Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jan 4;16(1):e0244923. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244923

Seroprevalence and risk factors associated with exposure to Leishmania infantum in dogs, in an endemic Mediterranean region

Pasquale Rombolà 1,*, Giulia Barlozzari 1, Andrea Carvelli 1, Manuela Scarpulla 1, Francesca Iacoponi 2, Gladia Macrì 1
Editor: Vyacheslav Yurchenko3
PMCID: PMC7781377  PMID: 33395452

Abstract

Canine leishmaniasis (CanL) is a zoonotic parasitic disease caused by Leishmania infantum in the Mediterranean area and transmitted by phlebotomine sand fly vectors. The domestic dog is the main reservoir host. The aim of this study was to assess the influence of different individual, environmental and spatial risk factors on the dog exposure to L. infantum and to estimate the seroprevalence among owned and kennel dogs, in the Lazio region (central Italy), where canine leishmaniasis is endemic. In the period 2010–2014, 13,292 sera from kennel and owned dogs were collected by official and private veterinarians. The presence of anti-Leishmania IgG was analysed by indirect fluorescent antibody test (IFAT), using a 1:80 titre cut-off. At the univariable analysis, CanL seropositivity was associated with sex, size, breed, coat length, living with other dogs and forest/semi-natural land cover. At the multivariable analysis, age, ownership and attitude were confirmed as risk factors, being more than 2 years old, owned, and hunting dogs at higher risk. Being a Maremma sheepdog was a protective factor. A true overall seroprevalence of 6.7% (95% CI: 6.2–7.2) was estimated in the whole population while 7.3% (95% CI: 6.8–7.8) was estimated in kennel dogs and 74.3% (95% CI: 70.8–77.6) in owned dogs. The role of kennels as a key component for CanL active and passive surveillance was also highlighted. This study confirmed the endemicity of CanL in the Lazio region and focused some factors that can influence the seropositivity of dogs in a Mediterranean region.

Introduction

The leishmaniases are a group of zooanthroponotic diseases transmitted among vertebrate hosts by infected females of phlebotomine sand flies (Diptera, Psychodidae). Etiological agents are intracellular protozoa belonging to the genus Leishmania (Kinetoplastida, Trypanosomatidae) [1].

The worldwide distribution of leishmaniases is concentrated in tropical and temperate regions in 98 countries, mainly with a poor Human Development Index. In these countries, leishmaniases are considered endemic with an estimated 12 million cases and a number of 1.5–2 million new cases occurring annually in a population of 350 million people at risk of infection [2, 3].

In Europe, Leishmania infantum is the causative agent of canine leishmaniasis (CanL) and dogs are the main reservoir of the zoonotic type of both visceral and cutaneous leishmaniasis [2]. The role of cats has long been discussed and several studies indicate the infected cats as a domestic additional reservoir host for human infection [4, 5]. The estimated annual incidence of visceral leishmaniasis (VL) in the WHO European Region varies between 1100 and 1900 cases [6]. Italy is among the most affected countries, together with Georgia, Spain, Albania, Turkey, Tajikistan and Azerbaijan, showing an estimated annual VL incidence from 160 to 240. In Italy, the most relevant endemic foci are in southern-central regions such as Tuscany, Sicily, Campania and Sardinia [6]. Notwithstanding, Italy provided the first evidence in Europe of the emergence and northward spread of VL as probable effect of climate change [7].

In dogs, L. infantum causes a spectrum of clinical signs that varies greatly from asymptomatic/mild to a very severe disease. Several factors including the immunological status and the genetic background of the host can influence the outcome of CanL [8]. Infected dogs, whether clinically healthy or sick, can be infectious for phlebotomine sand flies that may transmit the infection to other hosts [9].

Serological surveys are a useful tool to quantify the spread of pathogens within a specific area and represent the starting point to develop proper and risk-based approach in surveillance activities. Indirect fluorescent antibody test (IFAT) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) are the most commonly used serological methods. In particular, the in-house IFAT prepared with whole body parasite as antigen, following the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) procedure is considered the “gold standard” for serological diagnosis [1, 10]. It is suitable for epidemiological studies, individual diagnosis and in treatment follow-up [10]. However, IFAT interpretation is operator-dependent and it requires trained and experienced personnel especially in case of titres around the cut-off. ELISA tests showed variable diagnostic performance depending on the type of antigen used. In particular, ELISA based on soluble promastigote and amastigote antigens had high sensitivities in both symptomatic and asymptomatic dogs, while rK39 ELISA seem to be less sensitive in detecting asymptomatic cases [11]. It is noteworthy to mention that low-medium IFAT titres/optical density values are not necessarily consistent with infection but can be rather indicative of exposure to L. infantum, as well as some infected individuals (positive by PCR, cytology/culture) can show low-medium serological titres/optical density values. On the contrary, high serological titres, defined as a 3–4 fold elevation above the cut off level of a reference laboratory or a seroconversion, are strongly indicative of a diagnosis of CanL [8, 12].

Previous serosurveys on CanL carried out in Mediterranean countries reported prevalence ranging from 2% to 30%, whereas 50% or higher values were reported from hyperendemic foci where the majority of population can be infected [1315]. In Italy, captured stray dogs are housed in kennel fenced outdoor areas with high animal density, where they can be frequently exposed to the bites of vectors. These conditions together with the lack of a regular anti-vectorial prophylaxis represent a potential risk factor for the spread of CanL. Therefore, kennel dogs can act as sentinels for the circulation of several infectious agents, including L. infantum, in a specific area [16, 17].

The aim of this study was to assess the influence of different individual, environmental and spatial risk factors on the dog exposure to L. infantum as well as to estimate the seroprevalence among owned and kennel dogs in the Lazio region (central Italy), where canine leishmaniasis is endemic.

Materials and methods

Study area and canine population

The study was carried out in the Lazio region, central Italy (Fig 1). The area is located on the Tyrrhenian coast. Climate and vegetation are Mediterranean with mild, wet winters and hot, dry summers and maximum rainfall recorded in autumn and spring. This is a highly heterogeneous area regarding altitude, weather conditions, land cover/use and human population density. The region is mainly hilly with a mean altitude of about 400 meters above sea level, ranging from the plain to the mountain.

Fig 1. Location of kennels (pink squares) and owned dogs (black points) tested for L.infantum, in 2010–2014, in the Lazio region.

Fig 1

In Italy, the canine population is composed by almost 12 million of owned dogs [18] and estimated 160,000 stray dogs [19]. Since 1991, every owned dog and caught stray dogs must be identified by a microchip (tattoo before 2005) and registered in a Dog Registry (Legge 281/1991) with data on the animal and owner (i.e. sex, age, breed, address, owner, transfer, date of birth/death, etc.). During the implementation of this study, in the Lazio region, more than 500,000 dogs were registered in the Dog Registry, whose completeness was around 75% as assessed in previous studies [20, 21]. A point map (Fig 1) of the kennel and dog owners’ address was made by a geocoding procedure (QGis 3.10.2, Plugin Pelias Geocoding) [22, 23].

Sampling and data

Samples were collected from January 2010 to December 2014. In the Lazio region, in accordance with a Regional Law, all dogs entering in kennels are compulsory tested for the presence of antibodies against L. infantum by sending blood samples to laboratories accredited under ISO/IEC 17025 (DGR 473/2010). During the study period, the entire dog population entering in kennels was tested. The owned dogs were enrolled in specific research projects or sampled by veterinary practitioners for annual CanL screening, diagnosis or follow-up.

The dog identification was checked and microchip was implanted, if not found, by official and private veterinarians involved, as prescribed by the Italian Law (Legge 281/1991). Blood samples were collected for the following reasons: kennel admittance, annual screening, clinical suspicion, differential diagnosis and follow up after pharmacological treatment. The blood collection was performed in accordance with the European Legislation on Animal Welfare. Approval of an ethics committee was not required for sampling because a single blood collection sample is considered a routine procedure in domestic animals. The owned dogs were enrolled during routinely veterinary clinical activity. As inclusion criteria, only the dogs identified with a microchip were enrolled in this study. If more than one test was performed on the same animal in the study period, only the positive one or the one with the highest titre was considered. All dogs enrolled in this study had no history of previous vaccination against leishmaniasis.

Individual, environmental and spatial risk factors that might influence the dog exposure to L. infantum were studied. The following individual risk factors were considered: age (<2, 2-<5, 5-<7, ≥7 years), sex (male, female), size (<25 kg–small, ≥25 kg–large), breed (crossbreed, purebred), and coat length (long, medium, short). For purebred dogs, coat length and dog size were obtained by Ente Nazionale della Cinofilia Italiana [24]. The ownership (kennel dog, owned dog), attitude (pet, watchdog, hunting dog) and living with other dogs (yes, no) were the environmental risk factors considered. The following spatial variables were evaluated: distance from the sea (inland, coast: cut-off: 20 km from the sea [25]), altitude (≤99, 100–499, ≥500 meters a.s.l.), and land cover (artificial, agricultural, forest/semi-natural areas). A Digital Elevation Model (20x20 m) was used for altitude (meters above sea level—a.s.l.) [22]. Corine Land Cover (CLC) [26] was used to determine the prevailing land cover in a 500 meters radius around each point, corresponding to the estimated flight range of phlebotomine sand flies [27]. Kennel and dogs’ owners’ address were georeferenced using ArcGIS 10.3. Data were recorded in a Microsoft Excel file.

Laboratory analysis

The presence of anti-Leishmania IgG antibodies in dog sera was analysed by an in-house IFAT performed following the OIE recommendations, using a 1:80 cut-off. The test had a sensitivity (Se) of 96.0% and a specificity (Sp) of 98.0% [1]. Slides were prepared using promastigotes of L. infantum reference strain MHOM/TN/80/IPT1 (Istituto Superiore di Sanità) cultured at Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Lazio e della Toscana “M. Aleandri”. Reference negative and positive dog sera were used as negative and positive controls, while phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) was used as blank control. A 1:100 dilution of rabbit anti-dog IgG conjugated to Fluorescein Isothiocyanate (FITC) (Sigma-Aldrich, St Louis, MO, USA) was employed. Reading was performed by two independent observers using a fluorescence microscope. Samples were classified as positive if homogeneous cytoplasmatic, coarse speckled cytoplasmatic or membrane fluorescence of promastigotes was observed at a serum dilution ≥1:80; samples were considered as negative otherwise [28]. Positive were serially two-fold diluted to determine the end-point titre.

Statistical analysis

Chi-square test was used to test the associations between possible risk factors and the presence of antibodies against L.infantum. When associations were significant, odds ratios (OR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated by univariable logistic regressions. The variables with a bivariate p value ≤0.25 were included in a multivariable stepwise logistic model [29]. The likelihood of the final model was evaluated by Log likelihood chi square test (LRT). A p value <0.05 (two-tailed) was considered statistically significant.

The seroprevalence was calculated as the proportion between the number of seropositive dogs and the total number of dogs tested in the period 2010–2014. The apparent prevalence (AP; i.e. the proportion of a population that tests positive using a diagnostic method), and the 95% CI were calculated using a binomial distribution. The true prevalence (TP; estimated from AP adjusting for the diagnostic test Se and Sp), was calculated using the following Rogan and Gladen equation [30]: TP = (AP + Sp– 1)/(Se + Sp– 1).

TP and Blaker’s 95% CI were calculated using Epitools epidemiological calculators [31]. Analyses were performed by SPSS Statistics Software v.25 (IBM SPSS Statistics).

Results

A total of 13,292 dog sera were collected. The 91.2% (12,128) of sera were from kennel dogs, 5.0% (658) from owned dogs, while 3.8% (506 dogs) were unclassified. Crossbreed dogs were 81% (10,767/13,292) and purebred 19% (2,525/13,292). Dogs were aged between 1 month and 20 years. The 38.8% of dogs were under 2 years of age and the 54.1% were males. The age distribution was similar between male and female dogs (Fig 2). The five most frequent breeds were Maremma sheepdog (394) followed by German shepherd (363), English Setter (215), Pit Bull (193) and Rottweiler (130). Autochthonous breeds accounted for 26.2% (662), while the remaining 73.8% (1863) were non-autochthonous breeds.

Fig 2. Age pyramid of the dog population tested for L.infantum, in 2010–2014, in the Lazio region.

Fig 2

Risk factors

Most of the analysed risk factors were significantly associated with the presence of antibodies against L. infantum (chi square test, p<0.05) at the univariable analysis (Table 1). Age, ownership and attitude were confirmed as risk factors for seropositivity in the multivariate logistic regression model (LRT = 304.66) (Table 1).

Table 1. Descriptive, univariable and multivariable logistic analyses of CanL seropositivity in 2010–2014, in the Lazio region.

Risk factors Tested dogs (N) Positive dogs (N) Seroprevalence % (95% CI) Univariable analysis OR (95% CI) Multivariable analysis OR (95% CI)
Individual variables
Age (years)
<2 5161 134 2.6 (2.2–3.1) - -
2-<5 4662 419 9.0 (8.2–9.8) 3.7 (3.0–4.5) *** 3.6 (2.6–4.8) ***
5-<7 1341 209 15.6 (13.7–17.6) 6.9 (5.5–8.7) *** 5.4 (3.8–7.6) ***
≥7 2128 336 15.8 (14.3–17.4) 7.0 (5.7–8.7) *** 5.6 (4.1–7.7) ***
Sex
Female 6116 421 6.9 (6.3–7.5) -
Male 7176 677 9.4 (8.8–10.13) 1.4 (1.2–1.6) ***
Size
<25 kg 837 121 14.5 (12.1–7.0) -
≥25 kg 1689 191 11.3 (9.8–12.9) 0.7 (0.6–1.0) *
Breed
Crossbreed 10767 786 7.3 (6.8–7.8) -
Purebred 2525 312 12.4 (10.1–13.7) 1.8 (1.5–2.1) ***
Coat length
Long 870 78 9.0 (7.1–10.1) -
Medium 194 38 19.6 (14.2–5.9) 2.5 (1.6–3.8) ***
Short 1043 156 5.0 (12.8–17.3) 1.8 (1.3–2.4) ***
Environmental variables
Ownership
Kennel 12128 883 7.3 (6.8–7.8) - -
Owned 658 489 74.3 (70.8–77.6) 4.4 (3.6–5.3) *** 2.8 (2.2–3.5) ***
Attitude
Pet 4337 420 9.7 (8.8–10.6) - -
Watchdog 334 34 10.2 (7.1–13.9) 1.1 (0.7–1.5) 0.9 (0.6–1.4)
Hunting dog 240 68 8.3 (22.7–34.5) 3.7 (2.7–5.0) *** 2.4 (1.7–3.4) ***
Living with other dogs
No 2987 209 7.0 (6.1–8.0) -
Yes 10305 889 8.6 (8.1–9.2) 1.3 (1.1–1.5) **
Spatial variables
Distance from the sea
Inland 5689 475 8.3 (7.6–9.1)
Coast 7342 610 8.3 (7.7–9.0)
Altitude (m a.s.l.)
≤99 5081 436 8.6 (7.8–9.38)
100–499 7853 638 8.1 (7.5–8.7)
≥500 97 11 11.3 (5.8–19.4)
Land cover
Agricultural 4532 381 8.4 (7.6–9.2) -
Artificial 8383 674 8.0 (7.5–8.6) 0.9 (0.8–1.1)
Forest and semi natural 377 43 11.4 (8.4–15.0) 1.4 (1.0–2.0) *

CI: confidence interval; OR: odds ratio

*: p<0.05

**: p<0.01

***: p<0.001.

The risk of being seropositive increased with the age resulting higher in dogs aged ≥7 years (OR 5.6, 95% CI: 4.1–7.7). Being a male resulted as a risk factor (OR 1.4, 95% CI: 1.2–1.6). A dog size ≥25 kg resulted as a protective factor (OR 0.7, 95% CI: 0.6–1.0). Purebred dogs were at higher risk to be seropositive (OR 1.8, 95% CI: 1.5–2.1). The comparison between autochthonous (662) and non-autochthonous breeds (1863) showed a higher risk of exposure in non-autochthonous breeds (OR = 1.5, 95% CI: 1.1–2.0, p<0.01). In detail, we observed a major risk in the other breeds respect to Maremma sheepdog (OR 1.9, 95% CI: 1.7–2.2, p<0.001). The coat length was available for 2,107 dogs out of 2,525 purebred dogs. Medium and short coat length were a risk factor for the exposure to L. infantum compared to breed characterized by long coat (OR 2.5 and OR 1.8 respectively). Owned dogs resulted at higher risk than kennel dogs (OR 2.8, 95% CI: 2.2–3.5). Hunting dogs were more at risk than pets (OR 2.4, 95% CI: 1.7–3.4). Living with other dogs was a significant risk factor (OR 1.3, 95% CI: 1.1–1.5). Regarding the spatial variable, distance from the sea and altitude did not affect the risk to develop antibodies against L. infantum, whereas the land cover was associated with higher risk for seropositivity. In detail, dogs living in areas with forest and semi natural land cover seemed to be at higher risk to develop antibodies against the parasite (OR 1.4, 95% CI: 1.0–2.0).

Seroprevalence

In the whole population, the AP was 8.3% (95% CI: 7.8–8.7) while the TP was 6.7% (95% CI: 6.2–7.2). A TP of 7.3% (95% CI: 6.8–7.8) was estimated in kennel dogs, whereas owned dogs showed 74.3% (95% CI: 70.8–77.6). A bimodal relation was found between seropositivity and age: age classes 5–6 and ≥7 years showed higher prevalence (Fig 3). Serological results were stratified by end-point titre on annual basis (negative, 1/80, 1/160, 1/320, 1/640, 1/1280, 1/2560, 1/5120). The titre of 1/80 had a bimodal distribution with a first peak in January and a second peak in March, while the titre of 1/320 had one peak in February and one in April/May. The remaining titres, rather, did not show a specific pattern.

Fig 3. Relation between CanL seroprevalence and age in 2010–2014, in the Lazio region.

Fig 3

The seasonal profiles of the titres were reported in Fig 4. CanL seroprevalence in both kennel and owned dogs decreased during the study period (Fig 5).

Fig 4. Annual distribution of anti-L. infantum antibody titres in the dog population in 2010–2014, in the Lazio region.

Fig 4

Fig 5. CanL seroprevalence trend in kennel and owned dog population in 2010–2014, in the Lazio region.

Fig 5

Discussion

Risk factors

Individual risk factors

In the present study, the risk of being seropositive was higher starting from 2 years old, in agreement with several studies reporting that the risk of seropositivity increased with the dog age [14, 17, 3235]. This evidence could be attributed to repeated exposure to Leishmania during the years. On the contrary, other authors reported a bimodal age distribution of seroprevalence with one peak appearing in the young dogs (1–2 years) and a second more evident peak among the older ones (7–8 years). This pattern was explained by the composition of the target population: dogs more sensitive to the disease (e.g. the Boxer) will develop it at an early age, whereas in more resistant dogs, latent infection will not be activated until they are older and their immune system decays, often in comorbidity with other diseases [36].

A significant difference in prevalence was found between sexes, with males showing higher seroprevalence. Other authors reported a higher seroprevalence in males [34, 36]. This result could be due to the roaming behaviour of male dogs in rural areas or the outdoor attitude of male guard dogs, as reported in a study carried out in the study area [21]. Conversely, other studies did not found significant difference between sexes [11, 37].

In this study, being large-size dogs (≥25 kg) was protective for CanL seropositivity as already reported [14]. A confounding effect due to the minor life expectancy in large-size dogs could explain this finding [38]. Purebred dogs showed a significant difference in seroprevalence, being a crossbreed resulted a protective factor, as previously reported [33, 39]. This result might be related to a certain level of resistance against the disease of crossbreed dogs. Conversely, some autochthonous purebred dogs, whose presence has been documented in the Mediterranean region since ancient times, have evolved under a strong selective pressure by L. infantum, developing a resistance to the disease. Among these breeds, the Ibizan hound, from the Balearic Islands, is certainly the most famous. This dog rarely develop clinical leishmaniasis [40, 41]. Nevertheless, studies are still rare in other autochthonous breeds and further researches are needed. It was demonstrated that resistant dogs mount a predominantly immune cellular response, protective against Leishmania. In contrast, susceptible dogs give a humoral, often exaggerated and not protective response [41]. In this study, the autochthonous Maremma sheepdog showed a low CanL seroprevalence. Similar values were also observed in another autochthonous Mediterranean breed, the Sardinian sheepdog (or Fonnese dog) [42]. This breed shared with the Maremma sheepdog, attitude and isolation conditions that preserved their relative purity over time [43].

We found an increasing risk of being seropositive for animals with short and medium coat length. Other authors found short hair dogs having a higher risk than the long hair ones [33, 44]. Indeed, this feature can facilitate the bite of phlebotomine sand flies who are known to feed on hairless area such as the margin of dog muzzle, which is always uncovered [33]. In addition, longer hair would reduce CO2 emission and heat irradiation from the host’s body thus being less attractive for vectors [45].

Environmental risk factors

In this study, a significant difference in seroprevalence was found between kennel and owned dogs (7.3% vs 74.3%). This difference could be explained by a selection bias because owned dogs were more frequently tested for clinical suspicion or follow up after treatment, whereas kennel dogs were mainly sampled at kennel admittance. However, recent serosurveys on CanL reported higher risk for seropositivity in owned dogs compared to kennel [34, 35].

In this study, hunting dogs were more than twice fold at risk of being seropositive then pet dogs. The hunting activity imply prolonged outdoors staying with an increased exposure to phlebotomine sand flies and some studies indicated dogs living outdoors at higher risk than those with an indoor lifestyle [1, 11, 33, 36]. In addition, hunters are generally less prone to use topical insecticides than pet owners. Living with other dogs also appeared to be a risk factor for the exposure to L. infantum in sampled dog population in agreement with what previously observed [9, 46].

Spatial risk factors

Until the late ‘80s, some typical spatial patterns of CanL were found in Italy such as distribution along the coast, in the Mediterranean belt and up to an average altitude of 500–600 m a. s. l. [7, 47]. Nowadays, the average increase in temperatures has likely shifted the classic climatic hot zones and the vectors distribution toward higher latitudes and altitudes, the latter often at larger distance from the coast [48]. In the Mediterranean basin, the distribution model of the main vectors of leishmaniasis has changed. A latitudinal shift towards North in Italy, in Spain and in France and towards higher altitudes in the southern Spain were documented [7, 49]. It is what most likely happened in the Lazio region too. A significant difference only in univariable analysis was found when prevailing land cover was ‘forest’ and ‘semi natural’ land cover. However, it is important to underline that micro-environmental (small-scale) factors on the distribution of several sand flies species are important in CanL epidemiology [50].

Seroprevalence

An overall CanL TP of 6.7% was estimated. This value was lower than what observed in a previous study carried out in the same area in the period 2001–2004, reporting a raw prevalence around 25% [37]. This can be explained by the growing awareness of people on dog health and welfare that could have limited the spread of CanL during the years through a systematic anti-vectorial prophylaxis, early diagnosis and a proper treatment of infected individuals. Moreover, in the period covered by this study it is possible to notice that the seroprevalence followed a decreasing trend (Fig 5), as a result of an improved CanL management over the last years.

In addition, an increasing number of dogs identified by microchip in the Dog Registry and in Laboratory Informative System allowed a better traceability, excluding dog duplicates from the analysis that could have led to overestimate the prevalence in the past.

Another important topic is the seasonal pattern of the antibody titres. Antibody titre is an information that allows us to distinguish between infected but not sick dogs, with a tendency to low-medium titres, and sick dogs, with parasite dissemination and a tendency to high titres [16, 51]. The seasonal density of phlebotomine sand flies in the Mediterranean region has a bimodal trend encompassing the June-September period and the seroconversion occurs on average 5 months after the infection [52]. In the present study, the 1/80 antibody titre peaks occurred in March and October, 6 months after the probable exposure to the vector density peaks. These dogs probably represent recently exposed or infected animals [53]. The low antibody titres dynamics (Fig 4) is a partial, diachronic reflection of the vector’s seasonal activity. A spatial approach, which takes this principle into account, could be useful to complement an annual CanL risk mapping activity, as suggested by other authors [54]. The vectorial activity is dynamic and a serological multi-titres surveillance in a population of georeferenced dogs could provide a more sensitive approach to the spatial representation of recent exposure areas as a clustering of samples with low serological titres.

Kennels management

The stray dog management certainly represent a high cost in terms of dog maintenance and the potential risk of transmission of infectious diseases including leishmaniasis. Even if in a general decreasing trend framework of the leishmaniasis in Europe and Italy, kennels can play a role as hot spot of the disease, since they are often managed with scarce funding, the sanitary level is often low and dogs can be not properly treated with preventive treatments against ectoparasites. For the same reason, infected dogs can be not properly treated when infected by L. infantum. In these cases, dogs may act as a source of infection for phlebotomine sand flies, in particular in crowded kennels and in endemic regions. Measures as a systematic use of anti-vectorial prophylaxis and the treatment of infected animals can improve the effectiveness of surveillance and control, improving the dogs welfare in kennels. Another measure could be housing the subjects at higher risk (older dogs, non-autochthonous breeds, etc.) into homogeneous risk classes. Avoiding the exposure of dogs to the bites of sand flies in the night is also a preventive measure to protect them from CanL.

Nevertheless, kennels offer a benefit in terms of active surveillance of leishmaniasis. A risk-based approach would be appropriate in the kennel management, through an active serological surveillance on dog (acting as sentinel) checked at kennel admittance and an entomological surveillance.

Supporting information

S1 Dataset

(XLS)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.OIE World Organisation for Animal Health. OIE Terrestrial Manual—Leishmaniasis. 2018. p. 491–502. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.World Health Organization. Control of the leishmaniases. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 2010;22–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Alvar J, Vélez ID, Bern C, Herrero M, Desjeux P, Cano J, et al. Leishmaniasis worldwide and global estimates of its incidence. PLoS One. 2012;7(5). 10.1371/journal.pone.0035671 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Maroli M, Grazia M, Di T, Khoury C, Gradoni L, Gramiccia M. Infection of sandflies by a cat naturally infected with Leishmania infantum. Vet Parasitol. 2007;145:357–60. 10.1016/j.vetpar.2006.11.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Pennisi MG, Persichetti MF. Feline leishmaniasis: Is the cat a small dog? Vet. Parasitol. 2018;251:131–7. 10.1016/j.vetpar.2018.01.012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Gradoni L, Lopez-Velez R, Mokni M. Manual on case management and surveillance of the leishmaniases in the WHO European region. 2017. Available from: https://www.euro.who.int/en/publications/abstracts/manual-on-case-management-and-surveillance-of-the-leishmaniases-in-the-who-european-region-2017 [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Maroli M, Rossi L, Baldelli R, Capelli G, Ferroglio E, Genchi C, et al. The northward spread of leishmaniasis in Italy: Evidence from retrospective and ongoing studies on the canine reservoir and phlebotomine vectors. Trop Med Int Heal. 2008;13:256–64. 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2007.01998.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Solano-Gallego L, Mirá G, Koutinas A, Cardoso L, Pennisi MG, Ferrer L, et al. LeishVet guidelines for the practical management of canine leishmaniasis. Parasites Vectors; 2011;4:86 10.1186/1756-3305-4-86 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Molina R, Amela C, Nieto J, San-Andrés M, González F, Castillo JA, et al. Infectivity of dogs naturally infected with Leishmania infantum to colonized Phlebotomus perniciosus. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1994;88:491–3. 10.1016/0035-9203(94)90446-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Maia C, Campino L. Methods for diagnosis of canine leishmaniasis and immune response to infection. Vet Parasitol. 2008;158:274–87. 10.1016/j.vetpar.2008.07.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Travi BL, Cordeiro-da-Silva A, Dantas-Torres F, Miró G. Canine visceral leishmaniasis: Diagnosis and management of the reservoir living among us. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12:1–13. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006082 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Paltrinieri S, Solano-gallego L, Lubas G, Gradoni L, Castagnaro M. Guidelines for diagnosis and clinical classification of leishmaniasis in dogs. J Am Vet Med A, 2010. 10.2460/javma.236.11.1184 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Franco AO, Davies CR, Mylne A, Dedet JP, Gllego M, Ballart C, et al. Predicting the distribution of canine leishmaniasis in western Europe based on environmental variables. Parasitology. 2011;138:1878–91. 10.1017/S003118201100148X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Martín-sánchez J, Morales-yuste M, Acedo-sánchez C, Barón S, Díaz V, Morillas-márquez F. Leishmaniasis in Southeastern Spain. Emerg Infect Dis. 2009;15:795–8. 10.3201/eid1505.080969 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Foglia Manzillo V, Gizzarelli M, Vitale F, Montagnaro S, Torina A, Sotera S, et al. Serological and entomological survey of canine leishmaniasis in Lampedusa island, Italy. BMC Vet Res.; 2018;14:1–5. 10.1186/s12917-018-1606-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Cabezón O, Millán J, Gomis M, Dubey JP, Ferroglio E, Almería S. Kennel dogs as sentinels of Leishmania infantum, Toxoplasma gondii, and Neospora caninum in Majorca Island, Spain. Parasitol Res. 2010;107:1505–8. 10.1007/s00436-010-2015-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Sauda F, Malandrucco L, Macrì G, Scarpulla M, De Liberato C, Terracciano G, et al. Leishmania infantum, Dirofilaria spp. and other endoparasite infections in kennel dogs in central Italy. Parasite. 2018;25:2 10.1051/parasite/2018001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ministero della Salute. Banca dati dell’Anagrafe Animali d’Affezione. 2020. Available from: https://anagrafecanina.vetinfo.it/j6_sinaaf/
  • 19.Ministero della Salute. Dati regionali sul randagismo. 2020 [cited 2020 Jul 6]. Available from: http://www.salute.gov.it/portale/temi/p2_6.jsp?lingua=italiano&id=280&area=cani&menu=abbandono
  • 20.Caminiti A, Sala M, Panetta V, Battisti S, Meoli R, Rombolà P, et al. Completeness of the dog registry and estimation of the dog population size in a densely populated area of Rome. Prev Vet Med. 2014;113:146–51. 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.10.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Carvelli A, Scaramozzino P, Iacoponi F, Condoleo R, Della Marta U. Size, demography, ownership profiles, and identification rate of the owned dog population in central Italy. PLoS One. 2020;15:1–17. 10.1371/journal.pone.0240551 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.ISPRA. Ambientale, Rete del Sistema Informativo Nazionale (SINA.net). Digit. Elev. Model 20x20 m. [cited 2020 Mar 1]. Available from: http://www.sinanet.isprambiente.it/it/sia-ispra/download-mais/dem20/view
  • 23.ISTAT. Istituto Nazionale di Statistica [cited 2020 Mar 1]. Available from: https://www.istat.it/it/archivio/222527
  • 24.Le razze ENCI [cited 2018 Dec 27]. p. http://www.enci.it. Available from: http://www.enci.it/libro-genealogico/razze
  • 25.Center PR. Worldwide Bioclimatic Classification System. [cited 2019 Nov 10]. Available from: https://www.globalbioclimatics.org/form/tb_map/MS30W060.htm
  • 26.Data RL-O. Carta Uso del Suolo della Regione Lazio. 2015. Available from: http://dati.lazio.it/catalog/dataset/cus-lazio-approfondimento-delle-formazioni-naturali-e-seminaturali-iv-e-v-livello-corine-land-cover/resource/d7eaf2c4-0a97-484c-8398-d5bcc0617f28 [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Killick-Kendrick. The Biology and Control of Phlebotomine Sand Flies. Clin. Dermatol., 1999; 17:279–289. 10.1016/s0738-081x(99)00046-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Santoro P, Vellusi A. Different Patterns of Fluorescence in the Quantisation of anti-Leishmania Infantum Antibodies by Indirect Immuno-Fluorescent Antibody Test (IFAT) in the Serological Diagnosis of Canine Leishmaniasis. Open J Vet Med. 2017;07:23–30. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression Second Edition. Appl. Logist. Regres. 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Rogan WJ, Gladen B. Estimating prevalence from the results of a screening test. Am J Epidemiol. 1978. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a112510 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.AusVet Animal Health Services. Epitools Epidemiological Calculators. Ausvet Pty Ltd; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Maresca C, Scoccia E, Barizzone F, Catalano A, Mancini S, Pagliacci T, et al. A survey on canine leishmaniasis and phlebotomine sand flies in central Italy. Res Vet Sci. 2009;87:36–8. 10.1016/j.rvsc.2008.11.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Cortes S, Vaz Y, Neves R, Maia C, Cardoso L, Campino L. Risk factors for canine leishmaniasis in an endemic Mediterranean region. Vet Parasitol. 2012;189:189–96. 10.1016/j.vetpar.2012.04.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Tamponi C, Scarpa F, Carta S, Knoll S, Sanna D, Gai C, et al. Seroprevalence and risk factors associated with Leishmania infantum in dogs in Sardinia (Italy), an endemic island for leishmaniasis. Parasitol. Res; 2020; 10.1007/s00436-020-06973-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.De Massis F, Ippoliti C, Simona I, Tittarelli M, Pelini S, Giansante D, et al. Canine Leishmaniasis: Serological Results in Private and Kennel Dogs Tested over a Six-Year Period (2009–2014) in Abruzzo and Molise Regions, Italy. MDPI; 2020;1–14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Gálvez R, Miró G, Descalzo MA, Nieto J, Dado D, Martín O, et al. Emerging trends in the seroprevalence of canine leishmaniasis in the Madrid region (central Spain). Vet Parasitol. 2010;169:327–34. 10.1016/j.vetpar.2009.11.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Macrì G, Rombolà P, Miceli M, Scarpulla M, Pettirossi N LE. Seroprevalence of canine leishmaniasis in Latium region. Poster in worldLeish. 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Inoue M, Hasegawa A., Hosoi KS Y. A current life table and causes of death for insured dogs in Japan. Prev Vet Med. 2015;120:210–8. 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2015.03.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Maia C, Alwassouf S, Cristóvão JM, Ayhan N, Pereira A, Charrel RN, et al. Serological association between Leishmania infantum and sand fly fever Sicilian (but not Toscana) virus in sheltered dogs from southern Portugal. Parasites Vectors, 2017;10:1–7. 10.1186/s13071-016-1943-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Ordeix L, Silva JE do. S, Llull J, Quirola P, Montserrat-Sangrà S, Martínez-Orellana P, et al. Histological and Immunological Description of the Leishmanin Skin Test in Ibizan Hounds. J Comp Pathol. 2018;158:56–65. 10.1016/j.jcpa.2017.11.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Solano-Gallego L, Llull J, Ramos G, Riera C, Arboix M, Alberola J, et al. The Ibizian hound presents a predominantly cellular immune response against natural Leishmania infection. Vet Parasitol. 2000;90:37–45. 10.1016/s0304-4017(00)00223-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Sini G. Alla scoperta del cane da pastore Fonnese. Available from: https://agronotizie.imagelinenetwork.com/zootecnia/2013/02/21/alla-scoperta-del-cane-da-pastore-fonnese/17541
  • 43.Dreger DL, Davis BW, Cocco R, Sechi S, Di Cerbo A, Parker HG, et al. Commonalities in development of pure breeds and population isolates revealed in the genome of the Sardinian Fonni’s dog. Genetics. 2016;204:737–55. 10.1534/genetics.116.192427 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.França-Silva JC, Da Costa RT, Siqueira AM, Machado-Coelho GLL, Da Costa CA, Mayrink W, et al. Epidemiology of canine visceral leishmaniasis in the endemic area of Montes Claros Municipality, Minas Gerais State, Brazil. Vet Parasitol. 2003;111:161–73. 10.1016/s0304-4017(02)00351-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Belo VS, Struchiner CJ, Werneck GL, Barbosa DS, de Oliveira RB, Neto RGT, da Silva ES (2013) A systematic review and meta-analysis of the factors associated with Leishmania infantum infection in dogs in Brazil. Vet Parasitol 195(1–2):1–13. 10.1016/j.vetpar.2013.03.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Adel A, Berkvens D, Abatih E, Soukehal A, Bianchini J, Saegerman C. Evaluation of immunofluorescence antibody test used for the diagnosis of canine leishmaniasis in the mediterranean basin: A systematic review and meta-Analysis. PLoS One. 2016;11:1–16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Ferroglio E, Maroli M, Gastaldo S, Mignone W, Rossi L. Canine leishmaniasis, Italy. Emerg Infect Dis. 2005;11:1618–20. 10.3201/eid1110.040966 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Koch LK, Kochmann J, Klimpel S, Cunze S. Modeling the climatic suitability of leishmaniasis vector species in Europe. Sci Rep. Springer US; 2017;1–10. Available from: 10.1038/s41598-017-13822-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Phlebotomine sand flies—Factsheet for experts. 15 June 2020. 2020 Available from: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/disease-vectors/facts/phlebotomine-sand-flies [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Risueño J, Muñoz C, Pérez-cutillas P, Goyena E, Gonzálvez M, Ortuño M, et al. Understanding Phlebotomus perniciosus abundance in south-east Spain: assessing the role of environmental and anthropic factors. Parasites Vectors; 2017;1–12. 10.1186/s13071-016-1943-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Proverbio D, Spada E, Bagnagatti De Giorgi G, Perego R, Valena E. Relationship between Leishmania IFAT titer and clinicopathological manifestations (clinical score) in dogs. Biomed Res Int; 2014;2014 10.1155/2014/412808 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Alvar J; Moreno J. Canine leishmaniasis: epidemiological risk and the experimental model. Trends Parasitol. 2002;18:399–405. Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel2/939/7029/00284519.pdf?tp=&isnumber=&arnumber=284519 10.1016/s1471-4922(02)02347-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Sideris V, Papadopoulou G, Dotsika E KE. Asymptomatic canine leishmaniasis in Greater Athens area, Greece. Eur J Epidemiol. 1999;15:271–6. 10.1023/a:1007526401175 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Machado da Silva AV, De Avelar Figueiredo Mafra Magalhães M, Peçanha Brazil R, Araujo Carreira JC. Ecological study and risk mapping of leishmaniasis in an endemic area of Brazil based on a geographical information systems approach. Geospat Health. 2011;6:33 10.4081/gh.2011.155 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Vyacheslav Yurchenko

26 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-21436

Risk factors for canine leishmaniasis in kennel and owned dogs in an endemic Mediterranean region

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rombolà,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 10 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Vyacheslav Yurchenko

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

The work has been reviewed by 3 specialists in the field and they all found the work interesting. I invite authors to address their concerns and submit the revised version.

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. As part of your revisions, please address the following requests: (1) explain how you were able to access the sera samples collected by the veterinarians. As part of this explanation, please state whether you obtained any type of permission or authorization to obtain access to these samples. (2) Kindly provide details about consent that dog owners provided prior to blood collection by veterinarians.

3. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

3.1.    You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

3.2.    If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Comments - Manuscript Number: PONE-D-20-21436

Title: Risk factors for canine leishmaniasis in kennel and owned dogs in an endemic Mediterranean region

Authors: Pasquale Rombolà et al.

Reviewer Comments:

It is a generally well written manuscript, describing a seroprevalence study with risk factors assessment in a dog population of an endemic area for L. infantum zoonotic leishmaniasis in Italy. Although no striking novelty is brought, the study results’ contribution is valuable in epidemiological terms, mainly considering the number of dogs assessed and interesting results concerning the dynamics of the disease in the region. The work requires some writing edition and English revision.

Specific comments:

Abstract: Requires a better restructuration for more objectivity. Please clarify your objectives, describe your results accordingly and consistently provide your conclusions.

Line 24: Please describe the acronym IFAT the first time it appears.

Lines 32-32: For instance, the statement “This study confirmed the importance of the kennels as useful component for CanL active and passive surveillance.” is a bit vague and not exactly in accordance with the objectives of the study. If evaluating kennels was among the study’s objectives, it need to be clear.

Introduction: Please organize your ideas by separating statements and information on humans and animals’ leishmaniasis clearly, preferably in separate paragraphs. Please use indentation for paragraphs and avoid an excessive use of parentheses.

Line 47: Please replace “restricted” by a more appropriate word for the idea; perhaps “concentrated”.

Line 52: Please observe your statement: “According to some estimates, in southern Europe there are 700 new human cases of ZVL per year, about 200 of those cases occurring annually in Italy”. You are using references from 2010 and 2011, which is not consistent with the idea of “new cases”. Please observe the use of proper references and amend accordingly here and in the whole manuscript.

Lines 52-53: Please observe the phrase: “CanL causes a spectrum of clinical signs that varies greatly from asymptomatic/mild to a very severe disease.” CanL is the disease, it does not cause it. The clinical signs of an infected dog can vary from absent – in subclinical infections – to numerous and intense. The disease can vary from unapparent to mild or very severe. Amend accordingly.

Line 55: Please replace “are” by a more appropriate “can be”.

Lines 58-60: There are many differences between IFAT and ELISA for this purpose, depending on the antigen and many other aspects, and these varies considerably. So, the statement is a bit too generalized. Please amend describing the real limits of the used method – the IFAT, using proper references.

Line 64: Please replace the word “conclusive” by the more appropriate idea which is “strongly indicative” or something more like that. Only PCR and parasite isolation / observation are conclusive.

Lines 69-72: Please observe that these two phrases are quite antagonistic. Both ideas can be true. Please define your line of ideas clearly, because there seems to be an implicit objective in them. Make it explicit, which can bring value to your work. Did you intent to evaluate the kennel’s conditions or possible role in the epidemiology of leishmaniasis by L. infantum?

Materials and Methods: In general, it requires some more information. Was there any inclusion/exclusion criteria for study dogs?

Lines 84-85: please rewrite the phrase.

Line 89: “During ‘the implementation’ of the present study”… We are in 2020.

Line 116 and on: Please provide information on the clinical handling of the kenneled dogs; methods/criteria for examination and sample collection.

Line 123: Is this questionnaire directed to whom? It is published or disclosed in some publication? Is it validated? Otherwise, perhaps it is better to refer to a detailed anamnesis.

Lines 140-141: Please provide a little more rationale’s detail on AP and TP.

Lines 153-156: Please observe the policy of the Journal and the general legislation for the ethical approaches of research using animals. There was handling of animals in the kennels. They were examined and sampled.

Results: In general, the entire section needs some language edition and a more objective organization, at least by describing related results in accordance with the analytic method used, in separate paragraphs.

Line 189: Clinical signs in relation to serology should be described in a more complete way. “Etc” is not very precise. The literature is plenty of studies and data on the close relation between susceptibility, predominant immune response, parasite load, frequency and intensity of disease manifestation, infectiousness to the vector, and serology in dogs. Please amend. Is there a possibility of co-morbidities in the region?

Discussion: The section requires a better organization and separation of ideas by groups of related results in paragraphs. Please clearly separate literature citations from your own discussion and inputs based on your findings.

Lines 217-220: Please explore this result with more clarity and depth, preferably in a separate paragraph, taking into consideration inclusion and exclusion criteria. This should be clear in the abstract, accordingly.

Lines 229-231: Please elaborate this.

Line 235 and others: Leishmania should be italicized and written with an initial capital letter. Please observe it and amend it in the whole text.

Lines 241-247: These statements are a bit vague. How is the general attitude of owners towards male or female dogs? Are males preferred in the region, for hunting or guard, for example? Would they be more exposed to infection somehow?

Line 247 and on: Is the term “Conversely” appropriate here? The whole discussion about autochthonous breeds is very interesting and should be separate in another paragraph.

Lines 278-279: Please provide a reference for the statement “Nowadays, the average increase in temperatures has likely shift the classic climatic hot zones toward higher altitudes and larger distance from the coast”... in the studied region? Otherwise, the statement becomes speculative.

Lines 288-290: The statements: “For the same reason, infected dogs can be not properly treated when infected by L. infantum. In these cases, dogs may act as a source of infection for phlebotomine sand fly, in particular in overcrowded kennels and in endemic regions” – feel in disagreement with your own findings of a lower seroprevalence along time, for example, in comparison with a previous publication. The idea is valid, but please adopt a more rational insertion for this in the context of your own study and results.

Line 293: Is the general welfare of dogs in kennels in the region, or particularly in the kennels you have studied, compromised? Did you observe in them any aspect that should be described in this work and discussed? Shouldn’t it then be in the objectives, if relevant? Animal welfare is obviously relevant, but since this is as objective study, data on this aspect should be treated with the same objectivity as the other scientific data. Please amend.

Line 302: The conclusion should be in line with the objectives and results.

Figures and tables: All titles of figures and table should be more complete, with explanatory info enough to be understood without the reader having to go back to the text.

Reviewer #2: This is a very interesting paper focusing on the seroprevalence of CanL in the Mediterranean Region in Italy. Although the paper has local significance their findings are interesting especially if compared with other countries/regions. The paper is well-written and the analysis supported their findings and generated data. English is of high quality. I therefore recommend acceptance.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript contains a well conduced analysis of seroprevalence and risk factors to canine Leishmaniasis in Lazio region. The work is well designed, contains relevant information, and it is within the scope of the journal. I have some suggestions as described below:

Some suggestions:

M&M-

Line 104- Organization

Age classes are repeated in Line 123 and 126 .

Results

According with text, line 171-172 - “A bimodal relation was found between seropositivity and age: age classes 2-4 and >6 years showed higher prevalence (Fig 3).” However, in figure 3, the Y axis shows the number of seropositive dogs, this gives the false impression that there was a fall in the 5-6 age group. So, I suggest using % seropositive (seroprevalence).

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jan 4;16(1):e0244923. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244923.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


17 Dec 2020

In a separate file “rebuttal letter - response to reviewers” our answers to each point raised by the Academic Editor and the reviewers.

Attachment

Submitted filename: rebuttal letter_AC.docx

Decision Letter 1

Vyacheslav Yurchenko

21 Dec 2020

Seroprevalence and risk factors associated with exposure to Leishmania infantum in dogs, in an endemic Mediterranean region

PONE-D-20-21436R1

Dear Dr. Rombolà,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Vyacheslav Yurchenko

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Vyacheslav Yurchenko

23 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-21436R1

Seroprevalence and risk factors associated with exposure to Leishmania infantum in dogs, in an endemic Mediterranean region

Dear Dr. Rombolà:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Vyacheslav Yurchenko

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE


Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

RESOURCES