and llamas (Lama glama). J. Parasitol. 90:864-866. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r76] 76.Cheadle, M. A., D. S. Lindsay, and B. L. Blagburn. 1999. Prevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum in dogs. Vet. Parasitol. 85:325-330. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r77] 77.Cheadle, M. A., J. A. Spencer, and B. L. Blackburn. 1999. Seroprevalences of Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii in non-domestic felids from southern Africa. J. Zoo Wildl. Med. 30:248-251. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r78] 78.Cheadle, M. A., D. S. Lindsay, S. Rowe, C. C. Dykstra, M. A. Williams, J. A. Spencer, M. A. Toivio-Kinnucan, S. D. Lenz, J. C. Newton, M. D. Rolsma, and B. L. Blagburn. 1999. Prevalence of antibodies to Neospora sp. in horses from Alabama and characterization of an isolate recovered from a naturally infected horse. Int. J. Parasitol. 29:1537-1543. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r79] 79.Cheah, T. S., J. G. Mattsson, M. Zaini, R. A. Sani, E. B. Jakubek, A. Uggla, and P. Chandrawathani. 2004. Isolation of Neospora caninum from a calf in Malaysia. Vet. Parasitol. 126:263-269. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r80] 80.Chi, J., J. A. VanLeeuwen, A. Weersink, and G. P. Keefe. 2002. Direct production losses and treatment costs from bovine viral diarrhea virus, bovine leukosis virus, Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis, and Neospora caninum. Prev. Vet. Med. 55:137-153. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r81] 81.Ciaramella, P., M. Corona, L. Cortese, D. Piantedosi, D. Santoro, A. di Loria, and R. Rigato. 2004. Seroprevalence of Neospora spp. in asymptomatic horses in Italy. Vet. Parasitol. 123:11-15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r82] 82.Cole, R. A., D. S. Lindsay, B. L. Blagburn, D. C. Sorjonen, and J. P. Dubey. 1995. Vertical transmission of Neospora caninum in dogs. J. Parasitol. 81:208-211. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r83] 83.Collantes-Fernández, E., A. Rodríguez-Bertos, I. Arnáiz-Seco, B. Moreno, G. Aduriz, and L. M. Ortega-Mora. 2006. Influence of the stage of pregnancy on Neospora caninum distribution, parasite loads and lesions in aborted bovine foetuses. Theriogenology 65:629-641. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r84] 84.Collantes-Fernández, E., I. López-Pérez, G. Álvarez-García, and L. M. Ortega-Mora. 2006. Temporal distribution and parasite load kinetics in blood and tissues during Neospora caninum infection in mice. Infect. Immun. 74:2491-2494. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r85] 85.Conrad, P. A., K. Sverlow, M. Anderson, J. Rowe, R. BonDurant, G. Tuter, R. Breitmeyer, C. Palmer, M. Thurmond, A. Ardans, J. P. Dubey, G. Duhamel, and B. Barr. 1993. Detection of serum antibody responses in cattle with natural or experimental Neospora infections. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 5:572-578. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r86] 86.Conrad, P. A., B. C. Barr, K. W. Sverlow, M. Anderson, B. Daft, H. Kinde, J. P. Dubey, L. Munson, and A. Ardans. 1993. In vitro isolation and characterization of a Neospora sp. from aborted bovine foetuses. Parasitology 106:239-249. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r87] 87.Conraths, F. J., and L. M. Ortega-Mora. 2005. Options for control of protozoal abortion in ruminants: practical experience. Conclusions, p. 229. Workshop Session T. 20th Int. Conf. World Assoc. Adv. Vet. Parasitol. Christchurch, New Zealand, 16 to 20 October 2005.

[r88] 88.Conraths, F. J., G. Schares, G. Tchernychova, and O. A. S. Bessonov. 2000. Seroepidemiological evidence for bovine neosporosis and Neospora caninum-associated abortions in the Russian Federation. Int. J. Parasitol. 30:890-891. [Google Scholar]

[r89] 89.Conraths, F. J., C. Bauer, and W. Becker. 1996. Nachweis von Antikörpern gegen Neospora caninum bei Kühen in hessischen Betrieben mit Abort- und Fruchtbarkeitsproblemen. Dtsch. Tierärztl. Wochenschr. 103:221-224. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r90] 90.Conraths, F. J., G. Schares, L. M. Ortega-Mora, and B. Gottstein. 2007. Control measures: neosporosis, p. 279-287. In L. M. Ortega-Mora, B. Gottstein, F. J. Conraths, and D. Buxton (ed.), Protozoal abortion in farm ruminants. Guidelines for diagnosis and control. CAB International, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom.

[r91] 91.Corbellini, L. G., E. M. Colodel, and D. Driemeier. 2001. Granulomatous encephalitis in a neurologically impaired goat kid associated with degeneration of Neospora caninum tissue cysts. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 13:416-419. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r92] 92.Corbellini, L. G., D. Driemeier, C. F. E. Cruz, L. F. P. Gondim, and V. Wald. 2002. Neosporosis as a cause of abortion in dairy cattle in Rio Grande do Sul, southern Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 103:195-202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r93] 93.Corbellini, L. G., D. R. Smith, C. A. Pescador, M. Schmitz, A. Correa, D. J. Steffen, and D. Driemeier. 2006. Herd-level risk factors for Neospora caninum seroprevalence in dairy farms in southern Brazil. Prev. Vet. Med. 74:130-141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r94] 94.Corbellini, L. G., C. A. Pescador, F. Frantz, E. Wunder, D. Steffen, D. R. Smith, and D. Driemeier. 2006. Diagnostic survey of bovine abortion with special reference to Neospora caninum infection: importance, repeated abortion and concurrent infection in aborted fetuses in Southern Brazil. Vet. J. 172:114-120. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r95] 95.Çoškun, S. Z., L. Aydyn, and C. Bauer. 2000. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum infection in domestic dogs in Turkey. Vet. Rec. 146:649. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r96] 96.Costa, G. H. N., D. D. Cabral, N. P. Varandas, E. A. Sobral, F. A. Borges, and K. C. Castagnolli. 2001. Freqüência de anticorpos anti-Neospora caninum e anti-Toxoplasma gondii em soros de bovinos pertencentes aos estados de São Paulo e de Minas Gerais. Semina 22:61-66. [Google Scholar]

[r97] 97.Cox, B. T., M. P. Reichel, and L. M. Griffiths. 1998. Serology of a Neospora abortion outbreak on a dairy farm in New Zealand: a case study. N. Z. Vet. J. 46:28-31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r98] 98.Cramer, G., D. Kelton, T. F. Duffield, J. C. Hobson, K. Lissemore, S. K. Hietala, and A. S. Peregrine. 2002. Neospora caninum serostatus and culling of Holstein cattle. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 221:1165-1168. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r99] 99.Cringoli, G., F. Capuano, V. Veneziano, L. Romano, R. Solimene, J. S. Barber, and A. J. Trees. 1996. Prevalence of antibodies against Neospora caninum in dog sera. Parassitologia 38:282. [Google Scholar]

[r100] 100.Cringoli, G., E. Rinaldi, F. Capuano, L. Baldi, V. Veneziano, and G. Capelli. 2002. Serological survey of Neospora caninum and Leishmania infantum co-infection in dogs. Vet. Parasitol. 106:307-313. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r101] 101.Cuddon, P., D. S. Lin, D. D. Bowman, D. S. Lindsay, T. K. Miller, I. D. Duncan, A. DeLahunta, J. Cummings, M. Suter, B. Cooper, J. M. King, and J. P. Dubey. 1992. Neospora caninum infection in English springer spaniel littermates: diagnostic evaluation and organism isolation. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 6:325-332. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r102] 102.Damriyasa, I. M., C. Bauer, R. Edelhofer, K. Failing, P. Lind, E. Petersen, G. Schares, A. M. Tenter, R. Volmer, and H. Zahner. 2004. Cross-sectional survey in pig breeding farms in Hesse, Germany: seroprevalence and risk factors of infections with Toxoplasma gondii, Sarcocystis spp. and Neospora caninum in sows. Vet. Parasitol. 126:271-286. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r103] 103.Dannatt, L. 1997. Neospora caninum antibody levels in an endemically-infected dairy herd. Cattle Practice 5:335-337. [Google Scholar]

[r104] 104.Darius, A. K., H. Mehlhorn, and A. O. Heydorn. 2004. Effects of toltrazuril and ponazuril on the fine structure and multiplication of tachyzoites of the NC-1 strain of Neospora caninum (a synonym of Hammondia heydorni) in cell cultures. Parasitol. Res. 92:453-458. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r105] 105.Davis, S. W., and J. P. Dubey. 1995. Mediation of immunity to Toxoplasma gondii oocyst shedding in cats. J. Parasitol. 81:882-886. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r106] 106.Davison, H. C., A. Otter, and A. J. Trees. 1999. Estimation of vertical and horizontal transmission parameters of Neospora caninum infections in dairy cattle. Int. J. Parasitol. 29:1683-1689. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r107] 107.Davison, H. C., N. P. French, and A. J. Trees. 1999. Herd-specific and age-specific seroprevalence of Neospora caninum in 14 British dairy herds. Vet. Rec. 144:547-550. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r108] 108.Davison, H. C., F. Guy, A. J. Trees, C. Ryce, J. T. Ellis, A. Otter, M. Jeffrey, V. R. Simpson, and J. J. Holt. 1999. In vitro isolation of Neospora caninum from a stillborn calf in the United Kingdom. Res. Vet. Sci. 67:103-105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r109] 109.Davison, H. C., A. Otter, and A. J. Trees. 1999. Significance of Neospora caninum in British dairy cattle determined by estimation of seroprevalence in normally calving cattle and aborting cattle. Int. J. Parasitol. 29:1189-1194. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r110] 110.Davison, H. C., C. S. Guy, J. W. McGarry, F. Guy, D. J. L. Williams, D. F. Kelly, and A. J. Trees. 2001. Experimental studies on the transmission of Neospora caninum between cattle. Res. Vet. Sci. 70:163-168. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r111] 111.de Marez, T., S. Liddell, J. P. Dubey, M. C. Jenkins, and L. Gasbarre. 1999. Oral infection of calves with Neospora caninum oocysts from dogs: humoral and cellular immune responses. Int. J. Parasitol. 29:1647-1657. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r112] 112.De Meerschman, F., C. Focant, R. Boreux, T. Leclipteux, and B. Losson. 2000. Cattle neosporosis in Belgium: a case-control study in dairy and beef cattle. Int. J. Parasitol. 30:887-890. [Google Scholar]

[r113] 113.De Meerschman, F., N. Speybroeck, D. Berkvens, C. Rettigner, C. Focant, T. Leclipteux, D. Cassart, and B. Losson. 2002. Fetal infection with Neospora caninum in dairy and beef cattle in Belgium. Theriogenology 58:933-945. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r114] 114.de Melo, C. B., R. C. Leite, G. N. de Souza, and R. C. Leite. 2001. Freqüência de infecção por Neospora caninum em dois diferentes sistemas de produção de leite e fatores predisponentes à infecção em bovinos em Minas Gerais. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 10:67-74. [Google Scholar]

[r115] 115.de Melo, C. B., R. C. Leite, Z. I. P. Lobato, and R. C. Leite. 2004. Infection by Neospora caninum associated with bovine herpes virus 1 and bovine viral diarrhea virus in cattle from Minas Gerais State, Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 119:97-105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r116] 116.de Moura, L., L. M. G. Bahia-Oliveira, M. Y. Wada, J. L. Jones, S. H. Tuboi, E. H. Carmo, W. M. Ramalho, N. J. Camargo, R. Trevisan, R. M. T. Graça, A. J. da Silva, I. Moura, J. P. Dubey, and D. O. Garrett. 2006. Waterborne outbreak of toxoplasmosis, Brazil, from field to gene. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 12:326-329. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r117] 117.de Oliveira, J. M., M. F. C. Matos, L. M. Oshiro, and R. Andreotti. 2004. Prevalence of anti-Neospora caninum antibodies in dogs in the urban area of Campo Grande, MS, Brazil. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 13:155-158. [Google Scholar]

[r118] 118.de Souza, L. M., A. A. Nascimento, P. I. Furuta, L. M. S. Basso, D. M. Silveira, and A. J. Costa. 2001. Detecção de anticorpos contra Neospora caninum e Toxoplasma gondii em soros de bubalinos (Bubalus bubalis) no Estado de São Paulo, Brasil. Semina 22:39-48. [Google Scholar]

[r119] 119.de Souza, S. L. P., J. S. Guimarães, F. Ferreira, J. P. Dubey, and S. M. Gennari. 2002. Prevalence of Neospora caninum antibodies in dogs from dairy cattle farms in Parana, Brazil. J. Parasitol. 88:408-409. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r120] 120.Dijkstra, T., M. Eysker, G. Schares, F. J. Conraths, W. Wouda, and H. W. Barkema. 2001. Dogs shed Neospora caninum oocysts after ingestion of naturally infected bovine placenta but not after ingestion of colostrum spiked with Neospora caninum tachyzoites. Int. J. Parasitol. 31:747-752. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r121] 121.Dijkstra, T., H. W. Barkema, M. Eysker, and W. Wouda. 2001. Evidence of post-natal transmission of Neospora caninum in Dutch dairy herds. Int. J. Parasitol. 31:209-215. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r122] 122.Dijkstra, T., H. W. Barkema, C. Björkman, and W. Wouda. 2002. A high rate of seroconversion for Neospora caninum in a dairy herd without an obvious increased incidence of abortions. Vet. Parasitol. 109:203-211. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r123] 123.Dijkstra, T., H. W. Barkema, M. Eysker, J. W. Hesselink, and W. Wouda. 2002. Natural transmission routes of Neospora caninum between farm dogs and cattle. Vet. Parasitol. 105:99-104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r124] 124.Dijkstra, T., H. W. Barkema, J. W. Hesselink, and W. Wouda. 2002. Point source exposure of cattle to Neospora caninum consistent with periods of common housing and feeding and related to the introduction of a dog. Vet. Parasitol. 105:89-98. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r125] 125.Dijkstra, T., H. W. Barkema, M. Eysker, M. L. Beiboer, and W. Wouda. 2003. Evaluation of a single serological screening of dairy herds for Neospora caninum antibodies. Vet. Parasitol. 110:161-169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r126] 126.Dijkstra, T., C. J. M. Bartels, and W. Wouda. 2005. Control of bovine neosporosis: experiences from The Netherlands. Session M. Diagnosis and control of protozoan-associated abortion in ruminants, p. 191. 20th Int. Conf. World Assoc. Adv. Vet. Parasitol., Christchurch, New Zealand, 16 to 20 October 2005.

[r127] 127.Di Lorenzo, C., C. Venturini, C. Castellano, L. Venturini, J. M. Unzaga, and D. Bacigalupe. 1997. Detección de anticuerpos anti-Neospora caninum y anti-Toxoplasma gondii en perros de área urbana. Rev. Med. Vet. 78:325-326. [Google Scholar]

[r128] 128.Dubey, J. P. 1999. Neosporosis in cattle: biology and economic impact. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 214:1160-1163. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r129] 129.Dubey, J. P. 2003. Neosporosis in cattle. J. Parasitol. 89(Suppl.):S42-S46. [Google Scholar]

[r130] 130.Dubey, J. P. 2003. Review of Neospora caninum and neosporosis in animals. Korean J. Parasitol. 41:1-16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r131] 131.Dubey, J. P. 2004. Toxoplasmosis—a waterborne zoonosis. Vet. Parasitol. 126:57-72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r132] 132.Dubey, J. P., and D. S. Lindsay. 1989. Transplacental Neospora caninum infection in dogs. Am. J. Vet. Res. 50:1578-1579. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r133] 133.Dubey, J. P., and D. S. Lindsay. 1996. A review of Neospora caninum and neosporosis. Vet. Parasitol. 67:1-59. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r134] 134.Dubey, J. P., and D. S. Lindsay. 2000. Gerbils (Meriones unguiculatus) are highly susceptible to oral infection with Neospora caninum oocysts. Parasitol. Res. 86:165-168. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r135] 135.Dubey, J. P., and G. Schares. 2006. Diagnosis of bovine neosporosis. Vet. Parasitol. 141:1-34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r136] 136.Dubey, J. P., and P. Thulliez. 2005. Prevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum in wild animals. J. Parasitol. 91:1217-1218. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r137] 137.Dubey, J. P., H. P. A. Hughes, H. S. Lillehoj, H. R. Gamble, and B. L. Munday. 1987. Placental transfer of specific antibodies during ovine congenital toxoplasmosis. Am. J. Vet. Res. 48:474-476. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r138] 138.Dubey, J. P., J. L. Carpenter, C. A. Speer, M. J. Topper, and A. Uggla. 1988. Newly recognized fatal protozoan disease of dogs. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 192:1269-1285. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r139] 139.Dubey, J. P., A. L. Hattel, D. S. Lindsay, and M. J. Topper. 1988. Neonatal Neospora caninum infection in dogs: isolation of the causative agent and experimental transmission. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 193:1259-1263. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r140] 140.Dubey, J. P., A. Koestner, and R. C. Piper. 1990. Repeated transplacental transmission of Neospora caninum in dogs. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 197:857-860. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r141] 141.Dubey, J. P., H. M. Acland, and A. N. Hamir. 1992. Neospora caninum (apicomplexa) in a stillborn goat. J. Parasitol. 78:532-534. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r142] 142.Dubey, J. P., J. Rigoulet, P. Lagourette, C. George, L. Longeart, and J. L. LeNet. 1996. Fatal transplacental neosporosis in a deer (Cervus eldi siamensis). J. Parasitol. 82:338-339. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r143] 143.Dubey, J. P., J. A. Morales, P. Villalobos, D. S. Lindsay, B. L. Blagburn, and M. J. Topper. 1996. Neosporosis-associated abortion in a dairy goat. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 208:263-265. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r144] 144.Dubey, J. P., K. R. Dorough, M. C. Jenkins, S. Liddell, C. A. Speer, O. C. H. Kwok, and S. K. Shen. 1998. Canine neosporosis: clinical signs, diagnosis, treatment and isolation of Neospora caninum in mice and cell culture. Int. J. Parasitol. 28:1293-1304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r145] 145.Dubey, J. P., S. Romand, M. Hilali, O. C. H. Kwok, and P. Thulliez. 1998. Seroprevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii in water buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis) from Egypt. Int. J. Parasitol. 28:527-529. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r146] 146.Dubey, J. P., K. Hollis, S. Romand, P. Thulliez, O. C. H. Kwok, L. Hungerford, C. Anchor, and D. Etter. 1999. High prevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum in white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Int. J. Parasitol. 29:1709-1711. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r147] 147.Dubey, J. P., S. Romand, P. Thulliez, O. C. H. Kwok, S. K. Shen, and H. R. Gamble. 1999. Prevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum in horses in North America. J. Parasitol. 85:968-969. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r148] 148.Dubey, J. P., M. C. Venturini, L. Venturini, J. McKinney, and M. Pecoraro. 1999. Prevalence of antibodies to Sarcocystis neurona, Toxoplasma gondii, and Neospora caninum in horses from Argentina. Vet. Parasitol. 86:59-62. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r149] 149.Dubey, J. P., C. E. Kerber, and D. E. Granstrom. 1999. Serologic prevalence of Sarcocystis neurona, Toxoplasma gondii, and Neospora caninum in horses in Brazil. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 215:970-972. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r150] 150.Dubey, J. P., S. Liddell, D. Mattson, C. A. Speer, D. K. Howe, and M. C. Jenkins. 2001. Characterization of the Oregon isolate of Neospora hughesi from a horse. J. Parasitol. 87:345-353. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r151] 151.Dubey, J. P., D. S. Lindsay, D. Hill, S. Romand, P. Thulliez, O. C. H. Kwok, J. C. R. Silva, M. C. Oliveira-Camargo, and S. M. Gennari. 2002. Prevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum and Sarcocystis neurona in sera of domestic cats from Brazil. J. Parasitol. 88:1251-1252. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r152] 152.Dubey, J. P., B. C. Barr, J. R. Barta, I. Bjerkås, C. Björkman, B. L. Blagburn, D. D. Bowman, D. Buxton, J. T. Ellis, B. Gottstein, A. Hemphill, D. E. Hill, D. K. Howe, M. C. Jenkins, Y. Kobayashi, B. Koudela, A. E. Marsh, J. G. Mattsson, M. M. McAllister, D. Modrý, Y. Omata, L. D. Sibley, C. A. Speer, A. J. Trees, A. Uggla, S. J. Upton, D. J. L. Williams, and D. S. Lindsay. 2002. Redescription of Neospora caninum and its differentiation from related coccidia. Int. J. Parasitol. 32:929-946. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r153] 153.Dubey, J. P., S. M. Mitchell, J. K. Morrow, J. C. Rhyan, L. M. Stewart, D. E. Granstrom, S. Romand, P. Thulliez, W. J. Saville, and D. S. Lindsay. 2003. Prevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum, Sarcocystis neurona, and Toxoplasma gondii in wild horses from central Wyoming. J. Parasitol. 89:716-720. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r154] 154.Dubey, J. P., R. Zarnke, N. J. Thomas, S. K. Wong, W. Van Bonn, M. Briggs, J. W. Davis, R. Ewing, M. Mensea, O. C. H. Kwok, S. Romand, and P. Thulliez. 2003. Toxoplasma gondii, Neospora caninum, Sarcocystis neurona, and Sarcocystis canis-like infections in marine mammals. Vet. Parasitol. 116:275-296. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r155] 155.Dubey, J. P., C. Sreekumar, E. Knickman, K. B. Miska, M. C. B. Vianna, O. C. H. Kwok, D. E. Hill, M. C. Jenkins, D. S. Lindsay, and C. E. Greene. 2004. Biologic, morphologic, and molecular characterization of Neospora caninum isolates from littermate dogs. Int. J. Parasitol. 34:1157-1167. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r156] 156.Dubey, J. P., D. H. Graham, R. W. de Young, E. Dahl, M. L. Eberhard, E. K. Nace, K. Won, H. Bishop, G. Punkosdy, C. Sreekumar, M. C. B. Vianna, S. K. Shen, O. C. H. Kwok, J. A. Sumners, S. Demarais, J. G. Humphreys, and T. Lehmann. 2004. Molecular and biologic characteristics of Toxoplasma gondii isolates from wildlife in the United States. J. Parasitol. 90:67-71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r157] 157.Dubey, J. P., E. Knickman, and C. E. Greene. 2005. Neonatal Neospora caninum infections in dogs. Acta Parasitol. 50:176-179. [Google Scholar]

[r158] 158.Dubey, J. P., D. Buxton, and W. Wouda. 2006. Pathogenesis of bovine neosporosis. J. Comp. Pathol. 134:267-289. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r158a] 158a.Dubinsky, P., K. Reiterova, B. Moskwa, M. Bobakova, R. Durecko, and W. Cabaj. 2006. Neospora caninum as a potential cause of abortions in dairy cows. Slov. Vet. Cas. 31:175-177. [Google Scholar]

[r159] 159.Duffield, T. F., A. S. Peregrine, B. J. McEwen, S. K. Hietala, R. Bagg, and P. Dick. 2001. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum infection in 25 Ontario dairy herds and its association with periparturient health and production. Bovine Pract. 35:8-12. [Google Scholar]

[r160] 160.Dyer, R. M., M. C. Jenkins, O. C. H. Kwok, L. W. Douglas, and J. P. Dubey. 2000. Serologic survey of Neospora caninum infection in a closed dairy cattle herd in Maryland: risk of serologic reactivity by production groups. Vet. Parasitol. 90:171-181. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r161] 161.Eleni, C., S. Crotti, E. Manuali, S. Costarelli, G. Filippini, L. Moscati, and S. Magnino. 2004. Detection of Neospora caninum in an aborted goat foetus. Vet. Parasitol. 123:271-274. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r162] 162.Eymann, J., C. A. Herbert, D. W. Cooper, and J. P. Dubey. 2006. Serologic survey for Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum in the common brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) from urban Sydney, Australia. J. Parasitol. 92:267-272. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r163] 163.Ezio, F., and T. Anna. 2003. Antibodies to Neospora caninum in European brown hare (Lepus europaeus). Vet. Parasitol. 115:75-78. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r164] 164.Fernandes, B. C. T. M., S. M. Gennari, S. L. P. Souza, J. M. Carvalho, W. G. Oliveira, and M. C. Cury. 2004. Prevalence of anti-Neospora caninum antibodies in dogs from urban, periurban and rural areas of the city of Uberlândia, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 123:33-40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r165] 165.Ferrari, A., G. Donofrio, M. Dellepiane, C. S. Cabassi, E. Bigliardi, and S. Cavirani. 1997. Anticorpi verso Neospora caninum in bovine da latte con aborto a carattere enzootico. Atti Soc. Ital. Buiatria 29:223-227. [Google Scholar]

[r166] 166.Ferre, I., G. Aduriz, I. del-Pozo, J. Regidor-Cerrillo, R. Atxaerandio, E. Collantes-Fernández, A. Hurtado, C. Ugarte-Garagalza, and L. M. Ortega-Mora. 2005. Detection of Neospora caninum in the semen and blood of naturally infected bulls. Theriogenology 63:1504-1518. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r167] 167.Ferroglio, E., and L. Rossi. 2001. Prevalence of Neospora caninum antibodies in wild ruminants from the Italian Alps. Vet. Rec. 148:754-755. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r168] 168.Ferroglio, E., E. Wambwa, M. Castiello, A. Trisciuoglio, A. Prouteau, E. Pradere, S. Ndungu, and D. De Meneghi. 2003. Antibodies to Neospora caninum in wild animals from Kenya, East Africa. Vet. Parasitol. 118:43-49. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r169] 169.Ferroglio, E., P. Guiso, M. Pasino, A. Accossato, and A. Trisciuoglio. 2005. Antibodies to Neospora caninum in stray cats from north Italy. Vet. Parasitol. 131:31-34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r170] 170.Figliuolo, L. P. C., N. Kasai, A. M. A. Ragozo, V. S. O. de Paula, R. A. Dias, S. L. P. Souza, and S. M. Gennari. 2004. Prevalence of anti-Toxoplasma gondii and anti-Neospora caninum antibodies in ovine from São Paulo State, Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 123:161-166. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r171] 171.Figliuolo, L. P. C., A. A. R. Rodrigues, R. B. Viana, D. M. Aguiar, N. Kasai, and S. M. Gennari. 2004. Prevalence of anti-Toxoplasma gondii and anti-Neospora caninum antibodies in goat from São Paulo State, Brazil. Small Ruminant Res. 55:29-32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r172] 172.Fioretti, D. P., L. Rosignoli, G. Ricci, A. Moretti, P. Pasquali, and G. A. Polidori. 2000. Neospora caninum infection in a clinically healthy calf: parasitological study and serological follow-up. J. Vet. Med. B 47:47-53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r173] 173.Fioretti, D. P., P. Pasquai, M. Diaferia, V. Mangili, and L. Rosignoli. 2003. Neospora caninum infection and congenital transmission: serological and parasitological study of cows up to the fourth gestation. J. Vet. Med. B 50:399-404. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r174] 174.Fischer, I., K. Furrer, L. Audigé, A. Fritsche, T. Giger, B. Gottstein, and H. Sager. 2003. Von der Bedeutung der bovinen Neosporose beim Abortgeschehen in der Schweiz. Schweiz. Arch. Tierheilkd. 145:114-123. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r175] 175.French, N. P., D. Clancy, H. C. Davison, and A. J. Trees. 1999. Mathematical models of Neospora caninum infection in dairy cattle: transmission and options for control. Int. J. Parasitol. 29:1691-1704. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r176] 176.Frössling, J., A. Uggla, and C. Björkman. 2005. Prevalence and transmission of Neospora caninum within infected Swedish dairy herds. Vet. Parasitol. 128:209-218. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r177] 177.Frössling, J., A. Lindberg, and C. Björkman. 2006. Evaluation of an iscom ELISA used for detection of antibodies to Neospora caninum in bulk milk. Prev. Vet. Med. 74:120-129. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r178] 178.Fujii, T. U., N. Kasai, S. M. Nishi, J. P. Dubey, and S. M. Gennari. 2001. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum in female water buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis) from the southeastern region of Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 99:331-334. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r178a] 178a.Gaffari, A., M. Giacometti, V. M. Tranquillo, S. Magnito, P. Cordioli, and P. Lanfranchi. 2006. Serosurvey of roe deer, chamois, and domestic sheep in the central Italian Alps. J. Wildl. Dis. 42:685-690. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r179] 179.García-Vázquez, Z., C. Cruz-Vázquez, L. Medina-Espinoza, D. García-Tapia, and B. Chavarria-Martinez. 2002. Serological survey of Neospora caninum infection in dairy cattle herds in Aguascalientes, Mexico. Vet. Parasitol. 106:115-120. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r180] 180.García-Vázquez, Z., R. Rosario-Cruz, A. Ramos-Aragon, C. Cruz-Vazquez, and G. Mapes-Sanchez. 2005. Neospora caninum seropositivity and association with abortions in dairy cows in Mexico. Vet. Parasitol. 134:61-65. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r181] 181.Gennari, S. M., L. E. O. Yai, S. N. R. D'Áuria, S. M. S. Cardoso, O. C. H. Kwok, M. C. Jenkins, and J. P. Dubey. 2002. Occurrence of Neospora caninum antibodies in sera from dogs of the city of São Paulo, Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 106:177-179. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r182] 182.Gennari, S. M., A. A. R. Rodgrigues, R. B. Viana, and E. C. Cardoso. 2005. Occurrence of anti-Neospora caninum antibodies in water buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis) from the northern region of Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 134:169-171. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r182a] 182a.Gennari, S. M., W. A. Cañón-Franco, M. M. Feitosa, F. A. Ikeda, F. R. A. Lima, and M. Amaku. 2006. Presence of anti-Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii antibodies in dogs with visceral leishmaniosis from the region of Araçatuba, São Paulo, Brazil. Braz. J. Vet. Res. Anim. Sci. 43:613-615. [Google Scholar]

[r183] 183.Gondim, L. F. P. 2006. Neospora caninum in wildlife. Trends Parasitol. 22:247-252. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r184] 184.Giraldi, J. H., A. P. F. R. L. Bracarense, O. Vidotto, E. A. Tudury, T. Navarro, and T. N. Batista. 2002. Sorologia e histopatologia de Toxoplasma gondii e Neospora caninum em cães portadores de distúrbios neurológicos. Semina 23:9-14. [Google Scholar]

[r185] 185.Gondim, L. F. P., I. F. Sartor, M. Hasegawa, and I. Yamane. 1999. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum in dairy cattle in Bahia, Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 86:71-75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r186] 186.Gondim, L. F. P., A. M. Pinheiro, P. O. M. Santos, E. E. V. Jesus, M. B. Ribeiro, H. S. Fernandes, M. A. O. Almeida, S. M. Freire, R. Meyer, and M. M. McAllister. 2001. Isolation of Neospora caninum from the brain of a naturally infected dog, and production of encysted bradyzoites in gerbils. Vet. Parasitol. 101:1-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r187] 187.Gondim, L. F. P., L. Gao, and M. M. McAllister. 2002. Improved production of Neospora caninum oocysts, cyclical oral transmission between dogs and cattle, and in vitro isolation from oocysts. J. Parasitol. 88:1159-1163. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r188] 188.Gondim, L. F. P., M. M. McAllister, W. C. Pitt, and D. E. Zemlicka. 2004. Coyotes (Canis latrans) are definitive hosts of Neospora caninum. Int. J. Parasitol. 34:159-161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r189] 189.Gondim, L. F. P., M. M. McAllister, N. E. Mateus-Pinilla, W. C. Pitt, L. D. Mech, and M. E. Nelson. 2004. Transmission of Neospora caninum between wild and domestic animals. J. Parasitol. 90:1361-1365. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r190] 190.Gondim, L. F. P., M. M. McAllister, R. C. Anderson-Sprecher, C. Björkman, T. F. Lock, L. D. Firkins, L. Gao, and W. R. Fischer. 2004. Transplacental transmission and abortion in cows administered Neospora caninum oocysts. J. Parasitol. 90:1394-1400. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r191] 191.Gondim, L. F. P., M. M. McAllister, and L. Gao. 2005. Effects of host maturity and prior exposure history on the production of Neospora caninum oocysts by dogs. Vet. Parasitol. 134:33-39. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r192] 192.Gottstein, B., G. R. Razmi, P. Ammann, H. Sager, and N. Müller. 2005. Toltrazuril treatment to control diaplacental Neospora caninum transmission in experimentally infected pregnant mice. Parasitology 130:41-48. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r193] 193.Graham, D. A., V. Calvert, M. Whyte, and J. Marks. 1999. Absence of serological evidence for human Neospora caninum infection. Vet. Rec. 144:672-673. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r194] 194.Guarino, A., G. Fusco, G. Savini, G. Di Francesco, and G. Cringoli. 2000. Neosporosis in water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) in southern Italy. Vet. Parasitol. 91:15-21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r195] 195.Guimarães, J. S., S. L. P. Souza, D. P. Bergamaschi, and S. M. Gennari. 2004. Prevalence of Neospora caninum antibodies and factors associated with their presence in dairy cattle of the north of Paraná state, Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 124:1-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r196] 196.Gupta, G. D., J. Lakritz, J. H. Kim, D. Y. Kim, J. K. Kim, and A. E. Marsh. 2002. Seroprevalence of Neospora, Toxoplasma gondii, and Sarcocystis neurona antibodies in horses from Jeju island, South Korea. Vet. Parasitol. 106:193-201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r197] 197.Guy, C. S., D. J. L. Williams, D. F. Kelly, J. W. McGarry, F. Guy, C. Björkman, R. F. Smith, and A. J. Trees. 2001. Neospora caninum in persistently infected, pregnant cows: spontaneous transplacental infection is associated with an acute increase in maternal antibody. Vet. Rec. 149:443-449. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r198] 198.Guy, C. S., J. Ellis, D. J. L. Williams, R. Smith, and A. J. Trees. 2005. Vaccination against Neospora-associated abortion in cattle. Session M. Diagnosis and control of protozoan-associated abortion in ruminants, p. 191. 20th Int. Conf. World Assoc. Adv. Vet. Parasitol., Christchurch, New Zealand, 16 to 20 October 2005.

[r199] 199.Haddad, J. P. A., I. R. Dohoo, and J. A. VanLeewen. 2005. A review of Neospora caninum in dairy and beef cattle—a Canadian perspective. Can. Vet. J. 46:230-243. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r200] 200.Haerdi, C., M. Haessig, H. Sager, G. Greif, D. Staubli, and B. Gottstein. 2006. Humoral immune reaction of newborn calves congenitally infected with Neospora caninum and experimentally treated with toltrazuril. Parasitol. Res. 99:534-540. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r201] 201.Hall, C. A., M. P. Reichel, and J. T. Ellis. 2005. Neospora abortions in dairy cattle: diagnosis, mode of transmission and control. Vet. Parasitol. 128:231-241. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r202] 202.Hamilton, C. M., R. Gray, S. E. Wright, B. Gangadharin, K. Laurenson, and E. A. Innes. 2005. Prevalence of antibodies to Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum in red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) from around the United Kingdom. Vet. Parasitol. 130:169-173.15893084 [Google Scholar]

[r203] 203.Hasegawa, M. Y., I. F. Sartor, A. M. Oliveira Canavessi, and R. D. Pinckney. 2004. Occurrence of Neospora caninum antibodies in beef cattle and in farm dogs from Avaré Region of São Paulo, Brazil. Semina 25:45-50. [Google Scholar]

[r204] 204.Häsler, B., G. Regula, K. D. C. Stärk, H. Sager, B. Gottstein, and M. Reist. 2006. Financial analysis of various strategies for the control of Neospora caninum in dairy cattle in Switzerland. Prev. Vet. Med. 77:230-253. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r205] 205.Häsler, B., K. D. C. Stärk, H. Sager, B. Gottstein, and M. Reist. 2006. Simulating the impact of four control strategies on the population dynamics of Neospora caninum infection in Swiss dairy cattle. Prev. Vet. Med. 77:254-283. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r206] 206.Hässig, M., and B. Gottstein. 2002. Epidemiological investigations of abortions due to Neospora caninum on Swiss dairy farms. Vet. Rec. 150:538-542. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r207] 207.Hässig, M., H. Sager, K. Reitt, D. Ziegler, D. Strabel, and B. Gottstein. 2003. Neospora caninum in sheep: a herd case report. Vet. Parasitol. 117:213-220. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r208] 208.Hay, W. H., L. G. Shell, D. S. Lindsay, and J. P. Dubey. 1990. Diagnosis and treatment of Neospora caninum infection in a dog. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 197:87-89. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r209] 209.Helmick, B., A. Otter, J. McGarry, and D. Buxton. 2002. Serological investigation of aborted sheep and pigs for infection by Neospora caninum. Res. Vet. Sci. 73:187-189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r210] 210.Hernandez, J., C. Risco, and A. Donovan. 2001. Association between exposure to Neospora caninum and milk production in dairy cows. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 219:632-635. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r211] 211.Hernandez, J., C. Risco, and A. Donovan. 2002. Risk of abortion associated with Neospora caninum during different lactations and evidence of congenital transmission in dairy cows. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 221:1742-1746. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r212] 212.Heuer, C., C. Nicholson, D. Russel, and J. Weston. 2004. Field study in dairy cattle from New Zealand. Vet. Parasitol. 125:137-146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r213] 213.Hietala, S. K., and M. C. Thurmond. 1999. Postnatal Neospora caninum transmission and transient serologic responses in two dairies. Int. J. Parasitol. 29:1669-1676. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r214] 214.Hilali, M., S. Romand, P. Thulliez, O. C. H. Kwok, and J. P. Dubey. 1998. Prevalence of Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii antibodies in sera from camels from Egypt. Vet. Parasitol. 75:269-271. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r215] 215.Hoane, J. S., M. R. Yeargan, S. Stamper, W. J. Saville, J. K. Morrow, D. S. Lindsay, and D. K. Howe. 2005. Recombinant NhSAG1 ELISA: a sensitive and specific assay for detecting antibodies against Neospora hughesi in equine serum. J. Parasitol. 91:446-452. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r216] 216.Hoane, J. S., S. M. Gennari, J. P. Dubey, M. G. Ribeiro, A. S. Borges, L. E. O. Yai, D. M. Aguiar, G. T. Cavalcante, G. L. Bonesi, and D. K. Howe. 2006. Prevalence of Sarcocystis neurona and Neospora spp. infection in horses from Brazil based on presence of serum antibodies to parasite surface antigen. Vet. Parasitol. 136:155-159. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r217] 217.Hobson, J. C., T. F. Duffield, D. Kelton, K. Lissemore, S. K. Hietala, K. E. Leslie, B. McEwen, G. Cramer, and A. S. Peregrine. 2002. Neospora caninum serostatus and milk production of Holstein cattle. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 221:1160-1164. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r218] 218.Hobson, J. C., T. F. Duffield, D. Kelton, K. Lissemore, S. K. Hietala, K. E. Leslie, B. McEwen, and A. S. Peregrine. 2005. Risk factors associated with Neospora caninum abortion in Ontario Holstein dairy herds. Vet. Parasitol. 127:177-188. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r219] 219.Hornok, S., K. Näslund, I. Hajtós, J. Tanyi, L. Tekes, I. Varga, A. Uggla, and C. Björkman. 1998. Detection of antibodies to Neospora caninum in bovine postabortion blood samples from Hungary. Acta Vet. Hung. 46:431-436. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r220] 220.Hornok, S., R. Edelhofer, É. Fok, K. Berta, P. Fejes, A. Répási, and R. Farkas. 2006. Canine neosporosis in Hungary: screening for seroconversion of household, herding and stray dogs. Vet. Parasitol. 137:197-201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r221] 221.Hornok, S., R. Edelhofer, and I. Hajtos. 2006. Seroprevalence of neosporosis in beef and dairy cattle breeds in Northeast Hungary. Acta Vet. Hung. 54:485-491. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r222] 222.Huang, C. C., C. H. Yang, Y. Watanabe, Y. K. Liao, and H. K. Ooi. 2004. Finding of Neospora caninum in the wild brown rat (Rattus norvegicus). Vet. Res. 35:283-290. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r223] 223.Hughes, J. M., R. H. Williams, E. K. Morley, D. A. N. Cook, R. S. Terry, R. G. Murphy, J. E. Smith, and G. Hide. 2006. The prevalence of Neospora caninum and co-infection with Toxoplasma gondii by PCR analysis in naturally occurring mammal populations. Parasitology 132:29-36. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r224] 224.Huong, L. T. T., B. L. Ljungström, A. Uggla, and C. Björkman. 1998. Prevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii in cattle and water buffaloes in southern Vietnam. Vet. Parasitol. 75:53-57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r225] 225.Hur, K., J. H. Kim, W. S. Hwang, E. K. Hwang, Y. H. Jean, B. C. Lee, J. S. Bae, Y. B. Kang, I. Yamane, and D. Y. Kim. 1998. Seroepidemiological study of Neospora caninum in Korean dairy cattle by indirect immunofluroescent antibody assay. Korean J. Vet. Res. 38:859-866. [Google Scholar]

[r226] 226.Hůrková, L., and D. Modrý. 2006. PCR detection of Neospora caninum, Toxoplasma gondii and Encephalitozoon cuniculi in brains of wild carnivores. Vet. Parasitol. 137:150-154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r227] 227.Innes, E. A., S. E. Wright, S. Maley, A. Rae, A. Schock, E. Kirvar, P. Bartley, C. Hamilton, I. M. Carey, and D. Buxton. 2001. Protection against vertical transmission in bovine neosporosis. Int. J. Parasitol. 31:1523-1534. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r228] 228.Innes, E. A., A. G. Andrianarivo, C. Björkman, D. J. L. Williams, and P. A. Conrad. 2002. Immune responses to Neospora caninum and prospects for vaccination. Trends Parasitol. 18:497-504. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r229] 229.Innes, E. A., S. Wright, P. Bartley, S. Maley, C. Macaldowie, I. Esteban-Redondo, and D. Buxton. 2005. The host-parasite relationship in bovine neosporosis. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 108:29-36. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r230] 230.Jakubek, E. B., C. Bröjer, C. Regnersen, A. Uggla, G. Schares, and C. Björkman. 2001. Seroprevalences of Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum in Swedish red foxes (Vulpes vulpes). Vet. Parasitol. 102:167-172. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r231] 231.Jakubek, E. B., A. Lundén, and A. Uggla. 2006. Seroprevalences in Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora sp. infections in Swedish horses. Vet. Parasitol. 138:194-199. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r232] 232.Jakubek, E. B., R. Farkas, V. Pálfi, and J. G. Mattsson. 2007. Prevalence of antibodies against Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum in Hungarian red foxes (Vulpes vulpes). Vet. Parasitol. 144:39-44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r233] 233.Jenkins, M. C., J. A. Caver, C. Björkman, T. C. Anderson, S. Romand, B. Vinyard, A. Uggla, P. Thulliez, and J. P. Dubey. 2000. Serological investigation of an outbreak of Neospora caninum-associated abortion in a dairy herd in southeastern United States. Vet. Parasitol. 94:17-26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r234] 234.Jenkins, M. C., T. Baszler, C. Björkman, G. Schares, and D. Williams. 2002. Diagnosis and seroepidemiology of Neospora caninum-associated bovine abortion. Int. J. Parasitol. 32:631-636. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r235] 235.Jenkins, M. C., C. Parker, D. Hill, R. D. Pinckney, and J. P. Dubey. 2007. Neospora caninum detected in wild rodents. Vet. Parasitol. 143:161-165. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r236] 236.Jensen, A. M., C. Björkman, A. M. Kjeldsen, A. Wedderkopp, C. Willadsen, A. Uggla, and P. Lind. 1999. Associations of Neospora caninum seropositivity with gestation number and pregnancy outcome in Danish dairy herds. Prev. Vet. Med. 40:151-163. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r236a] 236a.Jesus, E. E. V., P. O. M. Santos, M. V. F. Barbosa, A. M. Pinheiro, L. F. P. Gondim, J. E. Guimarães, and M. A. O. Almeida. 2006. Frequência de anticorpos anti-Neospora caninum em cães nos municípios de Salvador e Lauro de Freitas, Estado da Bahia—Brasil. Braz. J. Vet. Res. Anim. Sci. 43:5-10. [Google Scholar]

[r237] 237.Kasari, T. R., K. Barling, and J. M. McGrann. 1999. Estimated production and economic losses from Neospora caninum infection in Texas beef herds. Bovine Pract. 33:113-120. [Google Scholar]

[r238] 238.Kashiwazaki, Y., S. Pholpark, A. Charoenchai, C. Polsar, S. Teeverapanya, and M. Pholpark. 2001. Postnatal neosporosis in dairy cattle in northeast Thailand. Vet. Parasitol. 94:217-220. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r239] 239.Kashiwazaki, Y., R. E. Gianneechini, M. Lust, and J. Gil. 2004. Seroepidemiology of neosporosis in dairy cattle in Uruguay. Vet. Parasitol. 120:139-144. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r240] 240.Keefe, G. P., and J. A. VanLeeuwen. 2000. Neospora then and now: prevalence of Neospora caninum in maritime Canada. Can. Vet. J. 41:864-866. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r240a] 240a.Khaitsa, M. L., R. Barigye, N. W. Dyer, D. M. Doetkott, and J. R. Foster. 2006. Serologic and other diagnostic evidence of Neospora caninum presence in North Dakota beef herds. Bovine Pract. 40:51-56. [Google Scholar]

[r241] 241.Kim, J. H., H. J. Sohn, E. K. Hwang, W. S. Hwang, K. Hur, Y. H. Jean, B. C. Lee, J. C. Rhee, Y. B. Kang, I. Yamane, and D. J. Kim. 1998. In vitro isolation of a bovine Neospora in Korea. Korean J. Vet. Res. 38:139-145. [Google Scholar]

[r242] 242.Kim, J. H., H. J. Sohn, W. S. Hwang, E. K. Hwang, Y. H. Jean, I. Yamane, and D. Y. Kim. 2000. In vitro isolation and characterization of bovine Neospora caninum in Korea. Vet. Parasitol. 90:147-154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r243] 243.Kim, J. H., J. K. Lee, E. K. Hwang, and D. Y. Kim. 2002. Prevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum in Korean native beef cattle. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 64:941-943. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r244] 244.Kim, J. H., J. K. Lee, B. C. Lee, B. K. Park, H. S. Yoo, W. S. Hwang, N. R. Shin, M. S. Kang, Y. H. Jean, H. J. Yoon, S. K. Kang, and D. Y. Kim. 2002. Diagnostic survey of bovine abortion in Korea: with special emphasis on Neospora caninum. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 64:1123-1127. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r245] 245.Kim, J. H., M. S. Kang, B. C. Lee, W. S. Hwang, C. W. Lee, B. J. So, J. P. Dubey, and D. Y. Kim. 2003. Seroprevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum in dogs and raccoon dogs in Korea. Korean J. Parasitol. 41:243-245. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r246] 246.Klein, B. U., and E. Müller. 2001. Seroprävalenz von Antikörpern gegen Neospora caninum bei Hunden mit und ohne klinischem Neosporoseverdacht in Deutschland. Prakt. Tierarzt 82:437-440. [Google Scholar]

[r247] 247.Klein, F., S. K. Hietala, H. Berthet, P. Very, and D. Gradinaru. 1997. Neospora caninum: enquête sérologique sur les avortements des bovins normands et charolais. Le Point Vet. 28:1283-1286. [Google Scholar]

[r248] 248.Klein, F., A. Ould-Amrouche, C. Osdoit, A. Touratier, and M. Sanaa. 2000. Neospora caninum: une enquête séroépidémiologique dans l'Orne. Bull. GTV 7:41-45. [Google Scholar]

[r249] 249.Koiwai, M., T. Hamaoka, M. Haritani, S. Shimizu, and K. Kimura. 2005. Proportion of abortions due to neosporosis among dairy cattle in Japan. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 67:1173-1175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r250] 250.Koiwai, M., T. Hamaoka, M. Haritani, S. Shimizu, T. Tsutsui, M. Eto, and I. Yamane. 2005. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum in dairy and beef cattle with reproductive disorders in Japan. Vet. Parasitol. 130:15-18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r251] 251.Koiwai, M., T. Hamaoka, M. Haritani, S. Shimizu, Y. Zeniya, M. Eto, R. Yokoyama, T. Tsutsui, K. Kimura, and I. Yamane. 2006. Nationwide seroprevalence of Neospora caninum among dairy cattle in Japan. Vet. Parasitol. 135:175-179. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r252] 252.Koudela, B., M. Svoboda, C. Björkman, and A. Uggla. 1998. Neosporosis in dogs: the first case report in the Czech Republic. Vet. Med. Czech. 43:51-54. [Google Scholar]

[r253] 253.Koyama, T., Y. Kobayashi, Y. Omata, M. Yamada, H. Furuoka, R. Maeda, T. Matsui, A. Saito, and T. Mikami. 2001. Isolation of Neospora caninum from the brain of a pregnant sheep. J. Parasitol. 87:1486-1488. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r254] 254.Kramer, L., L. de Risio, V. M. Tranquillo, S. Magnino, and C. Genchi. 2004. Analysis of risk factors associated with seropositivity to Neospora caninum in dogs. Vet. Rec. 154:692-693. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r255] 255.Kritzner, S., H. Sager, J. Blum, R. Krebber, G. Greif, and B. Gottstein. 2002. An explorative study to assess the efficacy of toltrazuril-sulfone (Ponazuril) in calves experimentally infected with Neospora caninum. Ann. Clin. Microbiol. Antimicrob. 1:4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r255a] 255a.Kurtdede, A., S. Kuplulu, K. Ural, C. C. Cingi, M. Guzel, M. C. Karakurum, and A. E. Haydardedeoglu. 2006. Serodiagnosis of bovine neosporosis with immunocomb assay in Ankara region. Ankara Univ. Vet. Fak. Derg. 53:207-209. [Google Scholar]

[r256] 256.Kyaw, T., P. Virakul, M. Muangyai, and J. Suwimonteerabutr. 2004. Neospora caninum seroprevalence in dairy cattle in central Thailand. Vet. Parasitol. 121:255-263. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r257] 257.Landmann, J. K., D. Jillella, P. J. O'Donoghue, and M. R. McGowan. 2002. Confirmation of the prevention of vertical transmission of Neospora caninum in cattle by the use of embryo transfer. Aust. Vet. J. 80:502-503. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r258] 258.Larson, R. L., D. K. Hardin, and V. L. Pierce. 2004. Economic considerations for diagnostic and control options for Neospora caninum-induced abortions in endemically infected herds of beef cattle. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 224:1597-1604. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r259] 259.Lasri, S., F. De Meerschman, C. Rettigner, C. Focant, and B. Losson. 2004. Comparison of three techniques for the serological diagnosis of Neospora caninum in the dog and their use for epidemiological studies. Vet. Parasitol. 123:25-32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r260] 260.Lathe, C. L. 1994. Neospora caninum in British dogs. Vet. Rec. 134:532. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r261] 261.Lehenbauer, T. W., S. J. Rodgers, R. G. Helman, and J. T. Saliki. 1998. Epidemiology of Neospora caninum infection in Oklahoma beef and dairy cattle. Proc. 31st Ann. Conv. Am. Assoc. Bovine Pract. 31:225. [Google Scholar]

[r262] 262.Lemberger, K. Y., L. F. P. Gondim, A. P. Pessier, M. M. McAllister, and M. J. Kinsel. 2005. Neospora caninum infection in a free-ranging raccoon (Procyon lotor) with concurrent canine distemper virus infection. J. Parasitol. 91:960-961. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r263] 263.Liddell, S., M. C. Jenkins, C. M. Collica, and J. P. Dubey. 1999. Prevention of vertical transfer of Neospora caninum in BALB/c mice by vaccination. J. Parasitol. 85:1072-1075. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r264] 264.Lindsay, D. S., and J. P. Dubey. 1990. Infections in mice with tachyzoites and bradyzoites of Neospora caninum (Protozoa: Apicomplexa). J. Parasitol. 76:410-413. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r265] 265.Lindsay, D. S., J. P. Dubey, S. J. Upton, and R. K. Ridley. 1990. Serological prevalence of Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii in dogs from Kansas. J. Helminthol. Soc. Wash. 57:86-88. [Google Scholar]

[r266] 266.Lindsay, D. S., J. P. Dubey, and B. L. Blagburn. 1991. Characterization of a Neospora caninum (Protozoa: Apicomplexa) isolate (NC3) in mice. J. Alabama Acad. Sci. 62:1-8. [Google Scholar]

[r267] 267.Lindsay, D. S., B. L. Blagburn, and J. P. Dubey. 1992. Factors affecting the survival of Neospora caninum bradyzoites in murine tissues. J. Parasitol. 78:70-72. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r268] 268.Lindsay, D. S., S. D. Lenz, R. A. Cole, J. P. Dubey, and B. L. Blagburn. 1995. Mouse model for central nervous system Neospora caninum infections. J. Parasitol. 81:313-315. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r269] 269.Lindsay, D. S., E. J. Kelly, R. McKown, F. J. Stein, J. Plozer, J. Herman, B. L. Blagburn, and J. P. Dubey. 1996. Prevalence of Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii antibodies in coyotes (Canis latrans) and experimental infections of coyotes with Neospora caninum. J. Parasitol. 82:657-659. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r270] 270.Lindsay, D. S., J. P. Dubey, and R. B. Duncan. 1999. Confirmation that the dog is a definitive host for Neospora caninum. Vet. Parasitol. 82:327-333. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r271] 271.Lindsay, D. S., J. Spencer, C. E. Rupprecht, and B. L. Blagburn. 2001. Prevalence of agglutinating antibodies to Neospora caninum in raccoons, Procyon lotor. J. Parasitol. 87:1197-1198. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r272] 272.Lindsay, D. S., J. L. Weston, and S. E. Little. 2001. Prevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii in gray foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) from South Carolina. Vet. Parasitol. 97:159-164. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r273] 273.Lindsay, D. S., D. M. Ritter, and D. Brake. 2001. Oocyst excretion in dogs fed mouse brains containing tissue cysts of a cloned line of Neospora caninum. J. Parasitol. 87:909-911. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r274] 274.Lindsay, D. S., S. E. Little, and W. R. Davidson. 2002. Prevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum in white-tailed deer, Odocoileus virginianus, from the Southeastern United States. J. Parasitol. 88:415-417. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r275] 275.Lobato, J., D. A. O. Silva, T. W. P. Mineo, J. D. H. F. Amaral, G. R. S. Segundo, J. M. Costa-Cruz, M. S. Ferreira, A. S. Borges, and J. R. Mineo. 2006. Detection of immunoglobulin G antibodies to Neospora caninum in humans: high seropositivity rates in patients who are infected by human immunodeficiency virus or have neurological disorders. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 13:84-89. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r276] 276.Locatelli-Dittrich, R., V. Thomaz Soccol, R. R. T. B. Richartz, M. E. Gasino-Joineau, R. van der Vinne, R. Silva, L. C. Leite, and R. Pinckney. 2001. Detecção de anticorpos contra Neospora caninum em vacas leiteiras e bezerros no estado do Paraná. Arch. Vet. Sci. 6:37-41. [Google Scholar]

[r277] 277.Locatelli-Dittrich, R., V. T. Soccol, R. R. T. B. Richartz, M. E. Gasino-Joineau, R. Vinne, and R. D. Pinckney. 2001. Serological diagnosis of neosporosis in a herd of dairy cattle in southern Brazil. J. Parasitol. 87:1493-1494. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r278] 278.Locatelli-Dittrich, R., R. R. T. B. Richartz, M. E. Gasino-Joineau, R. D. Pinckney, R. S. de Sousa, L. C. Leite, and V. Thomaz-Soccol. 2003. Isolation of Neospora caninum from a blind calf in Paraná, southern Brazil. Vet. Rec. 153:366-367. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r279] 279.Locatelli-Dittrich, R., V. Thomaz-Soccol, R. R. T. B. Richartz, M. E. Gasino-Joineau, R. vander Vinne, and R. D. Pinckney. 2004. Isolamento de Neospora caninum de feto bovino de rebanho leiteiro no Paraná. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 13:103-109. [Google Scholar]

[r280] 280.Locatelli-Dittrich, R., J. R. Dittrich, R. R. T. B. Richartz, M. E. Gasino Joineau, J. Antunes, R. D. Pinckney, I. Deconto, D. C. S. Hoffmann, and V. Thomaz-Soccol. 2006. Investigation of Neospora sp. and Toxoplasma gondii antibodies in mares and in precolostral foals from Parana State, Southern Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 135:215-221. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r281] 281.López-Gatius, F., M. López-Béjar, K. Murugavel, M. Pabón, D. Ferrer, and S. Almería. 2004. Neospora-associated abortion episode over a 1-year period in a dairy herd in north-east Spain. J. Vet. Med. B 51:348-352. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r282] 282.López-Gatius, F., M. Pabón, and S. Almería. 2004. Neospora caninum infection does not affect early pregnancy in dairy cattle. Theriogenology 62:606-613. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r283] 283.López-Gatius, F., P. Santolaria, and S. Almería. 2005. Neospora caninum infection does not affect the fertility of dairy cows in herds with high incidence of Neospora-associated abortions. J. Vet. Med. B 52:51-53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r284] 284.López-Gatius, F., I. García-Ispierto, P. Santolaria, J. L. Yániz, M. López-Béjar, C. Norgareda, and S. Almería. 2005. Relationship between rainfall and Neospora caninum-associated abortion in two dairy herds in a dry environment. J. Vet. Med. B 52:147-152. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r285] 285.López-Gatius, F., P. Santolaria, J. L. Yániz, J. M. Garbayo, and S. Almería. 2005. The use of beef bull semen reduced the risk of abortion in Neospora-seropositive dairy cows. J. Vet. Med. B 52:88-92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r286] 286.Lopez-Gatius, F., J. M. Garbayo, P. Santolaria, J. L. Yaniz, S. Almeria, A. Ayad, N. M. de Sousa, and J. F. Beckers. 2007. Plasma pregnancy-associated glycoprotein-1 (PAG-1) concentrations during gestation in Neospora-infected dairy cows. Theriogenology 67:502-508. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r287] 287.Magnino, S., P. G. Vigo, M. Fabbi, M. Colombo, C. Bandi, and C. Genchi. 1999. Isolation of a bovine Neospora from a newborn calf in Italy. Vet. Rec. 144:456. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r288] 288.Magnino, S., P. G. Vigo, C. Bandi, C. Bazzocchi, M. Fabbi, and C. Genchi. 2000. Small-subunit rDNA sequencing of the Italian bovine Neospora caninum isolate (NC-PV1 strain). Parassitologia 42:191-192. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r289] 289.Mainar-Jaime, R. C., M. C. Thurmond, B. Berzal-Herranz, and S. K. Hietala. 1999. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum and abortion in dairy cows in northern Spain. Vet. Rec. 145:72-75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r290] 290.Malmasi, A., M. Hosseininejad, H. Haddadzadeh, A. Badii, and A. Bahonar. 22 November 2006, posting date. Serologic study of anti-Neospora caninum antibodies in household dogs and dogs living in dairy and beef cattle farms in Tehran, Iran. Parasitol. Res. doi: 10.1007/s00436-006-0385-7. [DOI] [PubMed]

[r291] 291.Marsh, A. E., B. C. Barr, K. Sverlow, M. Ho, J. P. Dubey, and P. A. Conrad. 1995. Sequence analysis and comparison of ribosomal DNA from bovine Neospora to similar coccidial parasites. J. Parasitol. 81:530-535. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r292] 292.Marsh, A. E., B. C. Barr, A. E. Packham, and P. A. Conrad. 1998. Description of a new Neospora species (Protozoa: Apicomplexa: Sarcocystidae). J. Parasitol. 84:983-991. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r293] 293.McAllister, M., E. M. Huffman, S. K. Hietala, P. A. Conrad, M. L. Anderson, and M. D. Salman. 1996. Evidence suggesting a point source exposure in an outbreak of bovine abortion due to neosporosis. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 8:355-357. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r294] 294.McAllister, M. M., J. P. Dubey, D. S. Lindsay, W. R. Jolley, R. A. Wills, and A. M. McGuire. 1998. Dogs are definitive hosts of Neospora caninum. Int. J. Parasitol. 28:1473-1478. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r295] 295.McAllister, M. M., W. R. Jolley, R. A. Wills, D. S. Lindsay, A. M. McGuire, and J. D. Tranas. 1998. Oral inoculation of cats with tissue cysts of Neospora caninum. Am. J. Vet. Res. 59:441-444. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r296] 296.McAllister, M. M., C. Björkman, R. Anderson-Sprecher, and D. G. Rogers. 2000. Evidence of point-source exposure to Neospora caninum and protective immunity in a herd of beef cows. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 217:881-887. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r297] 297.McAllister, M. M., R. L. Wallace, C. Björkman, L. Gao, and L. D. Firkins. 2005. A probable source of Neospora caninum infection in an abortion outbreak in dairy cows. Bovine Pract. 39:69-74. [Google Scholar]

[r298] 298.McDole, M. G., and J. M. Gay. 2002. Seroprevalence of antibodies against Neospora caninum in diagnostic equine serum samples and their possible association with fetal loss. Vet. Parasitol. 105:257-260. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r299] 299.McGarry, J. W., C. M. Stockton, D. J. L. Williams, and A. J. Trees. 2003. Protracted shedding of oocysts of Neospora caninum by a naturally infected foxhound. J. Parasitol. 89:628-630. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r300] 300.McInnes, L. M., P. Irwin, D. G. Palmer, and U. M. Ryan. 2006. In vitro isolation and characterization of the first canine Neospora caninum isolate in Australia. Vet. Parasitol. 137:355-363. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r301] 301.McNamee, P. T., A. J. Trees, F. Guy, D. Moffett, and D. Kilpatrick. 1996. Diagnosis and prevalence of neosporosis in cattle in Northern Ireland. Vet. Rec. 138:419-420. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r302] 302.Meléndez, J. A. S., J. J. M. García, J. J. Z. Ramos, V. M. R. Valdés, G. H. Vidal, G. D. Aranda, R. R. Romero, L. C. G. Alejo, and R. Á. Ramírez. 2005. Frecuencia de anticuerpos contra Neospora caninum en ganado bovino del noreste de México. Vet. Méx. 36:303-311. [Google Scholar]

[r303] 303.Melo, C. B., R. C. Leite, F. S. C. Leite, and R. C. Leite. 2002. Serological surveillance on South American wild canids for Neospora caninum. Arq. Bras. Med. Vet. Zootec. 54:444-447. [Google Scholar]

[r304] 304.Melo, D. P. G., A. C. Silva, L. M. Ortega-Mora, S. A. Bastos, and C. M. Boaventura. 2006. Prevalência de anticorpos anti-Neospora caninum em bovinos das microrregiões de Goiânia e Anápolis, Goiás, Brasil. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 15:105-109. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r305] 305.Miller, C. M. D., H. E. Quinn, P. A. Windsor, and J. T. Ellis. 2002. Characterization of the first Australian isolate of Neospora caninum from cattle. Aust. Vet. J. 80:620-625. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r306] 306.Miller, C. M. D., H. Quinn, C. Ryce, M. P. Reichel, and J. T. Ellis. 2005. Reduction in transplacental transmission of Neospora caninum in outbred mice by vaccination. Int. J. Parasitol. 35:821-828. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r307] 307.Mineo, T. W. P., D. A. O. Silva, G. H. N. Costa, A. C. B. von Ancken, L. H. Kasper, M. A. Souza, D. D. Cabral, A. J. Costa, and J. R. Mineo. 2001. Detection of IgG antibodies to Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii in dogs examined in veterinary hospital from Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 98:239-245. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r308] 308.Mineo, T. W. P., D. A. O. Silva, K. Naslund, C. Bjorkman, A. Uggla, and J. R. Mineo. 2004. Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum serological status of different canine populations from Uberlândia, Minas Gerais. Arq. Bras. Med. Vet. Zootec. 56:414-417. [Google Scholar]

[r308a] 308a.Mineo, T. W. P., S. Alenius, K. Näslund, H. J. Montassier, and C. Björkman. 2006. Distribution of antibodies against Neospora caninum, BVDV and BHV-1 among cows in Brazilian dairy herds with reproductive disorders. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 15:188-192. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r309] 309.Moen, A. R., W. Wouda, M. F. Mul, E. A. M. Graat, and T. van Werven. 1998. Increased risk of abortion following Neospora caninum abortion outbreaks: a retrospective and prospective cohort study in four dairy herds. Theriogenology 49:1301-1309. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r310] 310.Moore, D. P. 2005. Neosporosis in South America. Vet. Parasitol. 127:87-97. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r311] 311.Moore, D. P., C. M. Campero, A. C. Odeón, M. A. Posso, D. Cano, M. R. Leunda, W. Basso, M. C. Venturini, and E. Späth. 2002. Seroepidemiology of beef and dairy herds and fetal study of Neospora caninum in Argentina. Vet. Parasitol. 107:303-316. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r312] 312.Moore, D. P., C. M. Campero, A. C. Odeón, R. Chayer, and M. A. Bianco. 2003. Reproductive losses due to Neospora caninum in a beef herd in Argentina. J. Vet. Med. B 50:304-308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r313] 313.Moore, D. P., M. G. Draghi, C. M. Campero, B. Cetrá, A. C. Odeón, E. Alcaraz, and E. A. J. Späth. 2003. Serological evidence of Neospora caninum infections in beef bulls in six counties of the Corrientes province, Argentina. Vet. Parasitol. 114:247-252. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r314] 314.Morales, E., F. J. Trigo, F. Ibarra, E. Puente, and M. Santacruz. 2001. Neosporosis in Mexican dairy herds: lesions and immunohistochemical detection of Neospora caninum in fetuses. J. Comp. Pathol. 125:58-63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r315] 315.Morales, E., F. J. Trigo, F. Ibarra, E. Puente, and M. Santacruz. 2001. Seroprevalence study of bovine neosporosis in Mexico. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 13:413-415. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r316] 316.Moskwa, B., W. Cabaj, K. Pastusiak, and J. Bien. 2003. The suitability of milk in detection of Neospora caninum infection in cows. Acta Parasitol. 48:138-141. [Google Scholar]

[r317] 317.Moskwa, B., K. Pastusiak, J. Bien, and W. Cabaj. 2007. The first detection of Neospora caninum DNA in the colostrum of infected cows. Parasitol. Res. 100:633-636. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r318] 318.Munhoz, A. D., W. Flausino, R. T. Silva, C. R. R. Almeida, and C. W. G. Lopes. 2006. Distribuição de anticorpos contra Neospora caninum em vacas leiteiras dos municípios de Resende e Rio Claro, Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 15:101-104. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r319] 319.Muñoz-Zanzi, C. A., M. C. Thurmond, and S. K. Hietala. 2004. Effect of bovine viral diarrhea virus infection on fertility of dairy heifers. Theriogenology 61:1085-1099. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r320] 320.Naguleswaran, A., A. Hemphill, R. P. V. J. Rajapakse, and H. Sager. 2004. Elaboration of a crude antigen ELISA for serodiagnosis of caprine neosporosis: validation of the test by detection of Neospora caninum-specific antibodies in goats from Sri Lanka. Vet. Parasitol. 126:257-262. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r321] 321.Nam, H. W., S. W. Kang, and W. Y. Choi. 1998. Antibody reaction of human anti-Toxoplasma gondii positive and negative sera with Neospora caninum antigens. Korean J. Parasitol. 36:269-275. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r321a] 321a.Ogawa, L., R. L. Freire, O. Vidotto, L. F. P. Gondim, and I. T. Navarro. 2005. Occurrence of antibodies to Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii in dairy cattle from the northern region of the Paraná State, Brazil. Arq. Bras. Med. Vet. Zootec. 57:312-316. [Google Scholar]

[r322] 322.Okeoma, C. M., N. B. Williamson, W. E. Pomroy, K. M. Stowell, and L. M. Gillespie. 2004. Isolation and molecular characterization of Neospora caninum in cattle in New Zealand. N. Z. Vet. J. 52:364-370. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r323] 323.Omata, Y., Y. Umeshita, M. Watarai, M. Tachibana, M. Sasaki, K. Murata, and T. K. Yamada. 2006. Investigation for presence of Neospora caninum, Toxoplasma gondii and Brucella species infection in killer whales (Orcinus orca) mass-stranded on the coast of Shiretoko, Hokkaido, Japan. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 68:523-526. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r324] 324.Oncel, T., and G. Biyikoglu. 2003. Neosporosis in dairy cattle in Sakarya, Turkey. Uludag Univ. J. Fac. Vet. Med. 22:87-89. (In Turkish.) [Google Scholar]

[r325] 325.Ooi, H. K., C. C. Huang, C. H. Yang, and S. H. Lee. 2000. Serological survey and first finding of Neospora caninum in Taiwan, and the detection of its antibodies in various body fluids of cattle. Vet. Parasitol. 90:47-55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r326] 326.Ortega, Y. R., M. P. Torres, and K. D. Mena. 2007. Presence of Neospora caninum specific antibodies in three dairy farms in Georgia and two in Texas. Vet. Parasitol. 144:353-355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r327] 327.Ortega-Mora, L. M., I. Ferre, I. del Pozo, A. Caetano da Silva, E. Collantes-Fernández, J. Regidor-Cerrillo, C. Ugarte-Garagalza, and G. Aduriz. 2003. Detection of Neospora caninum in semen of bulls. Vet. Parasitol. 117:301-308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r328] 328.Ortega-Mora, L. M., A. Fernández-García, and M. Gómez-Bautista. 2006. Diagnosis of bovine neosporosis: recent advances and perspectives. Acta Parasitol. 51:1-14. [Google Scholar]

[r329] 329.Ortega-Mora, L. M. B. Gottstein, F. J. Conraths, and D. Buxton (ed.). 2007. Protozoal abortion in farm ruminants. Guidelines for diagnosis and control. CAB International, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom.

[r330] 330.Ortuño, A., J. Castella, and S. Almeria. 2002. Seroprevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum in dogs from Spain. J. Parasitol. 88:1263-1266. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r331] 331.Osawa, T., J. Wastling, L. Acosta, C. Ortellado, J. Ibarra, and E. A. Innes. 2002. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum infection in dairy and beef cattle in Paraguay. Vet. Parasitol. 110:17-23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r332] 332.Otranto, D., A. Llazari, G. Testini, D. Traversa, A. F. di Regalbono, M. Badan, and G. Capelli. 2003. Seroprevalence and associated risk factors of neosporosis in beef and dairy cattle in Italy. Vet. Parasitol. 118:7-18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r333] 333.Ould-Amrouche, A., F. Klein, C. Osdoit, H. O. Mohamed, A. Touratier, M. Sanaa, and J. P. Mialot. 1999. Estimation of Neospora caninum seroprevalence in dairy cattle from Normandy, France. Vet. Res. 30:531-538. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r334] 334.Pan, Y., G. B. Jansen, T. F. Duffield, S. Hietala, D. Kelton, C. Y. Lin, and A. S. Peregrine. 2004. Genetic susceptibility to Neospora caninum infection in Holstein cattle in Ontario. J. Dairy Sci. 87:3967-3975. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r334a] 334a.Paradies, P., G. Capelli, G. Testini, C. Cantacessi, A. J. Trees, and D. Otranto. Risk factors for canine neosporosis in farm and kennel dogs in southern Italy. Vet. Parasitol., in press. [DOI] [PubMed]

[r335] 335.Paré, J., M. C. Thurmond, and S. K. Hietala. 1994. Congenital Neospora infection in dairy cattle. Vet. Rec. 134:531-532. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r336] 336.Paré, J., S. K. Hietala, and M. C. Thurmond. 1995. An enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for serological diagnosis of Neospora sp. infection in cattle. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 7:352-359. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r337] 337.Paré, J., M. C. Thurmond, and S. K. Hietala. 1996. Congenital Neospora caninum infection in dairy cattle and associated calf hood mortality. Can. J. Vet. Res. 60:133-139. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r338] 338.Paré, J., M. C. Thurmond, and S. K. Hietala. 1997. Neospora caninum antibodies in cows during pregnancy as a predictor of congenital infection and abortion. J. Parasitol. 83:82-87. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r339] 339.Paré, J., G. Fecteau, M. Fortin, and G. Marsolais. 1998. Seroepidemiologic study of Neospora caninum in dairy herds. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 213:1595-1598. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r340] 340.Patitucci, A. N., M. J. Pérez, K. F. Israel, and M. A. Rozas. 2000. Prevalencia de anticuerpos séricos contra Neospora caninum en dos rebaños lecheros de la IX región de Chile. Arch. Med. Vet. 32:209-214. [Google Scholar]

[r341] 341.Patitucci, A. N., M. Phil, M. J. Pérez, M. A. Rozas, and K. F. Israel. 2001. Neosporosis canina: presencia de anticuerpos séricos en poblaciones caninas rurales y urbanas de Chile. Arch. Med. Vet. 33:227-232. [Google Scholar]

[r342] 342.Patitucci, A. N., M. J. Perez, C. M. Carcamo, and L. Baeza. 2004. Presencia de anticuerpos séricos contra Neospora caninum en equinos en Chile. Arch. Med. Vet. 36:203-206. [Google Scholar]

[r342a] 342a.Pena, J. H. J., R. M. Soares, A. M. A. Ragozo, R. M. Monteiro, L. E. O. Yai, S. M. Nishi, and S. M. Gennari. Isolation and molecular detection of Neospora caninum from naturally infected sheep from Brazil. Vet. Parasitol., in press. [DOI] [PubMed]

[r343] 343.Peregrine, A. S., S. W. Martin, D. A. Hopwood, T. F. Duffield, B. McEwen, J. C. Hobson, and S. K. Hietala. 2006. Neospora caninum and Leptospira serovar serostatus in dairy cattle in Ontario. Can. Vet. J. 47:467-470. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r344] 344.Pereira-Bueno, J., A. Quintanilla-Gozalo, A. Seijas-Carballedo, E. Costas, and L. M. Ortega-Mora. 2000. Observational studies in Neospora caninum infected dairy cattle: pattern of transmission and age-related antibody fluctuations. Int. J. Parasitol. 30:906-909. [Google Scholar]

[r345] 345.Pereira-Bueno, J., A. Quintanilla-Gozalo, V. Pérez-Pérez, A. Espi-Felgueroso, G. Álvarez-García, E. Collantes-Fernández, and L. M. Ortega-Mora. 2003. Evaluation by different diagnostic techniques of bovine abortion associated with Neospora caninum in Spain. Vet. Parasitol. 111:143-152. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r346] 346.Pérez-Zaballos, F. J., L. M. Ortega-Mora, G. Álvarez-García, E. Collantes-Fernández, V. Navarro-Lozano, L. García-Villada, and E. Costas. 2005. Adaptation of Neospora caninum isolates to cell-culture changes: an argument in favor of its clonal population structure. J. Parasitol. 91:507-510. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r347] 347.Peters, M., F. Wagner, and G. Schares. 2000. Canine neosporosis: clinical and pathological findings and first isolation of Neospora caninum in Germany. Parasitol. Res. 86:1-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r348] 348.Peters, M., E. Lütkefels, A. R. Heckeroth, and G. Schares. 2001. Immunohistochemical and ultrastructural evidence for Neospora caninum tissue cysts in skeletal muscles of naturally infected dogs and cattle. Int. J. Parasitol. 31:1144-1148. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r349] 349.Peters, M., P. Wohlsein, A. Knieriem, and G. Schares. 2001. Neospora caninum infection associated with stillbirths in captive antelopes (Tragelaphus imberbis). Vet. Parasitol. 97:153-157. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r350] 350.Petersen, E., M. Lebech, L. Jensen, P. Lind, M. Rask, P. Bagger, C. Björkman, and A. Uggla. 1999. Neospora caninum infection and repeated abortions in humans. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 5:278-280. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r351] 351.Pfeiffer, D. U., N. B. Williamson, and M. P. Reichel. 2000. Long-term serological monitoring as a tool for epidemiological investigation of Neospora caninum infection in a New Zealand dairy herd, p. 616-618. Proceedings of the 9th Symposium of the International Society for Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics, Breckenridge, CO.

[r352] 352.Pfeiffer, D. U., N. B. Williamson, M. P. Reichel, J. J. Wichtel, and W. R. Teague. 2002. A longitudinal study of Neospora caninum infection on a dairy farm in New Zealand. Prev. Vet. Med. 54:11-24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r353] 353.Pitel, P. H., S. Pronost, M. F. Legendre, G. Chatagnon, D. Tainturier, and G. Fortier. 2000. Infection des bovins par Neospora caninum: deux années d'observations dans l'Ouest de la France. Le Point Vet. 31:53-58. [Google Scholar]

[r354] 354.Pitel, P. H., S. Pronost, G. Chatagnon, D. Tainturier, G. Fortier, and J. J. Ballet. 2001. Neosporosis in bovine dairy herds from the west of France: detection of Neospora caninum DNA in aborted fetuses, seroepidemiology of N. caninum in cattle and dogs. Vet. Parasitol. 102:269-277. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r355] 355.Pitel, P. H., S. Pronost, S. Romand, P. Thulliez, G. Fortier, and J. J. Ballet. 2001. Prevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum in horses in France. Equine Vet. J. 33:205-207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r356] 356.Pitel, P. H., S. Romand, S. Pronost, N. Foucher, G. Gargala, K. Maillard, P. Thulliez, C. Collobert-Laugier, D. Tainturier, G. Fortier, and J. J. Ballet. 2003. Investigation of Neospora sp. antibodies in aborted mares from Normandy, France. Vet. Parasitol. 118:1-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r357] 357.Pitel, P. H., D. S. Lindsay, S. Caure, S. Romand, S. Pronost, G. Gargala, S. M. Mitchell, C. Hary, P. Thulliez, G. Fortier, and J. J. Ballet. 2003. Reactivity against Sarcocystis neurona and Neospora by serum antibodies in healthy French horses from two farms with previous equine protozoal myeloencephalitis-like cases. Vet. Parasitol. 111:1-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r358] 358.Quinn, H. E., C. M. D. Miller, and J. T. Ellis. 2004. The cell-mediated immune response to Neospora caninum during pregnancy in the mouse is associated with a bias towards production of interleukin-4. Int. J. Parasitol. 34:723-732. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r359] 359.Quintanilla-Gozalo, A., J. Pereira-Bueno, E. Tabarés, E. A. Innes, R. González-Paniello, and L. M. Ortega-Mora. 1999. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum infection in dairy and beef cattle in Spain. Int. J. Parasitol. 29:1201-1208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r360] 360.Quintanilla-Gozalo, A., J. Pereira-Bueno, A. Seijas-Carballedo, E. Costas, and L. M. Ortega-Mora. 2000. Observational studies in Neospora caninum infected dairy cattle: relationship infection-abortion and gestational antibody fluctuations. Int. J. Parasitol. 30:900-906. [Google Scholar]

[r361] 361.Ragozo, A. M. A., V. S. O. Paula, S. L. P. Souza, D. P. Bergamaschi, and S. M. Gennari. 2003. Ocorrência de anticorpos anti-Neospora caninum em soros bovinos procedentes de seis estados Brasileiros. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 12:33-37. [Google Scholar]

[r362] 362.Rasmussen, K., and A. L. Jensen. 1996. Some epidemiologic features of canine neosporosis in Denmark. Vet. Parasitol. 62:345-349. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r363] 363.Razmi, G. R., M. Maleki, N. Farzaneh, G. M. Talebkhan, and A. H. Fallah. 6 October 2006, posting date. First report of Neospora caninum-associated bovine abortion in Mashhad area, Iran. Parasitol. Res. doi: 10.1007/s00436-006-0325-6. [DOI] [PubMed]

[r364] 364.Razmi, G. R., G. R. Mohammadi, T. Garrosi, N. Farzaneh, A. H. Fallah, and M. Maleki. 2006. Seroepidemiology of Neospora caninum infection in dairy cattle herds in Mashhad area, Iran. Vet. Parasitol. 135:187-189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r365] 365.Regidor-Cerrillo, J., S. Pedraza-Díaz, M. Gómez-Bautista, and L. M. Ortega-Mora. 2006. Multilocus microsatellite analysis reveals extensive genetic diversity in Neospora caninum. J. Parasitol. 92:517-524. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r366] 366.Reichel, M. P. 1998. Prevalence of Neospora antibodies in New Zealand dairy cattle and dogs. N. Z. Vet. J. 46:38. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r367] 367.Reichel, M. P. 2000. Neospora caninum infections in Australia and New Zealand. Aust. Vet. J. 78:258-261. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r368] 368.Reichel, M. P., and J. T. Ellis. 2002. Control options for Neospora caninum infections in cattle—current state of knowledge. N. Z. Vet. J. 50:86-92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r369] 369.Reichel, M. P., and J. T. Ellis. 2006. If control of Neospora caninum infection is technically feasible does it make economic sense? Vet. Parasitol. 142:23-34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r370] 370.Reichel, M. P., and D. U. Pfeiffer. 2002. An analysis of the performance characterisics of serological tests for the diagnosis of Neospora caninum infection in cattle. Vet. Parasitol. 107:197-207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r370a] 370a.Reitt, K., M. Hilbe, A. Voegtlin, L. Corboz, M. Haessig, and A. Pospischil. 2007. Aetiology of bovine abortion in Switzerland from 1986 to 1995—a retrospective study with emphasis on detection of Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii by PCR. J. Vet. Med. A 54:15-22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r371] 371.Rinaldi, L., G. Fusco, V. Musella, V. Veneziano, A. Guarino, R. Taddei, and G. Cringoli. 2005. Neospora caninum in pastured cattle: determination of climatic, environmental, farm management and individual animal risk factors using remote sensing and geographical information systems. Vet. Parasitol. 128:219-230. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r372] 372.Rinaldi, L., F. Pacelli, G. Iovane, U. Pagnini, V. Veneziano, G. Fusco, and G. Cingoli. 2007. Survey of Neospora caninum and bovine herpes virus 1 coinfection in cattle. Parasitol. Res. 100:359-364. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r373] 373.Rodrigues, A. A. R., S. M. Gennari, D. M. Aguiar, C. Sreekumar, D. E. Hill, K. B. Miska, M. C. B. Vianna, and J. P. Dubey. 2004. Shedding of Neospora caninum oocysts by dogs fed tissues from naturally infected water buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis) from Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 124:139-150. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r374] 374.Rodriguez, I., L. Choromanski, S. Rodgers, and D. Weinstock. 2003. Survey of Neospora caninum antibodies in dairy and beef cattle from five regions of the United States. Vet. Ther. 3:396-401. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r374a] 374a.Romanelli, P. R., R. L. Freire, O. Vidotto, E. R. M. Marana, L. Ogawa, V. S. O. de Paula, J. L. Garcia, and I. T. Navarro. 2007. Prevalence of Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii in sheep and dogs from Guarapuava farms, Paraná State, Brazil. Res. Vet. Sci. 82:202-207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r375] 375.Romero, J. J., and K. Frankena. 2003. The effect of the dam-calf relationship on serostatus to Neospora caninum on 20 Costa Rican dairy farms. Vet. Parasitol. 114:159-171. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r376] 376.Romero, J. J., E. Perez, G. Dolz, and K. Frankena. 2002. Factors associated with Neospora caninum serostatus in cattle of 20 specialized Costa Rican dairy herds. Prev. Vet. Med. 53:263-273. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r377] 377.Romero, J. J., E. Pérez, and K. Frankena. 2004. Effect of a killed whole Neospora caninum tachyzoite vaccine on the crude abortion rate of Costa Rican dairy cows under field conditions. Vet. Parasitol. 123:149-159. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r378] 378.Romero, J. J., S. Van Breda, B. Vargas, G. Dolz, and K. Frankena. 2005. Effect of neosporosis on productive and reproductive performance of dairy cattle in Costa Rica. Theriogenology 64:1928-1939. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r379] 379.Rosypal, A. C., and D. S. Lindsay. 2005. The sylvatic cycle of Neospora caninum: where do we go from here? Trends Parasitol. 21:439-440. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r380] 380.Sadrebazzaz, A., H. Haddadzadeh, K. Esmailnia, G. Habibi, M. Vojgani, and R. Hashemifesharaki. 2004. Serological prevalence of Neospora caninum in healthy and aborted dairy cattle in Mashhad, Iran. Vet. Parasitol. 124:201-204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r381] 381.Sadrebazzaz, A., H. Haddadzadeh, and P. Shayan. 2006. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii in camels (Camelus dromedarius) in Mashhad, Iran. Parasitol. Res. 98:600-601. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r382] 382.Sager, H., I. Fischer, K. Furrer, M. Strasser, A. Waldvogel, P. Boerlin, L. Audigé, and B. Gottstein. 2001. A Swiss case-control study to assess Neospora caninum-associated bovine abortions by PCR, histopathology and serology. Vet. Parasitol. 102:1-15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r383] 383.Sager, H., D. Hüssy, A. Kuffer, F. Schreve, and B. Gottstein. 2005. Mise en évidence d'un de “abortion storm” (transmission transplacentaire exogéne de Neospora caninum) dans une exploitation de vaches laitières: une première en Suisse. Schweiz. Arch. Tierheilkd. 147:113-120. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r384] 384.Sager, H., C. Steiner-Moret, N. Müller, D. Staubli, M. Esposito, G. Schares, M. Hässig, K. Stärk, and B. Gottstein. 2006. Incidence of Neospora caninum and other intestinal protozoan parasites in populations of Swiss dogs. Vet. Parasitol. 139:84-92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r385] 385.Sanchez, G. F., E. Morales, M. J. Martinez, and J. F. Trigo. 2003. Determination and correlation of anti-Neospora caninum antibodies in dogs and cattle from Mexico. Can. J. Vet. Res. 67:142-145. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r386] 386.Sanderson, M. W., J. M. Gay, and T. V. Baszler. 2000. Neospora caninum seroprevalence and associated risk factors in beef cattle in the northwestern United States. Vet. Parasitol. 90:15-24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r387] 387.Sartor, I. F., M. Y. Hasegawa, A. M. O. Canavessi, and R. D. Pinckney. 2003. Ocorrência de anticorpos de Neospora caninum em vacas leiteiras avaliados pelos métodos ELISA e RIFI no município de Avaré, SP. Semina 24:3-10. [Google Scholar]

[r388] 388.Sartor, I. F., A. Garcia Filho, L. C. Vianna, E. M. Pituco, V. Dal Pai, and R. Sartor. 2005. Ocorrência de anticorpos anti-Neospora caninum em bovinos leiteiros e de corte da região de Presidente Prudente, sp. Arq. Inst. Biol. (São Paulo) 72:413-418. [Google Scholar]

[r389] 389.Sawada, M., C. H. Park, H. Kondo, T. Morita, A. Shimada, I. Yamane, and T. Umemura. 1998. Serological survey of antibody to Neospora caninum in Japanese dogs. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 60:853-854. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r390] 390.Sawada, M., H. Kondo, Y. Tomioka, C. H. Park, T. Morita, A. Shimada, and T. Umemura. 2000. Isolation of Neospora caninum from the brain of a naturally infected adult dairy cow. Vet. Parasitol. 90:247-252. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r391] 391.Schares, G., M. Peters, R. Wurm, A. Bärwald, and F. J. Conraths. 1998. The efficiency of vertical transmission of Neospora caninum in dairy cattle analyzed by serological techniques. Vet. Parasitol. 80:87-98. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r392] 392.Schares, G., F. J. Conraths, and M. P. Reichel. 1999. Bovine neosporosis: comparison of serological methods using outbreak sera from a dairy herd in New Zealand. Int. J. Parasitol. 29:1659-1667. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r393] 393.Schares, G., M. Rauser, K. Zimmer, M. Peters, R. Wurm, J. P. Dubey, D. C. de Graaf, R. Edelhofer, C. Mertens, G. Hess, and F. J. Conraths. 1999. Serological differences in Neospora caninum-associated epidemic and endemic abortions. J. Parasitol. 85:688-694. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r394] 394.Schares, G., M. Rauser, P. Söndgen, P. Rehberg, A. Bärwald, J. P. Dubey, R. Edelhofer, and F. J. Conraths. 2000. Use of purified tachyzoite surface antigen p38 in an ELISA to diagnose bovine neosporosis. Int. J. Parasitol. 30:1123-1130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r395] 395.Schares, G., U. Wenzel, T. Müller, and F. J. Conraths. 2001. Serological evidence for naturally occurring transmission of Neospora caninum among foxes (Vulpes vulpes). Int. J. Parasitol. 31:418-423. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r396] 396.Schares, G., A. O. Heydorn, A. Cüppers, F. J. Conraths, and H. Mehlhorn. 2001. Cyclic transmission of Neospora caninum: serological findings in dogs shedding oocysts. Parasitol. Res. 87:873-877. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r397] 397.Schares, G., A. O. Heydorn, A. Cüppers, F. J. Conraths, and H. Mehlhorn. 2001. Hammondia heydorni-like oocysts shed by a naturally infected dog and Neospora caninum NC-1 cannot be distinguished. Parasitol. Res. 87:808-816. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r398] 398.Schares, G., A. O. Heydorn, A. Cüppers, H. Mehlhorn, L. Geue, M. Peters, and F. J. Conraths. 2002. In contrast to dogs, red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) did not shed Neospora caninum upon feeding of intermediate host tissues. Parasitol. Res. 88:44-52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r399] 399.Schares, G., A. Bärwald, C. Staubach, P. Söndgen, M. Rauser, R. Schröder, M. Peters, R. Wurm, T. Selhorst, and F. J. Conraths. 2002. p38-avidity-ELISA: examination of herds experiencing epidemic or endemic Neospora caninum-associated bovine abortion. Vet. Parasitol. 106:293-305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r400] 400.Schares, G., A. Bärwald, C. Staubach, M. Ziller, D. Klöss, R. Wurm, M. Rauser, R. Labohm, K. Dräger, W. Fasen, R. G. Hess, and F. J. Conraths. 2003. Regional distribution of bovine Neospora caninum infection in the German state of Rhineland-Palatinate modeled by logistic regression. Int. J. Parasitol. 33:1631-1640. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r401] 401.Schares, G., A. Bärwald, C. Staubach, R. Wurm, M. Rauser, F. J. Conraths, and C. Schroeder. 2004. Adaptation of a commercial ELISA for the detection of antibodies against Neospora caninum in bovine milk. Vet. Parasitol. 120:55-63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r402] 402.Schares, G., A. Bärwald, C. Staubach, M. Ziller, D. Klöss, R. Schroder, R. Labohm, K. Dräger, W. Fasen, R. G. Hess, and F. J. Conraths. 2004. Potential risk factors for bovine Neospora caninum infection in Germany are not under the control of the farmers. Parasitology 129:301-309. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r403] 403.Schares, G., N. Pantchev, D. Barutzki, A. O. Heydorn, C. Bauer, and F. J. Conraths. 2005. Oocysts of Neospora caninum, Hammondia heydorni, Toxoplasma gondii and Hammondida hammondi in faeces collected from dogs in Germany. Int. J. Parasitol. 35:1525-1537. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r404] 404.Schetters, T. 2004. Intervet symposium: bovine neosporosis. Vet. Parasitol. 125:137-146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r405] 405.Schock, A., E. A. Innes, I. Yamane, S. M. Latham, and J. M. Wastling. 2001. Genetic and biological diversity among isolates of Neospora caninum. Parasitology 123:13-23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r406] 406.Scott, H. M., O. Sorensen, J. T. Wu, E. Y. Chow, K. Manninen, and J. A. VanLeeuwen. 2006. Seroprevalence of Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis, Neospora caninum, bovine leukemia virus, and bovine viral diarrhea virus infection among dairy cattle and herds in Alberta and agroecological risk factors associated with seropositivity. Can. Vet. J. 47:981-991. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r407] 407.Sedlák, K., and E. Bártová. 2006. Seroprevalences of antibodies to Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii in zoo animals. Vet. Parasitol. 136:223-231. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r408] 408.Serrano, E., I. Ferre, K. Osoro, G. Aduriz, A. Mateos-Sanz, A. Martínez, R. Atxaerandio, C. O. Hidalgo, and L. M. Ortega-Mora. 2006. Intrauterine Neospora caninum inoculation of heifers. Vet. Parasitol. 135:197-203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r409] 409.Serrano-Martínez, E., E. Collantes-Fernández, A. Rodríguez-Bertos, E. Casas-Astos, G. Álvarez-García, A. Chávez-Velásquez, and L. M. Ortega-Mora. 2004. Neospora species-associated abortion in alpacas (Vicugna pacos) and llamas (Llama glama). Vet. Rec. 155:748-749. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r410] 410.Serrano-Martínez, E., I. Ferre, K. Osoro, G. Aduriz, R. A. Mota, A. Martínez, I. del-Pozo, C. O. Hidalgo, and L. M. Ortega-Mora. 2007. Intrauterine Neospora caninum inoculation of heifers and cows using contaminated semen with different numbers of tachyzoites. Theriogenology 67:729-737. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r411] 411.Sevgili, M., M. G. Altas, and O. Keskin. 2005. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum in cattle in the province of Sanliurfa. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 29:127-130. [Google Scholar]

[r412] 412.Shivaprasad, H. L., R. Ely, and J. P. Dubey. 1989. A Neospora-like protozoon found in an aborted bovine placenta. Vet. Parasitol. 34:145-148. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r413] 413.Silva, D. A. O., S. N. Vitaliano, T. W. P. Mineo, R. A. Ferreira, E. Bevilacqua, and J. R. Mineo. 2005. Evaluation of homologous, heterologous, and affinity conjugates from the serodiagnosis of Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum in maned wolves (Chrysocyon brachyurus). J. Parasitol. 91:1212-1216. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r414] 414.Silva, D. A. O., J. Lobato, T. W. P. Mineo, and J. R. Mineo. 2007. Evaluation of serological tests for the diagnosis of Neospora caninum infection in dogs: optimization of cut off titers and inhibition studies of cross-reactivity with Toxoplasma gondii. Vet. Parasitol. 143:234-244. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r415] 415.Simpson, V. R., R. J. Monies, P. Riley, and D. S. Cromey. 1997. Foxes and neosporosis. Vet. Rec. 141:503. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r416] 416.Šlapeta, J. R., D. Modrý, I. Kyselová, R. Hořejš, J. Lukeš, and B. Koudela. 2002. Dog shedding oocysts of Neospora caninum: PCR diagnosis and molecular phylogenetic approach. Vet. Parasitol. 109:157-167. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r417] 417.Soldati, S., M. Kiupel, A. Wise, R. Maes, C. Botteron, and N. Robert. 2004. Meningoencephalomyelitis caused by Neospora caninum in a juvenile fallow deer (Dama dama). J. Vet. Med. A 51:280-283. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r418] 418.Söndgen, P., M. Peters, A. Bärwald, R. Wurm, F. Holling, F. J. Conraths, and G. Schares. 2001. Bovine neosporosis: immunoblot improves foetal serology. Vet. Parasitol. 102:279-290. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r419] 419.Sreekumar, C., D. E. Hill, K. B. Miska, B. M. Rosenthal, M. C. B. Vianna, L. Venturini, W. Basso, S. M. Gennari, D. S. Lindsay, and J. P. Dubey. 2004. Hammondia heydorni: evidence of genetic diversity among isolates from dogs. Exp. Parasitol. 107:65-71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r420] 420.Steinman, A., N. Y. Shpigel, S. Mazar, R. King, G. Baneth, I. Savitsky, and V. Shkap. 2006. Low seroprevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum in wild canids in Israel. Vet. Parasitol. 137:155-158. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r421] 421.Stenlund, S., C. Björkman, O. J. M. Holmdahl, H. Kindahl, and A. Uggla. 1997. Characterisation of a Swedish bovine isolate of Neospora caninum. Parasitol. Res. 83:214-219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r422] 422.Stenlund, S., H. Kindahl, U. Magnusson, A. Uggla, and C. Björkman. 1999. Serum antibody profile and reproductive performance during two consecutive pregnancies of cows naturally infected with Neospora caninum. Vet. Parasitol. 85:227-234. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r423] 423.Stenlund, S., H. Kindahl, A. Uggla, and C. Björkman. 2003. A long-term study of Neospora caninum infection in a Swedish dairy herd. Acta Vet. Scand. 44:63-71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r424] 424.Stoessel, Z., L. F. Taylor, M. R. McGowan, G. T. Coleman, and J. K. Landmann. 2003. Prevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum within central Queensland beef cattle. Aust. Vet. J. 81:165-166. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r425] 425.Suteeraparp, P., S. Pholpark, M. Pholpark, A. Charoenchai, T. Chompoochan, I. Yamane, and Y. Kashiwazaki. 1999. Seroprevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum and associated abortion in dairy cattle from central Thailand. Vet. Parasitol. 86:49-57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r426] 426.Suteu, O., B. Losson, M. Oltean, and V. Cozma. 2005. First serological survey for canine neosporosis in Romania. Bul. Univ. Stiint. Agric. Med. 62:591-592. [Google Scholar]

[r427] 427.Teixeira, W. C., M. I. S. Silva, J. G. Pereira, A. M. Pinheiro, M. A. O. Almeida, and L. F. P. Gondim. 2006. Freqüência de cães reagentes para Neospora caninum em São Luís, Maranhão. Arq. Bras. Med. Vet. Zootec. 58:685-687. [Google Scholar]

[r428] 428.Tennent-Brown, B. S., W. E. Pomroy, M. P. Reichel, P. L. Gray, T. S. Marshall, P. A. Moffat, M. Rogers, V. A. Driscoll, O. F. Reeve, A. L. Ridler, and S. Ritavanen. 2000. Prevalence of Neospora caninum abtibodies in beef cattle in New Zealand. N. Z. Vet. J. 48:149-150. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r429] 429.Thompson, G., N. Canada, M. do Carmo Topa, E. Silva, F. Vaz, and A. Rocha. 2001. First confirmed case of Neospora caninum-associated abortion outbreak in Portugal. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 36:309-312. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r430] 430.Thornton, R. N., A. Gajadhar, and J. Evans. 1994. Neospora abortion epidemic in a dairy herd. N. Z. Vet. J. 42:190-191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r431] 431.Thurmond, M., and S. K. Hietala. 1995. Strategies to control Neospora infection in cattle. Bovine Pract. 29:60-63. [Google Scholar]

[r432] 432.Thurmond, M. C., and S. K. Hietala. 1996. Culling associated with Neospora caninum infection in dairy cows. Am. J. Vet. Res. 57:1559-1562. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r433] 433.Thurmond, M. C., and S. K. Hietala. 1997. Effect of Neospora caninum infection on milk production in first-lactation dairy cows. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 210:672-674. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r434] 434.Thurmond, M. C., and S. K. Hietala. 1997. Effect of congenitally acquired Neospora caninum infection on risk of abortion and subsequent abortions in dairy cattle. Am. J. Vet. Res. 58:1381-1385. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r435] 435.Thurmond, M. C., M. L. Anderson, and P. C. Blanchard. 1995. Secular and seasonal trends of Neospora abortion in California dairy cows. J. Parasitol. 81:364-367. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r436] 436.Thurmond, M. C., S. K. Hietala, and P. C. Blanchard. 1997. Herd-based diagnosis of Neospora caninum-induced endemic and epidemic abortion in cows and evidence for congenital and postnatal transmission. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 9:44-49. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r437] 437.Tiemann, J. C. H., S. L. P. Souza, A. A. R. Rodrigues, J. M. B. Duarte, and S. M. Gennari. 2005. Environmental effect on the occurrence of anti-Neospora caninum antibodies in pampas-deer (Ozotoceros bezoarticus). Vet. Parasitol. 134:73-76. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r438] 438.Tiemann, J. C. H., A. A. R. Rodrigues, S. L. P. de Souza, J. M. B. Duart, and S. M. Gennari. 2005. Occurrence of anti-Neospora caninum antibodies in Brazilian cervids kept in captivity. Vet. Parasitol. 129:341-343. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r439] 439.Tiwari, A., J. A. VanLeeuwen, I. R. Dohoo, H. Stryhn, G. P. Keefe, and J. P. Haddad. 2005. Effects of seropositivity for bovine leukemia virus, bovine viral diarrhea virus, Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis, and Neospora caninum on culling in dairy cattle in four Canadian provinces. Vet. Microbiol. 109:147-158. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r440] 440.Tranas, J., R. A. Heinzen, L. M. Weiss, and M. M. McAllister. 1999. Serological evidence of human infection with the protozoan Neospora caninum. Clin. Diagn. Lab. Immunol. 6:765-767. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r441] 441.Trees, A. J., and D. J. L. Williams. 2000. Neosporosis in the United Kingdom. Int. J. Parasitol. 30:891-893. [Google Scholar]

[r442] 442.Trees, A. J., and D. J. L. Williams. 2005. Endogenous and exogenous transplacental infection in Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii. Trends Parasitol. 21:558-561. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r443] 443.Trees, A. J., M. M. McAllister, C. S. Guy, J. W. McGarry, R. F. Smith, and D. J. L. Williams. 2002. Neospora caninum: oocyst challenge of pregnant cows. Vet. Parasitol. 109:147-154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r444] 444.Trees, A. J., F. Guy, B. J. Tennant, A. H. Balfour, and J. P. Dubey. 1993. Prevalence of antibodies to Neospora caninum in a population of urban dogs in England. Vet. Rec. 132:125-126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r445] 445.Trees, A. J., H. C. Davison, E. A. Innes, and J. M. Wastling. 1999. Towards evaluating the economic impact of bovine neosporosis. Int. J. Parasitol. 29:1195-1200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r446] 446.Uggla, A., S. Stenlund, O. J. M. Holmdahl, E. B. Jakubek, P. Thebo, H. Kindahl, and C. Björkman. 1998. Oral Neospora caninum inoculation of neonatal calves. Int. J. Parasitol. 28:1467-1472. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r447] 447.Václavek, P., B. Koudela, D. Modrý, and K. Sedlák. 2003. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum in aborting dairy cattle in the Czech Republic. Vet. Parasitol. 115:239-245. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r448] 448.Václavek, P., K. Sedlák, L. Hůrková, P. Vodráka, R. Sebesta, and B. Koudela. 2007. Serological survey of Neospora caninum in dogs in the Czech Republic and a long-term study of dynamics of antibodies. Vet. Parasitol. 143:35-41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r449] 449.VanLeeuwen, J. A., G. P. Keefe, and A. Tiwari. 2002. Seroprevalence and productivity effects of infection with bovine leukemia virus, Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis, and Neospora caninum in maritime Canadian dairy cattle. Bovine Pract. 36:86-91. [Google Scholar]

[r450] 450.VanLeeuwen, J. A., L. Forsythe, A. Tiwari, and R. Chartier. 2005. Seroprevalence of antibodies against bovine leukemia virus, bovine viral diarrhea virus, Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis, and Neospora caninum in dairy cattle in Saskatchewan. Can. Vet. J. 46:56-58. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r451] 451.VanLeeuwen, J. A., A. Tiwari, J. C. Plaizier, and T. L. Whiting. 2006. Seroprevalences of antibodies against bovine leukemia virus, bovine viral diarrhea virus, Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis, and Neospora caninum in beef and dairy cattle in Manitoba. Can. Vet. J. 47:783-786. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r452] 452.Varandas, N. P., P. A. Rached, G. H. N. Costa, L. M. Souza, K. C. Castagnolli, and A. J. Costa. 2001. Freqüência de anticorpos anti-Neospora caninum e anti-Toxoplasma gondii em cães da região nordeste do Estado de São Paulo. Correlação com neuropatias. Semina 22:105-111. [Google Scholar]

[r453] 453.Varcasia, A., G. Capelli, A. Ruiu, M. Ladu, A. Scala, and C. Bjorkman. 2006. Prevalence of Neospora caninum infection in Sardinian dairy farms (Italy) detected by iscom ELISA on tank bulk milk. Parasitol. Res. 98:264-267. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r454] 454.Vardeleon, D., A. E. Marsh, J. G. Thorne, W. Loch, R. Young, and P. J. Johnson. 2001. Prevalence of Neospora hughesi and Sarcocystis neurona antibodies in horses from various geographical locations. Vet. Parasitol. 95:273-282. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r455] 455.Venturini, L., C. Di Lorenzo, C. Venturini, and J. Romero. 1995. Anticuerpos anti Neospora sp., en vacas que abortaron. Vet. Arg. 12:167-170. [Google Scholar]

[r456] 456.Venturini, M. C., L. Venturini, D. Bacigalupe, M. Machuca, I. Echaide, W. Basso, J. M. Unzaga, C. Di Lorenzo, A. Guglielmone, M. C. Jenkins, and J. P. Dubey. 1999. Neospora caninum infections in bovine foetuses and dairy cows with abortions in Argentina. Int. J. Parasitol. 29:1705-1708. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r457] 457.Vianna, M. C. B., C. Sreekumar, K. B. Miska, D. E. Hill, and J. P. Dubey. 2005. Isolation of Neospora caninum from naturally infected white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Vet. Parasitol. 129:253-257. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r458] 458.Villalobos, E. M. C., T. E. H. Ueno, S. L. P. de Souza, E. M. S. Cunha, M. C. C. S. H. Lara, S. M. Gennari, and R. M. Soares. 2006. Association between the presence of serum antibodies against Neospora spp. and fetal loss in equines. Vet. Parasitol. 142:372-375. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r459] 459.Vitaliano, S. N., D. A. O. Silva, T. W. P. Mineo, R. A. Ferreira, E. Bevilacqua, and J. R. Mineo. 2004. Seroprevalence of Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum in captive maned wolves (Chrysocyon brachyurus) from southeastern and midwestern regions of Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 122:253-260. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r459a] 459a.Vogel, F. S. F., S. Arenhart, and F. V. Bauermann. 2006. Anticorpos anti-Neospora caninum em bovinos, ovinos e ubalinos no Estado do Rio Grande do Sul. Cienc. Rural 36:1948-1951. [Google Scholar]

[r460] 460.von Blumröder, D., G. Schares, R. Norton, D. J. L. Williams, I. Esteban-Redondo, S. Wright, C. Björkman, J. Frössling, V. Risco-Castillo, A. Fernández-García, L. M. Ortega-Mora, H. Sager, A. Hemphill, C. van Maanen, W. Wouda, and F. J. Conraths. 2004. Comparison and standardisation of serological methods for the diagnosis of Neospora caninum infection in bovines. Vet. Parasitol. 120:11-22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r461] 461.von Blumröder, D., R. Stambusch, R. Labohm, W. Klawonn, K. Dräger, W. Fasen, F. J. Conraths, and G. Schares. 2006. Potential risk factors for the serological detection of Neospora caninum-infections in cattle in Rhineland-Palatinate (Germany). Tierärztl. Prax. G 34:141-147. [Google Scholar]

[r462] 462.Vural, G., E. Aksoy, M. Bozkir, U. Kuçukayan, and A. Erturk. 2006. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum in dairy cattle herds in Central Anatolia, Turkey. Vet. Arh. 76:343-349. [Google Scholar]

[r463] 463.Waldner, C. L. 2002. Pre-colostral antibodies to Neospora caninum in beef calves following an abortion outbreak and associated fall weaning weights. Bovine Pract. 36:81-85. [Google Scholar]

[r464] 464.Waldner, C. L. 2005. Serological status for Neospora caninum, bovine viral diarrhea virus, and infectious bovine rhinotracheitis virus at pregnancy testing and reproductive performance in beef herds. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 90:219-242. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r465] 465.Waldner, C. L., E. D. Janzen, and C. S. Ribble. 1998. Determination of the association between Neospora caninum infection and reproductive performance in beef herds. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 213:685-690. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r466] 466.Waldner, C. L., E. D. Janzen, J. Henderson, and D. M. Haines. 1999. Outbreak of abortion associated with Neospora caninum infection in a beef herd. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 215:1485-1490. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r467] 467.Waldner, C. L., J. Henderson, J. T. Y. Wu, K. Breker, and E. Y. W. Chow. 2001. Reproductive performance of a cow-calf herd following a Neospora caninum-associated abortion epidemic. Can. Vet. J. 42:355-360. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r468] 468.Waldner, C. L., J. Henderson, J. T. Y. Wu, R. Coupland, and E. Y. W. Chow. 2001. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum in beef cattle in northern Alberta. Can. Vet. J. 42:130-132. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r469] 469.Waldner, C. L., B. K. Wildman, B. W. Hill, R. K. Fenton, T. J. Pittman, O. C. Schunicht, G. K. Jim, P. T. Guichon, and C. W. Booker. 2004. Determination of the seroprevalence of Neospora caninum in feedlot steers in Alberta. Can. Vet. J. 45:218-224. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r470] 470.Wanha, K., R. Edelhofer, C. Gabler-Eduardo, and H. Prosl. 2005. Prevalence of antibodies against Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii in dogs and foxes in Austria. Vet. Parasitol. 128:189-193. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r471] 471.Wapenaar, W., M. C. Jenkins, R. M. O'Handley, and H. W. Barkema. 2006. Neospora caninum-like oocysts observed in feces of free ranging red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and coyotes (Canis latrans) based on microscopic examination, PCR and DNA-sequencing. J. Parasitol. 92:1270-1274. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r472] 472.Wapenaar, W., H. W. Barkema, G. Schares, K. Rouvinen-Watt, L. Zeijlemaker, B. Poorter, R. M. O'Handley, O. C. H., Kwok, and J. P. Dubey. 2007. Evaluation of four serological techniques to determine the seroprevalence of Neospora caninum in foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and coyotes (Canis latrans) in Prince Edward Island, Canada. Vet. Parasitol. 145:51-58. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r473] 473.Weber, A., K. Zetzmann, and T. Ewringmann. 2000. Vorkommen von Antikörpern gegen Neospora caninum bei Kühen in nordbayerischen Beständen mit Abortproblemen. Tierärztl. Umsch. 55:28-29. [Google Scholar]

[r474] 474.Weston, J. F., N. B. Williamson, and W. E. Pomroy. 2005. Associations between pregnancy outcome and serological response to Neospora caninum among a group of dairy heifers. N. Z. Vet. J. 53:142-148. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r475] 475.Wierzchon, M., M. Katkiewicz, and K. Marciniak. 2006. Neosporosis occurrence in cattle. Med. Weter. 62:1041-1044. [Google Scholar]

[r476] 476.Williams, D. J. L., C. S. Guy, J. W. McGarry, F. Guy, L. Tasker, R. F. Smith, K. MacEachern, P. J. Cripps, D. F. Kelly, and A. J. Trees. 2000. Neospora caninum-associated abortion in cattle: the time of experimentally-induced parasitaemia during gestation determines foetal survival. Parasitology 121:347-358. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r477] 477.Williams, D. J. L., and A. J. Trees. 2006. Protecting babies: vaccine srategies to prevent foetopathy in Neospora caninum-infected cattle. Parasite Immunol. 28:61-67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r478] 478.Williams, D. J. L., C. S. Guy, R. F. Smith, J. Ellis, C. Björkman, M. P. Reichel, and A. J. Trees. 2007. Immunization of cattle with live tachyzoites of Neospora caninum confers protection against fetal death. Infect. Immun. 75:1343-1348. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r479] 479.Williams, J. H., I. Espie, E. van Wilpe, and A. Matthee. 2002. Neosporosis in a white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum) calf. Tydskr. S. Afr. Vet. Ver. 73:38-43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r480] 480.Wolf, D., G. Schares, O. Cardenas, W. Huanca, A. Cordero, A. Bärwald, F. J. Conraths, M. Gauly, H. Zahner, and C. Bauer. 2005. Detection of specific antibodies to Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii in naturally infected alpacas (Lama pacos), llamas (Lama glama) and vicuñas (Lama vicugna) from Peru and Germany. Vet. Parasitol. 130:81-87. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r481] 481.Wolfe, A., S. Hogan, D. Maguire, C. Fitzpatrick, L. Vaughan, D. Wall, T. J. Hayden, and G. Mulcahy. 2001. Red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in Ireland as hosts for parasites of potential zoonotic and veterinary significance. Vet. Rec. 149:759-763. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r482] 482.Woods, L. W., M. L. Anderson, P. K. Swift, and K. W. Sverlow. 1994. Systemic neosporosis in a California black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus). J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 6:508-510. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r483] 483.Wouda, W., A. R. Moen, A. Damsma, I. J. R. Visser, and F. van Knapen. 1994. Lesions and parasites in aborted fetuses. Repeated transplacental transmission. Proc. Meet. Eur. Soc. Vet. Pathol. 12:29. [Google Scholar]

[r484] 484.Wouda, W. 1998. Neospora abortion in cattle: aspects of diagnosis and epidemiology. Thesis/dissertation. Universiteit van Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

[r485] 485.Wouda, W., A. R. Moen, I. J. R. Visser, and F. van Knapen. 1997. Bovine fetal neosporosis: a comparison of epizootic and sporadic abortion cases and different age classes with regard to lesion severity and immunohistochemical identification of organisms in brain, heart, and liver. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 9:180-185. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r486] 486.Wouda, W., A. R. Moen, and Y. H. Schukken. 1998. Abortion risk in progeny of cows after a Neospora caninum epidemic. Theriogenology 49:1311-1316. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Epidemiology and Control of Neosporosis and Neospora caninum

J P Dubey

G Schares

L M Ortega-Mora

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

LIFE CYCLE

FIG. 1.

FIG. 2.

HOST RANGE AND GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION

Hosts Proven by Isolation of Viable N. caninum by Bioassays with Animals, Cell Culture, or Both

TABLE 1.

Hosts with N. caninum-like Parasites Demonstrated by Immunohistochemical (IHC) Staining of Parasites by Specific Antibodies, by N. caninum DNA, or by Both but Not by Isolation of Viable Parasites

TABLE 2.

Serologic Prevalence of N. caninum Antibodies in Animals and Humans

TABLE 3.

TABLE 4.

TABLE 5.

TABLE 6.

TABLE 7.

TABLE 8.

Zoonotic Aspects of N. caninum

OOCYST SHEDDING BY DOGS AND OTHER DEFINITIVE HOSTS

TABLE 9.

Oocyst Shedding by Naturally Infected Dogs

Coyotes and Other Definitive Hosts of N. caninum

STRAIN VARIATION AND PATHOGENICITY

TRANSMISSION

Transmission in All Hosts

Transmission of N. caninum in Dogs

Transmission of N. caninum in Cattle

Transplacental (vertical) transmission.

TABLE 10.

Post-natal (horizontal) transmission.

RISK FACTORS FOR BOVINE NEOSPOROSIS

Epidemic and Endemic N. caninum-Associated Abortion

FIG. 3.

Risk Factor Studies

TABLE 11.

Infection Risk

Age of cattle.

Definitive hosts (dogs and coyotes).

Other carnivores.

Intermediate hosts other than cattle.

Grazing, fodder, and drinking water.

Feeding colostrum or milk.

Calving management.

Cattle stocking density and size of farmland.

Herd size.

Source of replacement heifers.

Climate.

Vegetation index.

Human population density.

Factors related to antibodies against other infectious agents.

Breed.

Type of housing.

Abortion Risk

Seropositivity of individual cattle.

Seroprevalence in the herd.

Factors related to infection risk.

(i) Age.

(ii) Farm dogs.

(iii) Wild canids.

(iv) Cats.

(v) Other potential intermediate hosts such as poultry and horses.

(vi) Fodder.

(vii) Climate and season.

(viii) Farm-raised replacement heifers.

(ix) Proximity to a town or village.

(x) Factors related to antibodies against other infectious agents.

(xi) Housing.

Factors associated with reproduction.

(i) Previous abortions.

(ii) Annual rate of cows returning to estrus postpregnancy.

(iii) Retained afterbirths.

(iv) Use of beef bull semen to inseminate dairy cattle.

(v) Use of calving pens to hospitalize sick animals.

Attendance at cattle shows.

PREVENTION AND CONTROL