Next Article in Journal
Application of CRISPR-Cas9 Gene Editing for HIV Host Factor Discovery and Validation
Next Article in Special Issue
Investigation of Rickettsia conorii in Patients Suspected of Having Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever
Previous Article in Journal
Molecular Prevalence of Selected Tick-Borne Pathogens in Dermacentor reticulatus Collected in a Natural Park in Italy
Previous Article in Special Issue
Profiling Risk Factors for Household and Community Spatiotemporal Clusters of Q Fever Notifications in Queensland between 2002 and 2017
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Pathogens
Volume 11
Issue 8
10.3390/pathogens11080888
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

Leptospira interrogans Sensu Lato in Wild Small Mammals in Three Moravian Localities of the Czech Republic

by
Alena Žákovská
1,2,
František Treml
3,
Helena Nejezchlebová
2,
Jiří Nepeřený
4,
Marie Budíková
5 and
Eva Bártová
6,*
1
Department of Biology, Faculty of Education, Masaryk University, Kamenice 753/5, 625 00 Brno, Czech Republic
2
Department of Animal Physiology and Immunology, Institute of Experimental Biology, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Kamenice 753/5, 625 00 Brno, Czech Republic
3
Department of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Veterinary Sciences Brno, Palackého tř. 1946/1, 612 42 Brno, Czech Republic
4
Bioveta, a.s., Komenského 212, 683 23 Ivanovice na Hané, Czech Republic
5
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Kotlářská 267/2, 611 37 Brno, Czech Republic
6
Department of Biology and Wildlife Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Hygiene and Ecology, University of Veterinary Sciences Brno, Palackého tř. 1946/1, 612 42 Brno, Czech Republic
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pathogens 2022, 11(8), 888; https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11080888
Submission received: 15 July 2022 / Revised: 2 August 2022 / Accepted: 4 August 2022 / Published: 8 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Collection Updates on Rickettsia and Coxiella)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Leptospirosis is a widespread zoonosis, affecting humans, domestic animals and wildlife, with small mammals as a reservoir of this infection. In recent years, this disease has been re-emerging and affects approximately 1 million people all over the world each year. Due to this disease having a significant health impact, it is important to identify the source and method of infection. The risk of Leptospira sp. infection is higher mainly in the cities of developed and industrialised countries. The aim of the study was the detection of antibodies against Leptospira sp. in some wild small mammals captured in the Czech Republic. In total, samples of 855 animals captured in three locations of Moravia during a six-year study (2010–2015) were examined by a microscopic agglutination test, using eight serovars of Leptospira interrogans sensu lato, representing serogroups Grippotyphosa, Icterohaemorrhagiae, Australis, Canicola, Sejroe, Javanica, Pomona and Pyrogenes, as antigens. Antibodies to Leptospira sp. were detected in 6.1% (52/855) of animals, with a prevalence of 6.4% (51/801) and 1.9% (1/54) in rodents and insectivores, respectively. The only statistically significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) was in prevalence between individual species (0–33%), while there were no differences in sex (6.7% in females and 5.1% in males), locality (1.8–8%) and year of trapping (0–8.4%). Only two serovars, L. interrogans serovar Pomona and L. interrogans serovar Grippotyphosa, were detected in 5.5% and 0.5% of animals, respectively. The prevailing serovar of pathogenic L. interrogans s.l. can be identified in a number of infected people in the Czech Republic. The composition of vaccines should be based on the current occurrence of Leptospira serovars in the actual territory. For this reason, the occurrence of Leptospira and its serovars should therefore be regularly monitored.

1. Introduction

Leptospirosis is a zoonosis with worldwide distribution, caused by at least 12 pathogenic species, with more than 250 pathogens of 23 serogroups and over 200 serovars of bacteria Leptospira sp. [1]. The main reservoirs of this infection in natural foci are small mammals, especially rodents. Wild rats (Rattus spp.), especially the Norway/brown rat (Rattus norvegicus) and the black rat (R. rattus), are the most important sources of Leptospira spp. infection in urban and peridomestic environments, as they are abundant there. The greater prevalence of infection in rats is noticeable in geographical regions with tropical climates compared to regions with temperate climates [2]. Leptospirosis, as a health problem in developing countries, where the prevalence is more than 70%, e.g., in Brazil, Mexico, and Egypt, becomes a health problem also in developed and industrialised countries in unsanitary environments in periods, e.g., of rainfall. Humans become infected through water or aerosols contaminated with urine of infected rodents, the handling of animals, and less often by the transfusion of infected blood. Some highly pathogenic serovars of Leptospira cause lung haemorrhages or even lead to death. Serovars of L. interrogans s.l., such as Grippotyphosa, Icterohaemorrhagiae, Copenhageni, Sejroe, Bratislava, Pomona, Canicola, and Porex-jalna, have so far been isolated in the Czech Republic. The most common serovars of Leptospira in the Czech Republic are L. interrogans serovar Icterohaemorrhagiae and L. interrogans serovar Grippotyphosa, detected in humans [3]. The results of a longitudinal study (1993–2008) on 789 cases of human leptospirosis in the Czech Republic showed L. grypothyphosa (66%), L. icterohaemorrhagiae (21%), and L. sejroe (10%) as the most common etiological agents of leptospirosis [4]. In another Czech study (1994–2003) on 570 human samples, the following serovars were identified: L. grippothyphosa (65.6%), L. icterohaemorrhagie (21.1%), L. sejroe (10.2%), L. bratislava (0.9%), L. istrica (0.7%), L. sorex-jalna (0.7%), and L. pomona (0.4%) [5]. The occurrence of specific antibodies in wild boar (Sus scrofa L., 1758) correlates to a large extent with the presence of leptospires in the environment. The 100% occurrence of the L. grippotyphosa serotype in wild boars confirms the major occurrence of this serotype in patients in the Czech Republic [6]. Leptospira infections can be transmitted to humans via pets, such as dogs [4,7], but also by wild animals, such as small mammals [8], rats [2], and hares [9], and leptospira have also been identified in wild boars [6].
In the Czech Republic, the annual incidence of human leptospirosis does not change significantly, and a higher number of patient cases occurs with occasional outbreaks during the periodic overpopulation of wild small mammals or after unexpected flood events [9]. For example, a three-times higher incidence of leptospirosis was recorded after the floods in 1997 and 2002 [9]. With respect to the general importance of spirochaetal zoonoses and the increasing number of patients with Lyme borreliosis and leptospirosis in the Czech Republic in recent years [10], the role of reservoirs should be considered. Leptospirosis may cause very serious damage to tissues and organs and thus has a significant health impact, affecting an estimated 1.03 million humans annually worldwide and causing 58,900 deaths [11].
The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of antibodies to Leptospira in some wild small mammals captured in the Czech Republic, to identify the causative agent of leptospirosis among small mammals and the serovar of Leptospira circulating among them.

2. Results

A total of 855 wild small mammals belonging to five species of rodents (Apodemus agrarius, A. flavicollis, A. sylvaticus, Myodes glareolus, and Microtus arvalis) and two species of insectivores (Sorex araneus and Talpa europaea) were trapped. Yellow-necked mouse (A. flavicollis) was the most frequently trapped species (58%, 497/855). The total prevalence of antibodies to Leptospira sp. was 6.1% (55/855). Fisher’s exact test (in the R system) was used to test the independence of leptospirosis and species because conditions of good approximation for Pearson’s chi-square test of independence were not met. For all other monitored factors, the conditions of good approximation were fulfilled. The prevalence in individual species ranged from 0% to 33%, with statistically significant differences (p = 0.002). The most positive species were M. arvalis (2/6; 33.3%), followed by A. agrarius (7/50; 14.0%), A. sylvaticus (6/57; 10.5%), C. glareolus (14/191; 7.3%), A. flavicollis (21/497; 4.2%), S. araneus (1/53; 1.9%), and T. europea (0/1). The prevalence did not differ (p ≥ 0.05) between sexes (6.7% in females and 5.1% in males, χ2 = 0.9277, df = 1, p = 0.3355), localities (1.8–8%, χ2 = 4.5436, df = 2, p = 0.1031), years of trapping (0–8.4%, χ2 = 9.8873, df = 5, p = 0.0785), and between rodents (6.4%, 51/801) and insectivores (1.9%, 1/54) (χ2 = 1.9412, df = 1, p = 0.1635). The 95% confidence intervals for the proportion chances for positivity could be calculated only for 2 × 2 tables, i.e., for sex and rodents versus insectivores. Females had a 1.33x higher chance of being positive than males, with a probability of 0.95 OR in the interval 0.72–2.50. Rodents had a 3.76x higher chance of being positive than insectivores, with a probability of 0.95 OR in the interval 0.62–153.83. Results, according to animal species, sex, locality, and year of trapping, are summarised in Table 1 and Table 2. Statistical differences (p ≤ 0.05) were found between the following species pairs: A. agrarius and A. flavicollis, A. agrarius and M. arvalis, A. flavicollis and A. sylvaticus, A. flavicollis and M. arvalis, A. sylvaticus and M. glareolus, M. glareolus and M. arvalis, M. arvalis and S. Araneus, as shown in Table 3. Only two of eight serovars of L. interrogans (Pomona and Grippotyphosa) were detected with 5.5% (47/855) and 0.5% (4/855) prevalence, respectively. Titres of antibodies in positive samples ranged from 200 to 3200. Samples positive for L. interrogans serovar Grippotyphosa had titres 200–3200, with the most frequent titre of 800 in 11 cases. Samples positive for L. interrogans serovar Pomona had titres 800–3200.

3. Discussion

Leptospirosis is an infection of global importance. Antibodies to Leptospira sp. were detected by MAT, e.g., in 92% of various species of rats from Philippines [12], in 68% of R. norvegicus from Brazil [13], and in 52% of R. norvegicus captured near human dwellings in Argentina [14]. Molecular methods were used in studies from the Canary Islands, where L. interrogans serovar Copenhageni and L. borgpetersenii were found in 14.8% of small mammals [15], and L. interrogans s.l. (L. borgpetersenii, L. interrogans, L. kirschneri, and L. weilli) was found in 7% of small mammals from Southeast Asia [16]. High prevalence of 22% was noted also in humans from Brazil, when 812 suspected cases of leptospirosis were examined from the national reference laboratory by MAT, with the most prevalent serogroup being Icterohaemorrhagie, followed by Pomona, Ballum, and Canicola [17].
In Slovakia, antibodies to Leptospira spp. were detected by MAT in 5% of 11 species of wild mammals [18]. In Croatia, the prevalence of Leptospira spp. in small rodents by MAT was 64% with serogroups L. australis and L. grippotyphosa [19] and 12.7% with serovars Sejroe, Pomona, and Australis [20]. In France, the prevalence of Leptospira spp. in small mammals by MAT was 30.8% with the main serovar L. icterohaemorrhagiae [21], 53% by MAT and PCR with the predominant serovar Icterohaemorrhagiae, followed by Sejroe, Grippotyphosa, and L. interrogans serogroup Australis [22], and 19.2% by RT-PCR with serotype L. interrogans [23]. The prevalence of Leptospira spp. in rats caught in six localities in Denmark in 2006–2007 was 48–89% by PCR [24]; some of the samples were examined by MAT, showing the most common serogroup to be Pomona, Sejroe, and Icterohaemorrhagiae. In rats, the prevalence of Leptospira spp. was recorded as 14% in England, using different diagnostic tests [25], or 45.5% in Italy, using PCR [26]. In Germany, leptospiral DNA was detected by duplex PCR in 10% of wild small mammals, with 13% in Microtus spp., 11% in Apodemus spp., and 6% in Clethrionomys spp. [27]. In Germany, Romanian and Slovakian harvesters working outdoors in nature had a 49% prevalence of Leptospira spp., as tested by MAT and confirmed by ELISA, with main serotypes being Grippotyphosa, Pomona, Bratislava, and other serogroups (Copenhageni and Pomona) [28]. New, unexpected cases of zoonoses, specifically leptospirosis, can still appear. An example is the unusual increase in icteric bovine aborted foetuses in Belgium in 2014 [29]. Most foetuses presented jaundice and splenomegaly, and cows undergoing icteric abortions had antibodies against Leptospira serogroups Australis or Grippotyphosa.
The notification rate of leptospirosis in the European Union in 2014 was 0.23 cases per 100,000 inhabitants, which represents a two-fold increase in comparison with the average number of confirmed cases in previous years. However, on the other hand, this average of the European number is equal to the average number of patients in the Czech Republic [30]. The seroprevalence of Leptospira in wild small mammals caught in the Czech Republic can be compared with the incidence of human leptospirosis in the observed years 2010–2015 (Figure 1, [10]), with an average of 20 human patients per year that became ill. In the following years, it was, e.g., 25 patients that suffered from disease in 2019 (approximately 0.25 cases per 100,000), 29 patients in 2020 (approximately 0.29 cases per 100,000) and 31 patients in 2021 (which corresponds to approximately 0.31 cases per 100,000 inhabitants). These data demonstrate that human leptospirosis in the Czech Republic appears annually in similar numbers [31], but occasional outbreaks are observed during the periodic overpopulation of wild small mammals or after floods, e.g., in the years 1997 (92 patients) and 2002 (94 patients). Four cases of Weil disease (leptospirosis) reported in 1997 were fatal.
However, Ref. [4] warned that the incidence of leptospirosis may be significantly underestimated, because many cases are asymptomatic or with a slight clinical manifestation and, moreover, some cases may be inaccurately diagnosed, diagnosed late, or misdiagnosed. In the Czech Republic, a decreasing trend with occasional fluctuations in the incidence of human leptospirosis was observed in 2008 compared to recent decades, but future trends are hardly predictable. Thus, the monitoring of Leptospira circulating in the environment is essential for a description of the actual epidemiological situation, management of the disease, and its future prevention.
Out of a total of 46 captures of small mammals from May to November, the most frequent species among 855 individuals was A. flavicollis (n = 497), followed by M. glareolus (n = 191), A. sylvaticus (n = 57), S. araneus (n = 53), A. agrarius (n = 50), M. arvalis (n = 9), and T. europea (n = 1). A similar representation of animal species was recorded in a previous study from the Czech Republic [32,33], as well as in other European countries, e.g., in Switzerland [34], Croatia [35], and Lithuania [36].
The prevalence of antibodies to eight serovars of Leptospira spp. was tested by MAT, which is considered to be the gold standard for the diagnosis of leptospirosis [37]. In MAT, a panel of live leptospires, belonging to recent isolates and representing the serovars circulating in the Czech Republic, were used. Individual leptospiral serovars have their typical animal reservoirs, which can be both in wild and domestic animals. The most common reservoirs are Rattus norvegicus, Microtus arvalis, and Microtus agrestis [38]. However, a large number of other vertebrates can serve as reservoirs of infection [38]. Previous studies from different regions of the Czech Republic showed a 12% [8] and 9% [39] prevalence of Leptospira spp. in wild small mammals, with M. arvalis being the most infected of five animal species. In our study, M. arvalis also showed the highest prevalence (33%). Among species of small mammals examined in our study, there was high variability (from 1.9% to 33.3%) in the production of antibodies against leptospira spp. The prevalence of Leptospira spp. did not differ according to the sex of animals, localities, or year of sampling.
In the Czech Republic, serovars Grippotyphosa, Icterohaemorrhagiae, Copenhageni, Sejroe, Bratislava, Pomona, Canicola, and Sorex-jalna have so far been isolated from their main hosts, such as M. arvalis, R. norvegicus, R. rattus, Mus musculus, Apodemus sp., S. araneus, Erinaceus sp., Sus sp., and Canis lupus f. familiaris [3,31]. In our study, antibodies to two serovars of L. interrogans (Pomona and Grippotyphosa) were the only ones observed in a six-year study, with the range of 800–3200 and 200–3200 titres, respectively, indicating the gradual development of infection in the host organism. Serovar Grippotyphosa was also the most prevalent serovar in horses [40] and humans [41] in the Czech Republic. In contrast, serovars Copenhageni and Icterohaemorrhagiae, transmitted by rats, are usually responsible for infections in Europe [42]. This is why the geographic location, and the ecology of reservoirs, affect the prevalence of specific serovars involved in infection. Antibodies to serovar Pomona were detected only in A. agrarius (8.0%), which belongs to the most important host of this serovar in the Poodří locality, while antibodies against serovar Grippotyphosa were detected in six species in all three localities, which is in accordance with the results from other studies [38,43].
Based on the incidence of leptospirosis in recent years, preventive measures appear to be relatively effective. The increase in the number of patients after the floods in 1997 and 2002 is an exception. However, anti-spread measures were not effective enough during this outbreak [5]. At present, the development of a human vaccine is not an issue in the Czech Republic. However, in the field of veterinary medicine, the vaccination of domestic animals should not be neglected. The composition of vaccines should be based on the current occurrence of Leptospira serovars in the actual territory. For this reason, the occurrence of Leptospira and its serovars should be regularly monitored. Moreover, with respect to potential epidemiological risks, occasional serological surveys of reservoirs and other hosts, as well as of the local human population, should be performed.
This study presents leptospirosis as a disease that is not so epidemiologically significant in our natural conditions as it is in the tropics, but it should not be underestimated in any case. In our 6-year study, two serovars (L. interrogans serovar Pomona and L. interrogans serovar Grippotyphosa) were detected in wild small mammals. With respect to the potential risk of infection, regular monitoring should be conducted not only in humans but also in animals, especially in small mammals, as one of the main sources of Leptospira spp.

4. Material and Methods

4.1. Trapping of Wild Small Mammals

Small mammals were trapped using spring-loaded and live mouse traps in three Moravian localities (Poodří Protected Landscape Area, the Moravian Karst, and the Mohelno National Natural Monument) from May to November in the years 2010–2015 in a total of 46 catches (2, 4, 10, 12, 10, and 8 in individual years). The localities represented different habitat types. Poodří is situated in Northern Moravia (GPS: 49°69′98.23″ N, 18°09′00.50″ E), and trapping was carried out within the area of 10 ha in the Bažantula forest area, characterised by an oak Ficario-Ulmetum alnetosum association forest alternating with meadows. The Moravian Karst is situated in South Moravia and trapping was carried out within the area of 20 ha in the surroundings of Skalní Mlýn (GPS: 49°19′43.22″ N; 16°43′23.52″ E), which are characterised by beech forests, complemented with oak and hornbeam woods and wet meadows. Mohelno is situated in South Moravia, west of the Moravian Karst, and trapping was performed along the Oslava River in a deep canyon valley of the Mohelno Serpentine Steppe National Nature Reserve (GPS: 49°11′36.40″ N, 16°16′21.82″ E), within an area of 4 ha. Traps were placed on the ground in a line at a distance of 7 m from each other.
A total of 855 wild small mammals belonging to 5 species of rodents and 2 species of insectivores were trapped (Table 1). Animals caught by both types of traps were dissected and hearts were removed, cut, and printed on a piece of filter paper, which was placed in the fridge at a temperature of 4 °C. Blood drawn from the carotid artery of anaesthetised living individuals was used to obtain serum, which was stored at −18 °C until assays.

4.2. Detection of Antibodies to Leptospira by Microscopic Agglutination Test

Samples on filter papers were examined by a microscopic agglutination test (MAT) [44]. Eight serovars of Leptospira interrogans sensu lato (Lisl) (Grippotyphosa, Icterohaemorrhagiae, Bratislava, Canicola, Sejroe, Sorex jalna, Pomona, and Pyrogenes), belonging to serogroups Grippotyphosa, Icterohaemorrhagiae, Australis, Canicola, Sejroe, Javanica, Pomona, and Pyrogenes, respectively, represent the most prevalent Leptospira serovars in Europe [6]. These serovars were stored long-term in liquid nitrogen at a temperature of −196 °C. Before use, ampoules with Leptospira cultures were thawed and cultured at 28 °C in commercial media (Ellinghausen–McCullough–Johnson–Harris or HIMEDIA Leptospira HiVeg Medium Base, Korthof Modified, REF MV457Z, Test Line, Brno, Czech Republic), with the addition of 10% rabbit serum (Sigma Aldrich, Prague, Czech Republic), to the concentration of approximately 2 × 108 leptospires per ml. The density of Leptospira cultures was determined using a Petroff–Hausser counting chamber after 5–7 days of cultivation. Cultures in concentrations of approximately 2 × 108 leptospires per ml were used for MAT. The degree of agglutination (reaction of antigen with antibodies) was evaluated by dark-field microscopy. Samples were marked positive if more than 50% of Leptospira appeared to be agglutinated. Samples with titres ≥100 were considered positive.

4.3. Statistical Analysis

The results were statistically analysed, taking into consideration species composition, sex, locality, and year of trapping. Data analysis was performed with Pearson’s chi-square test for independence, using STATISTICA Cz 12 [45]. We tested the null hypothesis that Leptospira seroprevalence would not differ in species, sex, locality, and year of trapping. The differences were considered statistically significant if the p-value was <0.05. In the case of a statistically significant difference in seroprevalence in some of the variables, the Scheffé multiple comparison method [45] was subsequently applied. For a detailed analysis of the relationships between species pairs, the odds ratio (OR) was also calculated together with 95% confidence intervals [45].

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, E.B. and A.Ž.; methodology, F.T. and M.B.; software, M.B.; validation, F.T., J.N. and M.B.; formal analysis, A.Ž., J.N. and E.B.; investigation, A.Ž., H.N. and E.B.; resources, A.Ž. and H.N.; data curation, F.T., J.N. and M.B.; writing—original draft preparation, A.Ž., J.N. and E.B.; writing—review and editing, E.B., A.Ž., H.N. and M.B.; visualisation and supervision, J.N., A.Ž. and E.B.; project administration, A.Ž. and E.B.; funding acquisition, E.B. and A.Ž. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The study was financially supported by specific research of Masaryk University (MUNI/A/1340/2021) and by an internal grant from the University of Veterinary Sciences Brno (2022ITA22).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The trapping of animals and the sampling were conducted according to the experimental projects (Poodří 92/2010, 39/2012, 45/2013, 78/2013, 41/2015, Moravian Karst 64/2011, 38/2012, 6/2013, 77/2013, 42/2015) approved by the Administration of the Poodří Protected Landscape Area, by the Administration of the Moravian Karst, and by the Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Hana Lya Kučerová for the help in the laboratory.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Adler, B.; de la Peña Moctezuma, A. Leptospira and leptospirosis. Vet. Microbiol. 2010, 140, 287–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Boey, K.; Shiokawa, K.; Rajeev, S. Leptospira infection in rats: A literature review of global prevalence and distribution. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2019, 13, e0007499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Sedlák, K.; Tomšíčkova, M. Nebezpečné Infekce Zvířat a Člověka (Dangerous Infections of Animals and Humans); Scientia: Prague, Czech Republic, 2006; ISBN 80-86960-07-2. [Google Scholar]
  4. Smetana, J.; Čermáková, Z.; Boštíková, V.; Kučerová, P.; Prášil, P.; Pavliš, O.; Chlíbek, R. Leptospirosis in the Czech Republic and potential for laboratory diagnosis. Epidemiol. Mikrobiol. Imunol. 2010, 59, 159–167. [Google Scholar]
  5. Zítek, K.; Beneš, C. Dlouhodobá epidemiologie leptospirózy (1963–2003) v České republice (Longitudinal epidemiology of leptospirosis in the Czech Republic (1963–2003). Epidemiol. Mikrobiol. Imunol. 2005, 54, 21–26. [Google Scholar]
  6. Treml, F.; Pikula, J.; Holešovská, Z. Prevalence of antibodies against leptospires in the wild boar (Sus scrofa L-1758). Vet. Med. 2003, 48, 66–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ghasemzadeh, I.; Namazi, S.H. Review of bacterial and viral zoonotic infections transmitted by dogs. J. Med. Life. 2015, 8, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  8. Treml, F.; Pejčoch, M.; Holešovska, Z. Small mammals—Natural reservoir of pathogenic leptospires. Vet. Med. 2002, 47, 309–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Treml, F.; Pikula, J.; Holešovska, Z. Prevalence of antibodies against leptospires in the European hare (Lepus europaeus Pall.). Acta Vet. Brno 2003, 72, 377–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. URL 1: Statní zdravotní Ústav (The National Institute of Public Health). Available online: www.szu.cz (accessed on 20 January 2022).
  11. Costa, F.; Hagan, J.E.; Calcagno, J.; Kane, M.; Torgerson, P.; Martinez-Silveira, M.S.; Stein, C.; Abela-Ridder, B.; Ko, A.I. Global morbidity and mortality of leptospirosis: A Systematic Review. PLoS Negl. Trop Dis. 2015, 17, e0003898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Villanueva, S.Y.; Ezoe, H.; Baterna, R.A.; Yanagihara, Y.; Muto, M.; Koizumi, N.; Fukui, T.; Okamoto, Y.; Masuzawa, T.; Cavinta, L.L.; et al. Serologic and molecular studies of Leptospira and leptospirosis among rats in the Philippines. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2010, 82, 889–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. de Faria, M.T.; Calderwood, M.S.; Athanazio, D.A.; McBride, A.J.A.; Hartskeerl, R.A.; Pereira, M.M.; Ko, A.I.; Reis, M.G. Carriage of Leptospira interrogans among domestic rats from an urban setting highly endemic for leptospirosis in Brazil. Acta Trop. 2008, 108, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Scialfa, E.; Bolpe, J.; Bardon, J.C.; Ridao, G.; Gentile, J.; Gallicchio, O. Isolation of Leptospira interrogans from suburban rats in Tandil, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Rev. Argent. Microbiol. 2010, 42, 126–128. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  15. Foronda, P.; Martin-Alonso, A.; del Castillo-Figueruelo, B.; Feliu, C.; Gil, H.; Valladares, B. Pathogenic Leptospira spp. in wild rodents, Canary Islands, Spain. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2011, 17, 1781–1782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Cosson, J.F.; Picardeau, M.; Mielcarek, M.; Tatard, C.; Chaval, Y.; Suputtamongkol, Y.; Buchy, P.; Jittapalapong, S.; Herbreteau, V.; Moran, D.S. Epidemiology of Leptospira transmitted by rodents in Southeast Asia. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2014, 8, e2902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Vanasco, N.B.; Schmeling, M.F.; Lottersberger, J.; Costa, F.; Ko, A.I.; Tarabla, H.D. Clinical characteristics and risk factors of human leptospirosis in Argentina (1999–2005). Acta Trop. 2008, 107, 255–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Stanko, M.; Prokopcakova, H.; Fricova, J.; Petko, B. Occurence of antibodies to leptospira in small mammals in Eastern Slovakia. Vet. Med. 1996, 41, 373–377. [Google Scholar]
  19. Tadin, A.; Turk, N.; Korva, M.; Margaletic, J.; Beck, R.; Vucelja, M.; Habus, J.; Svoboda, P.; Zupanc, T.A.; Henttonen, H.; et al. Multiple co-infections of rodents with hantaviruses, Leptospira, and Babesia in Croatia. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2012, 12, 388–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Cvetnic, Z.; Margaletic, J.; Toncic, J.; Turk, N.; Milas, Z.; Spicic, S.; Lojkic, M.; Terzic, S.; Jemersic, L.; Humski, A.; et al. A serological survey and isolation of leptospires from small rodents and wild boars in the Republic of Croatia. Vet. Med. 2003, 48, 321–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Perra, A.; Servas, V.; Terrier, G.; Postic, D.; Baranton, G.; André-Fontaine, G.; Vaillant, V.; Capek, I. Clustered cases of leptospirosis in Rochefort, France, June 2001. Euro Surveill. 2002, 7, 131–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Aviat, F.; Slamti, L.; Cerqueira, G.M.; Lourdault, K.; Picardeau, M. Expanding the genetic toolbox for leptospira species by generation of fluorescent bacteria. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2010, 76, 8135–8142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Levieuge, A.; Aboubaker, M.H.; Terrier, O.; Drancourt, M.; Davoust, B. Real-time PCR detection of Leptospira sp. in rodents from Toulon harbour (France). Rev. Med. Vet. 2010, 161, 264–266. [Google Scholar]
  24. Krøjgaard, L.; Villumsen, S.; Markussen, M.; Jensen, J.; Leirs, H.; Heiberg, A.C. High prevalence of Leptospira spp. in sewer rats (Rattus norvegicus). Epidemiol. Infect. 2009, 137, 1586–1592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Webster, J.P.; Ellis, W.; MacDonald, D.W. Prevalence of Leptospira spp. in Wild Brown Rats (Rattus norvegicus) on UK Farms. Epidemiol. Infect. 1995, 114, 195–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Pezzella, M.; Lillini, E.; Sturchio, E.; Ierardi, L.A.; Grassi, M.; Traditi, F.; Cristaldi, M. Leptospirosis survey in wild rodents living in urban areas of Rome. Ann. Ig. 2004, 16, 721–726. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  27. Mayer-Scholl, A.; Hammerl, J.A.; Schmidt, S.; Ulrich, R.G.; Pfeffer, M.; Woll, D.; Scholz, H.C.; Thomas, A.; Nöckler, K. Leptospira spp. in rodents and shrews in Germany. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11, 7562–7574. [Google Scholar]
  28. Desai, S.; van Treeck, U.; Lierz, M.; Espelage, W.; Zota, L.; Sarbu, A.; Czerwinski, M.; Sadkowska-Todys, M.; Avdicova, M.; Reetz, J.; et al. Resurgence of field fever in a temperate country: An epidemic of leptospirosis among seasonal strawberry harvesters in Germany in 2007. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2009, 48, 691–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Delooz, L.; Mori, M.; Petitjean, T.; Evrard, J.; Czaplicki, G.; Saegerman, C. Congenital jaundice in bovine aborted foetuses: An emerging syndrome in Southern Belgium. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2015, 62, 124–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. URL2: Leptospirosis-Annual Epidemiological Report 2016 [2014 Data]. Available online: www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/leptospirosis-annual-epidemiological-report-2016-2014-data (accessed on 30 January 2017).
  31. Zitek, K.; Sedláček, I. Taxonomie leptospir (Taxonomy of leptospira). Remedia—Klin. Mikrobiol. 1999, 3, 232–235. [Google Scholar]
  32. Vostal, K.; Žákovská, A. Two-year study of examination of blood from wild rodents for the presence of antiborrelian antibodies. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2003, 10, 203–206. [Google Scholar]
  33. Netušil, J.; Žákovská, A.; Vostal, K.; Norek, A.; Staňko, M. The occurrence of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato in certain ectoparasites (Mesostigmata, Siphonaptera) of Apodemus flavicollis and Myodes glareolus in chosen localities in the Czech Republic. Acta Parasitol. 2013, 58, 337–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Humair, P.F.; Gern, L. Relationship between Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato species, red squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris) and Ixodes ricinus in enzootic areas in Switzerland. Acta Trop. 1998, 69, 213–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Türk, N.; Milas, Z.; Margaletic, J.; Staresina, V.; Slavica, A.; Riquelme-Sertour, N.; Bellenger, E.; Baranton, G.; Postic, D. Molecular characterization of Leptospira spp. strains isolated from small rodents in Croatia. Epidemiol. Infect. 2003, 130, 159–166. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  36. Radzijevskaja, J.; Paulauskas, A.; Rosef, O. Molecular detection and characterization of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato in small rodents. Vet. Med. Zoot. 2011, 55, 40–46. [Google Scholar]
  37. Goris, M.G.; Hartskeerl, R.A. Leptospirosis serodiagnosis by the microscopic agglutination test. Curr. Protoc. Microbiol. 2014, 32, 12E.5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Hubalek, Z.; Rudolf, I. Microbial Zoonoses and Sapronoses, 1st ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2011; 176p, ISBN 978-90-481-9656-2. [Google Scholar]
  39. Treml, F.; Nepeřeny, J.; Jandová, E.; Banďouchová, H.; Pikula, J. Prevalence of antibodies against leptospires in small mammals in relation to age, sex and season. Acta Vet. Brno 2012, 81, 97–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Nepeřený, J.; Treml, F.; Vrzal, V. Prevalence of antibodies against leptospirosis in horses in the Czech Republic. Veterinářství 2018, 68, 94–97. [Google Scholar]
  41. Kucerova, P.; Cermakova, Z.; Pliskova, L.; Pavlis, O.; Kubickova, P.; Kleprlikova, H.; Valenta, Z. Our experience using real-time PCR for the detection of the gene that encodes the superficial lipoprotein LipL32 of the pathogenic leptospires to confirm the acute form of human leptospirosis. Biomed Pap. Med. Fac. Univ. Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2013, 157, 387–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Levett, P.N. Leptospirosis. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2001, 14, 296–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Staňková, M.; Marešová, V.; Vaništa, J. Repetitorium infekčních nemocí (Repetitorium of Infectious Diseases); Triton: Prague, Czech Republic, 2008; ISBN 8073870560. [Google Scholar]
  44. Shropshire, S.B.; Veir, J.K.; Morris, A.K.; Lappin, M.R. Evaluation of Leptospira species microscopic agglutination test in experimentally vaccinated cats and Leptospira species seropositivity in aged azotemic client-owned cats. J. Feline Med. Surg. 2016, 18, 768–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. URL 3: Statsoft, Inc. 2013. STATISTICA (Data Analysis Software System), Version 12. Available online: www.Statsoft.com (accessed on 20 January 2018).
Pathogens 11 00888 g001 550
Figure 1. The prevalence of Leptospira sp. antibodies in wild small mammals compared with incidence of human leptospirosis (41, 31, 22, 7, 37, and 17 cases) in observed years 2010–2015 in the Czech Republic.
Figure 1. The prevalence of Leptospira sp. antibodies in wild small mammals compared with incidence of human leptospirosis (41, 31, 22, 7, 37, and 17 cases) in observed years 2010–2015 in the Czech Republic.
Pathogens 11 00888 g001
Table
Table 1. Prevalence of antibodies against Leptospira spp. in wild small mammals trapped in the Czech Republic in years 2010–2015.
Table 1. Prevalence of antibodies against Leptospira spp. in wild small mammals trapped in the Czech Republic in years 2010–2015.
Years201020112012201320142015Total
Species
Apodemus agrarius 2 + 2 */14 (28.6%)1 + 1 */18 (11.1%) 0 + 1 */18 (5.6%)3 + 4 */50 (14%)
Apodemus flavicollis3/59 (5.1%)0/43 (0%)7/127 (5.5%)2/50 (4%)8/174 (4.6%)1/44 (2.3%)21/497 (4.2%)
Apodemus sylvaticus 0/5 (0%)1/12 (8.3%)1/23/12 (25%)1/26 (3.8%)6/57 (10.5%)
Myodes glareolus 0/37/105 (6.7%)1/10 (10%)6/33 (18.2%)0/40 (0%)14/191 (7.3%)
Microtus arvalis 2/6 (33.3%) 2/6 (33.3%)
Sorex araneus 0/10/20/8 (0%)0/6 (0%)1/36 (2.8%)1/53 (1.9%)
Talpa europea 0/1 0/1
Sex
Female1/32 (3.1%)0/28 (0%)10 + 1/137 (8%)5/45 (11.1%)11/111 (9.9%) 3/111 (2.7%)30 + 1 */464 (6.7%)
Male2/27 (7.4%)0/24 (0%)7 + 1 */123 (6.5%)2 + 1 */50 (6%)6/114 (5.3%) 0 + 1 */53 (1.9%)17 + 3 */391 (5.1%)
Localities
Mohelno 1/56 (1.8%) 1/56 (1.8%)
Moravian Karst 0/21 (0%)8/161 (5%)1/28 (3.6%)14/189 (7.4%)2/96 (2.1%)25/485 (5.2%)
Poodří3/59 (5.1%)0/31 (0%)8 + 2 */43 (23.3%)6 + 1 */67 (10.4%)3/36 (8.3%)1 + 1 */78 (2.6%)21 + 4 */314 (8%)
Total3/59 (5.1%)0/52 (0%)17 + 2 */260 (7%)7 + 1 */95 (8.4%) 17/225 (7.6%)3 + 1 */164 (2.4%)47 + 4 */855 (6%)
* Serovars of L. grippotyphosa and L. pomona.
Table
Table 2. p-values for tests of independence of antibodies against Leptospira sp. of species, sex, locality, year of capture, and between rodents and insectivores.
Table 2. p-values for tests of independence of antibodies against Leptospira sp. of species, sex, locality, year of capture, and between rodents and insectivores.
CharacteristicNumberPositivep Value
Species 0.002
Apodemus agrarius507
Apodemus flavicollis49721
Apodemus sylvaticus576
Myodes glareolus19117
Microtus arvalis62
Sorex araneus531
Talpa europea10
Sex 0.3355
Female46431
Male39120
Localities 0.1031
Mohelno561
Moravian Karst48425
Poodří31425
Year of collection 0.0785
2010593
2011520
201226019
2013958
201422517
20151644
Rodent versus insectivore 0.1635
Rodents80153
Insectivores541
Total85554
Table
Table 3. Statistical differences in Leptospira sp. prevalence between wild small mammal species (OR with 95% CI for pairs of species).
Table 3. Statistical differences in Leptospira sp. prevalence between wild small mammal species (OR with 95% CI for pairs of species).
SpeciesApodemus agrariusApodemus flavicollisApodemus sylvaticusMyodes glareolusMicrotus arvalisSorex araneus
Apodemus agrarius 3.69 (1.48, 9.17)1.38 (0.43, 4.43)2.06 (0.78, 5.41)0.33 (0.05, 2.13)8.47 (1.01, 71.51)
Apodemus flavicollis 0.38 (0.14, 0.97)0.56 (0.28, 1.12)0.09 (0.02, 0.51)2.29 (0.30, 17.40)
Apodemus sylvaticus 1.49 (0.54, 4.07)0.24 (0.04, 1.57)6.12 (0.71, 52.62)
Myodes glareolus 0.16 (0.03, 0.94)4.11 (0.53, 32.02)
Microtus arvalis 26.00 (1.91, 352.51)
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Žákovská, A.; Treml, F.; Nejezchlebová, H.; Nepeřený, J.; Budíková, M.; Bártová, E. Leptospira interrogans Sensu Lato in Wild Small Mammals in Three Moravian Localities of the Czech Republic. Pathogens 2022, 11, 888. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11080888

AMA Style

Žákovská A, Treml F, Nejezchlebová H, Nepeřený J, Budíková M, Bártová E. Leptospira interrogans Sensu Lato in Wild Small Mammals in Three Moravian Localities of the Czech Republic. Pathogens. 2022; 11(8):888. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11080888

Chicago/Turabian Style

Žákovská, Alena, František Treml, Helena Nejezchlebová, Jiří Nepeřený, Marie Budíková, and Eva Bártová. 2022. "Leptospira interrogans Sensu Lato in Wild Small Mammals in Three Moravian Localities of the Czech Republic" Pathogens 11, no. 8: 888. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11080888

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