Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Sep 16;16(9):e0249417. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249417

Epidemiology and molecular characterization of Theileria annulata in cattle from central Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

Raqeeb Ullah 1, Sumaira Shams 1, Munsif Ali Khan 1,2, Sultan Ayaz 2, Noor ul Akbar 3, Qeyam ud Din 4, Adil Khan 1,2, Renato Leon 5, Jehan Zeb 1,2,*
Editor: Shawky M Aboelhadid6
PMCID: PMC8445462  PMID: 34529664

Abstract

Theileria annulata is a tick-borne hemoprotozoan parasite responsible for tropical theileriosis in the bovine population, which causes substantial economic losses to the livestock sector. The present study has investigated, characterized, and shaped epidemiologic and phylogenetic profiles of T. annulata infection in the cattle population of central Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. A total of 600 blood samples were collected from cattle. Microscopy and PCR (18S rRNA taxonomic marker) assays were performed to detect T. annulata infection in cattle from the study area. The overall relative prevalence rates of T. annulata in the examined cattle population were 12.8% (microscopy) and 23.7% (PCR). District-wise analysis (microscopy/PCR) showed that cattle from district Mardan were found more infected (16.0%/28.0%), as compared to cattle from district Charsadda (13.5%/25.5%) and district Peshawar (9.0%/17.5%). Based on host demographic and ecological parameters analysis, theileriosis was found to be higher in young, female, crossbred, freely grazing, tick-infested, and irregular/no acaricides treated cattle. The univariate logistic analysis showed that host age, tick infestation, acaricides use, and feeding method were significant risk factors (P<0.05) whereas multivariate analysis indicated that host age, gender, tick infestation, acaricidal application, and feeding method were potential risk factors (P<0.05) for tropical theileriosis in the cattle population. Phylogenetic and sequence analysis showed that T. annulata 18S rRNA isolates shared homology and phylogeny with other isolates from Asia and Europe. This study has addressed the epidemiology and phylogeny of T. annulata circulating in bovid in the study area where gaps were still present. These findings will serve as a baseline and will facilitate future large-scale epidemiological investigations on tropical theileriosis in the cattle population at a national level.

Introduction

Bovine tropical theileriosis (TT) is a tick-borne disease (TBDs) caused by the hemoprotozoan parasite Theileria annulate, which circulates in the bovine population, and results in substantial economic losses to the dairy and livestock industry. It is the cause of high mortality rates and imposes constraints upon the breeding development program, thus significantly reducing its production output [1, 2]. Tropical theileriosis is prevalent over a broad geographic region globally ranging from Asia, the Middle East, and southern Europe, to northern Africa [3, 4]. This pathogen is transmitted by several hard ticks (Ixodidae) species of the genus Hyalomma viz. H. anatolicum, H. lusitanicum, H. scupense, and H. dromedarii [5, 6]. Several studies have confirmed either the occurrence of the mentioned vector species or the presence of T. annulata in ticks from disease-endemic regions of Pakistan [79].

Theilleria annulata has been found mainly infecting domestic cattle (Bos taurus indicus, Bos taurus taurus) and the Asian buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) [3, 10]. During feeding on host blood, ticks inoculate T. annulata sporozoites into the bovid blood where the parasites undergo a complex life cycle; the sporozoites’ invasion of the host mononuclear Leukocytes. Sporozoites subsequently transform into macroschizonts (which replicate in leukocytes) and undergo merogony to develop into merozoites that enter the bloodstream. The merozoites infect the host RBCs and develop into piroplasms. Finally, the infective piroplasms enter the tick during the next blood feeding. Clinical signs associated with TT in bovine are; pyrexia (40–41.5°C), ocular and nasal discharge, enlargement of superficial lymph nodes, dyspnea, leucopenia, anemia, and jaundice [2, 11].

Acute theileriosis in cattle is clinically diagnosed by microscopy which involves either piroplasms detection through the examination of Giemsa-stained peripheral blood smears or macroschizonts in the lymph node biopsy smears [3, 12]. This diagnostic procedure is not enough sensitive to allow the reliable estimation of TT in carrier animals [13]. Additional, diagnostic tools i.e. serodiagnostic assays (IFA and ELISA) and PCR are more sensitive, and specific molecular alternatives for the detection of T. annulata in the infected animal hosts. The commonly used genetic markers for T. annulata identification and characterization are; the 18S rRNA gene, the T. annulata merozoites surface antigen (Tams1) encoding gene, the β-tubulin gene, and the heat shock protein 70 encoding gene (HSP70) [1419].

Tropical theileriosis is endemic to Pakistan, its etiologic agent is circulating in the bovine population and is principally transmitted by H. anatolicum tick to them [2, 20]. Plenty of scientific literature has reported TT from certain parts of the country [21]. Based on the microscopic investigation, the mean prevalence rate of TT in the cattle population from Pakistan is 13±5.7%, range 5–24% [9, 2225]. However molecular diagnostic technique (PCR) has reported a comparatively higher prevalence rate of TT in cattle (38.7±9.9%, range 19–66.1%) [2, 21, 22, 25, 26]. The high prevalence and endemicity of bovine theileriosis to Pakistan was further supported by the availability of its potential vectors i.e. Hyalomma species preferably in arid and semi-arid agro-ecological zones, transmitting T. annulata in the bovine population [2, 7, 8, 27]. Seasonal patterns have shown that T. annulata is circulating in the cattle population throughout the year. According to documented proof, the highest prevalence of TT was reported in bovine hosts during the summer season (with peak TT cases in June and July) followed by winter, spring, and autumn seasons respectively [23, 28, 29]. The potential risk factors predicted to be associated with TT in Pakistan and likely facilitating T. annulata transmission dynamics are cattle age, gender, breed, acaricide application, tick infestation, and farm management system [2, 20, 21].

Despite the availability of epidemiological and phylogenetic data from other agro-climatic regions of Pakistan, this livestock disease has been poorly studied in the north-western part of the country, where a considerable gap remains regarding T. annulata detection and its epidemiology in the cattle population. The lack of data concerning TT prevalence from the study area results in poor control measures. The study presented herein, detected (microscopy and PCR based) T. annulata in the cattle population, established its molecular phylogeny based on the study area (central Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, an important hub of cattle farming), and shaped its epidemiologic profile in the different cattle breeds.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

The present study followed the Animal Use Manual of the Pakistan Veterinary Association (PVA) and obtained formal approval from the ethical committee on animal care and use from the Department of Zoology, Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan. All blood samples were collected following standard collection methods and thus avoided stress/harm procedures to the sampled bovine animals.

Study location

Pakistan is predominantly an agricultural country and divided into five agro-ecological zones based on remote sensing climate compound index-based climatic/aridity data analysis (Drought/hyper-arid, Arid, Humid, Wetland, and Cold drought) [30, 31]. The sampling site (Charsadda 34.1495°N, 71.7428°E; Mardan 34.2062°N, 72.0298°E; and Peshawar 34.0000°N, 71.7500°E located centrally in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province of Pakistan) has a transitional climatic profile i.e. a patchy pattern of semi-arid and humid agro-ecological zones with variable climatic features in certain parts of the study area due to extensive irrigation system [30] and hence, in turn, affect the distribution of tick and TBDs [7].

The study area experiences hot, sometimes very hot, long summer and relatively short cool winter seasons. Summers start from mid-April and peaking in May and early June. Moreover, the summer season is dry and covered with dust storms. There is also an onset of the seasonal effects of monsoons and feature heavy rains on an almost daily basis with a fall in the average daily temperature and a rise in the relative humidity. Whereas the winter seasons are usually short, dry, and tend to be foggy with winter rainfall in January and February. The annual average temperature prevails in the study area is mini-max: 5.0±2.5°C-40.2±5.8°C and mean relative humidity is mini-maxi: 17.7±2.5–65±3.6 [32].

Agriculture is central to the Pakistan economy and contributes a significant part to the country’s GDP (FY 2020, 19.3%). The livestock sector is an essential component of the agricultural industry where over 8 million rural families are actively involved with livestock rearing, production, and development. This activity represents approximately 35–40% of their income source. The livestock sector has contributed 60.6% to the agriculture economy and 11.7% to the country’s GDP during FY 2020 [33]. Cattle population is vital to the livestock sector in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa where 5.97 million animals are being raised; 0.72 million coming from the study area (district Charsadda: 0.24 million, district Mardan: 0.25 million, district Peshawar: 0.23 million) [34].

Study design, period, and blood sampling strategy

A cross-sectional study was designed to investigate TT in cattle from the study area. The sample size was computed for the cattle population by considering 50% assumed prevalence with a 95% confidence interval and 5% desired precision. The number of collected samples was adjusted for a finite population and correlated with 600 blood samples of cattle. A simple random sampling strategy was adopted for sample collection to allow reliable estimation of TT prevalence in the cattle population from the study area [35].

A total of 30 union councils (included villages and towns with at least one livestock farm) were chosen with a total of 54 farms (18 cattle farms from each district). Six hundred blood samples (2 ml of blood obtained from the jugular vein, n = 200 from each district) were collected from the cattle during 2018 and 2019 from April to September of each year with signed informed consent from the herds’ owners. Necessary information, regarding bovine host age, gender, breed, tick infestation, acaricides practice, and feeding method, was obtained through a predesigned questionnaire from the cattle owners. Collected blood samples were stored in properly labeled blood vacutainers (EDTA tubes, Thermoscientific, USA) at -20°C until further analysis.

Blood smear microscopic examination

All the collected blood samples were microscopically screened for intra-erythrocytic piroplasms of T. annulata. A thin blood smear of each blood sample was prepared, air-dried, and fixed in 96% methanol for 5 minutes followed by staining with Giemsa stain (5%) for 30 minutes [36]. Each slide was observed under a 100x objective lens in a compound microscope. More than 30 microscopic fields were examined by a single observer in each smear separately and a slide was considered positive even with the presence of one piroplasm organism. Microscopy-based positive and negative blood samples from each district of the study area were labeled and stored separately for DNA extraction and PCR-based screening. The Cohen’s kappa statistic of reliability was computed to determine the degree of agreement between the blood smear microscopy and PCR. The sensitivity and specificity of blood microscopy in comparison to PCR (reference standard) for the detection of T. annulata were determined by using the following formulas [37, 38];

Sensitivity=NumberoftruepositivesNumberoftruepositives+Numberoffalsenegatives×100
Specifisity=NumberoftruenegativesNumberoftruenegatives+Numberoffalsepositives×100

DNA isolation and PCR

DNA was extracted from each blood sample separately with the help of a Qiagen blood and tissue DNA extraction kit following the manufacturer’s DNA extraction protocol (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). The DNA concentration in the samples was quantified by OD260 and its purity by the ratio of OD260/OD280 respectively using NanoDrop 1000 spectrophotometer (NanoDrop Technologies Inc., Wilmington, USA). The DNA samples were then stored at -80°C for subsequent analysis.

Species-specific primers were designed to amplify the hypervariable region (V4) of T. annulata 18S rRNA genetic marker (Table 1). Theileria annulata 18S rRNA gene sequences (n = 100) were downloaded from NCBI GenBank as a single dataset in FASTA format and subjected to multiple sequence alignment using CLUSTALW software [39]. The primers set was picked from aligned sequences and its thermodynamic parameters were calculated using Vector NTI software (Oligo Analyses tools, Thermo Fisher Scientific, US). PCR reaction was performed with a total volume of 25 μl reaction mixture; composed of 1 μl of each primer (forward and reverse), 2 μl of template DNA (OD260: 180±20 μg/μl, OD260/280: 1.85±0.04), 14 μl of DreamTaq Green PCR Master Mix (2X), and 8 μl of PCR grade water. The thermo-cycling conditions were as follows: initial denaturation at 95°C for 5 minutes, followed by 35 cycles of denaturation at 95°C for 30 seconds, annealing at 57°C for 30 seconds, extension at 72°C for 30 seconds, and a final extension at 72°C for 10 minutes. Negative (PCR reaction mixture without template DNA) and positive (previously isolated T. annulata DNA from the blood of naturally infected cattle provided by veterinary research institute Peshawar Pakistan) controls were included in each run for validation. PCR products were electrophoresed on a 2% agarose gel stained with 2% ethidium bromide and subjected to gel documentation for visualization.

Table 1. Species-specific 18S rRNA gene primers set designed for T. annulata detection.

Pathogen Taxonomic marker Primer sequence 5ʹ-3ʹ Amplicon Tm
T. annulata 18S rRNA F: AGCCATGCATGTCTAAGTATAAG 894 bp 57°C
R: CGGTATTTGATATGGCTGATCTC

Purification, sequencing, and analysis of PCR products

The PCR products of the 18S rRNA gene were excised from the gel and purified with a Qiagen PCR Purification Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) following the manufacturer’s instructions. Fifteen samples (five from each district) of purified PCR products were sequenced by Macrogen, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea). The nucleotide sequences were analyzed and assembled using MEGA X [40]. Theileria annulata 18S rRNA homologous (subject sequences) were searched by using NCBI BLASTn [41]. All the subject sequences with query coverage of 99–100% were downloaded for downstream analysis. Query sequences were trimmed to remove unnecessary nucleotides, followed by redundant sequences removal from the data set. Three partial sequences of the 18S rRNA gene were submitted to NCBI GenBank under accession numbers MW046053, MW046054, and MW046055.

Phylogenetic and sequence analysis

Partial nucleotide sequences of the 18S rRNA genetic marker of T. annulata were aligned using MEGA X [40]. The phylogenetic tree of T. annulata was constructed using the Neighbor-joining algorithm and the data set was resampled 1000 times for bootstrap values generation. Evolutionary divergence of the present study T. annulata isolates and previously published sequences from neighboring countries was estimated based on pairwise base difference and complete deletion of positions containing gaps and missing data. Similarly, Pairwise nucleotide percent identity was also computed for the same data set.

Risk factors investigation

Host demographic and environmental parameters were recorded during sample collection and subjected to univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses using R program version 3.5.1 (R Development Core Team) to determine their possible role as potential risk factors in TT incidence in the cattle population. P<0.05 for each statistical analysis was considered significant with 95% CI.

Results

Demographic profile of cattle population

A total of 600 cattle were examined on 54 livestock farms in the study area. The median herd size of the cattle farm was 10 individuals. Based on the age, more adults were included than young animals (median age = 4 years) whereas gender-wise, more female than male counterparts were present in the study. The cattle population of the study area was composed of three cattle breeds viz. exotic breed (Bos taurus taurus), crossbreed (Bos taurus taurus × Bos taurus indicus), and indigenous breed (Bos taurus indicus) (Table 2).

Table 2. Demographic properties of cattle population from the study area.

Demographic Characteristics Categories Districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Total n (%)
Charsadda n (%) Mardan n (%) Peshawar n (%)
Age Young 70(35) 74(37) 69(34.5) 213 (35.5)
Adult 130 (65) 126(63) 131(65.5) 387 (64.5)
Gender Male 75(37.5) 67(33.5) 64(32.0) 206 (34.3)
Female 125(62.5) 133(66.5) 136(68) 394 (65.7)
Breed Indigenous 66(33.0) 64(32.0) 70(35.0) 200 (33.3)
Cross Breed 67(33.5) 65(32.5.) 64(32) 196 (32.7)
Exotic Breed 67(33.5) 71(35.5) 66(33) 204 (34.0)

Blood microscopy

Out of 600 collected blood samples, only 77 (12.8%) were found positive for T. annulata piroplasms (Table 3). The κ-coefficient indicated a moderate level of agreement between the blood smear microscopy and PCR (Table 3). The sensitivity and specificity of the microscopic technique to detect T. annulata piroplasms was 69% and 100% in comparison to the PCR assay (Tables 3 and 4).

Table 3. Comparative analysis of blood microscopy and PCR assay results for T. annulata detection.

Diagnostic technique Blood microscopy κ-value
+ - 0.6
PCR assay
+ 77 65
- 0 458

+/-: T. annulata positive/negative samples, κ-value: Cohen’s kappa statistic of reliability between microscopy and PCR

Table 4. Relative prevalence, sensitivity, and specificity of blood microscopy and PCR for T. annulata detection.

Diagnostic technique Blood samples examined (n) Positive samples (n) Sensitivity % Specificity % Prevalence %
Blood microscopy 600 77 69 100 12.8
PCR assay 600 142 100 100 23.7

PCR and sequencing

Based on PCR assay, a total of 142 DNA samples (23.7%, 142/600) were successfully amplified using the 18S rRNA gene marker. The resultant amplicon size was ~894 bp. No amplification was observed in negative control samples.

Phylogenetic and sequence analysis

The sequence homology search of query sequences showed similarities (Query coverage: 99–100%) with the same isolates reported from Asia, Africa, and Europe; notably from the Punjab province of Pakistan (Accession No. JQ743630, MG599090), India (Accession No. MK849884, KT367871), China (Accession No. EU083801, KF559356), Iran (Accession No. KF429800, KF429799), Turkey (Accession No. AY524666, MG569892) and Spain (Accession No. DQ287944, FJ426369). The phylogenetic tree of T. annulata isolates was inferred using the 18S rRNA genetic marker. The neighbor-joining algorithm showed that T. annulata isolates from the study clustered together with similar isolates from India, Iran, China, Turkey, and Spain (Bootstrap support 72%) as a distinct subclade with 85% bootstrap support which may be due to a single mutation in the V4 region of 18S rRNA gene (Fig 1). However evolutionary divergence and nucleotide percent identity did not support any new genotype from the study area. Additionally, phylogenetic analysis showed that T. annulata isolates were the past descendent to the same isolates from India, China, Iran, and Turkey appeared as variants in the study area (Fig 2).

Fig 1. 18S rRNA gene variable region (V4) in a 60bp nucleotide sequence alignment.

Fig 1

Sequence analyses include T. annulata samples from the present study and published isolates from neighboring countries.

Fig 2. Neighbor-joining algorithm-based phylogenetic tree inferred from 18S rRNA partial gene sequences of T. annulata isolates.

Fig 2

Parentheses enclosed accession numbers followed by species name and country of origin. T. annulata isolates from the study area are shown in bold. Scale bar represents nucleotide substitution per site along with bootstrap values at each node. T. equi (AY534882) was included as an out-group.

Heterogeneity analysis of 18S rRNA gene isolates

Nucleotide sequence heterogeneity analysis showed that T. annulata isolates were different from each other and to the published isolates by 0–10 bp. Nucleotide percent identity of 18S rRNA isolates of the present study ranged from 83.6% to 100% (Table 5).

Table 5. Evolutionary divergence (lower triangle) and nucleotide percent identity (upper triangle) analysis of T. annulata 18S rRNA gene isolates (query and subject sequences).

Evolutionary divergence analysis estimated the number of pair-wise base pairs differences per site between 18S rRNA gene sequences. Nucleotide percent identity represented percent identity between 18S rRNA gene sequences.

T. annulata 18S rRNA isolates Nucleotide Percent Identity
Evolutionary Divergence 1 2 3 4 5 6
1)MW046053 T. annulata KP Pakistan 1 90.8 100 95.4 95.5 95.5 1
2)MW046054 T. annulata KP Pakistan 2 9.0 90.9 89.7 83.6 83.6 2
3)MW046055 T. annulata KP Pakistan 3 0.0 9.0 95.4 95.5 95.5 3
4)KF429795 T. annulata Iran 4 5.0 9.0 5.0 99.9 99.9 4
5)MK849884 T. annulata India 5 4.0 10.0 4.0 1.0 100 5
6)EU083801 T. annulata China 6 4.0 10.0 4.0 1.0 0.0 6
1 2 3 4 5 6

Prevalence of tropical theileriosis in the cattle population

Overall and district wise prevalence

The overall prevalence of TT in the cattle population was 12.8% and 23.7% (blood microscopy and PCR). Blood samples collected during June and July of the study period (2018–19) were mostly found positive for T. annulata infection suggesting the incidence of TT during these months of the year. Blood microscopic analysis reported the highest prevalence of T. annulata infection in cattle from district Mardan followed by districts Charsadda and Peshawar. Similarly, PCR-based investigation showed that the TT prevalence rate was comparatively higher in the Mardan district followed by the Charsadda and Peshawar districts (Table 6).

Table 6. Overall and district-wise prevalence of T. annulata infection based on microscopy and PCR assays.
Districts T. annulata infection P-Value
Microscopy n (%) PCR n (%)
Charsadda 27 (13.5) 51 (25.5) 0.01
Mardan 32 (16.0) 56 (28.0) 0.01
Peshawar 18 (9.0) 35 (17.5) 0.01
Total 77 (12.8) 142 (23.7) 0.01

Bovine demographic parameters and tropical theileriosis prevalence

Theileria annulata prevalence rate varied depending on the host demographic parameters (cattle age, gender, and breed). It was significantly (P<0.05) higher in young cattle (age ≤ 1.5 years) as compared to adult ones (age > 1.5 years). Gender-based analysis showed that females were found more infected than males. Cattle breed was also significantly associated (P<0.05) with TT prevalence. Among the cattle breeds, T. annulata infection was higher in crossbred cattle (Bos taurus taurus × Bos taurus indicus) followed by an exotic (Bos taurus taurus: Friesian and Jersey cattle) and indigenous (Bos taurus indicus: Sahiwal, Cholistani, and Dhanni cattle) breeds of cattle (Table 7).

Table 7. Host demographic parameters based prevalence of T. annulata infection in cattle population.
Variable Category T. annulata positive % (n) 95% CI P-Value
Age Young 40.4 (86) 36.5–43.1 0.01
Adult 14.5 (56) 10.1–18.6
Gender Male 20.9 (43) 15.04–24.2 0.27
Female 25.1 (99) 21.6–29.6
Breed Indigenous 23 (46) 20.5–26.7 0.11
Crossbreed 25.5 (50) 23.1–28.5
Exotic 22.5(46) 20.5–26.7

Environmental factors and tropical theileriosis prevalence

Theileria annulata infection differed significantly (P<0.05) in the cattle population from the study area concerning environmental factors (tick infestation, acaricides application, and feeding method). It was more prevalent among cattle with a higher tick infestation as compared to animals having no or a small number of attached ticks. Similarly, cattle treated regularly with acaricides had an infection to a lesser extent as compared to those treated irregularly or not at all. The feeding method showed higher infection of T. annulata in freely grazing cattle followed by semi grazing and stall feeders respectively (Table 8).

Table 8. Environmental factors based prevalence of T. annulata infection in cattle population.
Variable Category T. annulata positive % (n) 95% CI P-Value
Acaricide(s) application No 17.3 (104) 14.2–20.3 0.01
Irregular 4.7 (28) 3.0–6.4
Regular 1.7 (10) 0.7–2.7
Feeding method Stall feeding 2.7 (16) 1.3–3.9 0.003
Semi grazing 4.8 (29) 3.1–6.5
Full grazing 16.2 (97) 13.2–19.1
Tick infestation Present 21.9 (131) 18.5–25.1 0.001
Absent 1.8 (11) 0.7–2.9

Risk factors for tropical theileriosis in the cattle population

Univariable analysis of demographic and environmental parameters revealed that the statistically significant (P<0.05) risk factors for TT were bovine host age, acaricides use, feeding method, and tick infestation. Cattle breed and gender were found statistically non-significant (P>0.05) (Table 9). Furthermore, the multivariable analysis showed that the host age, gender, acaricides use, feeding method, and tick infestation were potential risk factors for TT in cattle (P<0.05). Cattle breeds were found statistically non-significant (P>0.05) (Table 10).

Table 9. Univariate logistic analysis of possible risk factors for tropical theileriosis in cattle.

Category Variables T. annulata positive (%) OR (95% CI) P-Value
Age Young 14.3 4.0 (2.7–5.9) 0.001
Adult 9.4
Gender Male 7.1 0.8 (0.5–1.2) 0.25
Female 16.6
Breed Indigenous 7.7 1.1 (0.9–1.3) 0.56
Crossbreed 8.3
Exotic 7.8
Acaricide(s) application No 17.3 3.4 (2.5–4.6) 0.001
Irregular 4.7
Regular 1.7
Feeding method Stall feeding 2.7 0.4 (0.3–0.5) 0.001
Semi grazing 4.8
Full grazing 16.2
Tick infestation Present 21.9 37.2 (20.3–75.4) 0.001
Absent 1.8

OD: odds ratio, CI: confidence interval at 95%

Table 10. Multivariate logistic analysis of possible risk factors for tropical theileriosis in cattle.

Category Variable OR (CI 95%) P-Value
Age Young 3.9 (2.3–6.6) 0.001
Adult
Gender Male 0.5 (0.3–0.8) 0.006
Female
Breed Indigenous 0.8 (0.6–1.2) 0.31
Cross
Exotic
Acaricide(s) application No 1.4 (0.9–2.0) 0.001
Irregular
Regular
Feeding method Stall feeding 0.7 (0.5–0.9) 0.01
Semi grazing
Full grazing
Tick Infestation Present 25.4 (12.5–56.4) 0.001
Absent

OD: odds ratio, CI: confidence interval at 95%

Discussion

Cattle farming is a key activity and an important part of the livestock sector which plays a crucial role in the agricultural economy of Pakistan. Tick-borne pathogens including T. annulata are endemic to tropical and subtropical regions of the world including Pakistan and constitute a potential threat to livestock farming (cattle farming). Tropical theileriosis results in considerable economic losses to the livestock industry in developing countries [2, 42]. This disease is important in Pakistan and it was estimated that 49.6 million cattle are at risk of developing T. annulata infection [2, 43].

This study has identified and reported T. annulata infection in the cattle population from the study area based on blood smear microscopy and PCR. Giemsa stained blood smear microscopic technique revealed an overall prevalence rate of 12.8% for TT. Our findings are in agreement with Giemsa stained blood smear microscopy-based studies of TT from other agro-ecological zones of the country (TT prevalence: 13%, range 5%-24%) and also with India, Iran, and Sudan (TT prevalence: 8%, range 5–33%) [9, 2225, 38, 4448].

Despite the diagnostic artifacts (low sensitivity and specificity: unable to detect Theileria species in carrier state and low parasitemia), the examination of piroplasms in Giemsa-stained blood smears is the most frequently used diagnostic technique in veterinary clinical settings to identify acute TT in disease-endemic regions of Pakistan. This is due to the unavailability of molecular and serological diagnostics and resource limitations in most rural veterinary hospitals and clinical settings [49]. The relative sensitivity and specificity of the blood microscopy, as a diagnostic technique, validated previous findings [38, 45]. However, the presence of artifacts, the destruction of the piroplasmic form due to hemolysis (RBCs), thick smear formation, improper staining, lack of microscopic expertise, and low parasitemia, are all the factors that diminish its sensitivity [37, 50].

The description of the microscopical detection of Theileria species solely on the basis of morphology of the piroplasm and macroschizont stages in Giemsa stained blood smears is a challenging task and should include the differential diagnosis criteria for other morphologically related parasites if mixed infections are present [51]. Therefore more sensitive and reliable diagnostic alternative (PCR) was also performed for T. annulata detection in bovine hosts [12, 25].

The PCR-based report showed that TT was 23.7% prevalent in the cattle population from the study areas. The presence of T. annulata in cattle was also reported from other geographic regions of the country by using PCR and agreed with the expected value range (19 to 66.1%) of TT prevalence for endemic regions [2, 21, 22, 25, 26]. These findings are also comparable with the reports about T. annulata detection through PCR from India (Punjab and Odisha) and Egypt that reported 29.26%, 54.86%, and 10.25% TT prevalence rate in cattle respectively [47, 48, 52]. Variability in TT prevalence rate from diverse geographic localities of the world might be attributed to the differences in animal demographic (age, gender) and ecological parameters (agro-ecological zone, irregular application of acaricides and antiprotozoal drugs, management practices, etc.) [52]. It has been reported that singleplex PCR targeting the 18S rRNA genetic markers possess good analytical sensitivity and specificity as compared to other taxonomic markers to identify multiple piroplasms species [11] and that’s why the present study has preferred the 18S rRNA genetic marker for T. annulata detection in cattle population.

Both diagnostic techniques (microscopy and PCR) were compared for TT during the present study. The relative prevalence of TT was 12.8% (microscopy) and 23.7% (PCR). PCR was found more sensitive than microscopy for the detection of hemoprotozoan parasites in cattle. However, the κ-coefficient showed a moderate level of agreement between the microscopy and PCR. A similar comparison was made by multiple surveys from other agro-ecological zones of Pakistan [23, 25, 53]. According to them, PCR was found a more sensitive and accurate diagnostic tool (TT prevalence rate: 19%, 23%, 33.7%) in comparison to microscopy (TT prevalence rate: 3%, 5.2%, 11%) for detection of T. annulata infection in the cattle population.

District-wise analysis showed that the TT prevalence rate was comparatively higher in cattle population from district Mardan in comparison with districts Charsadda and Peshawar. The differences in TT prevalence among the districts were statistically significant (P<0.05). These variations in TT prevalence rate from the study area may be attributed to the differences in the micro and macro-climatic conditions of the different agro-ecological zones that in turn affect the bionomics of the tick vectors; favoring tick fecundity, distribution, abundance, activity, and ultimately tick-borne pathogens transmission dynamics [2, 7, 23].

Tropical theileriosis also varied in the cattle population with respect to host demographic parameters from the study area (P<0.05). Age-wise analysis showed that young cattle were found more affected by TT (40.4%) as compared to adults (14.5%). Age as risk factor also showed significant results (univariate: P<0.05, OR: 3.9, 95% CI: 2.7–5.9; multivariate: P<0.05, OR: 3.9, 95% CI: 2.3–6.6). These findings are consistent with scientific investigations [2, 20, 29] that reported a similar profile of TT from semi-arid (young: 28%, adult: 27%) and arid (young: 61.54%, adult: 31.91%) agro-climatic regions of the country. The reason for the higher prevalence in young cattle could be the negligence of young ones and taking more care of adult cattle particularly dairy cows by the herds’ owner. Furthermore, the immune system is not fully developed in young cattle to combat T. annulata infection [54]. On the other hand, a lower prevalence rate of TT in older animals may be due to their multiple recurrent infections and the development of concomitant immunity during their lifetime [6, 17].

During the present study, the gender-based analysis indicated that TT was more prevalent in female cattle (25.1%) as compared to male counterparts (20.9%). The multivariate logistic regression analysis also supported host gender as a potential risk factor for T. annulata infection (multivariate: P<0.05, OR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.3–0.8). These results are in line with the findings [2, 22, 25, 48] that reported higher TT prevalence in female cattle (36%, 34.8%) than male (13%, 5.8%), and host gender as a potential risk factor for TT prevalence in the bovine population [20, 28]. The possible explanation for the higher prevalence rate of TT in dams is that they have more hormonal fluctuation, weaken/disturbed immune response during the gestation or lactation period, and carrying more ticks that make them prone to TT incidence [28, 48, 55]. Therefore female cattle need more attention to reduce the risk of being infected with T. annulata [2, 20, 56].

A higher prevalence of TT was observed in the cross (25.5%) and exotic breeds (23%) of cattle as compared to the indigenous breed (22.5%). These findings are parallel to the previous reports [2, 20, 48] that reported a higher prevalence of TT in the crossbred cattle (14.7%, 39.84%) followed by exotic (13.6%, 28.92%) and indigenous breeds (1.6%, 11.58%) respectively. Cattle breed as potential risk factor for TT prevalence was found non-significant (univariate: P>0.05, OR: 1.1, 95% CI: 0.9–1.3; multivariate: P>0.05, OR: 0.8, 95% CI: 0.6–1.2). The low prevalence rates of TT in indigenous cattle as compared to cross and exotic breeds are characterized by lower acute-phase protein responses controlled by macrophage cytokines, enzootic stability, and a lower chance of tick infestation due to a high level of resistance to ticks as a result of long term exposure to vector ticks over generations [48, 57, 58]. Furthermore, acclimatization of the indigenous breed to the local environment would render them more hardy and resistant to stressors that could predispose them to infection [23, 28].

The prevalence rate of TT also varied in the cattle population concerning environmental factors i.e. acaricides treatment of the cattle, grazing practice, and tick infestation. Tropical theileriosis was significantly (P<0.05) linked with acaricides application on cattle. The infection was higher in cattle with no/irregular acaricides treatment for tick removal as compared to regularly treated cattle. These findings corroborate published studies from other parts of the country and elsewhere [2, 20, 47, 59], that reported lower T. annulata infection rate in herds where cattle were regularly treated with acaricides for ticks control. Acaricides application was also evaluated as potential risk factor that influence TT prevalence in the cattle population (univariate: P<0.05, OR: 3.4, 95% CI: 2.5–4.6; multivariate: P<0.05, OR: 1.4, 95% CI: 0.9–2.0). Acaricides application as a potential risk factor for TT agreed with the assessment of the published literature from other agro-ecological zones of the country, which presented that regular and proper acaricidal application on cattle could control tick vector and ultimately TT incidence in the endemic region [2, 20, 45].

The grazing practice of cattle was significantly linked (P<0.05) with the prevalence rate of TT in bovine. Tropical theileriosis was least prevalent in cattle with stall feeding activity (kept in farms with forage availability) as compared to cattle with semi-grazing and full grazing practices. These findings are identical with reports about the impact of grazing practice on TT prevalence in bovine animals [2, 20, 47, 56]. Logistic regression analyses also indicated that the feeding method is the critical risk factor influencing TT prevalence (univariate: P<0.05, OR: 0.4 95% CI: 0.3–0.5; multivariate: P<0.05, OR: 0.7, 95% CI: 0.5–0.9). Similar results were also reported from other parts of the country but least support is available to feeding habits as a potential risk factor for TT in the country [2, 8]. It is also known that some farmers from the study area allow their cattle free grazing that increases contact frequency with animals from other herds, facilitating ticks’ exchange that results in increased T. annulata infection. However stall feeders’ cattle that are kept in fences/farms and are not allowed to roam freely, reduce their exposure to tick sources like other tick-infested animals, plants and grasses in the grazing field where ticks ambush and wait for attachment to a bovine host [2, 60].

During the present study, it was reported that most of the ticks-infested cattle were found infected with T. annulata as compared to cattle with minimal or no tick infestation (P<0.05). Tick infestation on cattle as a potent risk factor also affected T. annulata transmission dynamics (univariate: P<0.05, OR: 37.2, 95% CI: 20.3–75.4; multivariate: P<0.05, OR: 25.4, 95% CI: 12.5–56.4). Our results support previously published literature from Pakistan and elsewhere about tick infestation and its possible impact on TT prevalence pattern in cattle as a potential risk factor [2, 20, 27, 43, 56, 6163]. Published literature indicates that more frequent transmission of T. annulata occurs when a suitable vector and infected host exist in close proximity [45]. In Pakistan, T. annulata is principally transmitted by H. anatolicum to bovine animals. Other studies from Pakistan further validated the presence of T. annulata in H. anatolicum (collected from cattle) and bovine host [27, 43].

Theileria annulata evolutionary history was inferred through 18S rRNA taxonomic marker. Homology searches of the 18S rRNA isolates shared 99–100% similarities with local and global isolates published in NCBI GenBank. The neighbor-joining algorithm grouped the present study 18S rRNA isolates into T. annulata clade, which include similar isolates published from other agro-ecological zones of Pakistan, Asia, and Europe; suggesting that these are closely related genetic variants. Similarly, 18S rRNA genetic marker has been previously used by several studies in Pakistan and elsewhere globally to identify and establish the phylogenetic profile of T. annulata circulating in bovine hosts [2, 26, 6466]. Our findings support and validate them. Target amplification of the hypervariable V4 region of the 18S rRNA gene is a preferred option to accurately identify, classify and explore the population structures of the piroplasm parasites [67, 68].

Conclusion

This research work investigated the molecular epidemiology of T. annulata in the cattle population from central Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pakistan and inferred the evolutionary history of T. annulata based on an 18S rRNA taxonomic marker. Theileria annulata isolates shared similarities and phylogeny with similar sequences reported from China, India, Iran, Turkey, and Spain. Additionally, the epidemiologic profile of T. annulata in cattle breeds was assessed and potential risk factors for tropical theileriosis were also determined. This research work has provided data on T. annulata phylogeny and epidemiology in bovine hosts from central Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pakistan. These findings will serve as a baseline and will facilitate future large-scale epidemiological investigations on TT at local and global levels.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the local veterinarians who helped during the sample collection. We would also like to thank Dr. Michael J. Turell for his technical assistance.

Data Availability

All the sequences are available from the NCBI Gene bank under accession# MW046053, MW046054, and MW046055.

Funding Statement

This research work was funded by the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan (HEC Project No. 20-4722).

References

  • 1.Lew-Tabor A, Valle MR. A review of reverse vaccinology approaches for the development of vaccines against ticks and tick borne diseases. Ticks and Tick-Borne Diseases. 2016;7(4):573–85. doi: 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2015.12.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Zeb J, Shams S, Din IU, Ayaz S, Khan A, Nasreen N, et al. Molecular epidemiology and associated risk factors of Anaplasma marginale and Theileria annulata in cattle from North-western Pakistan. Veterinary parasitology. 2020;279:109044. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2020.109044 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bilgic HB, Karagenç T, Shiels B, Tait A, Eren H, Weir W. Evaluation of cytochrome b as a sensitive target for PCR based detection of T. annulata carrier animals. Veterinary parasitology. 2010;174:341–7. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2010.08.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Purnell R. Theileria annulata as a hazard to cattle in countries on the northern Mediterranean littoral. Veterinary Science Communications. 1978;2(1):3–10. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Bishop RP, Odongo DO, Mann DJ, Pearson TW, Sugimoto C, Haines LR, et al. Theileria. Genome mapping and genomics in animal-associated microbes: Springer; 2009. p. 191–231. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Gharbi M, Darghouth MA. A review of Hyalomma scupense (Acari, Ixodidae) in the Maghreb region: from biology to control. Parasite. 2014;21:12–18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Ali A, Khan MA, Zahid H, Yaseen PM, Khan MQ, Nawab J, et al. Seasonal dynamics, record of ticks infesting humans, wild and domestic animals and molecular phylogeny of Rhipicephalus microplus in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pakistan. Frontiers in physiology. 2019;10. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2019.00793 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Rehman A, Nijhof AM, Sauter-Louis C, Schauer B, Staubach C, Conraths FJ. Distribution of ticks infesting ruminants and risk factors associated with high tick prevalence in livestock farms in the semi-arid and arid agro-ecological zones of Pakistan. Parasites & vectors. 2017;10(1):190. doi: 10.1186/s13071-017-2138-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Zahid I, Latif M, Baloch K. Incidence and treatment of theileriasis and babesiasis. Pakistan Veterinary Journal. 2005;25(3):137. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Robinson P. Theileriosis annulata and its transmission—a review. Tropical animal health and production. 1982;14(1):3–12. doi: 10.1007/BF02281092 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Brown C. Tropical theileriosis. In: Brown C, Torres A (Eds.), Foreign Animal Diseases, 7th ed., Publications Boca, Florida USA. 2008; 401–404. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Hayati M, Hassan S, Ahmed S, Salih D. Prevalence of ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) and Theileria annulata infection of cattle in Gezira State, Sudan. Parasite Epidemiology and Control. 2020:e00148. doi: 10.1016/j.parepi.2020.e00148 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Pienaar R, Troskie PC, Josemans AI, Potgieter FT, Maboko BB, Latif AA, et al. Investigations into the carrier-state of Theileria sp. (buffalo) in cattle. International journal for parasitology Parasites and wildlife. 2020;11:136–42. doi: 10.1016/j.ijppaw.2020.01.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Cacciò S, Cammà C, Onuma M, Severini C. The β-tubulin gene of Babesia and Theileria parasites is an informative marker for species discrimination. International Journal for Parasitology. 2000;30(11):1181–5. doi: 10.1016/s0020-7519(00)00105-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.De Kok J, d’Oliveira C, Jongejan F. Detection of the protozoan parasite Theileria annulata in Hyalomma ticks by the polymerase chain reaction. Experimental & applied acarology. 1993;17:839–46. doi: 10.1007/BF00225857 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.d’Oliveira C, Van Der Weide M, Habela MA, Jacquiet P, Jongejan F. Detection of Theileria annulata in blood samples of carrier cattle by PCR. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 1995;33(10):2665–9. doi: 10.1128/jcm.33.10.2665-2669.1995 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ilhan T, Williamson S, Kirvar E, Shiels B, Brown C. Theileria annulata: Carrier State and Immunity a. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1998;849(1):109–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Leemans I, Brown D, Hooshmand-Rad P, Kirvar E, Uggla A. Infectivity and cross-immunity studies of Theileria lestoquardi and Theileria annulata in sheep and cattle: I. In vivo responses. Veterinary parasitology. 1999;82(3):179–92. doi: 10.1016/s0304-4017(99)00013-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Shayan P, Biermann R, Schein E, Gerdes J, Ahmed J. Detection and Differentiation of Theileria annulata and Theileria parva Using Macroschizont-derived DNA Probes. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1998;849(1):88–95. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1998.tb11038.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Farooqi S, Ijaz M, Saleem M, Rashid M, Ahmad S, Islam S, et al. Prevalence and molecular diagnosis of Theileria annulata in bovine from three distinct zones of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, Pakistan. JAPS, Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences. 2017;27(6):1836–41. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Jabbar A, Abbas T, Saddiqi HA, Qamar MF, Gasser RB. Tick-borne diseases of bovines in Pakistan: major scope for future research and improved control. Parasites & vectors. 2015;8(1):283. doi: 10.1186/s13071-015-0894-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Durrani A, Kamal N. Identification of ticks and detection of blood protozoa in Friesian cattle by polymerase chain reaction test and estimation of blood parameters in district Kasur, Pakistan. Tropical animal health and production. 2008;40(6):441–7. doi: 10.1007/s11250-007-9117-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Durrani A, Mehmood N, Shakoori A. Comparison of three diagnostic methods for Theileria annulata in Sahiwal and Friesian cattle in Pakistan. Pak J Zool. 2010;42(4):467–72. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Khan A, Ashfaq K, ud Din I, ul Haq R, Jamil M, Ullah B, et al. Bovine theileriosis: Prevalence, estimation of hematological profile and chemotherapy in cattle in Dera Ismail Khan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province, Pakistan. American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS). 2017;32(1):8–17. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Khattak R, Rabib M, Khan Z, Ishaq M, Hameed H, Taqddus A, et al. A comparison of two different techniques for the detection of blood parasite, Theileria annulata, in cattle from two districts in Khyber Pukhtoon Khwa Province (Pakistan). Parasite: journal de la Société Française de Parasitologie. 2012;19(1):91. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Khan MK, He L, Hussain A, Azam S, Zhang W-J, Wang L-X, et al. Molecular epidemiology of Theileria annulata and identification of 18S rRNA gene and ITS regions sequences variants in apparently healthy buffaloes and cattle in Pakistan. Infection, Genetics, and Evolution. 2013;13:124–32. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2012.09.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Zeb J, Szekeres S, Takács N, Kontschán J, Shams S, Ayaz S, et al. Genetic diversity, piroplasms, and trypanosomes in Rhipicephalus microplus and Hyalomma anatolicum collected from cattle in northern Pakistan. Experimental and Applied Acarology. 2019;79(2):233–43. doi: 10.1007/s10493-019-00418-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Parveen A, Ashraf S, Aktas M, Ozubek S, Iqbal F. Molecular epidemiology of Theileria annulata infection of cattle in Layyah District, Pakistan. Experimental and Applied Acarology. 2021;83(3):461–73. doi: 10.1007/s10493-021-00595-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Qayyum M, Farooq U, Samad HA, Chauhdry HR. Prevalence, clinicotherapeutic and prophylactic studies on theileriosis in district Sahiwal (Pakistan). Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences. 2010; 20(4):266–270 [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Javid K, Akram MAN, Mumtaz M, Siddiqui R. Modeling and mapping of climatic classification of Pakistan by using remote sensing climate compound index (2000 to 2018). Applied Water Science. 2019;9(7):1–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Zomer RJ, Trabucco A, Bossio DA, Verchot LV. Climate change mitigation: A spatial analysis of global land suitability for clean development mechanism afforestation and reforestation. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment. 2008;126(1–2):67–80. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Shamshad KM. The meteorology of Pakistan: climate and weather of Pakistan: Royal Book Company; 1988. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Pakistan Economic Survey 2019–20. https://www.finance.gov.pk/survey_1920.html
  • 34.Pakistan Livestock Census, 2006. https://www.pbs.gov.pk/content/pakistan-livestock-census-2006
  • 35.Thrusfield M. Veterinary epidemiology: John Wiley & Sons; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Benjamin M. Outline of Veterinary Clinical Pathology, 3rdEdn. Iowa State University Press, Ames, USA; 1986. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Nayel M, El-Dakhly KM, Aboulaila M, Elsify A, Hassan H, Ibrahim E, et al. The use of different diagnostic tools for Babesia and Theileria parasites in cattle in Menofia, Egypt. Parasitology research. 2012;111(3):1019–24. doi: 10.1007/s00436-012-2926-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Noaman V. Comparison of molecular and microscopic technique for detection of Theileria spp. in carrier cattle. Journal of parasitic diseases. 2014;38(1):64–7. doi: 10.1007/s12639-012-0196-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Thompson JD, Higgins DG, Gibson TJ. CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic acids research. 1994;22(22):4673–80. doi: 10.1093/nar/22.22.4673 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Kumar S, Stecher G, Li M, Knyaz C, Tamura K. MEGA X: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis across computing platforms. Molecular biology and evolution. 2018;35(6):1547–9. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msy096 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. Basic local alignment search tool. Journal of molecular biology. 1990;215(3):403–10. doi: 10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Uilenberg G. Babesiosis. Encyclopedia of Arthropod-transmitted Infections of Man and Domesticated Animals. In. CABI Publishing, Wallingford; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Rehman A, Conraths FJ, Sauter-Louis C, Krücken J, Nijhof AM. Epidemiology of tick-borne pathogens in the semi-arid and the arid agro-ecological zones of Punjab province, Pakistan. Transboundary and emerging diseases. 2019;66(1):526–36. doi: 10.1111/tbed.13059 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Azizi H, Shiran B, Dehkordi AF, Salehi F, Taghadosi C. Detection of Theileria annulata by PCR and its comparison with smear method in native carrier cows. Biotechnology. 2008;7(3):574–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Chauhan H, Patel B, Bhagat A, Patel M, Patel S, Raval S, et al. Comparison of molecular and microscopic technique for detection of Theileria annulata from the field cases of cattle. Veterinary world. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Salih DA, Hassan S, El Hussein AM. Comparisons among two serological tests and microscopic examination for the detection of Theileria annulata in cattle in northern Sudan. Preventive veterinary medicine. 2007;81(4):323–6. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2007.05.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Selim A, Das M, Senapati S, Jena G, Mishra C, Mohanty B, et al. Molecular epidemiology, risk factors and hematological evaluation of asymptomatic Theileria annulata infected cattle in Odisha, India. Iranian Journal of Veterinary Research. 2020;21(4):250–6. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Tuli A, Singla LD, Sharma A, Bal MS, Filia G, Kaur P. Molecular epidemiology, risk factors and hematochemical alterations induced by Theileria annulata in bovines of Punjab (India). Acta Parasitologica. 2015Sep1;60(3):378–90. doi: 10.1515/ap-2015-0053 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Hassan MA, Liu J, Sajid MS, Rashid M, Mahmood A, Abbas Q, et al. Simultaneous detection of Theileria annulata and Theileria orientalis infections using recombinase polymerase amplification. Ticks and tick-borne diseases. 2018;9(4):1002–5. doi: 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2018.03.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Hoghooghi-Rad N, Ghaemi P, Shayan P, Eckert B, Sadr-Shirazi N. Detection of native carrier cattle infected with Theileria annulata by semi-nested PCR and smear method in Golestan Province of Iran. World Appl Sci J. 2011;12(3):317–23. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Dumanli N, Aktas M, Cetinkaya B, Cakmak A, Koroglu E, Saki C, et al. Prevalence and distribution of tropical theileriosis in eastern Turkey. Veterinary parasitology. 2005;127(1):9–15. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2004.08.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Rizk MA, Salama A, El-Sayed SA, Elsify A, El-Ashkar M, Ibrahim H, et al. Animal level risk factors associated with Babesia and Theileria infections in cattle in Egypt. Acta parasitologica. 2017Dec1;62(4):796–804. doi: 10.1515/ap-2017-0096 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Shahnawaz S, Ali M, Aslam M, Fatima R, Chaudhry Z, Hassan M, et al. A study on the prevalence of a tick-transmitted pathogen, Theileria annulata, and hematological profile of cattle from Southern Punjab (Pakistan). Parasitology research. 2011;109(4):1155–60. doi: 10.1007/s00436-011-2360-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Ahmed JS, Glass EJ, Salih DA, Seitzer U. Innate immunity to tropical theileriosis. Innate Immunity. 2008;14(1):5–12. doi: 10.1177/1753425907087258 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Kabir MH, Mondal MM, Eliyas M, Mannan MA, Hashem MA, Debnath NC, et al. An epidemiological survey on investigation of tick infestation in cattle at Chittagong District, Bangladesh. African Journal of Microbiology Research. 2011;5(4):346–352. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Moumouni PFA, Aplogan GL, Katahira H, Gao Y, Guo H, Efstratiou A, et al. Prevalence, risk factors, and genetic diversity of veterinary important tick-borne pathogens in cattle from Rhipicephalus microplus-invaded and non-invaded areas of Benin. Ticks and tick-borne diseases. 2018;9(3):450–64. doi: 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2017.12.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Glass EJ. The balance between protective immunity and pathogenesis in tropical theileriosis: what we need to know to design effective vaccines for the future. Research in veterinary science. 2001;70(1):71–75. doi: 10.1053/rvsc.2000.0428 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Moll G, Lohding A, Young AS. Epidemiology of theilerioses in the Trans-Mara Division, Kenya: husbandry and disease background and preliminary investigations on theilerioses in calves. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 1984;2(6):801–831. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.De Meneghi D, Stachurski F, Adakal H. Experiences in tick control by acaricide in the traditional cattle sector in Zambia and Burkina Faso: possible environmental and public health implications. Frontiers in public health. 2016; 4:239. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00239 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Calleja-Bueno L, Sainz Á, García-Sancho M, Rodríguez-Franco F, González-Martín JV, Villaescusa A. Molecular, epidemiological, haematological and biochemical evaluation in asymptomatic Theileria annulata infected cattle from an endemic region in Spain. Ticks and tick-borne diseases. 2017;8(6):936–941. doi: 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2017.08.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Inci A, Ica A, Yildirim A, Vatansever Z, Çakmak A, Albasan H, et al. Epidemiology of tropical theileriosis in the Cappadocia region. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences. 2008;32(1):57–64. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Sajid MS, Iqbal Z, Khan MN, Muhammad G, Khan MK. Prevalence and associated risk factors for bovine tick infestation in two districts of lower Punjab, Pakistan. Preventive veterinary medicine. 2009;92(4):386–91. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2009.09.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Ponnudurai G, Larcombe S, Velusamy R. Prevalence of tick-borne pathogens in co-grazed dairy bovines differs by region and host-type in Tamil Nadu; India. Journal of advance dairy research. 2017;5:177. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.George N, Bhandari V, Reddy DP, Sharma P. Molecular and Phylogenetic analysis revealed new genotypes of Theileria annulata parasites from India. Parasites & vectors. 2015;8(1):1–8. doi: 10.1186/s13071-015-1075-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Hassan MA, Liu J, Rashid M, Iqbal N, Guan G, Yin H, et al. Molecular survey of piroplasm species from selected areas of China and Pakistan. Parasites & vectors. 2018;11(1):1–7. doi: 10.1186/s13071-018-3035-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Ros-García A, Nicolás A, García-Pérez AL, Juste RA, Hurtado A. Development and evaluation of a real-time PCR assay for the quantitative detection of Theileria annulata in cattle. Parasites & vectors. 2012;5(1):1–8. doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-5-171 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Chaudhry U, Ali Q, Rashid I, Shabbir MZ, Ijaz M, Abbas M, et al. Development of a deep amplicon sequencing method to determine the species composition of piroplasm haemoprotozoa. Ticks and tick-borne diseases. 2019;10(6):101276. doi: 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2019.101276 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Glidden CK, Koehler AV, Hall RS, Saeed MA, Coppo M, Beechler BR, et al. Elucidating cryptic dynamics of Theileria communities in African buffalo using a high-throughput sequencing informatics approach. Ecology and evolution. 2020;10(1):70–80. doi: 10.1002/ece3.5758 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Shawky M Aboelhadid

23 Apr 2021

PONE-D-21-07164

Epidemiology and molecular characterization of Theileria annulata in cattle from central Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr.  Jehan Zeb,

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 Jun 07 2021 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Shawky M. Aboelhadid, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

[We are grateful to HEC Pakistan for the funding support.]

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

 [The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.]

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Please amend your manuscript to include your abstract after the title page.

4. 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:

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].”

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/

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: No

**********

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: The present manuscript represents an original descriptive survey on tropical theileriosis in the North Western mountainous parts of Pakistan. The manuscript is written in intelligible standard English. The ethics rules are adequately considered. However, as it stands, the present version could not be published in PLOS ONE. In order to be accepted the manuscript should undergo a major revision, its quality could be significantly improved considering the following comments:

INTRODUCTION

The structure of the introduction should be improved in order to show the expected scientific added value of the present work, the state of the art should better highlighted and in particular for the main epidemiological background data regarding the situation of tropical theileriosis (TT) in Pakistan and in the study region: main vectors of TT in Pakistan and in the study region; seasonality of transmission of TT ; endemic states, …. This information is essential to appreciate the relevance of the objectives stated in the introduction. The objectives should be ranked according to their contribution to fill the knowledge gap at both international and local levels.

The content of the introduction should be improved by introduction the following modifications:

-Line 36; please avoid to use other terminologies instead of TT, accordingly replace Tropical/Mediterranean theileriosis by TT;

-Line 45: replace the verb attack by invade; furthermore, the sporozoites do not “attack” or invade the erythrocytes;

-Line 48: merozoites are not representing the T. annulate proliferative stage, the macroschizont is the only stage responsible of uncontrolled clonal multiplication of infected mononuclear leucocytes;

-Line 51: please arrange the order of the symptoms of TT according to their frequency, it is classically admitted that hemoglobinuria is not a frequent symptom in TT.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The bioclimatic main features of the study region should be described since they modulate vector ticks activity and hence TT transmission dynamics.

The sampling strategy should be justified in relation to the main objective stated in the introduction, which is to have more information on TT prevalence. The most reliable appreciation of the prevalence is generally depending on the use of representative samples chosen randomly according to census data on cattle population. The authors should show how their sampling strategy is allowing a reliable estimation of TT prevalence which could be extrapolated to the whole cattle population of the study region.

The study region has a contrasted seasonal climate which influences tick activity and transmission of TT, accordingly the authors should mention the period of their transversal survey.

The recruited sample of 54 farms is totaling 810 bovine heads, among these only 600 animals were subject to blood sampling, accordingly the authors should mention the exclusion criteria /reasons for the 210 remaining heads.

The authors should define clearly what they mean by young animals, they should also give more information on what they call exotic and local cattle breeds.

The description of the microscopical detection of T. annulata on Giemsa stained blood smears should include the differential diagnosis criteria for other morphologically related parasites such as small forms Babesia species, Anaplasma , and other non-malignant Theileria species if present in the study region.

The factors retained for risk analysis should be rationally justified on the basis of previous publications and/or by their epidemiological relevance. Furthermore, the authors should give more details on the record of some risk factors and in particular for, i/ ticks presence, is this appreciated in some specific locations preferred by the Hyalomma genus or is it a generic question? ii/ regular and irregular tick treatment, technically what how are they defined?

RESULTS

The results are globally well presented; however, Table 2 seems to include mis-calculated data that should be corrected; indeed, the percentages of young and adult cattle and of males and females should be calculated within each district, the corresponding percentages shown in the table are referring to the distribution of each sex and age categories between and not within the three sites.

DISCUSSION

The discussion is not enough developed, in it is present form it is not valorizing the survey results.

The prevalence is not discussed in terms of significance for TT endemicity states.

The results of the risk analysis are not discussed in regard to the bioclimate of the region, the biology of the vector ticks and the transmission patterns of TT in the region or in similar regions in Pakistan or even in neighboring countries with similar contexts. For instance, the authors have not made any attempt to explain the higher prevalence reported in “young” animals, is that related to the fact that farmers are taking more care for adult cattle and particularly dairy cows? The statistical significance of some risk factors is not discussed. Similarly, the discussion has ignored to explain the significant effect of the “feeding method”, is that related to the vector tick biology?

The results of the phylogenetic analysis are not well discussed.

In the conclusion, the authors are bringing new developments which should have been included in the discussion, indeed, they are stating that their results could contribute to improve the control of TT. They should show how their results could be applied in practice for this purpose.

Reviewer #2: The authors present a manuscript that seeks to document the presence of Theileria annulata in a region of Pakistan.

Although the experimental design is correct and supports the rationale of the manuscript, some inaccuracies are present in the text. Regarding the methodology, it is felt that some aspects should be implemented or better specified. Statistical analysis was performed correctly although in some aspects it does not add new knowledge on the study of theileriosis, except for some aspects such as feeding conditions of the animals. The collected data are correctly and clearly presented in the tables. A minimal revision of English is required.

**********

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

[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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE_2021.docx

PLoS One. 2021 Sep 16;16(9):e0249417. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249417.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


29 Jun 2021

Dear Editor-in-Chief (Shawky M. Aboelhadid)

Thank you for your letter and the opportunity to revise our paper on ‘EPIDEMIOLOGY AND MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION OF THEILERIA ANNULATA IN CATTLE FROM CENTRAL KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, PAKISTAN’ The suggestions offered by the reviewers have been immensely helpful, constructive and we also appreciate your insightful comments on revising the methodology portion of the manuscript.

I have included the reviewer comments immediately after this letter and responded individually to each comment, indicating exactly how we addressed each concern or problem and describing the changes we have made. The revisions have been approved by all authors. The changes are marked in the paper as suggested, and the revised manuscript is attached to this email message (track changed and clean copies).

All other changes have been made accordingly which are listed below.

Sincerely,

Dr Jehan Zeb

Department of Zoology

Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan, Pakistan

Response to the main Concerns by the editor:

Thank you for your assessment. We have made changes accordingly which might be informative.

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

Response. The manuscript format and style is changed in accordance with the journal format and style.

Please amend your manuscript to include your abstract after the title page.

Response- The manuscript amended according to the suggestion.

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

[We are grateful to HEC Pakistan for the funding support.]

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

[The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.]

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Response. This section was modified as per suggestion.

3. Please amend your manuscript to include your abstract after the title page.

Response. It has been modified accordingly.

4. 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:

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].

Response. The map was designed by one of our co-authors and he agrees that the figure be published in PlosOne. Also we have checked with ESRI and that further permission from ESRI is not required The copyright permission was taken from the original copy holder with the following statement.

“I have no objection to publish the "Figure 1. Map of Central Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan and the districts where the cattle blood samples were collected" under the Creative Commons Attribution License”.

Response to the Reviewer’s Comments

Reviewer #1:

1. Introduction. The structure of the introduction should be improved in order to show the expected scientific added value of the present work, the state of the art should better highlighted and in particular for the main epidemiological background data regarding the situation of tropical theileriosis (TT) in Pakistan and in the study region: main vectors of TT in Pakistan and in the study region; seasonality of transmission of TT; endemic states, …. This information is essential to appreciate the relevance of the objectives stated in the introduction. The objectives should be ranked according to their contribution to fill the knowledge gap at both international and local levels.

Response- The entire introduction has been restructured and incorporated the data accordingly.

2. The content of the introduction should be improved by introduction the following modifications: see below

-Line 66; please avoid to use other terminologies instead of TT, accordingly replace Tropical/Mediterranean theileriosis by TT

Line 77: replace the verb attack by invade; furthermore, the sporozoites do not “attack” or invade the erythrocytes;

-Line 79: merozoites are not representing the T. annulate proliferative stage, the macroschizont is the only stage responsible of uncontrolled clonal multiplication of infected mononuclear leucocytes;

-Line 81: please arrange the order of the symptoms of TT according to their frequency, it is classically admitted that hemoglobinuria is not a frequent symptom in TT.

lines 89-91: the authors state that serological tests for the diagnosis of theielriosis are not very sensitive and not very specific, actually the statement is not correct because according to the OIE manual Chapter 11.10. - OIE of terrestrial animals, the IFA test has good diagnostic reliability.

Response- All of the above contents have been improved and replacements were made as per suggestions.

3. Materials and Methods. The sampling strategy should be justified in relation to the main objective stated in the introduction, which is to have more information on TT prevalence.

-The most reliable appreciation of the prevalence is generally depending on the use of representative samples chosen randomly according to census data on cattle population. The authors should show how their sampling strategy is allowing a reliable estimation of TT prevalence which could be extrapolated to the whole cattle population of the study region.

-The study region has a contrasted seasonal climate which influences tick activity and transmission of TT, accordingly the authors should mention the period of their transversal survey. -The recruited sample of 54 farms is totaling 810 bovine heads, among.

Line 118: In this section, it is important to give more information about the climate of the three regions studied. In fact, theileriosis can have seasonal recrudescences so it is important that sampling in the three study areas occurred in the same season to support the discussion. For these reasons it would be appropriate to specify the sampling period.

Response- All the comments in this section addressed appropriately and the required information provided.

4. Materials and Methods - The description of the microscopical detection of T. annulata on Giemsa stained blood smears should include the differential diagnosis criteria for other morphologically related parasites such as small forms Babesia species, Anaplasma , and other non-malignant Theileria species if present in the study region. -line 161: According to which manual was the presence of T. annulata assessed on optical myroscopy?.

Response- All the details provided accordingly.

5. Materials and Methods - lines 175-186: This entire section could be eliminated by referring only to the instruction manual of the kit used.

Response- This section has been removed and referred accordingly.

6. lines 186 - 188. since the extracted DNA was analyzed with the nanodrop it would be appropriate to indicate the concentration of the template and not the microlites, unless the authors started from DNA at the same concentration for all samples.

Response- This section has been corrected.

7. lines 190-198: it is required to specify what has been the method used to design the primers (how many sequences have been taken into account, what software has been used etc. ...)

Response. This statement has been justified.

8. -The results are globally well presented; however, Table 2 seems to include mis-calculated data that should be corrected; indeed, the percentages of young and adult cattle and of males and females should be calculated within each district, the corresponding percentages shown in the table are referring to the distribution of each sex and age categories between and not within the three sites.

Response. Table 2 was corrected and miscalculated data was removed.

9. The authors should define clearly what they mean by young animals, they should also give more information on what they call exotic and local cattle breeds.

Response. It has been explained as requested.

10. The discussion is not enough developed, in it is present form it is not valorizing the survey results.

-The prevalence is not discussed in terms of significance for TT endemicity states.

Response. Discussion reframed and discuss in details including prevalence in terms of significance for TT endemicity states and with reference to current status of TT in Pakistan.

11- The results of the risk analysis are not discussed in regard to the bioclimate of the region, the biology of the vector ticks and the transmission patterns of TT in the region or in similar regions in Pakistan or even in neighboring countries with similar contexts. -For instance, the authors have not made any attempt to explain the higher prevalence reported in “young” animals, is that related to the fact that farmers are taking more care for adult cattle and particularly dairy cows?

Response. Bioclimatic conditions of the region, and the transmission patterns of TT in the region or in similar regions in Pakistan and other countries discussed appropriately.

12- The statistical significance of some risk factors is not discussed.

Response. All of the concerned part were explained accordingly.

13- Similarly, the discussion has ignored to explain the significant effect of the “feeding method”, is that related to the vector tick biology?

Response. This portion has been justified accordingly.

14- The results of the phylogenetic analysis are not well discussed.

Response. Phylogenetic analysis has discussed in detail.

15- In the conclusion, the authors are bringing new developments which should have been included in the discussion, indeed, they are stating that their results could contribute to improve the control of TT. They should show how their results could be applied in practice for this purpose.

Response. This statement has been justified,

16- The authors state that the prevalence data obtained by PCR are superimposable to those obtained by the same method elsewhere. It would be appropriate to specify how sensitivity and specificity of their method were assessed.

Response. Specificity and sensitivity are well analysed and specified.

17- It would be good to reference this statement with recent phylogenetic studies.

Response. It has been made accordingly.

18- The factors retained for risk analysis should be rationally justified on the basis of previous publications and/or by their epidemiological relevance. Furthermore, the authors should give more details on the record of some risk factors and in particular for, i/ ticks presence, is this appreciated in some specific locations preferred

Response. These factors have been justified accordingly as can be seen in the discussion portion.

Reviewer #2:

The authors present a manuscript that seeks to document the presence of Theileria annulata in a region of Pakistan.

Although the experimental design is correct and supports the rationale of the manuscript, some inaccuracies are present in the text. Regarding the methodology, it is felt that some aspects should be implemented or better specified. Statistical analysis was performed correctly although in some aspects it does not add new knowledge on the study of theileriosis, except for some aspects such as feeding conditions of the animals. The collected data are correctly and clearly presented in the tables. A minimal revision of English is required.

Response. The methodology portion was corrected and information provided accordingly. Similarly, missing information and English corrections were also made.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response Letter.doc

Decision Letter 1

Shawky M Aboelhadid

27 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-07164R1

Epidemiology and molecular characterization of Theileria annulata in cattle from central Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Jehan Zeb,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: Please try to respond to the suggested comments of the reviewer. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 10 2021 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Shawky M. Aboelhadid, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. 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

**********

6. 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: The revised manuscript has been significantly improved, the majority of the reviewers recommendations were addressed. For this reason, I recommend to accept the present manuscript for publication in PlosOne. In order to optimise the quality of the final version of the manuscript, I will however strongly recommend to the authors, the include the following points:

- To mention the tropical theileriosis season(s) in the study region, since this information will position the sampling period (April to September) in regard to the disease season, this information could be relevant to discuss better the sensitivity of blood smears and PCR detection in regard to T. annulata transmission dynamics

- A mention if available in the region or in similar other Pakistani regions on the vector Hyalomma anatolicum ticks dynamics

- To add to the discussion possible reasons explaining the higher prevalence recorded in younger animals

In addition, the authors should take care to make the following corrections:

- Line 61: use the valid name of H. scupense instead of H. detritum .

- Line 77: the phrase “This diagnostic procedure has limited use as it cannot detect T. annulata in infected carrier animals” is not coherent with the fact that the animals detected in the present study are presumably carriers since the authors did not mention any clinical cases of tropical theileriosis in the surveyed farms. I will recommend to change the phrase as follow: this diagnostic procedure is not enough sensitive to allow a reliable detection of carrier animals.

- Line 225: the last phrase is redundant since the same information has been mentioned at lines 222-223.

Reviewer #2: The authors followed all indications suggested in the first round of review. All suggestions were properly followed and all requests accommodated.

**********

7. 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

[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 Sep 16;16(9):e0249417. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249417.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


1 Aug 2021

R/Dear Academic Editor Dr. Shawky M. Aboelhadid,

Thank you for your letter and the opportunity to revise and submit our manuscript again on ‘EPIDEMIOLOGY AND MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION OF THEILERIA ANNULATA IN CATTLE FROM CENTRAL KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, PAKISTAN’ The suggestions offered by the reviewer have been immensely helpful and constructive. We are thankful to you, to the reviewers and PLOS ONE scientific platform which support and encourage young researchers’ publications.

We have addressed all the comments, revised and proofread the manuscript together with reference list to exclude any typos if present. Responses to the journal requirements and reviewer’s comments are included immediately after this letter. The revised manuscript is attached to this email message (track changed and clean copies).

Sincerely,

Dr. Jehan Zeb

Department of Zoology

Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan, Pakistan

Response to the Journal Requirements:

1. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Response: The whole reference list is carefully reviewed. No retracted reference was found in the list. The references are arranged according to the standard PLOS ONE style template. The reference section is complete and correct.

Response to the Reviewer’s Comments

Reviewer #1: The revised manuscript has been significantly improved, the majority of the reviewers’ recommendations were addressed. For this reason, I recommend to accept the present manuscript for publication in PlosOne. In order to optimise the quality of the final version of the manuscript, I will however strongly recommend to the authors, to nclude the following points:

1. To mention the tropical theileriosis season(s) in the study region, since this information will position the sampling period (April to September) in regard to the disease season, this information could be relevant to discuss better the sensitivity of blood smears and PCR detection in regard to T. annulata transmission dynamics.

Response: The relevant information are addressed in the revised manuscript. The literature about the disease season (s) is inserted in the introduction section and our findings are also explained in the results sections.

2. A mention if available in the region or in similar other Pakistani regions on the vector Hyalomma anatolicum ticks dynamics.

Response: There is no relevant data available about the vector tick H. anatolicum dynamics. All such information will be investigated and addressed soon in our incoming articles.

3. To add to the discussion possible reasons explaining the higher prevalence recorded in younger animals.

Response: We have provided relevant and possible reasons to justify the higher prevalence recorded in younger animals.

In addition, the authors should take care to make the following corrections:

- Line 61: use the valid name of H. scupense instead of H. detritum.

Response: The mentioned species name (H. detritum) was replaced with the valid species name H. scupense. The synonym is removed.

- Line 77: the phrase “This diagnostic procedure has limited use as it cannot detect T. annulata in infected carrier animals” is not coherent with the fact that the animals detected in the present study are presumably carriers since the authors did not mention any clinical cases of tropical theileriosis in the surveyed farms. I will recommend to change the phrase as follow: this diagnostic procedure is not enough sensitive to allow a reliable detection of carrier animals.

Response: The mentioned sentence is rephrased as suggested by reviewer “this diagnostic procedure is not enough sensitive to allow a reliable detection of TT in carrier animals”.

- Line 225: the last phrase is redundant since the same information has been mentioned at lines 222-223.

Response: This portion is reshaped by removing the redundant phrase.

We are thankful to reviewer # 1 for his expert and constructive comments which have improved the quality of our manuscript.

Reviewer #2: The authors followed all indications suggested in the first round of review. All suggestions were properly followed and all requests accommodated.

Response: Thank you sir for providing us the opportunity to revise and improve our manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

Decision Letter 2

Shawky M Aboelhadid

31 Aug 2021

Epidemiology and molecular characterization of Theileria annulata in cattle from central Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

PONE-D-21-07164R2

Dear Dr. Jehan Zeb,

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,

Shawky M. Aboelhadid, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. 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: Yes

**********

5. 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

**********

6. 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: The authors have correctly addressed all the issues raised by reviewers, accordingly the present manuscript could be accepted, as it is sanding, for publication in PLOS ONE.

**********

7. 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

Acceptance letter

Shawky M Aboelhadid

6 Sep 2021

PONE-D-21-07164R2

Epidemiology and molecular characterization of Theileria annulata in cattle from central Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

Dear Dr. Zeb:

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

Professor Shawky M. Aboelhadid

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE_2021.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response Letter.doc

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

    Data Availability Statement

    All the sequences are available from the NCBI Gene bank under accession# MW046053, MW046054, and MW046055.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES