Next Article in Journal
Genetic and Biochemical Characterization of AXC-2 from Achromobacter ruhlandii
Next Article in Special Issue
Presence of Mycoplasma bovis in Bulk Tank Milk and Associated Risk Factor Analysis in Serbian Dairy Farms
Previous Article in Journal
Mucosal Immunity against SARS-CoV-2 in the Respiratory Tract
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Pathogens
Volume 13
Issue 2
10.3390/pathogens13020114
pathogens-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Role of Mycoplasma bovirhinis in the Development of Singular and Concomitant Respiratory Infections in Dairy Calves from Southern Brazil

by
Ana Paula Souza Frucchi
1,
Alais Maria Dall Agnol
1,
Eloiza Teles Caldart
2,
Dalton Everton Bronkhorst
1,
Alice Fernandes Alfieri
1,3,4,
Amauri Alcindo Alfieri
1,3,4 and
Selwyn Arlington Headley
3,4,5,*
1
Laboratory of Animal Virology, Department of Preventive Veterinary Medicine, Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Londrina 86057-970, Brazil
2
Laboratory of Protozoology and Parasitic Diseases, Department of Preventive Veterinary Medicine, Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Londrina 86057-970, Brazil
3
Multi-User Animal Health Laboratory (LAMSA), Department of Preventive Veterinary Medicine, Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Londrina 86057-970, Brazil
4
National Institute of Science and Technology for Dairy Production Chain (INCT–LEITE), Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Londrina 86057-970, Brazil
5
Laboratory of Animal Pathology, Department of Preventive Veterinary Medicine, Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Londrina 86057-970, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pathogens 2024, 13(2), 114; https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens13020114
Submission received: 30 December 2023 / Revised: 19 January 2024 / Accepted: 24 January 2024 / Published: 26 January 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Mycoplasmas in Respiratory Tract Infections of Cattle)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The role of Mycoplasma bovirhinis in the development of pulmonary disease in cattle is controversial and was never evaluated in cattle from Latin America. This study investigated the respiratory infection dynamics associated with M. bovirhinis in suckling calves from 15 dairy cattle herds in Southern Brazil. Nasal swabs were obtained from asymptomatic (n = 102) and calves with clinical manifestations (n = 103) of bovine respiratory disease (BRD) and used in molecular assays to identify the specific genes of viral and bacterial disease pathogens of BRD. Only M. bovirhinis, bovine coronavirus (BCoV), ovine gammaherpesvirus 2 (OvGHV2), Histophilus somni, Pasteurella multocida, and Mannheimia haemolytica were detected. M. bovirhinis was the most frequently diagnosed pathogen in diseased (57.8%; 59/102) and asymptomatic (55.3%; 57/103) calves at all farms. BCoV-related infections were diagnosed in diseased (52%; 53/102) and asymptomatic (51.4%; 53/103) calves and occurred in 93.3% (14/15) of all farms. Similarly, infectious due to OvGHV2 occurred in diseased (37.2%; 38/102) and asymptomatic (27.2%; /28/103) calves and were diagnosed in 80% (12/15) of all farms investigated. Significant statistical differences were not identified when the two groups of calves were compared at most farms, except for infections due to OvGHV2 that affected five calves at one farm. These results demonstrated that the respiratory infection dynamics of M. bovirhinis identified in Southern Brazil are similar to those observed worldwide, suggesting that there is not enough sufficient collected data to consider M. bovirhinis as a pathogen of respiratory infections in cattle. Additionally, the possible roles of BCoV and OvGHV2 in the development of BRD are discussed.

1. Introduction

Bovine respiratory disease (BRD) is a multifactorial and multietiological disease complex associated with a wide range of infectious disease pathogens and abrupt alterations to management practices and environmental conditions [1,2,3]. Infectious agents associated with BRD include conventional respiratory pathogens of ruminants such as Histophilus somni, Pasteurella multocida, Mannheimia haemolytica, Mycoplasma bovis, the bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV), bovine alphaherpesvirus 1 (BoAHV1), bovine respiratory syncytial virus (BRSV), bovine coronavirus (BCoV), and bovine parainfluenza virus 3 (BPIV3) [3,4,5,6]. Additional infectious agents considered to be associated with the development of BRD include the ovine gammaherpesvirus 2 (OvGHV2) [7], bovine adenovirus 3, influenza D virus, and bovine rhinitis A virus [8,9].
The role of Mycoplasma bovirhinis (M. bovirhinis) in the development of BRD is controversial since this organism was identified in the lungs of cattle without any association with pulmonary disease [8,10]. Nevertheless, a significant predominance of M. bovirhinis was identified in the aspirated bronchoalveolar fluid [11] and the nasopharyngeal microbiota [12] of diseased calves relative to calves without clinical manifestations of BRD, suggesting a possible role of M. bovirhinis in the development of BRD. Additionally, M. bovirhinis was indicated as the etiologic agent of an outbreak of pneumonia in calves [13], seems to be endemic in ruminants from the UK [14,15], and was identified in pneumonic calves from Holland [16]. Furthermore, M. bovirhinis was the predominant pathogen detected in the nasal swabs (NS) of calves and was associated with an outbreak of BRD in the USA [17]. However, M. bovirhinis was one of the most frequently identified organisms from the nasopharyngeal microbiota of calves [18,19,20] and was identified in almost equal proportions in asymptomatic, diseased, and calves suspected of BRD [10,21]. These findings suggest that M. bovirhinis may or may not be associated with the development of BRD in cattle. Consequently, additional studies are required to investigate the possible participation, if any, of M. bovirhinis in the development of pulmonary disease in cattle.
It must be highlighted that all previous studies that have investigated the possible association of M. bovirhinis in the development of BRD were performed either in North America [12,17,18,19,20], Europe [16,21], the UK [14], or Asia [13]. Similar investigations were not identified in Latin or South America when major databases were searched. Consequently, there is a need to understand the dynamics of this agent with the association of BRD in cattle from South America, considering that the existing environmental differences [22], as well as the differences in the farming and management systems [23], used in these distinct geographical regions may have some influence on the occurrence, development, and maintenance of the disease in animal populations. Therefore, we investigated the possible role of M. bovirhinis in the development of BRD in dairy calves from Southern Brazil.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Animals and Study Location

The occurrence of respiratory disease was investigated in 15 dairy farming units located in the rural districts of several cities, predominantly within the East-West mesoregion of the state of Paraná, Southern Brazil. Part of the samples were from a previous study [24]. These farms consisted of small to medium-sized dairy establishments that are maintained essentially for milk production. Suckling calves at these farms, consisting predominantly of the Holstein breed, were not immunized against any infectious disease agent and were maintained in collective pens. All calves received commercially produced milker replacements and/or milk produced on each farm and water ad libitum.

2.2. Sampling and Inclusion Criteria

The sampling was performed during on-site visits to these establishments and before the initiation of any therapeutic intervention. Nasal swabs (NS) were obtained from all animals, maintained on ice, and submitted for laboratory evaluation within four hours after collection. All NS were collected with commercially produced synthetic nylon swabs (16 cm) that were inserted as deep as possible into the ventral meatus of the nostril. The nostrils of all calves were cleaned with disposable paper towels before sampling.
Calves were characterized as diseased due to the demonstration of a combination of at least four of the following clinical manifestations indicative of BRD: fever (>40 °C), cough, nasal and/or ocular discharge, and dyspnea [25]. Dairy calves without any of these clinical manifestations were classified as asymptomatic. Furthermore, calves with at least one of the clinical manifestations were not included in this study. Accordingly, NS were obtained from diseased (n = 103) and asymptomatic (n = 102) dairy calves and then used in molecular assays designed to detect the possible association of conventional and nonconventional agents associated with the development of BRD.

