Skip to main content
Veterinary and Animal Science logoLink to Veterinary and Animal Science
. 2018 Mar 21;6:69–74. doi: 10.1016/j.vas.2018.03.001

Seroprevalence and risk factors for Neospora caninum infection in cattle from the eastern Antioquia, Colombia

Horwald Alexander Bedoya Llano a,, Marcelo Sales Guimarães b, Rodrigo Martins Soares a, Gina Polo a, Andréa Caetano da Silva c
PMCID: PMC7386750  PMID: 32734055

Highlights

  • First risk factor-study on N. caninum infection in Antioquia department, Colombia.

  • Horizontal transmission is an important mode of infection in the studied region.

  • Abortion, age, origin and poor hygienic practices associated with manual milking are risk factors for N. caninum infection.

Keywords: Colombia, Dairy cattle, Epidemiology, Neosporosis, Serology, Risk factors

Abstract

Bovine neosporosis is a parasitic disease with worldwide distribution that causes important economic losses. Because of the limited information on the occurrence of Neospora caninum infection in Colombia, this study aimed to determine the seroprevalence and identify the risk factors associated with this infection in cattle in Antioquia, which is the largest milk-producing state in the country. We collected 1,038 blood samples from Holstein, Jersey and crossbred cows from 31 farms. An epidemiologic questionnaire was given to all the owners. A commercial ELISA kit was used as the diagnostic technique. The occurrence of anti-N. caninum antibodies was determined to be 28.3% (294/1038), and 100% of the screened farms were positive, indicating that all the properties had at least one positive animal. The seropositivity within each farm ranged from 5.5% to 50%. A multivariable logistic regression model identified the following as significant risk factors: history of abortion (OR = 5.33, p < 0.001), replacement with cattle purchased outside the farm (OR = 1.54, p < 0.05), age (OR = 1.7, p < 0.01) and poor hygienic practices associated with manual milking (OR = 1.69, p < 0.01). The latter two factors suggest that horizontal transmission is an important route of infection. This study is the first to report the seroprevalence of and risk factors for N. caninum infection in Antioquia and allows us to conclude that N. caninum is widely distributed in this region.

1. Introduction

Neospora caninum is a protozoan parasite that has been reported to cause abortions, stillbirths, neonatal deaths, early foetal losses and embryo reabsorption in infected cattle (Dubey and Schares, 2011, Dubey et al., 2007). Abortions caused by N. caninum may be sporadic, endemic or epidemic and often occur during the second trimester of pregnancy, resulting in economic losses for the beef and dairy industries. In South America, the annual losses for the dairy industry were estimated to be $43.6 million USD (range, $15.62-194.41 million USD) in Argentina and $51.3 million (range, $35.8–111.3 million USD) in Brazil (Moore et al., 2013, Reichel et al., 2013).

The rate of vertical transmission of N. caninum can reach 93.7%, and this is the most important infection route in bovines (Schares, Peters, Wurm, Bärwald, & Conraths, 1998); however, definitive hosts such as domestic dogs, coyotes, dingoes and grey wolves (Dubey et al., 2011, Gondim et al., 2004, King et al., 2010, McAllister et al., 1998) play important roles in horizontal transmission and in maintaining infection in dairy herds.

The dairy industry is one of the main economic activities in Colombia. It has been calculated that there are 23 million bovines, of which 2.5 million are milking cows (ICA, 2013). Antioquia is the state with the highest dairy production in the country with 3.5 million liters of milk produced each day, and the microregion located in eastern Antioquia is responsible for the production of 1 million liters/day (MADR, 2012).

Although information regarding the seroprevalence of N. caninum, which is 17.1%–28.6% in Argentina (Moore et al., 2009, Moore et al., 2013), 7.6%–91.2% in Brazil (Guedes et al., 2008, Sousa et al., 2012), 22.4% in Chile (Patitucci, Pérez, Israel, & Rozas, 2000), 12.8% in Peru (Puray, Nidia, & Amanda, 2006), 28.8–61.3% in Uruguay (Furtado et al., 2011, Kashiwazaki et al., 2004) and 17.1–44% in Venezuela (Escalona et al., 2010, Obando et al., 2010), in South America is abundant, few studies have been conducted in Colombia. Zambrano, Cotrino, Jiménez, Romero, and Guerrero (2001) first reported the occurrence of N. caninum in the country. They studied samples from 74 farms with reproductive problems and abortions and found that 54.1% of the animals were positive. Other studies have found seroprevalence ranging from 10.2% to 76.9% (Oviedo et al., 2007, Peña et al., 2012). However, only one study characterizing one single farm was conducted in the region of Antioquia and demonstrated 34.6% seropositive animals out of 347 cattle that were evaluated (López et al., 2007).

Considering the importance of milk production in eastern Antioquia and the lack of epidemiological studies on bovine neosporosis, the aim of this study was to evaluate the seroprevalence of N. caninum and to identify the risk factors associated with this infection in this region.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Location

This study was carried out in Eastern Antioquia (longitude 75°18ˈ−75°25ˈW and latitude 5°42ˈ−6°4ˈN), a microregion located in western Colombia, with an altitude ranging from 2.100 to 2.500 metres above sea level, an annual average temperature ranging from 13°C to 18°C and a relative humidity between 60% and 80%. Subsistence farming and milk production characterize this region (MADR, 2012) (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Fig 1

Location of the municipalities where the farms and animals were sampled in Colombia.

2.2. Sampling and serological testing

The minimum sample size was determined based on a prevalence of 30% (López et al., 2007), 95% confidence intervals and 5% absolute precision. This provided a minimum sample size of 861 animals to estimate the true prevalence with an imperfect test (Sergeant, 2017); however, the sample size was 1038. Thirty-one farms were sampled, and at least 20 animals were sampled from each farm. Occasionally, this number corresponded to the total number of animals on the farm.

Between August and November 2012, blood samples were collected from the coccygeal vein using vacutainer tubes, and after coagulation, the samples were centrifuged at 2700 g for 10 min, and the sera were stored at −20°C until they were used.

All the analyses were carried out at the Veterinary Parasitology Center at the School of the Federal University of Goiás (UFG), Brazil. A commercial indirect ELISA Kit (CIVTEST® Hipra Laboratories S.A.; Gerona, Spain) was used to detect N. caninum antibodies, in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Sera with IRPC (relative index × 100) values above a cut-off level of 10 were considered positive. The sensitivity and specificity of the ELISA test were determined to be 96.1% and 100%, respectively (Alvarez-Garcia et al., 2013).

2.3. Questionnaire survey

A questionnaire was completed during personal interviews with the owners or managers of each herd. The variables included as potential risk factors at the farm level were as follows: herd density, contact with a forest area, water source, breeding service, origin of replacement heifers and milking type. Other variables including parity, lactation, milk production, gestation, age of gestation, age of the animal, and breed were evaluated. Data on reproductive failures (abortion, repeated oestrus and retained foetal membranes) in the previous 24 months, as well the presence of swine, equines and poultry on the farm were also recorded.

2.4. Data analyses

The estimated seropositivity was the ratio between the number of positive tests and the total number of tests performed, with a confidence interval of 95%. A univariate analysis was performed using chi-square test (). The multivariate analysis was based on the logistic regressions in a model including the variables with p ≤ 0.25 identified in the association test. The goodness-of-fit of the model was tested by computing the Hosmer–Lemeshow statistic (HLX²) (Hosmer, Lemeshow, & Sturdivant, 2000). All the analyses were performed in the R language and environment for statistical computing (R Development Core Team, 2016).

3. Results

Of the 31 analyzed farms, all had at least one positive animal. Antibodies against N. caninum were detect in 294 of the 1038 animals tested (28.3%, 95%CI: 25.5–31.1). When the different municipalities were considered, very similar seroprevalence levels were observed. The lowest seroprevalence (25%) was observed in La Ceja, and the highest (32.6%) was observed in Abejorral; these differences were not statistically significant (p ≥ 0.05; Table 1).

Table 1.

Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum infection in cattle of the municipalities of the eastern Antioquia, Colombia.

Municipalities N° herds N° animals
Seroprevalence (%) (95% CI)
sampled positives
Abejorral 5 153 50 32.6 (25.32–40.72)
El Carmen 4 113 32 28.3 (20.24–37.56)
La Ceja 3 136 34 25.0 (17.97–33.14)
La Unión 18 608 170 27.9 (24.42–31.71)
Sonsón 1 28 8 28.5 (13.22–48.66)
TOTAL 31 1038 294 28.3 (25.59–31.17)

The results of the univariate analysis are summarized in Table 2. With respect to the origin of the cattle, out of the 811 homebred animals, 209 were seropositive (25.7%), and out of the 227 animals that were purchased and introduced into the herds, 85 were seropositive (37.4%; p < 0.05).

Table 2.

Univariate analyses model for the presence of antibodies against Neospora caninum in cows from the eastern Antioquia, Colombia.

Independent variable N° animals
Seroprevalence (%) (95% CI) Odds ratio (95% CI) p-value1
Sampled Positives
Farm characteristics
Density 0.636
<0.5 animal/ha 583 166 28.4 (24.8–32.3) 1
0.5–08 animal/ha 341 92 28.9 (22.3–32.0) 0.92(0.68–1.25) 0.625
>0.9 animal/ha 114 36 31.5 (23.0–40.9) 1.15(0.75–1.78) 0.503
Jungle contact 0.483
No 397 107 26.9 (22.6–31.6) 1
Yes 641 187 29.1 (25.6–32.8) 1.11(0.84–1.47) 0.440
Water source 0.907
Open 619 174 28.1 (24.5–31.8) 1
Public 419 120 28.6 (24.3–33.2) 1.02(0.77–1.35) 0.852
Breeding service 0.411
Bull 136 34 25.0 (17.9–31.1) 1
AI 902 260 28.8 (25.8–31.9) 1.21(0.80–1.83) 0.356
Origin2 <0.001
Homebred 811 209 25.7 (22.7–28.9) 1
Purchased 227 85 37.4 (31.1–44) 1.72(1.26–2.35) <0.001
Milking2 0.001
Mechanic 258 53 20.5 (15.7–25.9) 1
Manual 780 241 30.8 (27.6–34.2) 1.73(1.23–2.42) 0.001
Cattle characteristics
Parity 0.519
Primiparus 150 40 26.6 (19.7–34.4) 1
Pluriparus 605 180 29.7 (26.1–33.5) 1.16(0.77–1.74) 0.456
Lactating 0.555
Lactating 483 202 41.8 (37.3–46.3) 1
Dry 76 37 48.6 (37.0–60.4) 0.85(0.56–1.31) 0.484
Milk production 0.645
<10L 95 45 47.3 (37–57.8) 1
11–15 L 254 99 38.9 (32.9–45.2) 0.82(0.53–1.25) 0.367
>16 L 134 58 43.2 (34.7–52.1) 0.91(0.57–1.46) 0.706
Gestation 0.541
No 547 150 27.4 (23.7–31.3) 1
Yes 491 144 29.3 (25.3–33.5) 0.91(0.69–1.19) 0.496
Stage of gestation2 0.135
1–3 m 208 67 32.2 (25.9–39) 1
3–6 m 159 37 23.2 (16.9–30.6) 0.63(0.39–1.02) 0.060
>6 m 123 39 31.7(23.6–40.7) 0.97(0.60–1.57) 0.924
Age2 0.011
<17 m 166 33 19.8 (14–26.7) 1
18–36 m 217 57 26.2 (20.5–32.6) 1.43(0.88–2.33) 0.143
>36 m 655 204 31.1 (27.6–34.8) 1.57 (1.01–2.44) 0.004
Breed2 0.084
Holstein 889 259 29.1 (26.1–32.2) 1
Jersey 114 31 27.1 (19.2–36.3) 0.90(0.58–1.40) 0.666
Crossbred 34 4 11.7 (3.3–27.4) 0.32(0.11–0.92) 0.027
Reproductive disorders
Abortion2 <0.001
No 987 259 26.2 (23.5–29.1) 1
Yes 51 35 68.6 (54.1–80.8) 6.14(3.34–11.29) <0.001
Repetition of estrus2 0.001
No 145 25 17.2 (11.4–24.3) 1
Yes 893 269 30.1 (27.1–33.2) 2.06(1.31–3.25) 0.001
Placental retention 0.842
No 650 186 28.6 (25.1–32.2) 1
Yes 388 108 27.8 (23.4–32.5) 0.96(0.72–1.04) 0.787
Contacts
Presence of swine 0.750
No 782 219 28.0 (24.8–31.2) 1
Yes 256 75 29.2 (23.7–35.2) 1.06(0.78–1.45) 0.690
Presence of equine 0.828
No 154 42 27.2 (20.4–35) 1
Yes 884 252 28.5 (25.5–31.6) 1.06(0.72–1.56) 0.753
Presence of poultry2 0.154
No 641 171 26.6 (23.2–30.2) 1
Yes 397 123 30.9 (26.4–35.7) 1.23(0.03–1.62) 0.134
1

Chi-square test.

2

p value <0.25.

Regarding the milking type, the lowest prevalence was found in cows subjected to mechanical milking (20.5%) when compared with those subjected to manual milking (30.8%; p < 005).

By age, the lowest prevalence was found in animals younger than 17 months old (19.8%), and the highest prevalence was found in females older than 3 years old (31.1%; p < 0.05).

No significant association between the different breeds was observed (p > 0.05). Nevertheless, the prevalence (11.7%; p < 0.05) was significantly lower in crossbred animals (Holstein x Gyr) than in Holstein (29.1%) and Jersey (27.1%) cows.

There was a strong association between females with a history of abortions in last two years and the prevalence of N. caninum. The prevalence in this group was higher (68.6%) than in cows with no history of abortions (26.2%; p < 0.001). The number of females with a history of repeated oestrus was 893, of which 269 were seropositive for N. caninum (30.1%; p = 0.001); however, of the 145 females with no record of repeated oestrus, 25 were seropositive (17.2%).

No significant differences were found between the seroprevalence of N. caninum and independent variables, such as herd density, contact with a forest area, water source, breeding service, number of parities, lactation status, milk production, gestation and stage of gestation, retention of foetal membranes and contact with swine, equines and poultry (p > 0.05).

When a multiple regression analysis was performed, it revealed risk factors including the prevalence and history of abortions (OR = 5.33, p < 0.001), age (OR = 1.7, p = 0.038), replacement with cattle purchased outside the farm (OR = 1.54 p = 0.008) and poor hygienic practices associated with manual milking (OR = 1.69, p = 0.0029). The Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test (p = 0.62) indicated that the model fit was adequate (Table 3).

Table 3.

Final multivariable logistic regression model for the presence of antibodies anti-Neospora caninum in cows from the eastern Antioquia, Colombia.

Dependent variables Odds ratio (OR) 95%CI OR p-value
Abortion
No 1
Yes 5.33 2.87–9.9 <0.001
Origin
Homebreed 1
Purchased 1.54 1.11–2.13 0.008
Age
<17 m 1
18–36 m 1.42 0.86–2.34
>36 1.70 1.11–2.60 0.038
Milking
Mechanic 1
Manual 1.69 1.19–2.43 0.0029

HLX² = 6.27; gl = 8; p = 0.6164.

4. Discussion

The prevalence of positive animals with N. caninum found in this study was 28.3%. Worldwide prevalence has been estimated to be between 7.6% and 76.9% in America (Cedeño et al., 2013, Sousa et al., 2012), 10.7% and 19.6% in Africa (Ghalmi et al., 2012, Ibrahim et al., 2012), 5.7% and 43% in Asia (Koiwai et al., 2006, Nazir et al., 2013), 0.5% and 27.9% in Europe (Bartels et al., 2006, Imre et al., 2012), and 10.2% in Oceania (Hall, Reichel, & Ellis, 2005), which are comparable to the findings of the present study. Although the prevalence observed in this study was not high when compared with many others, N. caninum-positive animals were observed in all the evaluated farms. Similar observations in Brazil (Melo, da Silva, Ortega-Mora, Bastos, & Boaventura, 2006), Pakistan (Nazir et al., 2013) and Senegal (Kamga-Waladjo et al., 2010) have been reported.

The high individual seroprevalence and the fact that all the dairy herds had at least one positive animal, indicate that N. caninum infection is widely disseminated among dairy cattle in eastern Antioquia. The presence of dogs that have access the foetuses and placentas on all of the properties may explain this. It is well known that dogs become infected after eating tissues contaminated with cysts; as a result, the shedding of faecal oocysts in the environment pose bovines to the risk of infection by a horizontal route (Dijkstra, Barkema, Eysker, Hesselink, & Wouda, 2002). In Canada, Vanleeuwen et al. (2010) confirmed that the risk of infection increases on properties that have dogs that have access to the placentas and foetuses (OR = 2.75) compared with properties that do not allow dogs to be in contact with these materials (OR = 1.66). Preventive measures are recommended in this region in order to limit dogs from eating infected bovine tissues. Other factors related to the presence of dogs on the property, such as the behavior of the dogs and the number of dogs per property, were not investigated because this information could not be obtained with precision, often due to the owner's lack of knowledge. The proximity between the farms also prevented accurate data on the presence of dogs, since in many cases, the dogs on one property visited the neighboring properties.

Studies have confirmed that the proportion of animals seropositive for N. caninum tends to increase with increased exposure to the sources of infection (Asmare et al., 2013, Eiras et al., 2011). Moore et al. (2014) confirmed that, for each year of increase in the age of bovines and buffaloes, the probability of seropositivity increased 3.5%. Our results are consistent with the aforementioned studies and confirmed that animals older than three years of age were 70% more likely than the younger animals to have had contact with sporulated oocysts of N. caninum. This proportion was in agreement with that obtained by Romero, Perez, Dolz, and Frankena (2002), who found that the postnatal infection probability increased 70% in animals older than three years of age. In contrast, other studies in different countries, such as Brazil (Corbellini et al., 2006, Teixeira et al., 2010), Croatia (Beck, Marinculić, Mihaljević, Benić, & Martinković, 2010), Jordan (Talafha and Al-Majali, 2013), Pakistan (Nazir et al., 2013), Romania (Imre et al., 2012), Senegal (Kamga-Waladjo et al., 2010) and Venezuela (Escalona et al., 2010), found no association between age and infection by N. caninum, which suggests that for these herds, transplacental transmission is probably more important. Although it is generally accepted that vertical transmission is the largest route of transmission in bovines (de Magalhaes et al., 2014, Hein et al., 2012), our results indicate that horizontal transmission also plays an important role in the epidemiology of N. caninum in cattle in eastern Antioquia.

When compared with properties where replacements are made with animals from the same farm, farms that have purchased replacement heifers have a higher prevalence of N. caninum (37.4%) and are at 54% greater risk of acquiring the infection. Beck et al. (2010) in Croatia, and Asmare et al. (2013) in Ethiopia, observed that purchasing animals for replacement raised the probability of acquiring infection by 5.2 and 2.3, respectively. This emphasizes the importance of taking biosecurity measures to prevent the introduction of infected animals into the herds. Purchasing animals or replacement animals of unknown origin and serological status is a common practice in the region studied here.

In relation to breed, the univariate analysis verified that crossbred animals were three times less susceptible than purebred dairy cattle to acquiring infection (OR = 0.32). Similar data were reported in Argentina (Moore et al., 2009), Venezuela (Escalona et al., 2010) and Ethiopia (Asmare et al., 2013). This fact may suggest that crossing European pure breeds with zebu may offers a protective effect for the dairy herds. This idea was reinforced by Yániz et al. (2010) in Spain, where the proportion of abortion associated with neosporosis was 4.8 and 3 times lower in Holstein cows inseminated with semen from Limousin and Belgian Blue beef bovine breeds, respectively, than those in females inseminated with semen from Holstein bulls. However, Munhoz, Pereira, Flausino, and Lopes (2009), in Brazil, found no differences between Holstein cattle versus crossbred Holstein/zebu animals. Due to the divergent findings among these different studies, these data should be interpreted with caution since the contrasting findings may be related to differences in the production systems for each breed and not to the susceptibility of the breed to the disease (Dubey et al., 2007). European pure breeds are subject to an intensive production system under high stress levels, which may favour the infection risk, while beef animals are generally kept in larger areas and with less chances of being in contact with the parasite (Moore et al., 2009).

It is well known that animals that are seropositive for N. caninum are more prone to abortions than seronegative animals (Dubey et al., 2007). We verified that the proportion of seropositive cows that had an abortion history (11.9%) was meaningfully higher than cows with the same clinical signs that were seronegative (2.15%), with an odds ratio of 5.3. This provides indirect evidence that N. caninum may be involved in abortions in cows in the studied region.

A high percentage of cows with repeated oestrus was associated with the presence of anti-N. caninum antibodies (30.1%; p < 0.001). This finding is in agreement with a study conducted in south-eastern Brazil where animals with recurrent oestrus and temporary anoestrus were 3.8 and 3.4 times more likely to be seropositive, respectively, than animals without the same clinical signs (Bruhn et al., 2013). Several authors have associated early embryonic death with N. caninum infection mainly due to the lack of immunological capacity of the foetus and to the lesions caused by the parasite in to the placental tissues, which justified the return to oestrus (Buxton et al., 2002, Macaldowie et al., 2004). This idea is consistent with studies conducted in Australia and Senegal, where animals that were seropositive for N. caninum needed more inseminations to achieve conception, which is an occurrence that is linked to embryonic loss during the initial phases of gestation (Hall et al., 2005, Kamga-Waladjo et al., 2010).

The presence of other domestic animals was not considered a risk factor in this study. These data are consistent with studies conducted in Brazil and Colombia (Aguiar et al., 2011, Cedeño et al., 2013).

The role of wildlife in the epidemiology N. caninum infection in the studied region remains to be elucidated.

5. Conclusions

The seroprevalence of anti-Neospora caninum antibodies and their distribution in all the farms allows us to conclude that the parasite is widespread in the eastern Antioquia region. The univariate analysis indicated that Holstein and Jersey breeds were more susceptible to acquiring infections than crossbred breeds. With regard to the risk factors, a close association between abortion and seropositivity was verified, and seropositive animals were 5 times more likely to have an abortion than seronegative animals. With regard to age, animals older than three years of age were 7 times more likely than younger animals to come into contact with the parasite. Similarly, a high seroprevalence was observed in properties that performed manual milking, which was related to the poor hygienic conditions. This suggests that horizontal transmission is an important source of infection in this region of Colombia. Finally, the introduction of new animals bought from other farms into these dairy farms led to a 54% greater chance of acquiring the disease.

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development CNPq- Brazil 190 346/2012-4 for the financial support and the milk producer's cooperative UNILAC—Colombia for allowing the collection of the serological samples and data.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Aguiar D.M., Lacerda D.P., Orlandelli R.C., Medina A.O., Azevedo S.S., Okuda L.H., Castro V., Genovez M.E., Pituco E.M. Seroprevalence and risk factors associated to Neospora caninum in female bovines from the western São Paulo state, Brazil. Arquivos do Instituto Biológico de Sao Paulo. 2011;78:183–189. [Google Scholar]
  2. Alvarez-Garcia G., Garcia-Culebras A., Gutierrez-Exposito D., Navarro-Lozano V., Pastor-Fernandez I., Ortega-Mora L.M. Serological diagnosis of bovine neosporosis: A comparative study of commercially available ELISA tests. Veterinary Parasitology. 2013;198:85–95. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2013.07.033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Asmare K., Regassa F., Robertson L.J., Skjerve E. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum and associated risk factors in intensive or semi-intensively managed dairy and breeding cattle of Ethiopia. Veterinary Parasitology. 2013;193:85–94. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2012.11.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bartels C.J., Arnaiz-Seco J.I., Ruiz-Santa-Quitera A., Bjorkman C., Frossling J., von Blumroder D., Conraths F.J., Schares G., van Maanen C., Wouda W., Ortega-Mora L.M. Supranational comparison of Neospora caninum seroprevalences in cattle in Germany, The Netherlands, Spain and Sweden. Veterinary Parasitology. 2006;137:17–27. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2005.12.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Beck R., Marinculić A., Mihaljević Ž., Benić M., Martinković F. Seroprevalence and potential risk factors of Neospora caninum infection in dairy cattle in Croatia. Veterinarski Arhiv. 2010;80:163–171. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bruhn F.R., Daher D.O., Lopes E., Barbieri J.M., da Rocha C.M., Guimaraes A.M. Factors associated with seroprevalence of Neospora caninum in dairy cattle in southeastern Brazil. Tropical Animal Health Production. 2013;45:1093–1098. doi: 10.1007/s11250-012-0330-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Buxton D., McAllister M.M., Dubey J.P. The comparative pathogenesis of neosporosis. Trends in Parasitology. 2002;18:546–552. doi: 10.1016/s1471-4922(02)02414-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cedeño Q.D., Benavides B.B., Pasto D. Seroprevalence and risk factors associated to Neospora caninum in dairy cattle herds in the municipality of Pasto, Colombia. Revista Científica de la Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia de la Universidad de Córdoba. 2013;18:3311–3316. [Google Scholar]
  9. Corbellini L.G., Smith D.R., Pescador C.A., Schmitz M., Correa A., Steffen D.J., Driemeier D. Herd-level risk factors for Neospora caninum seroprevalence in dairy farms in southern Brazil. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 2006;74:130–141. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2005.11.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. de Magalhães V.C., de Oliveira U.V., Costa S.C., Santos Idos A., Pereira M.J., Munhoz A.D. Transmission paths of Neospora caninum in a dairy herd of crossbred cattle in the northeast of Brazil. Veterinary Parasitology. 2014;202:257–264. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2014.01.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Dijkstra T., Barkema H.W., Eysker M., Hesselink J.W., Wouda W. Natural transmission routes of Neospora caninum between farm dogs and cattle. Veterinary Parasitology. 2002;105:99–104. doi: 10.1016/s0304-4017(02)00010-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Dubey J.P., Schares G. Neosporosis in animals–the last five years. Veterinary Parasitology. 2011;180:90–108. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2011.05.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Dubey J.P., Jenkins M.C., Rajendran C., Miska K., Ferreira L.R., Martins J., Kwok O.C., Choudhary S. Gray wolf (Canis lupus) is a natural definitive host for Neospora caninum. Veterinary Parasitology. 2011;181:382–387. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2011.05.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Dubey J.P., Schares G., Ortega-Mora L.M. Epidemiology and control of neosporosis and Neospora caninum. Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 2007;20:323–367. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00031-06. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Eiras C., Arnaiz I., Alvarez-Garcia G., Ortega-Mora L.M., Sanjuanl M.L., Yus E., Dieguez F.J. Neospora caninum seroprevalence in dairy and beef cattle from the northwest region of Spain, Galicia. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 2011;98:128–132. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2010.10.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Escalona J., García F., Mosquera O., Vargas F., Corro A. Risk factors associated with the prevalence of bovine neosporosis in the Bolivar municipality of yaracuy state, venezuela. Zootecnia Tropical. 2010;28:201–211. [Google Scholar]
  17. Furtado A., Rosadilla D., Cattáneo M., Bermúdez J., Puentes R. Occurrence of anti-Neospora caninum antibodies in small dairy farms in Uruguay. Ciência Rural. 2011;41:673–675. [Google Scholar]
  18. Ghalmi F., China B., Ghalmi A., Hammitouche D., Losson B. Study of the risk factors associated with Neospora caninum seroprevalence in Algerian cattle populations. Research Veterinary Science. 2012;93:655–661. doi: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2011.12.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Gondim L.F., McAllister M.M., Pitt W.C., Zemlicka D.E. Coyotes (Canis latrans) are definitive hosts of Neospora caninum. International Journal Parasitology. 2004;34:159–161. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2004.01.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Guedes M.H.P., Guimarães A.M., Rocha C.M.B.M., Hirsch C. Frequência de anticorpos anti-Neospora caninum em vacas e fetos provenientes de municípios do sul de Minas Gerais. Revista Brasileira de Parasitologia Veterinária. 2008;17:189–194. doi: 10.1590/s1984-29612008000400004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Hall C.A., Reichel M.P., Ellis J.T. Neospora abortions in dairy cattle: Diagnosis, mode of transmission and control. Veterinary Parasitology. 2005;128:231–241. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2004.12.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hein H.E., Machado G., Miranda I.C.S.S., Costa E.F., Pellegrini D.C.P.P., Driemeier D., Corbellini L.G. Neosporose bovina: Avaliação da transmissão vertical e fração atribuível de aborto em uma população de bovinos no Estado do Rio Grande do Sul. Pesquisa Veterinária Brasileira. 2012;32:396–400. [Google Scholar]
  23. Hosmer D.W., Lemeshow S., Sturdivant R.X. Wiley Online Library; New York: 2000. Introduction to the logistic regression model; p. 375. Willey J& S, (Ed.) [Google Scholar]
  24. Ibrahim A.M., Elfahal A.M., El Hussein A.R. First report of Neospora caninum infection in cattle in Sudan. Tropical Animal Health Production. 2012;44:769–772. doi: 10.1007/s11250-011-9963-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. ICA . 2013. Consolidado nacional por especies 2013 (Internet). Bogota. Available from http://www.ica.gov.co/getdoc/8232c0e5-be97-42bd-b07b-9cdbfb07fcac/Censos-2008.aspx. [Google Scholar]
  26. Imre K., Morariu S., Ilie M.S., Imre M., Ferrari N., Genchi C., Darabus G. Serological survey of Neospora caninum infection in cattle herds from Western Romania. Journal Parasitology. 2012;98:683–685. doi: 10.1645/GE-3023.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Kamga-Waladjo A.R., Gbati O.B., Kone P., Lapo R.A., Chatagnon G., Bakou S.N., Pangui L.J., Diop Pel H., Akakpo J.A., Tainturier D. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum antibodies and its consequences for reproductive parameters in dairy cows from Dakar-Senegal, West Africa. Tropical Animal Health Production. 2010;42:953–959. doi: 10.1007/s11250-009-9513-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Kashiwazaki Y., Gianneechini R.E., Lust M., Gil J. Seroepidemiology of neosporosis in dairy cattle in Uruguay. Veterinary Parasitology. 2004;120:139–144. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2004.01.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. King J.S., Slapeta J., Jenkins D.J., Al-Qassab S.E., Ellis J.T., Windsor P.A. Australian dingoes are definitive hosts of Neospora caninum. International Journal Parasitology. 2010;40:945–950. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2010.01.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Koiwai M., Hamaoka T., Haritani M., Shimizu S., Zeniya Y., Eto M., Yokoyama R., Tsutsui T., Kimura K., Yamane I. Nationwide seroprevalence of Neospora caninum among dairy cattle in Japan. Veterinary Parasitology. 2006;135:175–179. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2005.08.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. López G., Restrepo B.N., Restrepo M., Lotero M.A., Murillo V.E., Chica A., Cano J., Giraldo J.M. Estudio para evidenciar la presencia de Neospora caninum en bovinos de la hacienda San Pedro en elmunicipio de Fredonia. Revista CES Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia. 2007;2:7–19. [Google Scholar]
  32. Macaldowie C., Maley S.W., Wright S., Bartley P., Esteban-Redondo I., Buxton D., Innes E.A. Placental pathology associated with fetal death in cattle inoculated with Neospora caninum by two different routes in early pregnancy. Journal Comparative Pathology. 2004;131:142–156. doi: 10.1016/j.jcpa.2004.02.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. MADR. Ministerio agropecuário de desarrollo rural. Gobernación de Antioquia; 2012 p. 14.
  34. McAllister M.M., Dubey J.P., Lindsay D.S., Jolley W.R., Wills R.A., McGuire A.M. Dogs are definitive hosts of Neospora caninum. International Journal Parasitology. 1998;28:1473–1478. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Melo D.P., da Silva A.C., Ortega-Mora L.M., Bastos S.A., Boaventura C.M. Prevalência de anticorpos anti-Neospora caninum em bovinos das microrregiões de Goiânia e Anápolis, Goiás, Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Parasitologia Veterinária. 2006;15:105–109. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Moore D., Reichel M., Spath E., Campero C. Neospora caninum causes severe economic losses in cattle in the humid pampa region of Argentina. Tropical Animal Health Production. 2013;45:1237–1241. doi: 10.1007/s11250-013-0353-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Moore D.P., Konrad J.L., San Martino S., Reichel M.P., Cano D.B., Mendez S., Spath E.J., Odeon A.C., Crudeli G., Campero C.M. Neospora caninum serostatus is affected by age and species variables in cohabiting water buffaloes and beef cattle. Veterinary Parasitology. 2014;203:259–263. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2014.04.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Moore D.P., Perez A., Agliano S., Brace M., Canton G., Cano D., Leunda M.R., Odeon A.C., Odriozola E., Campero C.M. Risk factors associated with Neospora caninum infections in cattle in Argentina. Veterinary Parasitology. 2009;161:122–125. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2009.01.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Munhoz A.D., Pereira M.J.S., Flausino W., Lopes C.W.G. Neospora caninum seropositivity in cattle breeds in the South Fluminense Paraíba Valley, state of Rio de Janeiro. Pesquisa Veterinária Brasileira. 2009;29:29–32. [Google Scholar]
  40. Nazir M.M., Maqbool A., Khan M.S., Sajjid A., Lindsay D.S. Effects of age and breed on the prevalence of Neospora caninum in commercial dairy cattle from Pakistan. Journal of Parasitology. 2013;99:368–370. doi: 10.1645/GE-3173.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Obando C., Bracamonte M., Montoya A., Cadenas V. Neospora caninum en un rebaño lechero y su asociación con el aborto. Revista Científica. 2010;20:235–239. [Google Scholar]
  42. Oviedo S.T., Betancur H.C., Mestra P.A., González T.M., Reza G.L., Calonge G.K. Estudio serologico sobre neosporosis en bovinos con problemas reproductivos en Monteria, Córdoba. Revista Científica de la Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia de la Universidad de Córdoba. 2007;12:929. [Google Scholar]
  43. Patitucci A.N., Pérez M.J., Israel K.F., Rozas M.A. Prevalence of Neospora caninum in two dairy herds of the IX region of Chile. Archivos de Medicina Veterinaria. 2000;32:209–214. [Google Scholar]
  44. Peña L.F., Araujo A.V., Rubio D.E., Mojica C.P., Falquez J.J., Avendaño K.E. Estudio serológico de DVB, IBR y Neospora en bovinos de la microrregión del Valle del Cesar. Revista Colombiana de Microbiologia Tropical. 2012;2:35–40. [Google Scholar]
  45. Puray C.H., Nidia C.V., Amanda C.A. Prevalencia de Neospora caninum en bovinos de una empresa ganadera de la sierra central del Perú. Revista de Investigaciones Veterinarias del Perú. 2006;17:189–194. [Google Scholar]
  46. R Development Core Team . R Foundation for Statistical Computing; Vienna, Austria: 2016. R: A language and environment for statistical computing.http://www.R-project.org ISBN 3-900051-07-0URL. [Google Scholar]
  47. Reichel M.P., Alejandra Ayanegui-Alcérreca M., Gondim L.F., Ellis J.T. What is the global economic impact of Neospora caninum in cattle - the billion-dollar question. International Journal Parasitology. 2013;43:133–142. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2012.10.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Romero J.J., Perez E., Dolz G., Frankena K. Factors associated with Neospora caninum serostatus in cattle of 20 specialised Costa Rican dairy herds. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 2002;53:263–273. doi: 10.1016/s0167-5877(01)00290-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Schares G., Peters M., Wurm R., Bärwald A., Conraths F.J. The efficiency of vertical transmission of Neospora caninum in dairy cattle analysed by serological techniques. Veterinary Parasitology. 1998;80:87–98. doi: 10.1016/s0304-4017(98)00195-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Sergeant E.S. Epitools epidemiological calculators. Aust Vet Animal Health Services and Australian Biosecurity Cooperative Research Centre for Emerging Infectious Disease. 2017 Available at: http://epitools.ausvet.com.au, Accessed 13 May 2015. [Google Scholar]
  51. Sousa M.E., Wagner J.N., Albuquerque P.P.F., Souza Neto O.L., Faria E.B., Pinheiro, Júnior J.W., Mota R.A. Seroprevalence and risk factors associated with infection by Neospora caninum of dairy cattle in the state of Alagoas, Brazil. Pesquisa Veterinária Brasileira. 2012;32:1009–1013. [Google Scholar]
  52. Talafha A.Q., Al-Majali A.M. Prevalence and risk factors associated with Neospora caninum infection in dairy herds in Jordan. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 2013;45:479–485. doi: 10.1007/s11250-012-0244-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Teixeira W.C., Uzêda R.S., Gondim L.F.P., Silva M.I.S., Pereira H.M., Alves L.C., Faustino M.A.G. Prevalência de anticorpos anti-Neospora caninum (Apicomplexa: Sarcocystidae) em bovinos leiteiros de propriedades rurais em três microrregiões no estado do Maranhão. Pesquisa Veterinária Brasileira. 2010;30:729–734. [Google Scholar]
  54. Vanleeuwen J.A., Haddad J.P., Dohoo I.R., Keefe G.P., Tiwari A., Scott H.M. Risk factors associated with Neospora caninum seropositivity in randomly sampled Canadian dairy cows and herds. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 2010;93:129–138. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2009.11.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Yaniz J.L., Lopez-Gatius F., Garcia-Ispierto I., Bech-Sabat G., Serrano B., Nogareda C., Sanchez-Nadal J.A., Almeria S., Santolaria P. Some factors affecting the abortion rate in dairy herds with high incidence of Neospora-associated abortions are different in cows and heifers. Reproduction Domestic Animals = Zuchthygiene. 2010;45:699–705. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0531.2008.01337.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Zambrano J., Cotrino V., Jiménez C., Romero M., Guerrero B. Evaluación serológica de Neospora caninum en bovinos en Colombia. Revista Acovez. 2001;26:5–10. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Veterinary and Animal Science are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES