CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 34Vector-borne infectious diseasesBartonella species infections researchViral Infections and Vectors

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Serological differentiation of antibodies against Rickettsia helvetica, R. raoultii, R. slovaca, R. monacensis and R. felis in dogs from Germany by a micro-immunofluorescent antibody test

Open access
Wächter, Miriam, Wölfel, Silke, Pfeffer, Martin, Dobler, Gerhard, Kohn, Barbara, Moritz, Andreas, Pachnicke, Stefan, Silaghi, Cornelia·2015·Parasites & Vectors
DOI 10.1186/s13071-015-0745-1PMC PMC4369902
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Spotted Fever Group (SFG) Rickettsiae can cause febrile diseases with or without rash in humans worldwide. In Germany only limited data are available about their medical significance. Serological screening tests for antibodies against rickettsiae usually only distinguish between SFG and Typhus Group (TG) Rickettsiae due to the strong cross reactivities within the groups. Seroprevalence rates in dogs, as possible sentinels for tick-borne diseases, could serve as an indicator for the distribution of different Rickettsia species. METHODS: In this study, a micro-immunofluorescence assay (micro-IFA) was established for detection and differentiation of antibodies against five Rickettsia species in dogs (R. helvetica, R. raoultii, R. slovaca, R. monacensis and R. felis). Dogs that never left Germany (n = 605) previously investigated with an SFG-ELISA were included in this study and screened at a 1:128 dilution. Endpoint titres of fifty randomly selected seropositive samples of each of the five investigated regions in Germany were determined in order to allow a differentiation of the causative Rickettsia species. Sensitivity and specificity of the micro-IFA were compared with ELISA results of the previous study. RESULTS: A total of 93.9% of the dogs were positive for antibodies of the SFG Rickettsiae at the screening titer of 1:128. Differentiation of SFG Rickettsiae with the micro-IFA was possible in 70.4%, but in 29.6% of the cases the detected antibodies were not differentiable. Considering a clear differentiation by a twofold titre difference between observed reactions, the seroprevalence rates were 66.0% for R. helvetica, 2.8% for R. raoultii, 1.6% for R. slovaca, but no serological reaction could be clearly attributed to R. monacensis or R. felis. No statistically significant regional differences were found for R. helvetica, R. slovaca and R. raoultii comparing the five regions of Germany. Comparison of micro-IFA with ELISA revealed a sensitivity of 82.0% and a specificity of 83.8% for the Rickettsia SFG ELISA. CONCLUSIONS: The micro-IFA is a useful serological tool to differentiate antibodies against different Rickettsia species in dogs. Seroprevalence rates in dogs correspond to the prevalence rates and distribution of Rickettsia-carrying tick species.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13071-015-0745-1

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. 10.1128/CMR.18.4.719-756.2005 · DOI
  2. 10.1099/00207713-50-4-1449 · DOI
  3. 10.1099/00207713-51-6-2145 · DOI
  4. 10.1099/00207713-47-2-252 · DOI
  5. 10.1371/journal.pone.0000266 · DOI
  6. 10.1128/CMR.00032-13 · DOI
  7. 10.1056/NEJM200105173442003 · DOI
  8. 10.1128/JCM.42.8.3428-3434.2004 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2012.10.004 · DOI
  10. 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2004.01019.x · DOI
  11. 10.3201/eid1603.090184 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)04093-3 · DOI
  13. 10.3201/eid0604.000412 · DOI
  14. 10.3201/eid1309.060186 · DOI
  15. 10.3201/eid1804.111583 · DOI
  16. 10.3201/eid1201.050850 · DOI
  17. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000338 · DOI
  18. 10.4269/ajtmh.2010.09-0662 · DOI
  19. 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02735-5 · DOI
  20. 10.3201/eid2010.131797 · DOI
  21. 10.1196/annals.1374.040 · DOI
  22. 10.1111/j.1198-743X.2004.00782.x · DOI
  23. 10.1186/1471-2334-11-167 · DOI
  24. 10.3201/eid1512.090843 · DOI
  25. 10.3201/eid0802.010293 · DOI
  26. 10.3201/eid1412.080229 · DOI
  27. 10.1590/S0074-02762008000700012 · DOI
  28. 10.3201/eid1212.060326 · DOI
  29. 10.1196/annals.1374.133 · DOI
  30. 10.1093/jmedent/45.5.948 · DOI
  31. 10.1186/1756-3305-4-135 · DOI
  32. 10.1089/vbz.2006.6.382 · DOI
  33. 10.1603/ME11204 · DOI
  34. 10.3201/eid1705.101445 · DOI
  35. 10.1089/vbz.2012.1278 · DOI
  36. 10.1007/s00436-014-3869-x · DOI
  37. 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2013.04.009 · DOI
  38. 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2010.04.001 · DOI
  39. 10.1186/1756-3305-7-353 · DOI
  40. 10.1007/s10493-012-9539-8 · DOI
  41. 10.1186/s13071-014-0477-7 · DOI
  42. 10.3201/eid1408.071546 · DOI
  43. 10.3201/eid1201.050876 · DOI
  44. 10.1093/infdis/148.5.876 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 34

Metadata

Authors
Wächter, M., Wölfel, S., Pfeffer, M., Dobler, G., Kohn, B., Moritz, A., Pachnicke, S., & Silaghi, C.
Affiliations
  • Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
  • German Center for Infection Research (DE)
  • Leipzig University (DE)
  • Freie Universität Berlin (DE)
  • Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen (DE)
  • Bayer (Germany) (DE)
  • University of Zurich (CH)
Corresponding author
Wächter, Miriam
ORCID
Venue
Parasites & Vectors
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2015
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
126
ISSN
1756-3305 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s13071-015-0745-1
PMC
PMC4369902
OpenAlex
W2114852854
Cited by
34
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2
FWCI
4.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Parasites & Vectors (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Open access LMU (Ludwid Maxmilian's Universitat Munchen) (submittedVersion)
  • Refubium (Universitätsbibliothek der Freien Universität Berlin) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Universität Hohenheim
  • Bayer HealthCare
  • Freie Universität Berlin
  • Veterinärmedizinische Universität Wien
  • Bayer Vital
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Parasitology › Vector-borne infectious diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Bartonella species infections research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Viral Infections and Vectors
Keywords
Rickettsia helvetica, Rickettsia raoultii, Rickettsia slovaca, Rickettsia monacensis, Rickettsia felis, spotted fever group rickettsiae, serological differentiation, seroprevalence, dogs as sentinels, tick-borne diseases, cross-reactivity, ELISA comparison, Germany
MeSH terms
Animals, Antibodies, Bacterial, Cats, DNA, Bacterial, Dogs, Germany, Humans, Rickettsia, Rickettsia Infections, Ticks, Seroepidemiologic Studies, Tick-Borne Diseases, Felis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review