2.3. Molecular Detection of Agents Associated with the Development of BRD

Nucleic acids were extracted from all NS using a combination of the phenol/chloroform/isoamyl alcohol and silica/guanidine isothiocyanate methods as described [26,27]. The extracted nucleic acids were then used in molecular assays that targeted specific genes of H. somni [28], P. multocida [29], M. haemolytica [11], M. bovis and mollicutes [30], BVDV [31], BoAHV1 [32], BRSV [33], BCoV [34], BPIV3 [35], and OvGHV2 [36]. A list of the specific target genes of these organisms with the primer sequences and the desired amplicon size in base pairs (bp) is provided (Supplementary Materials Table S1). Positive controls consisted of the utilization of DNA/RNA of these organisms derived from previous studies [7,37]. Sterile, ultrapure water (Invitrogen Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA, USA) was used as a negative control. Positive and negative controls were included in all molecular assays.

2.4. Molecular Identification of Mycoplasma Bovirhinis

The detection of M. bovirhinis was performed due to the development of specific primers that were used in a two-step process. Initially, the primers (MolliF/MolliR) were used for the amplification of the 16S-23S rRNA internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region of the mollicute genome [30]. This consensual PCR assay was designed to detect mollicutes and amplify PCR products with lengths ranging from 847 to 866 bp. All PCR conditions and procedures were performed as previously described [30].
The detection of M. bovirhinis was performed via the utilization of primers (forward 5′-ATAAGGTTATCATTTCTTATT-3′ and reverse 5′-AAAATAGTCTTGAATGCG-3′) designed for the specific amplification of 419 bp internal to the previously mentioned PCR assay [30]. These primers were then used in a second round of PCR (nested-PCR, nPCR). All reactions were performed with final solutions of 50 µL containing a 1× PCR buffer (20 mM Tris-HCl pH 8.4 and 50 mM KCl), 2.5 mM MgCl2, 10 mM of each dNTP, 20 pmol of each primer (forward and reverse), 2.5 U Platinum Taq DNA Polymerase (Invitrogen™ Life Technologies, São Paulo, SP, Brazil), and 1 µL PCR product. Ultrapure sterile water was added to a final volume of 50 μL. Amplification was performed with the following cycling profile: an initial step of 5 min at 94 °C, followed by 35 cycles of 30 s/94 °C, 30 s/48 °C, 1 min/72 °C, and a final extension step of 7 min/72 °C.

2.5. Sequence Determination of Infectious Disease Agents

The products obtained from all molecular assays were purified with a commercial kit (PureLink Quick Gel Extraction and PCR Purification Combo Kit; Invitrogen Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA, USA), quantified using a Qubit Fluorometer (Invitrogen Life Technologies, Eugene, OR, USA), and then submitted for direct sequencing in both directions with the forward and reverse primers used in the respective molecular assays. Sequencing was performed using an ABI3500 Genetic Analyzer sequencer with the BigDye Terminator v3.1 Cycle Sequencing Kit (Applied Biosystems®, Foster City, CA, USA).
Sequence quality analyses and consensus sequences were obtained using the PHRED and CAP3 webpage (http://asparagin.cenargen.embrapa.br/phph, accessed on 8 January 2024), respectively. The identities of the nucleotide (nt) sequences obtained were compared with the nt sequences deposited in GenBank via BLAST (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi, accessed on 8 January 2024) analysis. Selected sequences were deposited in GenBank.

2.6. Determination of the Presence or Absence of Infectious Disease Agents

A farm or animal was considered to be infected when one or more of the agents investigated were detected at the farm or from the NS of the calf. Additionally, infections were considered singular when only one infectious disease agent was detected via a particular molecular investigation at each farm/animal. Similarly, infections were considered to be mixed/simultaneous when more than one of these agents was identified concomitantly at the farms and/or from the NS of the animal investigated.

2.7. Statistical Analyses

Microsoft Excel was used to store the data obtained and produce the graphical representations. The Epiinfo program (version 7.2.3.1) generated all frequency tables and was used to determine a possible statistically significant association between the molecular detection of disease pathogens of BRD and the occurrence of clinical manifestations. The Yates-corrected Chi-square or Fisher´s exact test was used with a significance level of p < 0.05. In addition, when appropriate, the obtained results were interpreted using descriptive statistical analyses.

3. Results

3.1. Animals, Sheep Rearing, and Infections

The calves from this study were derived from dairy cattle herds maintained in the rural areas of five cities; most of these are located within the East-Central mesoregion of Paraná state, except Clevelândia, located in the South-Central mesoregion (Table 1). All farms are enclosed dairy units with sheep rearing being performed within 0.5–1 km of Farms # 1 and 2, located on the outskirts of the city of Arapoti. However, the rural area of Castro has one of the largest sheep populations within the Paraná State [38]. Infections at these farms were associated with singular and concomitant associations due to M. bovirhinis, P. multocida, M. haemolytica, H. somni, BCoV, and OvGHV2 (see details below). Furthermore, the nucleic acids of M. bovis, other mollicutes, BVDV, BoAHV1, BRSV, and BPIV3 were not detected in the NS from any of the calves investigated during this study. A list of the agents identified in all calves during this study can be consulted (Supplementary Materials Table S2).

3.2. Molecular Amplification of M. bovirhinis and Other Infectious Agents

The M. bovirhinis nPCR assay was efficient for the specific nucleic acid amplification of this microorganism using the primers described in this study and resulted in the amplification of the desired bp of the ITS region. Similarly, the PCR and/or RT-PCR amplified the respective (amplicon) bp of the specific genes of P. multocida, M. haemolytica, H. somni, BCoV, and OvGHV2.
Direct sequencing confirmed the nPCR assays of M. bovirhinis as well as the molecular assays of the other agents identified. Representative nt sequences of these agents are deposited in GenBank (M. bovirhinis, PP060739, PP060740, PP060741; OvGHV2, PP059653, and PP059654).

3.3. Association between the Occurrence of Respiratory Infections in Asymptomatic and Diseased Dairy Calves

Only 6 of the 12 pathogens investigated were identified in calves during this study, resulting in infections due to M. bovirhinis, P. multocida, M. haemolytica, H. somni, BCoV, and OvGHV2. However, when the occurrence of respiratory infections was related to diseased and asymptomatic calves, a significant (p = 0.047) statistical association was only identified in calves reared at Farm #7 from the rural region of Castro that were infected by OvGHV2 (Table 1). Although M. bovirhinis was the most frequently identified pathogen in calves at all farms, resulting in infections in 57.8% (59/102) of the calves with clinical manifestations of BRD, as well as in asymptomatic calves (55.3%; 57/103), no significant statistical association (p = 0.718) was identified when these categories of calves were evaluated (Table 2). Other frequently occurring BRD pathogens diagnosed in dairy calves at these farms were BCoV, OvGHV2, and Pasteurella multocida, being identified in 93.3% (14/15), 80% (12/15), and 73.3% (11/15) of all farms investigated, respectively (Table 2). Of these three agents, BCoV was frequently diagnosed, occurring in diseased (52%; 53/102) and asymptomatic (51.5%; 53/103) calves. Similarly, infectious due to OvGHV2 occurred in diseased (37.2%; 38/102) as well as asymptomatic (27.2%;/28/103) calves. Nevertheless, there was no statistical association for the occurrence of these pathogens when the two categories of calves were compared.

3.4. Occurrence of Respiratory Pathogens in Dairy Calves with Clinical Manifestations of BRD

Calves with clinical manifestations of BRD had singular (n = 25), dual (n = 30), triple (n = 23), quadruple (n = 11), and quintuple (n = 4) infections due to the six agents diagnosed at these farms (Table 3 and Table 4). Singular infections were more frequently diagnosed in sick calves due to M. bovirhinis (32%; 8/25) and BCoV (28%; 7/25), followed by P. multocida (16%; 4/25) and OvGHV2 (12%; 3/25). Frequent dual infections (Table 4) in diseased calves were due to the simultaneous occurrences of M. bovirhinis + BCoV (36.7%; 11/30) and M. bovirhinis + OvGHV2 (30%; 9/30). Triple infections were more frequent due to the associations of M. bovirhinis (65.2%; 15/23) and OvGHV2 (52.2%; 12/23) with BCoV, P. multocida, M. haemolytica, and H. somni. Alternatively, quadruple infections occurred due to the frequent associations of OvGHV2 (81.8%; 9/11) and M. bovirhinis (63.6%; 7/11) with the other pathogens diagnosed (Table 4).

3.5. Frequency of Respiratory Pathogens in Asymptomatic Dairy Calves

As in diseased calves, their asymptomatic counterparts also had singular (n = 30), dual (n = 20), triple (n = 18), quadruple (n = 14), and quintuple (n = 5) infections (Table 3 and Table 4). However, infections due to H. somni were not identified in asymptomatic calves (Table 4). Frequent singular infections in asymptomatic calves were due to M. bovirhinis (56.7%; 17/30) and BCoV (23.3%; 7/30). The most frequent association of dual infections occurred in asymptomatic calves simultaneously infected with M. bovirhinis and BCoV (40%; 8/20). Triple infections were more frequent due to associations of BCoV (83.3%; 15/18), M. bovirhinis (72.2%; 13/18), P. multocida (66.7%; 12/18), and M. haemolytica (44.4%; 8/18). Curiously, quintuple infections were associated with the same combination of infectious agents (M. bovirhinis + OvGHV2 + BCoV + P. multocida + M. haemolytica) in asymptomatic (n = 5) and diseased (n = 4) calves (Table 4).

3.6. Infection Dynamics Identified at Farms and in Diseased and Asymptomatic Calves from Southern Brazil

Calves at most farms had comparatively more mixed infections (n = 125) compared to singular (n = 55) infections via the six agents identified (Figure 1). Moreover, 12.2% (25/205) of all calves were not infected by any of the 12 pathogens investigated; 8.8% (9/102) of these being dairy calves with clinical manifestations of BRD, and 15.5% (16/103) were asymptomatic calves. When the agents associated with the singular and concomitant infections diagnosed in calves at these farms were analyzed, concomitant infections were the pattern identified only in calves from Farms #11 and 12. All other farms had a composition of singular and mixed infections, with mixed infections being predominant at Farm #2 (Figure 1). When all mixed infections were considered, BCoV (73.6%; 92/125) was the most frequently identified microorganism in association with another pathogen in the development of concomitant infections. Other agents with elevated frequencies of participation in simultaneous infections were M. bovirhinis (72.8%; 91/125) and OvGHV2 (48%; 60/125).
Furthermore, singular infections at these farms (Figure 2) were more frequent due to M. bovirhinis (45.4%; 25/55), followed by BCoV (25.4%; 14/55), P. multocida (10.9%; 6/55), and OvGHV2 (10.9%; 6/55). Additionally, singular infections via these four agents occurred only in calves at Farm #3, while singular infections via M. bovirhinis, BCoV, and OvGHV2 were identified in calves reared at Farms # 3 and 5. Infections associated with H. somni were only diagnosed in calves from Farm #4 (Figure 2). Calves from six farms (#1, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 13) were not infected by any of the 12 infectious agents evaluated, with the largest number of undiagnosed calves identified at Farm #3 (Figure 2).
The interaction of the most frequently diagnosed pathogens (M. bovirhinis, BCoV, and OvGHV2) diagnosed in all calves is shown in Figure 3. These three pathogens occurred simultaneously in 10.7% (22/205) of all calves investigated during this study, with singular infections being more frequent to M. bovirhinis (16.6%; 34/205), followed by BCoV (13.7%; 28/205), and OvGHV2 (4.9%; 10/205). However, neither of these three pathogens was detected in the NS from 17.6% (36/205) of all calves investigated (Figure 3).
The interaction of the three most frequently diagnosed bacterial pathogens (M. bovirhinis, P. multocida, and M. haemolytica) in all calves is shown in Figure 4. M. bovirhinis was the most commonly identified in these animals, being diagnosed in 32.7% (67/205), with these three agents occurring concomitantly in 13.7% (28/205) of all calves investigated. However, 24.9% (51/205) of all calves were not infected by either of these three pathogens.

4. Discussion

During this study, M. bovirhinis was the most frequently identified pathogen in all dairy herds investigated and from the NS of asymptomatic calves and calves with clinical manifestations of BRD. These findings are similar to the infectious trends associated with M. bovirhinis identified in North America [18,19,20] and Europe [21]. Other frequently identified pathogens were BCoV and OvGHV2, while the nucleic acids of several well-known agents (M. bovis, other mollicutes, BVDV, BoAHV1, BRSV, and BPIV3) of BRD investigated were not detected in any of the NS evaluated, suggesting that these pathogens were not associated with the clinical manifestations observed in the symptomatic calves from these farms at the time of sampling. Additionally, P. multocida and M. haemolytica, common bacterial pathogens associated with BRD [1], were not the predominant agents identified during this study. Similar findings were identified in dairy calves from Southern Brazil [39] and Denmark [11]. Alternatively, P. multocida was predominant within dairy calves from Southern Brazil [24], Finland [21], and Poland [40]. Furthermore, neither of these pathogens and only M. bovis and mollicutes were detected in a study from Southeastern Brazil [41]. The basic difference in these studies was the methodology used, with molecular diagnostics being performed in the investigations in Southern Brazil [39] and Europe [11,21,40], as opposed to the conventional bacteriological techniques (isolation and culture) performed in the study from Southeastern Brazil [41]. Consequently, these differences in the detection levels are primarily due to the elevated sensitivity and specificity associated with the molecular techniques compared to the traditional methods of bacterial culture and isolation.
Furthermore, H. somni, the emerging multisystemic pathogen of ruminants in Brazil [42], was only identified in a relatively insignificant number of symptomatic calves maintained at a single farm. These findings align with a previous study performed in the same geographical location [24] and Finland [21]. Alternatively, the frequency of H. somni was elevated in dairy calves from another region of Southern Brazil [39], as was observed in European studies [11,40].
The results from this study suggest that most suckling calves (87.8%; 180/205) were either subclinically infected or developed clinical manifestations of BRD associated primarily with M. bovirhinis, BCoV, and OvGHV2, considering that the detection of these infectious agents in the NS of dairy calves without any associated demonstration of pulmonary disease confirms infection [43]. Of the three most frequent pathogens identified during this study, only BCoV is considered an inductor of BRD, while the participation of M. bovirhinis and OvGHV2 in pulmonary disease of cattle is not well established. Therefore, the ensuing discussion will be based on the possibility of these agents acting as respiratory pathogens of cattle.
The primers developed specifically for the diagnosis of M. bovirhinis proved to be efficient in the identification of this organism from the NS of calves with or without clinical manifestations of BRD. Therefore, these primers can be used to detect M. bovirhinis in cattle with respiratory disease.

4.1. The Contribution of Myplasma bovirhinis in the Development of BRD

As far as the authors are knowledgeable, the results from this study represent the first investigation from Latin America to evaluate the possible participation of M. bovirhinis in the development of BRD. Our results demonstrated that there was no significant statistical difference between asymptomatic dairy calves relative to their counterparts with clinical manifestations of pulmonary impairment, suggesting that this microorganism may not be associated with BRD but a commensal of the respiratory tract of calves [8,10]. A closer evaluation of our results revealed that comparatively more asymptomatic calves (56.7%; 17/30) relative to calves with BRD (32%; 8/25) suffered from single infections of M. bovirhinis during this study; similar results were identified when the microbiota of calves with BRD was compared with asymptomatic calves [12], as well as in the healthy and pneumonic lungs of calves from the UK [10] and Finland [21]. These findings support the theory that M. bovirhinis should not be considered a “true” pathogen of BRD since the predominance of this microorganism within the nasopharyngeal microbiota may be attributed to its capacity to proliferate and evolve after weaned calves are maintained in feedlots [18]. Additionally, M. bovirhinis may simply be an opportunist invader of the respiratory system of calves with minimal role in the development of pulmonary diseases [44].
Alternatively, M. bovirhinis was associated with pneumonia in calves from Japan [13] and was the predominant organism identified using qPCR in an outbreak of BRD in beef calves from the USA [17]. The study performed in Japan isolated M. bovirhinis from the lungs of calves with suppurative pneumonia and detected antigens of M. bovirhinis by the production of hyperimmune serum [13]. However, the possible participation of other infectious agents associated with bacterial bronchopneumonia was not investigated, except Pasteurella spp. Furthermore, the study from Japan did not investigate the possible occurrence of simultaneous viral infections during the outbreak of respiratory disease, so the possible participation of these cannot be completely excluded. It must be highlighted that the utilization of PCR for diagnosing respiratory disease was not that popular when the Japanese study was published in 1973; therefore, molecular identification could have revealed additional agents of BRD. Alternatively, the study from the USA reported that there was no statistical difference between the bacterial load of M. bovirhinis identified within the lower respiratory tract when compared to calves with elevated body temperature, and all animals were simultaneously infected by BCoV [17]. Therefore, one wonders about the exact contribution of M. bovirhinis in the development of BRD in the study from the USA [17] since during our investigation, concomitant infections with M. bovirhinis and BCoV were responsible for (36.7%; 11/30) of all dual infections in calves with BRD. These two microorganisms also contributed to 40% (8/20) of the dual infections in the asymptomatic calves herein identified. Furthermore, M. bovirhinis was the second most frequently diagnosed microorganism (72.8%; 91/125) in all simultaneous infections identified during this study.
Therefore, we propose that the effective participation of M. bovirhinis in the possible development of BRD should only be considered in singular infections. Collectively, there is not adequate information in the currently available published literature that effectively demonstrates the capacity of M. bovirhinis to serve as a primary pathogen of BRD. Additionally, the trend of M. bovirhinis-related infections identified in suckling calves from Southern Brazil during this study is similar to that observed in calves worldwide [12,14,21].

4.2. The Possible Participation of Ovine Gammaherpesvirus 2 in the Development of BRD

OvGHV2 is a Macavirus that causes sheep-associated-malignant catarrhal fever (SA-MCF) in a wide range of dead-end mammalian hosts worldwide [45,46]. Sheep is the asymptomatic host for OvGHV2, with infections in susceptible mammalian populations occurring predominantly due to contact with the nasal secretions of young lambs [46]. All Macaviruses known to cause malignant catarrhal fever (MCF) are collectively known as the MCF virus (MCFV) for sharing the 15A epitope [47]. Epidemiological data have demonstrated that most cattle with clinical SA-MCF develop pulmonary disease [45]. Furthermore, the initial replication of OvGH2 results in patchy and lytic interstitial pneumonia of experimentally infected sheep [48]. These factors were determinant in proposing an association between OvGHV2 and the development of BRD [45].
During this study, OvGHV2 was associated with the development of singular infections from asymptomatic (10%; 3/30) and diseased (12%; 3/25) calves, resulting in subclinical and clinical pulmonary infections, respectively, in the affected animals. These findings are in accord with the current pathogenesis of SA-MCF, where subclinical [49,50] and clinical [50,51] infections have been described in ruminants infected with OvGHV2. Additionally, OvGHV2 was indicated as the main cause of a pulmonary disease syndrome in an outbreak of dairy calves with clinical manifestations of BRD [7], while intralesional tissue antigens of a MCFV, more likely OvGHV2, were identified in the lungs of cattle with BRD [52], and pulmonary disease [53]. Furthermore, OvGHV2 participated in 48% (60/125) of all concomitant infections during this study. These findings are similar to the data obtained from a study that evaluated the detection of MCFV tissue antigens in cattle with BRD, where the MCFV, most likely OvGHV2, was identified in the lungs (53.3%; 64/120) of cattle that were infected via one or more agents [52].
Accordingly, it can be argued that the diseased and asymptomatic calves that were infected only by OvGHV2 during this investigation developed clinical and subclinical manifestations associated with this Macavirus. It must be highlighted that significant statistical differences were only identified when OvGHV2-associated infections were compared between asymptomatic and diseased calves at Farm #7, suggesting a direct association between infections by OvGHV2 and the development of BRD. Although there were statistical differences at this farm, the small number of animals sampled thereat warrants caution in interpreting these results. Additionally, sheep were only reared within 0.5–1 km of Farms #1 and 2, while infections associated with OvGHV2 were predominant during this study, occurring in 86.7% (13/15) of all herds, except for calves reared at Farms #13 and 15. Additionally, interstitial pneumonia was identified in outbreaks of SA-MCF in cattle from Northeatern Brazil [54]. These findings demonstrate that infections due to OvGHV2 are widespread in Brazil and are in accord with the results of a retrospective study that identified the elevated detection of antigens of MCFV in cattle with renal disease [55].
Consequently, the results from this investigation, in association with previous studies, support the theory that OvGHV2 should be considered an agent of respiratory disease in cattle.

4.3. The Role of Bovine Coronavirus in the Development of Bovine Respiratory Disease

The exact contribution of BCoV towards the development of classical singular respiratory infections remains controversial [56], primarily due to frustrating attempts to reproduce clinical disease [57]. Nevertheless, BCoV is frequently associated with respiratory infections in asymptomatic [24,58] and diseased [24,58,59,60,61] calves worldwide. However, there is adequate evidence to support the active participation of BCoV in the development of mixed respiratory infections in cattle [56,57,62]. These findings are in accord with the results of this study where BCoV was the second most frequently diagnosed microorganism associated with simultaneous infections. Furthermore, similar elevated frequencies of concomitant infections were identified in the NS [24] and the bronchial alveolar fluids [39] of asymptomatic and diseased dairy calves from Brazil. Moreover, BCoV was the main contributor towards the development of mixed infections in pneumonic lungs of beef cattle from Southern Brazil with elevated risk for BRD [61] but was not identified from a limited number of pulmonary samples derived from cattle maintained in a feedlot from Southeastern Brazil [63]. Collectively, BCoV is an endemic agent that is frequently associated with BRD in Brazil [2].
The elevated occurrence of respiratory field infections associated with BCoV worldwide is exacerbated due to concomitant infections and stress-related conditions [64]. It must be highlighted that the role of BCoV in the development of singular and concomitant respiratory infections in cattle has been extensively reviewed [56,57,62], and the overall consensus is that this agent is an established inductor of enteric disease in cattle. In contrast, the participation as a singular infectious agent associated with the development of BRD remains controversial. Alternatively, the simultaneous associations of BCoV with other respiratory pathogens seem more clinically significant in cattle with BRD [56,57]. Accordingly, the clinical impact of BCoV associated with BRD is more severe in a concomitant relative to singular infections in susceptible cattle populations.

4.4. Study Limitations

Although the results are of significant importance to understanding the respiratory infection dynamics of M. bovirhinis in calves from Latin America, there were two limitations during the realization of this study that could have had some effect on the results presented herein: the repetition of samples and the type of sample. Only a single sample was collected from all calves, which may make identification of the exact stage of an ongoing infectious disease difficult. However, the determination of the phase of infection was not the focus of this study since the objective was to identify calves that were infected or not by the group of pathogens investigated. Although the utilization of NS for the detection agents of BRD is considered of reduced diagnostic value [65], there seems to be no significant difference in the detection of bacterial agents [66,67] and, to some extent, viral pathogens [67], of BRD when the different types of sample collection were evaluated. Additionally, the use of NS to diagnose BRD is recommended for identifying bacterial pathogens in diseased animals [68].

5. Conclusions

Mycoplasma bovirhinis was the most frequently diagnosed pathogen from the nasal swabs of asymptomatic and diseased dairy calves and contributed significantly towards the occurrence of concomitant infections during this investigation. However, the current accumulated data worldwide do not suggest that M. bovirhinis is a primary agent of BRD. At the same time, the infectious trends of M. bovirhinis-related respiratory infections diagnosed in calves from Brazil are similar to those described in other geographical locations. Furthermore, there is accumulating evidence to associate OvGHV2 with the occurrence of BRD, while the participation of BCoV as a singular agent of BRD remains controversial.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/pathogens13020114/s1, Table S1: List of primers used during this investigation. Table S2: Molecular detection of Mycoplasma bovirhinis, 20 bovine coronavirus, ovinegammaherpesvirus 2, Pasteurella multocida, Mannheimia haemolytica, Histophilus somni from the nasal swabs of suckling diseased and asymptomatic dairy calves from Paraná State, Southern Brazil.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.A.H.; molecular methodology, A.P.S.F. and A.M.D.A.; clinical evaluations, D.E.B.; validation, A.F.A., A.A.A. and S.A.H.; formal analysis, E.T.C.; investigation, A.P.S.F., A.M.D.A., E.T.C. and D.E.B.; resources, A.F.A. and A.A.A.; data curation, A.P.S.F., A.M.D.A. and E.T.C.; writing—original draft preparation, S.A.H.; writing—review and editing, A.P.S.F., A.M.D.A., E.T.C., A.F.A., A.A.A. and S.A.H.; visualization, S.A.H.; supervision, A.A.A. and S.A.H.; project administration, S.A.H.; funding acquisition, A.F.A. and A.A.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received funds from the Brazilian National Council of Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq, Brazil), Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES; Brazil), Araucária Foundation (FAP/PR), and the National Institute of Science and Technology for Dairy Production Chain (INCT–LEITE). E.T.C. is a recipient of a post-doctoral graduateship from the Brazilian National Council of Scientific and Technological Development-Technological and Industrial Development (CNPq-DTI; Brazil). A.F.A., A.A.A., and S.A.H. are recipients of the Brazilian National Council of Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq; Brazil) fellowships.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Permission to realize studies in ruminants was obtained from the National Council for the Control of Animal Experimentation (CONCEA; Brazil) and approved by the Animal Ethics Committees for Animal Usage of the Universidade Estadual de Londrina (CEUA/UEL; protocol, 835.2019.45).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Nucleotide sequences for M. bovirhinis and OvGHV2 data from this study are deposited in GenBank.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest relative to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this manuscript.

References

  1. Griffin, D.; Chengappa, M.M.; Kuszak, J.; McVey, D.S. Bacterial pathogens of the bovine respiratory disease complex. Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 2010, 26, 381–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Castro, M.M.; Oliveira, T.E.S.; Headley, S.A. Bovine respiratory disease in Brasil: A short review. Semin. Cienc. Agrar. 2021, 42, 2081–2110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Cummings, D.B.; Meyer, N.F.; Step, D.L. Bovine respiratory disease considerations in young dairy calves. Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 2022, 38, 93–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Pardon, B.; Buczinski, S. Bovine respiratory disease diagnosis: What progress has been made in infectious diagnosis? Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 2020, 36, 425–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Panciera, R.J.; Confer, A.W. Pathogenesis and pathology of povine pneumonia. Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 2010, 26, 191–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Gaudino, M.; Nagamine, B.; Ducatez, M.F.; Meyer, G. Understanding the mechanisms of viral and bacterial coinfections in bovine respiratory disease: A comprehensive literature review of experimental evidence. Vet. Res. 2022, 53, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Headley, S.A.; Dall Agnol, A.M.; Bessegato, J.A.; Frucchi, A.P.S.; Maturana, E.F.L.; Rodrigues, R.V.; Xavier, A.A.C.; Alfieri, A.F.; Alfieri, A.A. Association of ovine gammaherpesvirus 2 with an outbreak of acute respiratory disease in dairy cattle. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 5623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hodgins, D.C.; Conlon, J.A.; Patricia, E.; Shewen, P.E. Respiratory viruses and bacteria in cattle. In Polymicrobial Diseases; Brogden, K.A., Guthmiller, J.M., Eds.; ASM Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  9. Murray, G.M.; O’Neill, R.G.; More, S.J.; McElroy, M.C.; Earley, B.; Cassidy, J.P. Evolving views on bovine respiratory disease: An appraisal of selected key pathogens—Part 1. Vet. J. 2016, 217, 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Thomas, A.; Ball, H.; Dizier, I.; Trolin, A.; Bell, C.; Mainil, J.; Linden, A. Isolation of mycoplasma species from the lower respiratory tract of healthy cattle and cattle with respiratory disease in Belgium. Vet. Rec. 2002, 151, 472–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Angen, O.; Thomsen, J.; Larsen, L.E.; Larsen, J.; Kokotovic, B.; Heegaard, P.M.; Enemark, J.M. Respiratory disease in calves: Microbiological investigations on trans-tracheally aspirated bronchoalveolar fluid and acute phase protein response. Vet. Microbiol. 2009, 137, 165–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. McMullen, C.; Orsel, K.; Alexander, T.W.; van der Meer, F.; Plastow, G.; Timsit, E. Comparison of the nasopharyngeal bacterial microbiota of beef calves raised without the use of antimicrobials between healthy calves and those diagnosed with bovine respiratory disease. Vet. Microbiol. 2019, 231, 56–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Shimizu, T.; Nosaka, D.; Nakamura, N. An enzootic of calf pneumonia associated with Mycoplasma bovirhinis. Jap. J. Vet. Sci. 1973, 35, 535–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Deeney, A.S.; Collins, R.; Ridley, A.M. Identification of Mycoplasma species and related organisms from ruminants in England and Wales during 2005–2019. BMC Vet. Res. 2021, 17, 325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ayling, R.D.; Bashiruddin, S.E.; Nicholas, R.A. Mycoplasma species and related organisms isolated from ruminants in Britain between 1990 and 2000. Vet. Rec. 2004, 155, 413–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. ter Laak, E.A.; Noordergraaf, J.H.; Dieltjes, R.P. Prevalence of mycoplasmas in the respiratory tracts of pneumonic calves. J. Vet. Medicine. Ser. B 1992, 39, 553–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. McDaneld, T.G.; Workman, A.M.; Chitko-McKown, C.G.; Kuehn, L.A.; Dickey, A.; Bennett, G.L. Detection of Mycoplasma bovirhinis and bovine coronavirus in an outbreak of bovine respiratory disease in nursing beef calves. Front Microbiomes. 2022, 1, 1051241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Timsit, E.; Workentine, M.; Schryvers, A.B.; Holman, D.B.; van der Meer, F.; Alexander, T.W. Evolution of the nasopharyngeal microbiota of beef cattle from weaning to 40 days after arrival at a feedlot. Vet. Microbiol. 2016, 187, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. McMullen, C.; Alexander, T.W.; Orsel, K.; Timsit, E. Progression of nasopharyngeal and tracheal bacterial microbiotas of feedlot cattle during development of bovine respiratory disease. Vet. Microbiol. 2020, 248, 108826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. McMullen, C.; Orsel, K.; Alexander, T.W.; van der Meer, F.; Plastow, G.; Timsit, E. Evolution of the nasopharyngeal bacterial microbiota of beef calves from spring processing to 40 days after feedlot arrival. Vet. Microbiol. 2018, 225, 139–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Autio, T.; Pohjanvirta, T.; Holopainen, R.; Rikula, U.; Pentikäinen, J.; Huovilainen, A.; Rusanen, H.; Soveri, T.; Sihvonen, L.; Pelkonen, S. Etiology of respiratory disease in non-vaccinated, non-medicated calves in rearing herds. Vet. Microbiol. 2007, 119, 256–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hay, K.E.; Morton, J.M.; Mahony, T.J.; Clements, A.C.; Barnes, T.S. Associations between animal characteristic and environmental risk factors and bovine respiratory disease in Australian feedlot cattle. Prev. Vet. Med. 2016, 125, 66–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Hay, K.E.; Morton, J.M.; Clements, A.C.A.; Mahony, T.J.; Barnes, T.S. Associations between feedlot management practices and bovine respiratory disease in Australian feedlot cattle. Prev. Vet. Med. 2016, 128, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Frucchi, A.P.S.; Dall Agnol, A.M.; Bronkhorst, D.E.; Beuttemmuller, E.A.; Alfieri, A.A.; Alfieri, A.F. Bovine coronavirus co-infection and molecular characterization in dairy calves with or without clinical respiratory disease. Front. Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 895492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Ferraro, S.; Fecteau, G.; Dubuc, J.; Francoz, D.; Rousseau, M.; Roy, J.P.; Buczinski, S. Scoping review on clinical definition of bovine respiratory disease complex and related clinical signs in dairy cows. J. Dairy. Sci. 2021, 104, 7095–7108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Boom, R.; Sol, C.J.; Salimans, M.M.; Jansen, C.L.; Wertheim-van Dillen, P.M.; van der Noordaa, J. Rapid and simple method for purification of nucleic acids. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1990, 28, 495–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Alfieri, A.A.; Parazzi, M.E.; Takiuchi, E.; Médici, K.C.; Alfieri, A.F. Frequency of group A rotavirus in diarrhoeic calves in Brazilian cattle herds, 1998–2002. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2006, 38, 521–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Angen, O.; Ahrens, P.; Tegtmeier, C. Development of a PCR test for identification of Haemophilus somnus in pure and mixed cultures. Vet. Microbiol. 1998, 63, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Townsend, K.M.; Frost, A.J.; Lee, C.W.; Papadimitriou, J.M.; Dawkins, H.J.S. Development of PCR assays for species- and type-specific identification of Pasteurella multocida Isolates. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1998, 36, 1096–1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Voltarelli, D.C.; de Alcântara, B.K.; Lunardi, M.; Alfieri, A.F.; de Arruda Leme, R.; Alfieri, A.A. A nested-PCR strategy for molecular diagnosis of mollicutes in uncultured biological samples from cows with vulvovaginitis. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2018, 188, 137–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Vilček, Š.; Herring, A.J.; Herring, J.A.; Nettleton, P.F.; Lowings, J.P.; Paton, D.J. Pestiviruses isolated from pigs, cattle and sheep can be allocated into at least three genogroups using polymerase chain reaction and restriction endonuclease analysis. Arch. Virol. 1994, 136, 309–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Claus, M.P.; Alfieri, A.F.; Folgueras-Flatschart, A.V.; Wosiacki, S.R.; Médici, K.C.; Alfieri, A.A. Rapid detection and differentiation of bovine herpesvirus 1 and 5 glycoprotein C gene in clinical specimens by multiplex-PCR. J. Virol. Methods 2005, 128, 183–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Vilcek, S.; Elvander, M.; Ballagi-Pordany, A.; Belak, S. Development of nested PCR assays for detection of bovine respiratory syncytial virus in clinical samples. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1994, 32, 2225–2231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Takiuchi, E.; Stipp, D.T.; Alfieri, A.F.; Alfieri, A.A. Improved detection of bovine coronavirus N gene in faeces of calves infected naturally by a semi-nested PCR assay and an internal control. J. Virol. Methods 2006, 131, 148–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Zhu, Y.-M.; Shi, H.-F.; Gao, Y.-R.; Xin, J.-Q.; Liu, N.-H.; Xiang, W.-H.; Ren, X.-G.; Feng, J.-K.; Zhao, L.-P.; Xue, F. Isolation and genetic characterization of bovine parainfluenza virus type 3 from cattle in China. Vet. Microbiol. 2011, 149, 446–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Baxter, S.I.; Pow, I.; Bridgen, A.; Reid, H.W. PCR detection of the sheep-associated agent of malignant catarrhal fever. Arch. Virol. 1993, 132, 145–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Headley, S.A.; Fritzen, J.T.T.; Silva, D.C.; Xavier, A.A.C.; Yasumitsu, C.Y.; Silva, F.H.P.; Alfieri, A.F.; Soethe, A.M.; Alfieri, A.A. Histophilus somni disease conditions with simultaneous infections by ovine gammaherpesvirus 2 in cattle herds from Southern Brazil. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2023, 54, 1169–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. IBGE. Rebanho de Ovinos (Ovelhas e Carneiros) no Paraná; IBGE: Brasília, Brazil, 2021.
  39. Oliveira, V.H.S.; Dall Agnol, A.M.; Fritzen, J.T.T.; Lorenzetti, E.; Alfieri, A.A.; Alfieri, A.F. Microbial diversity involved in the etiology of a bovine respiratory disease outbreak in a dairy calf rearing unit. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2020, 71, 101494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lachowicz-Wolak, A.; Klimowicz-Bodys, M.D.; Płoneczka-Janeczko, K.; Bykowy, M.; Siedlecka, M.; Cinciała, J.; Rypuła, K. The prevalence, coexistence, and correlations between seven pathogens detected by a pcr method from South-Western Poland dairy cattle suffering from bovine respiratory disease. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 1487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gaeta, N.C.; Ribeiro, B.L.M.; Alemán, M.A.R.; Yoshihara, E.; Nassar, A.F.C.; Marques, L.M.; Timenetsky, J.; Gregory, L. Bacterial pathogens of the lower respiratory tract of calves from Brazilian rural settlement herds and their association with clinical signs of bovine respiratory disease. Pesq. Vet. Bras. 2018, 38, 374–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Headley, S.A.; Alfieri, A.F.; Oliveira, V.H.; Beuttemmuller, E.A.; Alfieri, A.A. Histophilus somni is a potential threat to beef cattle feedlots in Brazil. Vet. Rec. 2014, 175, 249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Fulton, R.W.; Confer, A.W. Laboratory test descriptions for bovine respiratory disease diagnosis and their strengths and weaknesses: Gold standards for diagnosis, do they exist? Can. Vet. J. 2012, 53, 754–761. [Google Scholar]
  44. Maunsell, F.P.; Donovan, G.A. Mycoplasma bovis Infections in young calves. Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 2009, 25, 139–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Headley, S.A.; Oliveira, T.E.S.; Cunha, C.W. A review of the epidemiological, clinical, and pathological aspects of malignant catarrhal fever in Brazil. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2020, 51, 1405–1432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Li, H.; Cunha, C.W.; Taus, N.S.; Knowles, D.P. Malignant catarrhal fever: Inching toward understanding. Annul. Rev. Anim. Biosci. 2014, 2, 209–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Li, H.; Shen, D.T.; Knowles, D.P.; Gorham, J.R.; Crawford, T.B. Competitive inhibition enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for antibody in sheep and other ruminants to a conserved epitope of malignant catarrhal fever virus. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1994, 32, 1674–1679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Taus, N.S.; Schneider, D.A.; Oaks, J.L.; Yan, H.; Gailbreath, K.L.; Knowles, D.P.; Li, H. Sheep (Ovis aries) airway epithelial cells support ovine herpesvirus 2 lytic replication in vivo. Vet. Microbiol. 2010, 145, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Headley, S.A.; de Lemos, G.A.A.; Dall Agnol, A.M.; Xavier, A.A.C.; Depes, V.C.A.; Yasumitsu, C.Y.; Oliveira, T.E.S.; Silva, L.E.; Faccin, T.C.; Alfieri, A.A.; et al. Ovine gammaherpesvirus 2 infections in cattle without typical manifestations of sheep-associated malignant catarrhal fever and concomitantly infected with bovine coronavirus. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2022, 53, 433–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. O’Toole, D.; Li, H.; Sourk, C.; Montgomery, D.L.; Crawford, T.B. Malignant catarrhal fever in a bison (Bison bison) feedlot, 1993–2000. J. Vet. Diagn. Invest. 2002, 14, 183–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Headley, S.A.; Sousa, I.K.F.; Minervino, A.H.H.; Barros, I.O.; Barrêto Júnior, R.A.; Alfieri, A.F.; Ortolani, E.L.; Alfieri, A.A. Molecular confirmation of ovine herpesvirus 2-induced malignant catarrhal fever lesions in cattle from Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil. Pesq. Vet. Bras. 2012, 32, 1213–1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Oliveira, T.E.S.; Scuisato, G.S.; Pelaquim, I.F.; Cunha, C.W.; Cunha, L.S.; Flores, E.F.; Pretto-Giordano, L.G.; Lisbôa, J.A.N.; Alfieri, A.A.; Saut, J.P.E.; et al. The participation of a virus within the malignant catarrhal fever virus group and Mycoplasma bovis in the development of single and mixed infections in beef and dairy cattle with bovine respiratory disease. Front Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 691448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Headley, S.A.; Müller, M.C.; de Oliveira, T.E.S.; Barros Gil Duarte, C.A.; Valente Pereira, P.F.; Vieira, M.V.; Cunha, C.W.; Flores, E.F.; Lisbôa, J.A.N.; Pretto-Giordano, L.G. Diphtheric aspergillosis tracheitis with gastrointestinal dissemination secondary to viral infections in a dairy calf. Microb. Pathog. 2020, 149, 104497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Macêdo, J.T.S.A.; Riet-Correa, F.; Simões, S.V.D.; Dantas, A.F.M.; Nobre, V.M.T. Febre catarral maligna em bovinos na Paraíba. Pesq. Vet. Bras. 2007, 27, 277–281. [Google Scholar]
  55. Xavier, A.A.C.; Queiroz, G.R.; Lisbôa, J.A.N.; Cunha, C.W.; Headley, S.A. Immunohistochemical identification of a malignant catarrhal fever virus in cattle with renal diseases from Paraná state, Southern Brazil: A retrospective epidemiological study. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2023, 55, 344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ellis, J. What is the evidence that bovine coronavirus is a biologically significant respiratory pathogen in cattle? Can. Vet. J. 2019, 60, 147–152. [Google Scholar]
  57. Vlasova, A.N.; Saif, L.J. Bovine coronavirus and the associated diseases. Front Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 643220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Fulton, R.W.; Step, D.L.; Wahrmund, J.; Burge, L.J.; Payton, M.E.; Cook, B.J.; Burken, D.; Richards, C.J.; Confer, A.W. Bovine coronavirus (BCV) infections in transported commingled beef cattle and sole-source ranch calves. Can. J. Vet. Res. 2011, 75, 191–199. [Google Scholar]
  59. Francoz, D.; Buczinski, S.; Belanger, A.M.; Forte, G.; Labrecque, O.; Tremblay, D.; Wellemans, V.; Dubuc, J. Respiratory pathogens in Quebec dairy calves and their relationship with clinical status, lung consolidation, and average daily gain. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2015, 29, 381–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Oma, V.S.; Tråvén, M.; Alenius, S.; Myrmel, M.; Stokstad, M. Bovine coronavirus in naturally and experimentally exposed calves; viral shedding and the potential for transmission. Virol. J. 2016, 13, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Headley, S.A.; Okano, W.; Balbo, L.C.; Marcasso, R.A.; Oliveira, T.E.S.; Alfieri, A.F.; Negri Filho, L.C.; Michelazzo, M.M.Z.; Rodrigues, S.M.C.; Baptista, A.L.; et al. Molecular survey of infectious agents associated with bovine respiratory disease in a beef cattle feedlot in southern Brazil. J. Vet. Diagn. Invest. 2018, 30, 249–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zhu, Q.; Li, B.; Sun, D. Advances in Bovine Coronavirus Epidemiology. Viruses 2022, 14, 1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Baptista, A.L.; Rezende, A.L.; Fonseca, P.d.A.; Nogueira, G.M.; Headley, S.A.; Menezes, G.L.; Alfieri, A.A.; Saut, J.P.E. Bovine respiratory disease complex associated mortality and morbidity rates in feedlot cattle from southeastern Brazil. J. Infect. Dev. Ctries. 2017, 11, 791–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Saif, L.J.; Jung, K. Comparative pathogenesis of bovine and porcine respiratory coronaviruses in the animal host species and SARS-CoV-2 in humans. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2020, 58, 10–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Buczinski, S.; Pardon, B. Bovine respiratory disease diagnosis: What progress has been made in clinical diagnosis? Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 2020, 36, 399–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. McDaneld, T.G.; Kuehn, L.A.; Keele, J.W. Evaluating the microbiome of two sampling locations in the nasal cavity of cattle with bovine respiratory disease complex (BRDC)1. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 96, 1281–1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Doyle, D.; Credille, B.; Lehenbauer, T.W.; Berghaus, R.; Aly, S.S.; Champagne, J.; Blanchard, P.; Crossley, B.; Berghaus, L.; Cochran, S.; et al. Agreement among 4 sampling methods to identify respiratory pathogens in dairy calves with acute bovine respiratory disease. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2017, 31, 954–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Woolums, A.R. Methods of antemortem sampling for identification of microbial agents in bovine respiratory disease (BRD). In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the Fifty-Second Annual Conference; American Association of Bovine Practitioners, St Louis, MO, USA, 12–14, September 2019, pp. 275–281.
Pathogens 13 00114 g001
Figure 1. Frequency of singular and mixed infections diagnosed in dairy calves from Southern Brazil.
Figure 1. Frequency of singular and mixed infections diagnosed in dairy calves from Southern Brazil.
Pathogens 13 00114 g001
Pathogens 13 00114 g002
Figure 2. Distribution of singular and mixed infections in suckling calves and undiagnosed calves from dairy farms in Southern Brazil.
Figure 2. Distribution of singular and mixed infections in suckling calves and undiagnosed calves from dairy farms in Southern Brazil.
Pathogens 13 00114 g002
Pathogens 13 00114 g003
Figure 3. Occurrence of Mycoplasma bovirhinis (Mbvr), bovine coronavirus (BCoV), and ovine gammaherpesvirus 2 (OvGHV2) in asymptomatic and diseased suckling dairy calves from Southern Brazil. Legend: 36, number of calves not infected by these organisms.
Figure 3. Occurrence of Mycoplasma bovirhinis (Mbvr), bovine coronavirus (BCoV), and ovine gammaherpesvirus 2 (OvGHV2) in asymptomatic and diseased suckling dairy calves from Southern Brazil. Legend: 36, number of calves not infected by these organisms.
Pathogens 13 00114 g003
Pathogens 13 00114 g004
Figure 4. The interaction of Mycoplasma bovirhinis (Mbvr), Pasteurella multocida (PM), and Mannheimia haemolytica (MH) in asymptomatic and diseased suckling dairy calves from Southern Brazil. Legend: 51, number of calves not infected by these organisms.
Figure 4. The interaction of Mycoplasma bovirhinis (Mbvr), Pasteurella multocida (PM), and Mannheimia haemolytica (MH) in asymptomatic and diseased suckling dairy calves from Southern Brazil. Legend: 51, number of calves not infected by these organisms.
Pathogens 13 00114 g004
Table 1. Frequency of Mycoplasma bovirhinis, bovine coronavirus, and ovine gammaherpesvirus 2 diagnosed in nasal swabs derived from diseased and asymptomatic suckling dairy calves from the Paraná State, Southern Brazil 1.
Table 1. Frequency of Mycoplasma bovirhinis, bovine coronavirus, and ovine gammaherpesvirus 2 diagnosed in nasal swabs derived from diseased and asymptomatic suckling dairy calves from the Paraná State, Southern Brazil 1.
FarmsGeographical
Location		Mycoplasma bovirhinisBovine CoronavirusOvine Gammaherpesvirus 2
CityMesoregion+ve/dis (%)+ve/asymp (%)p-Value b+ve/dis (%)+ve/asymp (%)p-Value b+ve/dis (%)+ve/asymp (%)p-Value b
1 (n = 39) aArapotiEC6/13 (46.1)11/26 (42.4)19/13 (69.2)17/26 (65.4)14/13 (30.7)9/26 (34.6)1
2 (n = 35) a ArapotiEC10/19 (52.6)9/16 (56.2)117/19 (89.5)15/16 (93.7)110/19 (52.6)3/16 (18.7)0.086
3 (n = 29) ArapotiEC3/12 (2)7/17 (41.2)0.6125/12 (41.7)6/17 (35.3)11/12 (8.3)4/17 (23.5)0.370
4 (n = 19) ClevelândiaSC4/12 (33.3)3/7 (42.7)10/12 (0.0)1/7 (14.3)0.3688/12 (66.7)6/7 (85.7)0.602
5 (n = 16) ArapotiEC4/8 (50)5/8 (62.5)13/8 (37.5)5/8 (62.5)0.6192/8 (25)2/8 (50)1
6 (n = 13) CastroEC7/7 (100)6/6 (100)NPC1/7 (14.3)0/6 (0.0)11/7 (14.3)0/6 (0)1
7 (n = 10) CastroEC5/5 (100)3/5 (60)0.4290/5 (0)1/5 (20)14/5 (80)0/5 (0)0.047
8 (n = 8)CastroEC0/06/8 (75)NPC0/01/8 (12.5)NPC0/01/8 (12.5)NPC
9 (n = 7)CarambeíEC5/7 (71.4)0/0NPC4/7 (57.1)0/0NPC4/7 (57.1)0/0NPC
10 (n = 6)ArapotiEC2/4 (50)2/2 (100)0.7593/4 (66.7)2/2 (100)12/4 (50)0/2 (0)0.466
11 (n = 6)ArapotiEC3/3 (100)3/3 (100)NPC3/3 (100)3/3 (100)NPC2/3 (66.7)2/3 (66.7 )1
12 (n = 5)CarambeíEC5/5 (100)0/0NPC5/5 (100)0/0NPC0/5 (0)0/0NPC
13 (n = 5)CarambeíEC2/2 (100)1/3 (33.3)0.5762/2 (100)1/3 (33.3)0.4000/2 (0)0/3 (0)NPC
14 (n = 4)CarambeíEC1/2 (50)1/2 (50)11/2 (50)1/2 (50)10/2 (0)1/2 (50)1
15 (n = 3)CastroEC2/3 (66.7)0/0NPC0/3 (0.0)0/0NPC0/3 (0)0/0NPC
Total 59/102 (57.8%)57/103 (55.3%)0.82553/102 (51.9%)53/103 (51.5%)138/102 (37.2%)28/103 (27.2%)0.163
Legend: 1, data are only presented for the three most frequently diagnosed pathogens at these farms; a, sheep were reared within 0.5–1 km from these farms; b, p-values were obtained using the Yates-corrected Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test with a significance level of p < 0.05; EC, Eastern Central; SC, Southern Central. NPC, not possible to calculate; +ve, positive; dis, diseased; asymp, asymptomatic.
Table 2. Association of infectious agents diagnosed in diseased and asymptomatic suckling calves in dairy cattle herds from Southern Brazil.
Table 2. Association of infectious agents diagnosed in diseased and asymptomatic suckling calves in dairy cattle herds from Southern Brazil.
Infectious Agents
Identified		Number
of Farms		Diseased
Calves		Asymptomatic
Calves		p-Value a
Mycoplasma bovirhinis1557.8% (59/102) 55.3% (57/103)0.718
Bovine coronavirus 1452% (53/102)51.4% (53/103)0.949
Ovine gammaherpesvirus 21237.2% (38/102)27.2% (28/103)0.124
Pasteurella multocida1141.2% (42/102)34% (35/103)0.289
Mannheimia haemolytica324.5% (25/102)30.1% (31/103)0.371
Histophilus somni15.9% (6/102)0.0% (0/103)0.965
Legend: a p-values were obtained using the Yates-corrected Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test with a significance level of p < 0.05.
Table 3. Occurrence of singular infections diagnosed in symptomatic and asymptomatic suckling dairy calves.
Table 3. Occurrence of singular infections diagnosed in symptomatic and asymptomatic suckling dairy calves.
Infectious Disease AgentNumber of Calves
SymptomaticAsymptomatic
Mycoplasmabovirhinis817
Ovine gammaherpesvirus 233
Bovine coronavirus 77
Pasteurella multocida42
Mannheimia haemolytica11
Histophilus somni20
Total2530
Table 4. Occurrence of concomitant infections diagnosed in symptomatic and asymptomatic suckling dairy calves.
Table 4. Occurrence of concomitant infections diagnosed in symptomatic and asymptomatic suckling dairy calves.
Infectious Disease AgentsNumber of Calves
SymptomaticAsymptomatic
Dual infections
M. bovirhinis; OvGHV294
M. bovirhinis; BCoV118
M. bovirhinis; P. multocida11
M. bovirhinis; M. haemolytica20
M. bovirhinis; H. somni00
OvGHV2; BCoV22
OvGHV2; P. multocida02
OvGHV2; M. haemolytica00
OvGHV2; H. somni00
BCoV; P. multocida10
BCoV; M haemolytica23
BCoV; H. somni00
P. multocida; M. haemolytica00
P. multocida; H. somni10
M. haemolytica; H. somni00
Total3030
Triple Infections
M. bovirhinis; OvGHV2; BCoV45
M. bovirhinis; OvGHV2; P. multocida21
M. bovirhinis; OvGHV2; H. somni20
M. bovirhinis; BCoV; P. multocida44
M. bovirhinis; BCoV; M. haemolytica01
M. bovirhinis; P. multocida; M. haemolytica32
OvGHV2; BCoV; P. multocida20
OvGHV2; P. multocida; H. somni20
BCoV; P. multocida; M. haemolytica45
Total2318
Quadruple Infections
M. bovirhinis; OvGHV2; BCoV; P. multocida40
M. bovirhinis; OvGHV2; P. multocida; M. haemolytica11
M. bovirhinis; BCoV; P. multocida; M. haemolytica28
OvGHV2; BCoV; P. multocida; M. haemolytica45
Total1114
Quintuple Infections
M. bovirhinis; OvGHV2; BCoV; P. multocida; M. haemolytica45
Total45
Legend: M. bovirhinis, Mycoplasma bovirhinis; P. multocida, Pasteurella multocida; M. haemolytica, Mannheimia haemolytica; OvGHV2, ovine gammaherpesvirus 2; BCoV, bovine coronavirus.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Frucchi, A.P.S.; Dall Agnol, A.M.; Caldart, E.T.; Bronkhorst, D.E.; Alfieri, A.F.; Alfieri, A.A.; Headley, S.A. The Role of Mycoplasma bovirhinis in the Development of Singular and Concomitant Respiratory Infections in Dairy Calves from Southern Brazil. Pathogens 2024, 13, 114. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens13020114

AMA Style

Frucchi APS, Dall Agnol AM, Caldart ET, Bronkhorst DE, Alfieri AF, Alfieri AA, Headley SA. The Role of Mycoplasma bovirhinis in the Development of Singular and Concomitant Respiratory Infections in Dairy Calves from Southern Brazil. Pathogens. 2024; 13(2):114. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens13020114

Chicago/Turabian Style

Frucchi, Ana Paula Souza, Alais Maria Dall Agnol, Eloiza Teles Caldart, Dalton Everton Bronkhorst, Alice Fernandes Alfieri, Amauri Alcindo Alfieri, and Selwyn Arlington Headley. 2024. "The Role of Mycoplasma bovirhinis in the Development of Singular and Concomitant Respiratory Infections in Dairy Calves from Southern Brazil" Pathogens 13, no. 2: 114. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens13020114

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop