Next Article in Journal
Frequency of β-Casein Gene Polymorphisms in Jersey Cows in Western Japan
Next Article in Special Issue
Apicomplexans in Goat: Prevalence of Neospora caninum, Toxoplasma gondii, Cryptosporidium spp., Eimeria spp. and Risk Factors in Farms from Ecuador
Previous Article in Journal
Development of Colorimetric Reverse Transcription Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification Assay for Detecting Feline Coronavirus
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effectiveness of Anthelmintic Treatments in Small Ruminants in Germany
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 12
Issue 16
10.3390/ani12162074
animals-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:
Review

Ovine Neosporosis: The Current Global Situation

by
Julio Benavides
1,
Marta González-Warleta
2,
Noive Arteche-Villasol
1,3,
Valentín Pérez
1,3,
Mercedes Mezo
2 and
Daniel Gutiérrez-Expósito
1,3,*
1
Instituto de Ganadería de Montaña, CSIC-University of Leon, Grulleros, 24346 León, Spain
2
Centro de Investigaciones Agrarias de Mabegondo, Parasitology Laboratory, Axencia Galega da Calidade Alimentaria (AGACAL)-Xunta de Galicia, Ctra, Betanzos a Mesón do Vento km 7, Abegondo, 15318 A Coruña, Spain
3
Animal Health Department, Faculty of Veterinary, University of Leon, Campus de Vegazana s/n, 24071 León, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2022, 12(16), 2074; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12162074
Submission received: 13 June 2022 / Revised: 17 July 2022 / Accepted: 10 August 2022 / Published: 15 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Parasite Diseases in Small Ruminants)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

This review summarizes the current global situation of Neospora caninum infection in sheep by referring to all of the available descriptions of natural ovine neosporosis to date, focusing on epidemiology, clinical signs, lesions, and diagnosis. The data suggest that ovine neosporosis is more prevalent than currently thought, that it has increased in the last few decades, and that it should now be considered in the differential diagnosis when investigating abortion in sheep.

Abstract

In the past 20 years, Neospora caninum infection in sheep has been reported in at least 31 countries worldwide from all sheep-rearing continents (Europe, Asia, the Americas, Africa, and Oceania), and its role as an abortifacient agent is becoming more evident. Most studies of ovine neosporosis have focused on its epidemiology, based primarily on serological analysis, with only a few studies investigating the actual presence of the parasite by PCR and/or IHC. Individual seroprevalence rates were highly variable between countries, and even between regions within the same country, ranging from 0.0% to 67.4% positive. Furthermore, most of the studies were not directly comparable due to differences in experimental designs, sample sizes, husbandry systems, ecological factors, and serological tests (e.g., IFAT, ELISA, MAT, Western blot). The latter, along with the scarcity of studies on the relevance of N. caninum as an abortifacient agent, may bias the perception of the importance of this disease. This review summarizes the situation of N. caninum infection in sheep using all available published studies describing natural ovine neosporosis. The epidemiology shows that ovine neosporosis is found worldwide, and it poses a relevant risk to the sustainability of sheep flocks.

1. Introduction

Neospora caninum is a well-known protist parasite of cattle and is considered to be one of the most relevant abortifacient agents responsible for significant economic losses in the bovine industry [1]. The first report of this parasite in sheep was over 30 years ago, when it was described in a weak lamb with neurological signs [2] that had been misdiagnosed as toxoplasmosis 15 years previously [3], due to the similarity of the associated histological lesions [4]. Since this initial description, ovine neosporosis has typically been considered as infrequent [5], until a decade ago, when awareness of its potential as a reproductive disease in sheep was raised [6]. However, there are many knowledge deficits with respect to its economic impact and geographic distribution, due to the paucity of published studies [7]. Additionally, the pathogenesis of the disease remains poorly understood, as most experimental studies of ovine neosporosis use it as model of exogenous bovine neosporosis [8]. Furthermore, experimental challenge is primarily via parenteral inoculation of tachyzoites [9,10,11]—a route that might not accurately reproduce the events of the natural disease, as it is acquired through the ingestion of sporulated oocysts [12]. In fact, there is still scarce information on the pathogenesis of ovine neosporosis after natural or experimental oocyst ingestion, or on its mechanism of transplacental transmission.
The aim of this study was to review descriptions of epidemiological studies and natural clinical cases of ovine neosporosis to gather all of the available information from publications on the epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical signs, lesions, and distribution of the disease, with special reference to the various techniques used for its diagnosis.

2. Life Cycle and Transmission

Similar to bovine neosporosis, the life cycle of N. caninum in sheep begins with infection, which can occur horizontally via the ingestion of sporulated oocysts present in food or water [13,14], vertically via the transplacental route from a previously-infected sheep, which has recently been shown to be the main source of infection in sheep [15,16], as it is in cattle and goats [17,18,19,20]. Vertical transmission can occur after a pregnant sheep ingests sporulated oocysts, causing exogenous transplacental transmission, or after reactivation during gestation of a chronic infection, causing endogenous transplacental transmission [14,21]. Recently, vertical transmission has been shown to be a key feature in the persistence of ovine neosporosis for several generations within a flock due to chronically infected sheep [12]. A very similar—if not identical—route of transmission has been described previously in bovine neosporosis, where it has been suggested that during reactivation of a latent infection in pregnant animals (i.e., recrudescence), encysted N. caninum bradyzoites located in tissue cysts differentiate into tachyzoites, and subsequently disseminate throughout the host via the bloodstream (i.e., parasitemia), allowing invasion of the placenta and infection of the fetus [22]. This theory is supported by parasite DNA having been found in blood samples from chronically infected sheep in epidemiological studies [7,23], as it has in cattle [24,25].
There is scant information on the influence of variables such as sex, age, or breed on the transmission of the parasite or the susceptibility to N. caninum infection. Furthermore, there is a lack of consensus between the small number of studies investigating these variables, as some report a higher prevalence of infection in adult sheep [26,27,28]—which would suggest that the transmission of the parasite is mainly due to ingestion of oocysts, as occurs in ovine toxoplasmosis [29]—while others state that age is not a risk factor [30,31], which is consistent with most abortifacient disease occurring after vertical transmission, as it does in bovine neosporosis [32]. The same lack of consensus occurs with sex, as some studies have shown a higher prevalence of infection in males [33], others in females, and some found no difference [34]. With respect to breed, a higher risk of infection in Merino sheep compared to crossbreeds has been reported [35], but other studies found no difference [27,30]. Due to variabilities in the experimental design of these studies, meaningful comparisons are difficult, as are definitive conclusions.

3. Clinical Signs and Lesions

Once primary infection or recrudescence occurs, clinical presentations are characterized by abortions, stillbirths, or the delivery of congenitally infected but healthy lambs [12,36,37]. Although the route of transmission (exogenous or endogenous) is unknown in most of the published studies of naturally occurring infections, stillbirths and abortions during late gestation are the most frequent outcomes. Gross lesions in aborted fetuses are infrequent and, when present, are not pathognomonic [21,38]. Affected fetuses or placenta may show mummification, maceration, or just autolysis.
As described in both natural and experimental cases of ovine neosporosis, microscopic lesions in the placenta and aborted fetuses are similar to those caused by T. gondii infection, in that they are typical “protozoal lesions” [4,39,40]. Most studies that have described microscopic lesions due to natural N. caninum infection in sheep are case reports comprising a low number of samples, or studies focused on the incidence of abortions due to N. caninum infection (Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3). Typically, microscopic lesions associated with ovine neosporosis in the placenta are multiple foci of coagulative necrosis, with occasional mineralization and variable, non-suppurative inflammation in the cotyledons (Figure 1A). Occasionally, the placenta may contain multiple focal aggregations of polymorphic nuclear neutrophils and lymphohistiocytic vasculitis, as well as cyst-like tissue structures [4,15,37,41] (Figure 1A). In the fetus, the most common lesions are multiple foci of non-suppurative inflammation of the brain [6,9] (Figure 1B,C), typical of similar protozoal infections, such as toxoplasmosis [42]. The encephalitis is characterized by randomly distributed glial foci, vacuolization and death of neurons, congestion, mononuclear cell perivascular cuffing with microglia/macrophages, and occasional dystrophic mineralization [6,12,37,43]. N. caninum tissue cysts in the neuropil (Figure 1D) and the soma of neurons are also observed, with and without associated cellular inflammation, although the latter is more frequent—especially in stillborn, full-term, and neonatal lambs [12,15,38,43]. Other than the fetal brain lesions, which are the most frequently encountered, several studies have described histological changes, such as multifocal non-purulent myositis affecting the tongue, heart, or skeletal muscles, and multiple foci of necrosis and/or infiltration of mononuclear inflammatory cells in the liver and lungs (Figure 1E) [4,12,41].

4. Diagnosis

The definitive diagnosis of ovine neosporosis requires a combination of different laboratory techniques, including the identification from abortion material of microscopic lesions compatible with protozoan infections in the placenta and/or fetal tissues (e.g., brain, liver, lung, muscle), the molecular detection of the parasite, the identification of specific antibodies against N. caninum in sheep sera [37,38,44], and/or the detection of N. caninum antigens by specific immunohistochemistry (IHC). From a diagnostic perspective, the parasite burden is usually higher in the placental rather than fetal samples; thus, the former is more useful as a diagnostic sample. However, it is common for the placenta from natural cases of ovine abortion to be in an advanced state of autolysis, and this may hamper the diagnosis, or the placenta may not be submitted. Therefore, fetal tissues—especially the brain—are more frequently examined to investigate the presence of the parasite or lesions. The fact that microscopic lesions are not always found in N. caninum-related abortions—especially in stillbirths, or when the placenta is not available—and when present they are similar to those caused by T. gondii infection, has probably led to the underestimation of the true prevalence of ovine neosporosis [15]. For these and other reasons, the use of ancillary diagnostic techniques—such as molecular (e.g., PCR) or immunological tests (e.g., serology and IHC)—is required to make a definitive etiological diagnosis. Initially, IHC was used for etiological confirmation of the histological diagnosis; however, it is now primarily restricted to research to specifically locate the parasite, define its relationship with the various histological lesions, and investigate the pathogenesis of the disease [2,15,45,46]. In addition, common non-specific background staining in placental tissues due to technical aspects (e.g., acid hematin formation due to formalin fixation, processing of specimens, detection systems, or primary and secondary antibodies) may hamper the evaluation of some cases by this technique [40].

4.1. DNA Detection by PCR

Detection of N. caninum DNA by PCR was initially developed for the diagnosis of bovine neosporosis, and the same technique is used for suspected ovine neosporosis, but despite the high specificity and sensitivity of PCR, this technique requires reasonable tissue sample preservation. However, in cases of abortion, the fetus and the placenta are usually autolytic, and this may compromise molecular diagnostic techniques [18]. Although most diagnostic investigations have used fetal and placental tissues, other samples from adult sheep—such as blood, brain, and muscle—have been used in epidemiological studies. For example, three studies undertaken in Mexico and one in New Zealand analyzed whole blood to detect the parasite [7,23,47,48]. Surprisingly, prevalence rates in two of the Mexican studies based on the detection of parasite DNA showed greater prevalence than shown by serology (25% vs. 5.5% and 27% vs. 13.5%, respectively). Conversely, in the New Zealand study, the serology showed a greater seroprevalence than detection of parasite DNA. Detection of N. caninum DNA in blood from infected ruminants (mainly cattle) has rarely been reported, and blood is not considered to be the sample of choice, because of the inconsistency in detecting N. caninum DNA in pregnant livestock [23,25]. This is supported by studies by Arbabi et al. [49], Amdouni et al. [27], and Dessi et al. [50], using brain, heart, or neck muscle tissues collected from sheep in a slaughterhouse, of which 3.9%, 10.6%, and 72.5% were positive for N. caninum DNA, respectively. Although skeletal muscle has not been commonly used for the diagnosis of ovine neosporosis, it should be noted that parasite DNA has been found in the muscle tissue of seronegative animals [51,52], so its use in epidemiological studies may complement—and, indeed, be more accurate than—the results from serological analyses. Similarly, the heart could be a suitable sample for diagnostic purposes in adult sheep, as parasite DNA was identified more frequently when compared with brain tissue from the same animals (6.7% and 0.7%, respectively) [49], despite N. caninum cysts being present in the brains of chronically infected sheep [12].
Molecular diagnosis of ovine neosporosis is essentially achieved by one of two nested PCRs: one conventional endpoint PCR, and one real-time PCR, targeting different N. caninum-specific genes (e.g., the ITS1 and Nc5 genes) [40,53,54,55]. More recently, a quantitative PCR was developed for the detection and quantification of parasite burden in experimental samples [39]. Most studies on suspected natural infections of ovine neosporosis use a nested PCR, confirming that this is the routine technique of choice for molecular diagnosis. However, it should be noted that the use of different PCRs could give rise to different results due to differences in sensitivity; for example, a semi-nested PCR is fourfold less sensitive than nested PCR for ovine samples [56], and this has hampered direct comparison between studies.

4.2. Serology

In addition to examination for histological changes or parasite DNA, investigation of specific antibodies against N. caninum is recommended, as aborted fetuses and, especially, stillborn lambs may not have histological lesions, or the parasite burden might be below the level detectable by PCR [15,21]. There are several serological techniques available, including (i) a wide variety of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) (in-house and commercially available tests), (ii) indirect fluorescent antibody tests (IFATs), (iii) modified agglutination tests (MATs), and (iv) Western blotting (WB). The sample of choice is the serum, although milk has been also suggested for serological surveys of the prevalence of exposure of sheep to N. caninum [57]. At present, ELISAs have mostly replaced IFATs, and several tests have been developed or adapted specifically for ovine samples, but their reliability needs to be improved by further validation studies [58]. Although IFATs and ELISAs are the most commonly used serological tests for the diagnosis of ovine neosporosis, only a moderate agreement between them has been reported [59,60]. This disparity could be explained by differences in secondary antibodies, antigen preparations, composition of the panel of sera, and the subjectivity inherent in interpretation of IFATs [61].
Commercially available ELISAs used for the diagnosis of ovine neosporosis are usually “multi-species”, whereas in-house ELISA tests have usually been validated in each laboratory [21,62,63]. There are proven differences in sensitivity and specificity between the commercially available ELISAs used for the diagnosis of bovine neosporosis [64], due to their different components, and these have never been validated specifically for use in ovine neosporosis. For example, the use of protein G as a conjugate in commercial multispecies tests, due to its high binding affinity for ruminant IgG, might yield different results to those tests using a specific anti-ovine IgG as a conjugate. Nevertheless, the validation of diagnostic assays is a process involving constant development and readjustment of performance characteristics for each target population [65]. This may be due to sera from experimental infections commonly being used during validation of serological tests [58], even though field sera are required due to naturally infected animals having a significantly lower immune response [66]. For this reason, the major challenge in definitively validating any serological test is collecting the sera required from the large number of naturally infected seropositive sheep from different countries.
One relevant confounding factor that must be considered when evaluating any serological test is antibody cross-reactivity. Conventional ELISAs using soluble N. caninum antigens have been shown to have a high degree of cross-reaction with T. gondii when compared with IFATs. However, cross-reaction between T. gondii and N. caninum when using IFATs can be ruled out by using cutoff values equal to or higher than 1:50 [67,68]. Cross-reactivity might be reduced by using more specific antigens or antibodies [68], and several authors have highlighted the need to characterize new N. caninum antigens linked to active infection in the host (e.g., immunogenic ones) for the development of more specific diagnostic tests [69,70]. For this reason, novel ELISAs based on recombinant proteins (e.g., NcSAG1, NcSRS2), and already used in cattle, have been used for diagnosis in small ruminants with promising results, due to low antibody cross-reactivity [62,71,72,73,74]. Finally, it remains unclear whether cross-reactivity between Sarcocystis spp.—which are highly prevalent in sheep—and N. caninum antigens affect serological diagnosis. A recent study reported very high levels (69.5%) of co-infection with N. caninum and S. tenella in 138 samples from sheep at a slaughterhouse [50]. These two protozoal parasites are closely related, and have common antigens. However, there is a paucity of information about cross-reactions between Sarcocystis species that affect sheep (e.g., S. tenella and S. gigantea) and N. caninum, although cross-reactions between Sarcocystis spp. and N. caninum in cattle seem to be negligible [68]. Unfortunately, the high percentage of co-infection suggests the possible occurrence of cross-reactivity in serological diagnosis.
Table
Table 1. Large-scale prevalence studies conducted worldwide on ovine neosporosis *.
Table 1. Large-scale prevalence studies conducted worldwide on ovine neosporosis *.
Diagnosis of Neospora InfectionPrevalence (%)
SamplingSerum AntibodiesParasite DNASerum
Antibodies		Parasite DNA
ContinentCountryAnimals (N)Flocks (N)Technique
(Product)		TechniqueAnimalsFlocksAnimalsFlocksReference
AFRICAEgypt430-iELISA (IDEXX®)na8.6---[75]
Gabon95-iELISA (IDVet®)na42.1---[76]
Senegal174-cELISA (VMRD®)na41.9---[77]
Tanzania412-iELISA (IDVet®)na1.5---[78]
Tunisia198-nanPCR $--10.6-[27]
AMERICAArgentina7046IFAT (IH)na366.7--[79]
130-IFAT (IH)na1.5---[80]
Brazil14115IFAT (IH)na2960--[81]
59730IFAT (IH)na9.286.7--[26]
62-iELISA (CHEKIT)na3.2---[82]
3059IFAT (IH)na9.5---[30]
102832IFAT (IH)na8.887.50--[34]
40935IFAT (IH)na1.817.1--[83]
3828IFAT (IH)na12.887.5--[84]
38111IFAT (IH)na13.9181.8--[85]
34326IFAT (IH)na9.653.8--[86]
33412IFAT (IH)na8.183.3--[87]
8123IFAT (IH)na64.2ND--[88]
149716IFAT (IH)na850--[89]
645IFAT (IH)na4.740--[90]
36013IFAT (IH)na5.8346.1--[91]
48863IFAT (IH)na13.149.2--[92]
79531IFAT (IH)na13.2---[93]
596-IFAT (IH)na59.2---[94]
110-iELISA (IH)na33.6---[62]
1828IFAT (IH)na13.7475--[95]
93254IFAT (IH)na12.4575.9--[96]
30010IFAT (IH)na16.390--[97]
332-IFAT (IH)na10.2---[98]
817IFAT (IH)na3.7042.86--[99]
120060IFAT (IH)na39.868.3--[100]
50-iELISA (IH)na72---[63]
38812iELISA (IDEXX®)na6.250--[101]
1800705IFAT (IH)na18.4419--[102]
61620IFAT (IH)na60.6100--[103]
160780iELISA
(IMUNODOT®)		na17.680--[104]
Costa Rica39210iELISA (IDVet®)na10.990--[105]
Grenada138-iELISA (IDVet®)na13---[106]
Mexico32413iELISA (IDEXX®)nPCR &5.561.52584.6[23]
36813iELISA (IDEXX®)nPCR &13.592.32792.3[7]
Uruguay1848iELISA (IDEXX®)cPCR &15.27514.175[48]
135710iELISA (IDEXX®)na1.230--[107]
ASIAChina600-iELISA (IDEXX®)na10.3---[108]
779-iELISA (IDEXX®)na7.32---[109]
2187-cELISA (IDEXX®)na8.4---[33]
299-MAT (IH)na5.69---[28]
Iran317-IFAT (IH)
cELISA (VMRD®)		na2.52
4.1		---[60]
586-iELISA (IDVet®)
cELISA (VMRD®)		na1.13---[110]
330-nanPCR (IH) #--3.9-[49]
55037iELISA (IDVet®)na6.837.8--[31]
Iraq127-iELISA (IDVet®)na4.7---[111]
Israel4804-IFAT (IH)na67.4---[112]
Jordan32038iELISA (CHEKIT)na4.345.8--[113]
33962iELISA (BIO-X)na6392--[114]
Malaysia31737iELISA (IDEXX®)na00--[115]
Pakistan128-cELISA (VMRD®)na27.7---[116]
Turkey376-iELISA (CHEKIT)na2.13---[117]
180-cELISA VMRD®na7.8---[118]
610-iELISA (IH)na2.1---[73]
EUROPECzech Republic5479cELISA (VMRD®)na12100--[119]
Greece45850iELISA (IH)na16.856--[120]
80-iELISA (IDEXX®)na2.5---[121]
Italy1010-iELISA (CHEKIT)na2---[122]
3045iELISA (Biotech®)na44.4100--[57]
42839iELISA & WB (IH)na19.389.4--[35]
138-nanPCR ¥--72.5-[50]
Poland64-iELISA (IDVet®)na13---[123]
Spain177-cELISA (VMRD®)na10.1---[124]
20912iELISA (IDVet®)na1.925--[125]
180-cELISA (VMRD®)na3.9---[126]
90-iELISA (IDEXX®)na0.0---[121]
240044iELISA (IDVet®)na5.572.7--[127]
Switzerland117-IFAT (IH)na10.3---[38]
OCEANIAAustralia2325iELISA (IDEXX®)
cELISA (VMRD®)		na0
2.2		0
60		--[42]
55830iELISA (IDVet®)na00--[128]
New Zealand640-iELISA (IDEXX®)na0.62---[129]
28435IFAT (IH)
iELISA (IDEXX®)		nPCR &41.05
1.3		-
-		3.5-[47]
* Only studies involving a minimum of 50 sheep from at least 5 flocks are included. na: not analyzed. cELISA: competitive ELISA; IFAT: immunofluorescence antibody test; iELISA: indirect ELISA; MAT: modified agglutination test; WB: Western blotting; nPCR: nested PCR; IH: in-house. $: neck muscle samples; &: blood samples; #: heart and brain samples; ¥: brain.

5. Prevalence

Large-scale prevalence studies are summarized in Table 1. Studies on flocks with confirmed reproductive failure, with sheep that had aborted [31,40], with a sample size lower than 50 sheep [41], and/or with a previous history of ovine neosporosis [21] are included in Table 2 and Table 3.
Table 1 shows that ovine neosporosis has been reported, to some extent, by serology and/or parasite detection in 26 different countries and all continents in which sheep are present. Most of the studies (96%) used serological tests, with only 9% using PCR (Table 1). The choice of test is the reason for the lack of parasite detection in epidemiological studies, although when both techniques were used on the same samples—in only 3 of the 77 epidemiological studies—the results were contradictory, as DNA parasite detection in blood gave higher prevalences than specific antibodies [7,23,47] (Table 1). Irrespective of this, the findings suggest that ovine neosporosis is expanding geographically, and should be included in the differential diagnosis of abortion in sheep. Furthermore, in studies where antibodies against N. caninum were detected and flock seroprevalence rates were calculated, the prevalence was over 50% in 72% of studies (27/37). This suggests that ovine neosporosis might have gone unnoticed previously despite it now being widely established in sheep flocks.
In the 26 countries where specific antibodies against N. caninum were detected in prevalence studies, animal seroprevalence ranged from 0.0% to 67.4% (15% on average) based on the serological assays listed in Table 1. Almost all of these serological studies used ELISAs (60%; 45/74) or IFATs (41%; 30/74) rather than MATs (1.3%; 1/74) or WB (1.3%; 1/74) (Table 1), probably due to the greater ease of use, familiarity, and availability of ELISAs and IFATs. IFATs were used frequently in South American countries (mainly Brazil), with a low cutoff (1:25 or 1:50), whereas studies in the other continents used ELISA tests (Table 1). Of the commercially available ELISAs used for serological diagnosis of ovine neosporosis, all were of the “multi-species” type, and these were used more frequently than in-house ELISAs (84% vs. 16%, respectively) (Table 1).
The highest seroprevalence rates for N. caninum in sheep were found in countries from the American and Asian continents, whereas the lowest rates were found in Oceania (Table 1). There were two prevalence studies carried out on slaughterhouse-derived samples in Tunisia and Italy that used PCR to examine muscle and brain samples, respectively, finding variable and remarkable prevalence rates (10.6% and 72.5%, respectively) [27,50]. The high prevalence rate observed in a total of 138 brain samples from Italy could be explained if all of the animals sampled were from the same flock, but that information was not included in the study.

5.1. America

N. caninum infection has been reported in six countries within the American continent (Argentina, Brazil, Grenada, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Uruguay). The main finding from all of these studies was that there were variations in the prevalence rates both between countries, and even between regions within the same country. For example, animal seroprevalence rates in Brazil have been found to be as low as 1.8% and as high as 60.6% in the states of Rio do Norte (northeastern) and Rondonia (western), respectively [83,103]. In general terms, serological studies carried out in the American continent were restricted to Latin and Central American countries—mainly Brazil (29/37) (Table 1), which had an overall seroprevalence of 19.9% (from a total of 15,461 serum samples tested)—and it has been suggested that deficiencies in environmental management and sanitation that could favor the dissemination of N. caninum in the sheep flocks may be responsible for this high seroprevalence [104].

5.2. Africa

In Africa, only five countries have conducted prevalence studies of N. caninum in sheep: Egypt, Gabon, Senegal, Tanzania, and Tunisia (Table 1). However, these studies are not directly comparable, as they used different techniques: serology (ELISA) or DNA parasite detection (PCR). The prevalence rates were 8.6%, 42%, 41.9%, 1.5%, and 10.6%, respectively, but more studies using a consistent methodology are needed in order to draw any conclusions on the incidence and geographic distribution of ovine neosporosis in Africa.

5.3. Asia

In Asia, only seven countries (China, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Pakistan, and Turkey) have reported specific antibodies against N. caninum in sheep. Despite investigation, specific antibodies were not found in sheep in Malaysia [115]. The countries that have carried out higher numbers of studies are Israel, China, Iran, and Turkey, with a total of 4804, 3865, 1783, and 1166 sheep sampled, respectively; the three latter showed overall seroprevalence of 7.9%, 3.6%, and 4%, respectively. However, the seroprevalence in Israel, based on a 10-year retrospective study, was conspicuously high (67.4%), especially when compared to the T. gondii seroprevalence (46.7%) [112]. This could mean that ovine neosporosis is an endemic disease in Israel or that there is a problem with cross-reactivity in the tests being used. The remaining Asian countries sampled less than 700 sheep.

5.4. Europe

Animal seroprevalence rates from Europe were reported in six countries (Czech Republic, Greece, Italy, Poland, Spain, and Switzerland) (10.9% average) (Table 1). The studies with the highest animal seroprevalence were from Greece (16.8%) and Italy (19.3% and 44.4%) [35,120], whereas the lowest animal seroprevalence (0%) was reported in Spain (Table 1) [121], despite most studies (n = 5) having been carried out there, and an overall mean seroprevalence of 4.28% was calculated for the country. The remaining countries were mostly represented by one study each, except for Italy, which showed an overall mean seroprevalence of 21.9%. The high prevalence rate observed (72.5%) in brain samples by PCR in Italy was not used in the calculation of the overall seroprevalence [50].

5.5. Oceania

In Oceania, ovine neosporosis has rarely been studied, and has only been reported in Australia and New Zealand, with those countries having the two lowest prevalence rates (0.7% and 0.8%) (Table 1). There was a high degree of disagreement between the ELISAs (1.3%) and IFATs (43.5%) used [45], suggesting that at least two different serological tests are required to arrive at an accurate diagnosis. The seroprevalence rates determined by IFAT were not used in the calculation of the overall seroprevalence.

5.6. Experimental Design Variables and Risk Factors

The variability in the results from different studies may be due to differences in sample sizes, husbandry systems, times of investigation, serological tests used, and geographic factors [109]. Sample size is a highly relevant variable when determining how representative a study is [130], and those studies with a low sample size might not be representative of the true seroprevalence in the sheep population of the whole countries (Table 1). Ideally, samples should be selected randomly to avoid any bias, although this is not always possible, and convenience sampling is frequently all that is available. Of the studies included in Table 1, 56% carried out random sampling (data not shown). In this sense, the origin of the samples plays a key role in the results, as the clinical history of the flock—especially the previous occurrence of abortions—is a critical influence in the epidemiology of neosporosis. For this reason, those studies that focused on flocks with reproductive disorders were separated and placed in Table 2. The size of flocks and the rearing system have also been suggested to influence the prevalence of ovine neosporosis. For example, small- and medium-sized flocks, as well as semi-extensive and extensive production systems, have all been found to be associated with a higher prevalence of N. caninum infection [35,102,113]. However, this is contested by others who state that the production system does not influence the seroprevalence of this disease [34,86,94], and some studies even state the contrary—that permanently housed sheep (i.e., intensive production systems) are more likely to ingest N. caninum oocysts from contaminated batches of prepared food [131,132]. This situation is highly complex, as it could also be related to flock hygiene and management practices, which are linked to flock size, as small family flocks typically have worse hygiene, which may facilitate infection due to more frequent opportunities for contamination of food and water by oocysts [108]. Conversely, high-health-status flocks with better hygiene together with accurate veterinary supervision tend to be associated with larger, intensively managed flocks that have lower seroprevalence rates [113,114]. Most published studies have reported a strong association between seropositivity for N. caninum or the occurrence of abortions and the presence of dogs in the flock [108,109,114]. However, it is important to appreciate that N. caninum can maintain its life cycle for an indeterminate duration without the involvement of the definitive host, via endogenous transplacental (vertical) transmission.
Some studies have found a correlation between high seroprevalence rates for N. caninum and a high-humidity climate, suggesting that the latter contributes to prolonged viability of oocysts in the environment [103]. However, due to the paucity of studies on (i) horizontal transmission of ovine neosporosis and (ii) the frequency of oocyst shedding by dogs, the role of climate in the epidemiology of the disease requires further investigation. In addition, if one considers vertical transmission after recrudescence as the main route of transmission, then ecological factors would be less relevant [18].
Table
Table 2. Studies conducted worldwide on ovine neosporosis among flocks with reproductive failure.
Table 2. Studies conducted worldwide on ovine neosporosis among flocks with reproductive failure.
ContinentCountryAbortions and/or Perinatal Deaths (N)SamplesSerum AntibodiesParasite DNAIHCCo-Infection
with
T. gondii		References
TechniquePrevalence (%)TechniquePrevalence (%)Prevalence (%)
AMERICAArgentina63 *P, FT, TFIFAT12.69nPCR19.043.17Yes (30.7%)[133]
Brazil294SSIFAT18na-na3.7[134]
ASIAIran70SS, P, FTiELISA (IDEXX®)5.7cPCR8.5nana[135]
358SSiELISA2.2na-nana[136]
109 *FBna-nPCR0.9nana[137]
71FBna-cPCR9.8nana[138]
57FBna-nPCR3.5nana[36]
130P, FTna-cPCR2.3nana[139]
51FBna-nPCR15.6nana[140]
Iraq51 *Pna-cPCR13.7nana[37]
Israel135TFIFAT23na-nana[112]
245SSIFAT64.8na-nana
EUROPEGermany200 *Pna-RT-PCR3.5naNo[40]
Italy292FTna-nPCR2naYes (50%)[44]
Slovakia382SSiELISA3.7na-naYes (50%)[141]
Switzerland117-IFAT10.3na-nana[38]
Spain74 *FTna-nPCR6.8naYes (20%)[6]
UnitedKingdom281FT, TFIFAT0na-0na[45]
660SSiELISA/
IFAT		4.2/0.45na-naNo[142]
119P, FTna-nPCR0nana[143]
OCEANIAAustralia1279SSiELISA0.16na-nana[128]
New Zealand179SSIFAT25na-nana[144]
220SS, BIFAT/
iELISA		36.4/1.8nPCR6.9nana[47]
209 *P, FBna-nPCR15.5/13nana
na: not analyzed. SS: sheep serum; P: placenta; FT: fetal tissues; FB: fetal brain; TF: thoracic fluid; B: blood. iELISA: indirect ELISA; IFAT: immunofluorescence antibody test; cPCR: conventional PCR; nPCR: nested PCR; RT-PCR: real time PCR; IHC: immunohistochemistry. * Histological lesions compatible with N. caninum infection.
Table
Table 3. Case reports of ovine neosporosis. Serological, molecular and immunohistochemical findings.
Table 3. Case reports of ovine neosporosis. Serological, molecular and immunohistochemical findings.
CountryCasesSerostatusAnalytical Results in Placenta and TissuesReference
SheepLambTechniqueNeospora DNANeospora
Antigen (IHC)
PCNSHLvLuTechniquePCNST
ArgentinaSheep, lambs and one fetus aged 112 days+ (69/220)+ (15/93)IFAT+ (1/1)+
(1/1)		+
(1/1)		na+
(1/1)		nPCR+ (1/1)NA+ (1/1)[41]
AustraliaAdult sheep with neurological signsnananana+
(1/1)		nananacPCRna+
(1/1)		na[42]
BrazilNewborn lamb with neurological signsnananana+
(1/1)		nananacPCRna-na[46]
Stillborn lamb+
(1/1)		naIFATna+
(1/1)		nananacPCRna+
(1/1)		na
11 fetusesnananana-+ (2/11)+ (4/11)-nPCR---[145]
JapanAborted sheep 1 and her twin fetuses+
(1/1)		naIFATna+
(1/1)		nanananPCRna+
(1/1)		na[43]
New Zealand13 fetusesnanana+ (8/13)+
(7/13)		nanananPCRnanana[146]
Spain4 aborted sheep and their 4 fetuses+
(4/4)		naiELISAna+
(4/4)		+
(1/3)		+
(1/3)		-nPCR+ (1/1)+
(1/1)		na[21]
15 sheep and their stillborn lambs+
(8/15)		naiELISAna+ (7/15)+ (2/5)+ (2/5)-nPCRna+
(1/5)		na
2 sheep and their newborn lambs 2+
(2/2)		naiELISAna+
(2/2)		+
(1/1)		+
(1/1)		+
(1/1)		nPCRna+
(2/2)		na
Tanzania44 aborted sheep *--iELISAnananananacPCRnanana[78]
Switzerland21 aborted sheep and their fetuses+
(8/21)		naIFATna+
(4/21)		nananacPCRna+ (4/21)na[38]
UK1-week-old Lamb 3nananananananananana+
(1/1)		na[2]
14 aborted lambsnananana+ (14/14)-nananPCRnanana[56]
na: not analyzed. P: placenta; CNS: central nervous system; H: heart; Lv: liver; Lu: lung; T: tongue. iELISA: indirect ELISA; IFAT: immunofluorescence antibody test; cPCR: conventional PCR; nPCR: nested PCR. 1 DNA and antigen of N. caninum were detected in sheep brain. 2 Both lambs had neurological signs. 3 Lamb with neurological signs. This case was the first report of N. caninum infection in sheep. * All vaginal swabs tested by PCR were negative.

6. Impact of Ovine Neosporosis in Reproductive Failure

The impact of ovine neosporosis in sheep populations with respect to reproductive failure remains unknown, as N. caninum infection is not usually included in the differential diagnosis of ovine abortion. The prevalence studies focused on aborted sheep are summarized in Table 2, whereas case reports are confined to Table 3. The joint analysis of these data will help to assess the importance of ovine neosporosis.
For diagnosis, samples taken to investigate sheep that had aborted typically came from aborted fetuses and placentae, and analysis was most frequently via PCR (60%; 13/22) (Table 2). Of the fetal tissues, brain samples were analyzed most frequently (92%; 12/13) to investigate the cause of abortion when infection by N. caninum was suspected (Table 2). The other 40% (9/22) of studies analyzed maternal serum, and only three studies (13%; 3/22) used both serological and molecular tools, two of which showed good correlation of the results, but the study conducted by Howe et al. (2012) [47] did not. Seroprevalence rates in sheep with reproductive failure ranged from 0.0% to 64.8% (Table 2), similar to those shown in Table 1, although the number of studies was too limited to draw firm conclusions. These variations highlight the lack of consistency in the approach to definitively diagnosing ovine neosporosis, and they support the use of a combination of histology, serology, and molecular detection to ensure specificity and sensitivity. It is important to stress that the presence of N. caninum DNA or specific antibodies does not mean that the parasite was responsible for the abortion. Diagnosis is dependent upon the presence of compatible histopathological lesions, positive PCR and/or serology, and the absence of other abortifacient agents [133]. Unfortunately, most studies do not provide details of the diagnostic tests for other abortifacient etiologies used to confirm the absence of co-infections.
When prevalence rates of N. caninum were studied in flocks with reproductive failure, or where N. caninum infection was suspected, PCR analysis showed prevalence values that varied from 0.0% to 19.4% (8.2% on average). The highest prevalence (19.4% [133]) was found in the only study carried out in the American continent (Argentina) using PCR, whereas the studies carried out in Asian countries—such as Iran—tested a total of 379 aborted fetuses for N. caninum infection via PCR in a total of six different studies, and found an overall prevalence rate of 6.7% (the seroprevalence of 2.2% in 358 aborted sheep determined by ELISA was not included in this calculation). In Europe, prevalence rates for N. caninum determined by PCR were under 5%, except in Spain (6.8%) (Table 2). Nevertheless, a seroprevalence of 10.3% was determined by ELISA in 117 aborted sheep from Slovakia. The prevalence found in Oceania (New Zealand) determined by PCR was 15.5% when analyzing 209 placental samples [47]. This high prevalence among cases of reproductive failure in New Zealand contrasts with the low seroprevalence rates observed in this continent, as shown in Table 1, confirming that when the analysis is focused on cases with reproductive failure, the true impact of ovine neosporosis becomes more visible.
Conversely, in Australia, in 2021, a seroprevalence of 0.16% for N. caninum was found after examining a total of 1279 sera from sheep that had aborted [128], suggesting that the impact of N. caninum could be considered negligible in this country. Similar to Australia, there is a strikingly low (0.45%) seroprevalence for N. caninum reported in the UK from different flocks using IFATs [142]. However, as ovine neosporosis seems to be an emerging disease, and the only serological survey carried out in the UK dates to 2003, the seroprevalence of this disease might have increased.
Most case reports included in Table 3 conducted comprehensive analyses of the cases by employing different techniques that allowed them to confirm that N. caninum was responsible for the abortion, and that no other abortifacient agents were involved. These studies confirmed once more that the fetal brain is the tissue analyzed most frequently for the etiological diagnosis of ovine neosporosis in cases of abortion, while the placenta is sampled less frequently.
Finally, the isolation of the parasite—A key step in the study of this disease—has rarely been undertaken, with only three studies—one each in Japan, Brazil, and Spain—reporting its isolation [147,148,149]. Ovine N. caninum isolates are very valuable, as they enable further phenotypic characterizations via in vivo and in vitro experiments, allowing comparisons to be made with canine and bovine isolates. Koyama et al [147] were the first to isolate N. caninum specifically from the brain of a pregnant, clinically healthy sheep using a murine bioassay; similarly, Pena et al [148] achieved isolation of N. caninum from two 4-month-old sheep via bioassays in dogs. However, García-Sánchez et al [149] recently obtained two isolates of N. caninum from naturally infected lambs in a flock with chronic infection and endogenous (vertical) transmission across different generations of sheep. The parasite was isolated using a murine bioassay and the MARC-145 cell line, and molecular characterization revealed that the multilocus genotype (MLG) was unique, but related to Spanish, Argentinean, Mexican, Brazilian, and German isolates. Furthermore, double-locus variations suggested that these ovine isolates of N. caninum were most closely related to a bovine isolate from the same geographic area.

7. Conclusions

This review of the literature strongly suggests that ovine neosporosis is more prevalent than currently considered, and that its prevalence has increased—especially in the last decade. Furthermore, this disease should be considered in the differential diagnosis when investigating reproductive failure in sheep, whether abortion or low fertility. Recent evidence proving endogenous (vertical) transmission of the disease in sheep, along with the similarities in epidemiology between ovine and bovine neosporosis, suggests that the parasite is able to persist in a flock, without cycling through the definitive host, and become endemic before the farmer or veterinarian are aware of its presence. Variations in sensitivity and specificity between different diagnostic techniques emphasize the necessity of using a combination of serology, histopathology, and DNA detection to achieve an accurate, definitive diagnosis. In addition, inter-laboratory ring studies are required to determine the best serological techniques and tissue samples for an accurate diagnosis, given the differences reported between different techniques. Serology determined by ELISA and detection of N. caninum-specific DNA in fetal brain tissue by nested PCRs are the most frequent diagnostic tests used at present. The study of this disease has been scarcely addressed in Africa and Oceania. Conversely, Brazil is over-represented in the Americas, but little is known about the status of the remaining countries of the continent. Bearing in mind the worldwide distribution of the parasite in cattle, further studies are needed in order to determine the real distribution and prevalence of ovine neosporosis, including its impacts on the welfare and economic value of affected flocks—especially in those countries where sheep-rearing plays important economic and cultural roles.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.G.-E., M.G.-W., M.M. and J.B.; writing—original draft preparation, D.G.-E. and J.B.; writing—review and editing, N.A.-V. and V.P.; supervision, V.P. and M.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We gratefully thank Mark Dagleish (University of Glasgow, Scotland, UK) for suggestions and constructive criticism of the manuscript, both scientific and grammatical.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Dubey, J.P.; Schares, G.; Ortega-Mora, L.M. Epidemiology and Control of Neosporosis and Neospora caninum. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2007, 20, 323–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Dubey, J.P.; Hartley, W.J.; Lindsay, D.S.; Topper, M.J. Fatal Congenital Neospora caninum Infection in a Lamb. J. Parasitol. 1990, 76, 127–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Hartley, W.J.; Bridge, P.S. A Case of Suspected Congenital Toxoplasma Encephalomyelitis in a Lamb Associated with a Spinal Cord Anomaly. Br. Vet. J. 1975, 131, 380–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Buxton, D. Protozoan Infections (Toxoplasma gondii, Neospora caninum and Sarcocystis Spp.) in Sheep and Goats: Recent Advances. Vet. Res. 1998, 29, 289–310. [Google Scholar]
  5. Buxton, D.; McAllister, M.M.; Dubey, J.P. The Comparative Pathogenesis of Neosporosis. Trends Parasitol. 2002, 18, 546–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Moreno, B.; Collantes-Fernández, E.; Villa, A.; Navarro, A.; Regidor-Cerrillo, J.; Ortega-Mora, L.M. Occurrence of Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii Infections in Ovine and Caprine Abortions. Vet. Parasitol. 2012, 187, 312–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Romo-Gallegos, J.M.; Cruz-Vázquez, C.; Medina-Esparza, L.; Ramos-Parra, M.; Romero-Salas, D. Prevalence and Risk Factors of Neospora caninum Infection in Ovine Flocks of Central-Western Mexico. Acta Vet. Hung. 2019, 67, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hemphill, A.; Aguado-Martínez, A.; Müller, J. Approaches for the Vaccination and Treatment of Neospora caninum Infections in Mice and Ruminant Models. Parasitology 2016, 143, 245–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. McAllister, M.M.; McGuire, A.M.; Jolley, W.R.; Lindsay, D.S.; Trees, A.J.; Stobart, R.H. Experimental Neosporosis in Pregnant Ewes and Their Offspring. Vet. Pathol. 1996, 33, 647–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Syed-Hussain, S.S.; Howe, L.; Pomroy, W.E.; West, D.M.; Hardcastle, M.; Williamson, N.B. Vertical Transmission in Experimentally Infected Sheep despite Previous Inoculation with Neospora caninum NcNZ1 Isolate. Vet. Parasitol. 2015, 208, 150–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Arranz-Solís, D.; Benavides, J.; Regidor-Cerrillo, J.; Horcajo, P.; Castaño, P.; del Carmen Ferreras, M.; Jiménez-Pelayo, L.; Collantes-Fernández, E.; Ferre, I.; Hemphill, A.; et al. Systemic and Local Immune Responses in Sheep after Neospora caninum Experimental Infection at Early, Mid and Late Gestation. Vet. Res. 2016, 47, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. González-Warleta, M.; Castro-Hermida, J.A.; Calvo, C.; Pérez, V.; Gutiérrez-Expósito, D.; Regidor-Cerrillo, J.; Ortega-Mora, L.M.; Mezo, M. Endogenous Transplacental Transmission of Neospora caninum during Successive Pregnancies across Three Generations of Naturally Infected Sheep. Vet. Res. 2018, 49, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Dubey, J.P. Review of Neospora caninum and Neosporosis in Animals. Korean J. Parasitol. 2003, 41, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. O’Handley, R.; Liddell, S.; Parker, C.; Jenkins, M.C.; Dubey, J.P. Experimental Infection of Sheep with Neospora caninum Oocysts. J. Parasitol. 2002, 88, 1120–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gutiérrez-Expósito, D.; González-Warleta, M.; Espinosa, J.; Vallejo-García, R.; Castro-Hermida, J.A.; Calvo, C.; Ferreras, M.C.; Pérez, V.; Benavides, J.; Mezo, M. Maternal Immune Response in the Placenta of Sheep during Recrudescence of Natural Congenital Infection of Neospora caninum. Vet. Parasitol. 2020, 285, 109204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Sánchez-Sánchez, R.; Vázquez-Calvo, Á.; Fernández-Escobar, M.; Regidor-Cerrillo, J.; Benavides, J.; Gutiérrez, J.; Gutiérrez-Expósito, D.; Crespo-Ramos, F.J.; Ortega-Mora, L.M.; Álvarez-García, G. Dynamics of Neospora caninum-Associated Abortions in a Dairy Sheep Flock and Results of a Test-and-Cull Control Programme. Pathogens 2021, 10, 1518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Almería, S.; López-Gatius, F. Bovine Neosporosis: Clinical and Practical Aspects. Res. Vet. Sci. 2013, 95, 303–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Dubey, J.P.; Hemphill, A.; Calero-Bernal, R.; Schares, G. Neosporosis in Animals, 1st ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017; ISBN 978-1-4987-5254-1. [Google Scholar]
  19. Costa, R.C.; Orlando, D.R.; Abreu, C.C.; Nakagaki, K.Y.R.; Mesquita, L.P.; Nascimento, L.C.; Silva, A.C.; Maiorka, P.C.; Peconick, A.P.; Raymundo, D.L.; et al. Histological and Immunohistochemical Characterization of the Inflammatory and Glial Cells in the Central Nervous System of Goat Fetuses and Adult Male Goats Naturally Infected with Neospora caninum. BMC Vet. Res. 2014, 10, 291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mesquita, L.P.; Nogueira, C.I.; Costa, R.C.; Orlando, D.R.; Bruhn, F.R.P.; Lopes, P.F.R.; Nakagaki, K.Y.R.; Peconick, A.P.; Seixas, J.N.; Bezerra, P.S.; et al. Antibody Kinetics in Goats and Conceptuses Naturally Infected with Neospora caninum. Vet. Parasitol 2013, 196, 327–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. González-Warleta, M.; Castro-Hermida, J.A.; Regidor-Cerrillo, J.; Benavides, J.; Álvarez-García, G.; Fuertes, M.; Ortega-Mora, L.M.; Mezo, M. Neospora caninum Infection as a Cause of Reproductive Failure in a Sheep Flock. Vet. Res. 2014, 45, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Williams, D.J.L.; Hartley, C.S.; Björkman, C.; Trees, A.J. Endogenous and Exogenous Transplacental Transmission of Neospora Caninum—How the Route of Transmission Impacts on Epidemiology and Control of Disease. Parasitology 2009, 136, 1895–1900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Castañeda-Hernández, A.; Cruz-Vázquez, C.; Medina-Esparza, L. Neospora caninum: Seroprevalence and DNA Detection in Blood of Sheep from Aguascalientes, Mexico. Small Rumin. Res. 2014, 119, 182–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Okeoma, C.M.; Stowell, K.M.; Williamson, N.B.; Pomroy, W.E. Neospora caninum: Quantification of DNA in the Blood of Naturally Infected Aborted and Pregnant Cows Using Real-Time PCR. Exp. Parasitol. 2005, 110, 48–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Santana, O.I.; Cruz-Vázquez, C.; Medina-Esparza, L.; Ramos Parra, M.; Castellanos Morales, C.; Quezada Gallardo, D. Neospora caninum: DNA Detection in Blood during First Gestation of Naturally Infected Heifers. Vet. México 2010, 41, 131–137. [Google Scholar]
  26. Figliuolo, L.P.C.; Kasai, N.; Ragozo, A.M.A.; de Paula, V.S.O.; Dias, R.A.; Souza, S.L.P.; Gennari, S.M. Prevalence of Anti-Toxoplasma gondii and Anti-Neospora caninum Antibodies in Ovine from São Paulo State, Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 2004, 123, 161–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Amdouni, Y.; Rjeibi, M.R.; Awadi, S.; Rekik, M.; Gharbi, M. First Detection and Molecular Identification of Neospora caninum from Naturally Infected Cattle and Sheep in North Africa. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2018, 65, 976–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sun, L.-X.; Liang, Q.-L.; Nie, L.-B.; Hu, X.-H.; Li, Z.; Yang, J.-F.; Zou, F.-C.; Zhu, X.-Q. Serological Evidence of Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum Infection in Black-Boned Sheep and Goats in Southwest China. Parasitol. Int. 2020, 75, 102041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Stelzer, S.; Basso, W.; Benavides Silván, J.; Ortega-Mora, L.M.; Maksimov, P.; Gethmann, J.; Conraths, F.J.; Schares, G. Toxoplasma gondii Infection and Toxoplasmosis in Farm Animals: Risk Factors and Economic Impact. Food Waterborne Parasitol. 2019, 15, e00037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Romanelli, P.R.; Freire, R.L.; Vidotto, O.; Marana, E.R.M.; Ogawa, L.; De Paula, V.S.O.; Garcia, J.L.; Navarro, I.T. Prevalence of Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii in Sheep and Dogs from Guarapuava Farms, Paraná State, Brazil. Res. Vet. Sci. 2007, 82, 202–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Gharekhani, J.; Yakhchali, M.; Esmaeilnejad, B.; Mardani, K.; Majidi, G.; Sohrabi, A.; Berahmat, R.; Hazhir Alaei, M. Seroprevalence and Risk Factors of Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii in Small Ruminants in Southwest of Iran. Arch. Razi Inst. 2018, 73, 305–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Conraths, F.J.; Gottstein, B. Protozoal Abortion in Farm Ruminants: Guidelines for Diagnosis and Control, 1st ed.; Ortega-Mora, L.M., Gottstein, B., Conraths, F.J., Buxton, D., Eds.; CABI International: Oxford, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  33. Nie, L.-B.; Cong, W.; Zou, Y.; Zhou, D.-H.; Liang, Q.-L.; Zheng, W.-B.; Ma, J.-G.; Du, R.; Zhu, X.-Q. First Report of Seroprevalence and Risk Factors of Neospora caninum Infection in Tibetan Sheep in China. Biomed. Res. Int. 2018, 2018, 2098908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Ueno, T.E.H.; Gonçalves, V.S.P.; Heinemann, M.B.; Dilli, T.L.B.; Akimoto, B.M.; de Souza, S.L.P.; Gennari, S.M.; Soares, R.M. Prevalence of Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum Infections in Sheep from Federal District, Central Region of Brazil. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2009, 41, 547–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Gazzonis, A.L.; Alvarez Garcia, G.; Zanzani, S.A.; Ortega Mora, L.M.; Invernizzi, A.; Manfredi, M.T. Neospora caninum Infection in Sheep and Goats from North-Eastern Italy and Associated Risk Factors. Small Rumin. Res. 2016, 140, 7–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Amouei, A.; Sharif, M.; Sarvi, S.; Bagheri Nejad, R.; Aghayan, S.A.; Hashemi-Soteh, M.B.; Mizani, A.; Hosseini, S.A.; Gholami, S.; Sadeghi, A.; et al. Aetiology of Livestock Fetal Mortality in Mazandaran Province, Iran. PeerJ 2019, 6, e5920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Al-Shaeli, S.J.J.; Ethaeb, A.M.; Gharban, H.A.J. Molecular and Histopathological Identification of Ovine Neosporosis (Neospora caninum) in Aborted Ewes in Iraq. Vet. World 2020, 13, 597–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hässig, M.; Sager, H.; Reitt, K.; Ziegler, D.; Strabel, D.; Gottstein, B. Neospora caninum in Sheep: A Herd Case Report. Vet. Parasitol. 2003, 117, 213–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Arranz-Solís, D.; Benavides, J.; Regidor-Cerrillo, J.; Fuertes, M.; Ferre, I.; Ferreras, M.D.C.; Collantes-Fernández, E.; Hemphill, A.; Pérez, V.; Ortega-Mora, L.M. Influence of the Gestational Stage on the Clinical Course, Lesional Development and Parasite Distribution in Experimental Ovine Neosporosis. Vet. Res. 2015, 46, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Meixner, N.; Sommer, M.F.; Scuda, N.; Matiasek, K.; Müller, M. Comparative Aspects of Laboratory Testing for the Detection of Toxoplasma gondii and Its Differentiation from Neospora caninum as the Etiologic Agent of Ovine Abortion. J. Vet. Diagn Invest. 2020, 32, 898–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Hecker, Y.P.; Morrell, E.L.; Fiorentino, M.A.; Gual, I.; Rivera, E.; Fiorani, F.; Dorsch, M.A.; Gos, M.L.; Pardini, L.L.; Scioli, M.V.; et al. Ovine Abortion by Neospora caninum: First Case Reported in Argentina. Acta Parasit. 2019, 64, 950–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bishop, S.; King, J.; Windsor, P.; Reichel, M.P.; Ellis, J.; Slapeta, J. The First Report of Ovine Cerebral Neosporosis and Evaluation of Neospora caninum Prevalence in Sheep in New South Wales. Vet. Parasitol 2010, 170, 137–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kobayashi, Y.; Yamada, M.; Omata, Y.; Koyama, T.; Saito, A.; Matsuda, T.; Okuyama, K.; Fujimoto, S.; Furuoka, H.; Matsui, T. Naturally-Occurring Neospora caninum Infection in an Adult Sheep and Her Twin Fetuses. J. Parasitol 2001, 87, 434–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Masala, G.; Porcu, R.; Daga, C.; Denti, S.; Canu, G.; Patta, C.; Tola, S. Detection of Pathogens in Ovine and Caprine Abortion Samples from Sardinia, Italy, by PCR. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 2007, 19, 96–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Otter, A.; Wilson, B.W.; Scholes, S.F.; Jefrrey, M.; Helmick, B.; Trees, A.J. Results of a Survey to Determine Whether Neospora Is a Significant Cause of Ovine Abortion in England and Wales. Vet. Rec. 1997, 140, 175–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Pereira, K.A.G.; de Sousa, R.S.; Varaschin, M.S.; Becker, A.P.B.B.; Monteiro, A.L.G.; de Oliveira Koch, M.; Costa, R.C.; Laskoski, L.M.; Galindo, C.M.; de Cristo, T.G.; et al. Transplacental Transmission of Neospora caninum to Lambs in Successive Pregnancies of Naturally Infected Sheep in Southern Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. Reg. Stud. Rep. 2021, 23, 100537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Howe, L.; Collett, M.G.; Pattison, R.S.; Marshall, J.; West, D.M.; Pomroy, W.E. Potential Involvement of Neospora caninum in Naturally Occurring Ovine Abortions in New Zealand. Vet. Parasitol. 2012, 185, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Alcalá-Gómez, J.; Medina-Esparza, L.; Vitela-Mendoza, I.; Cruz-Vázquez, C.; Quezada-Tristán, T.; Gómez-Leyva, J.F. Prevalence and Risk Factors of Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii Infection in Breeding Ewes from Central Western Mexico. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2022, 54, 225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Arbabi, M.; Abdoli, A.; Dalimi, A.; Pirestani, M. Identification of Latent Neosporosis in Sheep in Tehran, Iran by Polymerase Chain Reaction Using Primers Specific for the Nc-5 Gene. Onderstepoort J. Vet. Res. 2016, 83, e1–e7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Dessì, G.; Tamponi, C.; Pasini, C.; Porcu, F.; Meloni, L.; Cavallo, L.; Sini, M.F.; Knoll, S.; Scala, A.; Varcasia, A. A Survey on Apicomplexa Protozoa in Sheep Slaughtered for Human Consumption. Parasitol. Res. 2022, 121, 1437–1445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Santos, S.L.; de Souza Costa, K.; Gondim, L.Q.; da Silva, M.S.A.; Uzêda, R.S.; Abe-Sandes, K.; Gondim, L.F.P. Investigation of Neospora caninum, Hammondia Sp., and Toxoplasma gondii in Tissues from Slaughtered Beef Cattle in Bahia, Brazil. Parasitol. Res. 2010, 106, 457–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Bartley, P.M.; Katzer, F.; Rocchi, M.S.; Maley, S.W.; Benavides, J.; Nath, M.; Pang, Y.; Cantón, G.; Thomson, J.; Chianini, F.; et al. Development of Maternal and Foetal Immune Responses in Cattle Following Experimental Challenge with Neospora caninum at Day 210 of Gestation. Vet. Res. 2013, 44, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Buxton, D.; Maley, S.W.; Wright, S.; Thomson, K.M.; Rae, A.G.; Innes, E.A. The Pathogenesis of Experimental Neosporosis in Pregnant Sheep. J. Comp. Pathol. 1998, 118, 267–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Yamage, M.; Flechtner, O.; Gottstein, B. Neospora caninum: Specific Oligonucleotide Primers for the Detection of Brain “Cyst” DNA of Experimentally Infected Nude Mice by the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). J. Parasitol. 1996, 82, 272–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ellis, J.T.; McMillan, D.; Ryce, C.; Payne, S.; Atkinson, R.; Harper, P.A. Development of a Single Tube Nested Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay for the Detection of Neospora caninum DNA. Int. J. Parasitol. 1999, 29, 1589–1596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hughes, J.M.; Williams, R.H.; Morley, E.K.; Cook, D.A.N.; Terry, R.S.; Murphy, R.G.; Smith, J.E.; Hide, G. The Prevalence of Neospora caninum and Co-Infection with Toxoplasma gondii by PCR Analysis in Naturally Occurring Mammal Populations. Parasitology 2006, 132, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Tamponi, C.; Varcasia, A.; Pipia, P.; Zidda, A.; Panzalis, R.; Dore, F.; Dessì, G.; Sanna, G.; Salis, F.; Björkman, C.; et al. ISCOM ELISA in Milk as Screening for Neospora caninum in Dairy Sheep. Large Anim. Rev. 2015, 21, 213–216. [Google Scholar]
  58. Huertas-López, A.; Martínez-Carrasco, C.; Cerón, J.J.; Sánchez-Sánchez, R.; Vázquez-Calvo, Á.; Álvarez-García, G.; Martínez-Subiela, S. A Time-Resolved Fluorescence Immunoassay for the Detection of Anti- Neospora caninum Antibodies in Sheep. Vet. Parasitol. 2019, 276, 108994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Rossi, G.F.; Cabral, D.D.; Ribeiro, D.P.; Pajuaba, A.C.A.M.; Corrêa, R.R.; Moreira, R.Q.; Mineo, T.W.P.; Mineo, J.R.; Silva, D.A.O. Evaluation of Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum Infections in Sheep from Uberlândia, Minas Gerais State, Brazil, by Different Serological Methods. Vet. Parasitol. 2011, 175, 252–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Vajdi Hokmabad, R.; Khanmohammadi, M.; Sarabim, M. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum in Miyaneh Sheep (Azerbayejan-E-Shargi Province) by Competitive ELISA and IFAT. Methods 2014, 7, 59–66. [Google Scholar]
  61. Björkman, C.; Uggla, A. Serological Diagnosis of Neospora caninum Infection. Int. J. Parasitol. 1999, 29, 1497–1507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Pinheiro, A.F.; Borsuk, S.; Berne, M.E.A.; da Silva Pinto, L.; Andreotti, R.; Roos, T.; Roloff, B.C.; Leite, F.P.L. Use of ELISA Based on NcSRS2 of Neospora caninum Expressed in Pichia Pastoris for Diagnosing Neosporosis in Sheep and Dogs. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 2015, 24, 148–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Filho, P.C.G.A.; Oliveira, J.M.B.; Andrade, M.R.; Silva, J.G.; Kim, P.C.P.; Almeida, J.C.; Porto, W.J.N.; Mota, R.A. Incidence and Vertical Transmission Rate of Neospora caninum in Sheep. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2017, 52, 19–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Alvarez-García, G.; García-Culebras, A.; Gutiérrez-Expósito, D.; Navarro-Lozano, V.; Pastor-Fernández, I.; Ortega-Mora, L.M. Serological Diagnosis of Bovine Neosporosis: A Comparative Study of Commercially Available ELISA Tests. Vet. Parasitol. 2013, 198, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Jacobson, R.H. Validation of Serological Assays for Diagnosis of Infectious Diseases. Rev. Sci. Tech. 1998, 17, 469–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Wapenaar, W.; Barkema, H.W.; Vanleeuwen, J.A.; McClure, J.T.; O’Handley, R.M.; Kwok, O.C.H.; Thulliez, P.; Dubey, J.P.; Jenkins, M.C. Comparison of Serological Methods for the Diagnosis of Neospora caninum Infection in Cattle. Vet. Parasitol. 2007, 143, 166–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Silva, D.A.O.; Lobato, J.; Mineo, T.W.P.; Mineo, J.R. Evaluation of Serological Tests for the Diagnosis of Neospora caninum Infection in Dogs: Optimization of Cut off Titers and Inhibition Studies of Cross-Reactivity with Toxoplasma gondii. Vet. Parasitol. 2007, 143, 234–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Gondim, L.F.P.; Mineo, J.R.; Schares, G. Importance of Serological Cross-Reactivity among Toxoplasma gondii, Hammondia Spp., Neospora Spp., Sarcocystis Spp. and Besnoitia besnoiti. Parasitology 2017, 144, 851–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Zhang, H.; Lee, E.-G.; Yu, L.; Kawano, S.; Huang, P.; Liao, M.; Kawase, O.; Zhang, G.; Zhou, J.; Fujisaki, K.; et al. Identification of the Cross-Reactive and Species-Specific Antigens between Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii Tachyzoites by a Proteomics Approach. Parasitol. Res. 2011, 109, 899–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Regidor-Cerrillo, J.; García-Lunar, P.; Pastor-Fernández, I.; Álvarez-García, G.; Collantes-Fernández, E.; Gómez-Bautista, M.; Ortega-Mora, L.M. Neospora caninum Tachyzoite Immunome Study Reveals Differences among Three Biologically Different Isolates. Vet. Parasitol. 2015, 212, 92–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Nishikawa, Y.; Claveria, F.G.; Fujisaki, K.; Nagasawa, H. Studies on Serological Cross-Reaction of Neospora caninum with Toxoplasma gondii and Hammondia heydorni. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 2002, 64, 161–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Andreotti, R.; de Fátima Cepa Matos, M.; Gonçalves, K.N.; Oshiro, L.M.; da Costa Lima-Junior, M.S.; Paiva, F.; Leite, F.L. Comparison of Indirect ELISA Based on Recombinant Protein NcSRS2 and IFAT for Detection of Neospora caninum Antibodies in Sheep. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 2009, 18, 19–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Zhou, M.; Cao, S.; Sevinc, F.; Sevinc, M.; Ceylan, O.; Liu, M.; Wang, G.; Moumouni, P.F.A.; Jirapattharasate, C.; Suzuki, H.; et al. Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assays Using Recombinant TgSAG2 and NcSAG1 to Detect Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum -Specific Antibodies in Domestic Animals in Turkey. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 2017, 78, 1877–1881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Novoa, M.B.; Aguirre, N.P.; Ormaechea, N.; Palmero, S.; Rouzic, L.; Valentini, B.S.; Sarli, M.; Orcellet, V.M.; Marengo, R.; Vanzini, V.R.; et al. Validation and Field Evaluation of a Competitive Inhibition ELISA Based on the Recombinant Protein TSAG1 to Detect Anti-Neospora caninum Antibodies in Sheep and Goats. Vet. Parasitol. 2020, 284, 109201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Selim, A.; Khater, H.; Almohammed, H.I. A Recent Update about Seroprevalence of Ovine Neosporosis in Northern Egypt and Its Associated Risk Factors. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 14043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Maganga, G.D.; Abessolo, A.L.; Mikala Okouyi, C.S.; Labouba, I.; Mbeang Beyeme, A.M.; Mavoungou, J.F.; Agossou, E.; Cossic, B.; Akue, J.-P. Seroprevalence and Risk Factors of Two Abortive Diseases, Toxoplasmosis and Neosporosis, in Small Ruminants of the Mongo County, Southern Gabon. Small Rumin. Res. 2016, 144, 56–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Dahourou, L.D.; Gbati, O.B.; Savadogo, M.; Yougbare, B.; Dicko, A.; Combari, A.H.B.; Kamga-Waladjo, A.R. Prevalence of Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum Infections in Households Sheep “Elevage En Case” in Dakar, Senegal. Vet. World 2019, 12, 1028–1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Thomas, K.M.; Kibona, T.; Claxton, J.R.; de Glanville, W.A.; Lankester, F.; Amani, N.; Buza, J.J.; Carter, R.W.; Chapman, G.E.; Crump, J.A.; et al. Prospective Cohort Study Reveals Unexpected Aetiologies of Livestock Abortion in Northern Tanzania. Sci Rep. 2022, 12, 11669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Hecker, Y.P.; Moore, D.P.; Manazza, J.A.; Unzaga, J.M.; Späth, E.J.A.; Pardini, L.L.; Venturini, M.C.; Roberi, J.L.; Campero, C.M. First Report of Seroprevalence of Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum in Dairy Sheep from Humid Pampa, Argentina. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2013, 45, 1645–1647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Hecker, Y.P.; Masson, F.M.; Armendano, J.I.; Cora, J.; Olivares, C.F.; Gual, I.; Pardini, L.; Moore, D.P.; Moré, G.; Cantón, G.J. Evaluation of Frequency of Antibodies against Toxoplasma gondii, Neospora caninum and Sarcocystis Spp. and Transmission Routes in Sheep from Humid Pampa, Argentina. Acta Parasitol. 2018, 63, 416–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Aguiar, D.; Chiebao, D.; Rodrigues, A.; Cavalcante, G.; Labruna, M.; Gennari, S. Prevalência de Anticorpos Anti-Neospora caninum Em Ovinos Do Município de Monte Negro, RO, Amazônia Ocidental Brasileira. Arq. Do Inst. Biológico 2004, 71, 616–618. [Google Scholar]
  82. Vogel, F.S.F.; Arenhart, S.; Bauermann, F.V. Anticorpos anti- Neospora caninum em bovinos, ovinos e bubalinos no Estado do Rio Grande do Sul. Ciência Rural. 2006, 36, 1948–1951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Soares, H.S.; Ahid, S.M.M.; Bezerra, A.C.D.S.; Pena, H.F.J.; Dias, R.A.; Gennari, S.M. Prevalence of Anti-Toxoplasma gondii and Anti- Neospora caninum Antibodies in Sheep from Mossoró, Rio Grande Do Norte, Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 2009, 160, 211–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Langoni, H.; Greca, H.; Guimarães, F.F.; Ullmann, L.S.; Gaio, F.C.; Uehara, R.S.; Rosa, E.P.; Amorim, R.M.; Da Silva, R.C. Serological Profile of Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum Infection in Commercial Sheep from São Paulo State, Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 2011, 177, 50–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Munhóz, K.F.; de Luca Neto, M.; de Almeida Santos, S.M.; Garcia, J.L.; Da Silva Guimarães Junior, J.; Vidotto, O.; Headley, S.A.; Yamamura, M.H. Occurrence of Anti-Neospora caninum Antibodies in Sheep from Farms Located in Northern Parana, Brazil. Semin. Ciências Agrárias 2010, 31, 1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Faria, E.B.; Cavalcanti, E.F.T.S.F.; Medeiros, E.S.; Pinheiro, J.W.; Azevedo, S.S.; Athayde, A.C.R.; Mota, R.A. Risk Factors Associated with Neospora caninum Seropositivity in Sheep from the State of Alagoas, in the Northeast Region of Brazil. J. Parasitol. 2010, 96, 197–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Salaberry, S.R.S.; Okuda, L.H.; de Castro Nassar, A.F.; de Castro, J.R.; Lima-Ribeiro, A.M.C. Prevalence of Neospora caninum Antibodies in Sheep Flocks of Uberlândia County, MG. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 2010, 19, 148–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Tembue, A.A.S.M.; de Nascimento Ramos, R.A.; de Sousa, T.R.; Albuquerque, A.R.; da Costa, A.J.; Meunier, I.M.J.; da Gloria Faustino, M.A.; Alves, L.C. Serological Survey of Neospora caninum in Small Ruminants from Pernambuco State, Brazil. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 2011, 20, 246–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Machado, G.P.; Kikuti, M.; Langoni, H.; Paes, A.C. Seroprevalence and Risk Factors Associated with Neosporosis in Sheep and Dogs from Farms. Vet. Parasitol. 2011, 182, 356–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. de Brito Moraes, L.M.; Raimundo, J.M.; Guimarães, A.; Santos, H.A.; de Lima Macedo, G.; Massard, C.L.; Machado, R.Z.; Baldani, C.D. Occurrence of Anti-Neospora caninum and Anti-Toxoplasma gondii IgG Antibodies in Goats and Sheep in Western Maranhão, Brazil. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 2011, 20, 312–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. dalla Rosa, L.; de Moura, A.B.; Güths, M.F.; Bellato, V.; Sartor, A.A.; de Souza, A.P. Prevalence and risk factors for infection of Neospora caninum in sheep from Lages county, Santa Catarina State, Brazil. Rev. De Ciências Agroveterinárias 2011, 10, 127–137. [Google Scholar]
  92. da Silva Andrade, G.; Bruhn, F.R.P.; Rocha, C.M.B.M.; de Sá Guimarães, A.; Gouveia, A.M.G.; Guimarães, A.M. Seroprevalence and Risk Factors for Neospora caninum in Sheep in the State Minas Gerais, Southeastern Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 2012, 188, 168–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. de Santana Rocha, D.; Guimarães, L.A.; Bezerra, R.A.; Mendonça, C.E.D.; Dórea, T.G.; Munhoz, A.D.; Albuquerque, G.R. Soroprevalência e fatores associados à infecção de Neospora caninum em ovinos no sudeste da Bahia, Brasil. Braz. J. Vet. Med. 2014, 36, 443–447. [Google Scholar]
  94. Paiz, L.M.; da Silva, R.C.; Menozzi, B.D.; Langoni, H. Antibodies to Neospora caninum in Sheep from Slaughterhouses in the State of São Paulo, Brazil. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 2015, 24, 95–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Guimarães, A.; Raimundo, J.M.; Moraes, L.M.B.; Silva, A.T.; Santos, H.A.; Pires, M.S.; Machado, R.Z.; Baldani, C.D. Occurrences of Anti-Toxoplasma Gondii and Anti-Neospora caninum Antibodies in Sheep from Four Districts of Tocantins State, Brazilian Legal Amazon Region. Pesq. Vet. Bras. 2015, 35, 110–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Mendonça, C.E.D.; Munhoz, A.D.; de Santana Rocha, D.; Guimarães, L.A.; Bezerra, R.A.; Albuquerque, G.R.; de Melo, C.B. Factors Associated with the Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum (Apicomplexa: Toxoplasmatinae) in Sheep from the State of Sergipe, Brazil. Braz. J. Vet. Med. 2019, 41, e002819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Ferreira, M.S.T.; Vogel, F.S.F.; Sangioni, L.A.; Cezar, A.S.; de Menezes, F.R. Neospora Spp. and Toxoplasma gondii Infection in Sheep Flocks from Rio Grande Do Sul, Brazil. Semin. Ciências Agrárias 2016, 37, 1397–1406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Arraes-Santos, A.I.; Araújo, A.C.; Guimarães, M.F.; Santos, J.R.; Pena, H.F.J.; Gennari, S.M.; Azevedo, S.S.; Labruna, M.B.; Horta, M.C. Seroprevalence of Anti-Toxoplasma gondii and Anti-Neospora caninum Antibodies in Domestic Mammals from Two Distinct Regions in the Semi-Arid Region of Northeastern Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. Reg. Stud. Reports 2016, 5, 14–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Gheller, J.M.; Carniel, R.; de Carrasco, A.O.T.; Seki, M.C. Occurrence and Risk Factors for Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum in Sheep of the Guarapuava Region, Paraná, Brazil. Braz. J. Vet. Res. Anim. Sci. 2016, 53, 177–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Rizzo, H.; de Jesus, T.K.S.; Gaeta, N.C.; Carvalho, J.S.; Pinheiro Júnior, J.W.; Gregory, L.; Gennari, S.M.; Villalobos, E.M.C. Neospora caninum IgG Antibody Research and Evaluation of the Risk Factors Associated to the Infection in Ovine, State of Sergipe, Brazil. Pesqui. Veterinária Bras. 2017, 37, 813–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Cosendey, R.I.J.; de Oliveira, F.C.R.; Frazão-Teixeira, E.; de Souza, G.N.; Brandão, F.Z.; Ferreira, A.M.R.; Lilenbaum, W. Seroprevalence of Anti-Neospora caninum Antibodies in Sheep from the Rapidly Expanding Flock of Riod.Janeiro, Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. Reg. Stud. Reports 2018, 14, 59–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Romanelli, P.R.; de Matos, A.M.R.N.; Pinto-Ferreira, F.; Caldart, E.T.; Mareze, M.; Matos, R.L.N.; Freire, R.L.; Mitsuka-Breganó, R.; Headley, S.A.; Minho, A.P.; et al. Seroepidemiology of Ovine Toxoplasmosis and Neosporosis in Breeding Rams from Rio Grande Do Sul, Brazil. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2020, 67 (Suppl. 2), 208–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Maia, M.O.; Maia, M.O.; de Silva, A.R.S.; Gomes, A.A.D.; de Aguiar, D.M.; Pacheco, R.C.; de Costa, A.J.; Santos-Doni, T.R. dos Seroprevalence of Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum in Sheep Intended for Human Consumption in the Rondônia State, Western Brazilian Amazon. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2021, 74, 101599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Romanelli, P.R.; de Matos, A.M.R.N.; Pinto-Ferreira, F.; Caldart, E.T.; de Carmo, J.L.M.; Santos, N.G.D.; de Silva, N.R.; Loeffler, B.B.; Sanches, J.F.Z.; Francisquini, L.S.; et al. Anti-Toxoplasma gondii and Anti-Neospora caninum Antibodies in Sheep from Paraná State, South Brazil: Prevalence and Associated Factors. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 2021, 30, e023220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Villagra-Blanco, R.; Barrantes-Granados, O.; Montero-Caballero, D.; Romero-Zúñiga, J.J.; Dolz, G. Seroprevalence of Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum Infections and Associated Factors in Sheep from Costa Rica. Parasite. Epidemiol. Control. 2019, 4, e00085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Sharma, R.N.; Bush, J.; Tiwari, K.; Chikweto, A.; Bhaiyat, M.I. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum in Sheep and Goats from Grenada, West Indies. Open J. Vet. Med. 2015, 5, 219–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Suzuki, K.; Corva, S.G.; Travería, G.E.; Cattáneo, M.; Puentes, R.; Martinicorena, M.; Moreno, J.; Furtado, A.; Freyre, A.; Satragno, D.; et al. Seroprevalence of Toxoplasma Gondii and Neospora Caninum in Sheep in Uruguay. Seroprevalencia de Toxoplasma gondii y Neospora caninum en ovinos de Uruguay. Analecta Vet 2011, 31, 28–32. [Google Scholar]
  108. Liu, Z.-K.; Li, J.-Y.; Pan, H. Seroprevalence and Risk Factors of Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum Infections in Small Ruminants in China. Prev. Vet. Med. 2015, 118, 488–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Wang, S.; Li, L.; Lu, Y.; Zhang, H.; Xie, Q.; Zhang, Z. Seroprevalence and Risk Factors of Neospora caninum Infection among Domestic Sheep in Henan Province, Central China. Parasite 2018, 25, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Ezatpour, B.; Alirezaei, M.; Hassanvand, A.; Zibaei, M.; Azadpour, M.; Ebrahimzadeh, F. The First Report of Neospora caninum Prevalence in Aborted and Healthy Sheep from West of Iran. Comp. Clin. Pathol. 2015, 24, 19–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Al-Jomaily, A.I.A.; Al-Rubaie, H.M.a.S. Study the Prevalence of Neospora caninum in Serum and Milk of Sheep in Al-Fallujah City. Al-Anbar J. Vet. Sci. 2013, 6, 114–120. [Google Scholar]
  112. Tirosh-Levy, S.; Savitsky, I.; Blinder, E.; Mazuz, M.L. The Involvement of Protozoan Parasites in Sheep Abortions—A Ten-Year Review of Diagnostic Results. Vet. Parasitol. 2022, 303, 109664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Al-Majali, A.; Jawasreh, K.; Talafha, H.A.; Talafha, A. Neosporosis in Sheep and Different Breeds of Goats from Southern Jordan: Prevalence and Risk Factors Analysis. Am. J. Anim. Vet. Sci. 2008, 3, 47–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Abo-Shehada, M.N.; Abu-Halaweh, M.M. Flock-Level Seroprevalence of and Risk Factors for Neospora caninum among Sheep and Goats in Northern Jordan. Prev. Vet. Med. 2010, 93, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Kyaw, T.; Mokhtar, A.M.; Ong, B.; Hoe, C.H.; Aziz, A.R.; Aklilu, E.; Kamarudin, S. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum in Sheep and Goats of Gua Musang District in Kelantan, Malaysia. Pertanika J. Trop. Agric. Sci. 2018, 41, 477–483. [Google Scholar]
  116. Nasir, A.; Ashraf, M.; Khan, M.S.; Javeed, A.; Yaqub, T.; Avais, M.; Reichel, M.P. Prevalence of Neospora caninum Antibodies in Sheep and Goats in Pakistan. J. Parasitol. 2012, 98, 213–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Gökce, G.; Mor, N.; Kırmızıgül, A.H.; Bozukluhan, K.; ERKILIC, E. The First Report of Seropositivity for Neospora caninum in Sheep from Turkey. Isr. J. Vet. Med. 2015, 70, 40–44. [Google Scholar]
  118. Karatepe, M.; Karatepe, B. Prevalence of Anti-Neospora caninum Antibodies in Sheep in Nevşehir Province, Turkey. Isr. J. Vet. Med. 2020, 75, 3. [Google Scholar]
  119. Bártová, E.; Sedlák, K.; Literák, I. Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum Antibodies in Sheep in the Czech Republic. Vet. Parasitol. 2009, 161, 131–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Diakoua, A.; Anastasia, D.; Papadopoulos, E.; Elias, P.; Panousis, N.; Nikolaos, P.; Karatzias, C.; Charilaos, K.; Giadinis, N.; Nektarios, G. Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum Seroprevalence in Dairy Sheep and Goats Mixed Stock Farming. Vet. Parasitol. 2013, 198, 387–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Kouam, M.; Cabezón, O.; Nogareda, C.; Almeria, S.; Theodoropoulos, G. Comparative Cross-Sectional Study of Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii: Seroprevalence in Sheep of Greece and North-Eastern Spain. Sustain. Dev. Cult. Tradit. J. Spec. Vol. Honor. Profr. Georg. I. 2019, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Gaffuri, A.; Giacometti, M.; Tranquillo, V.M.; Magnino, S.; Cordioli, P.; Lanfranchi, P. Serosurvey of Roe Deer, Chamois and Domestic Sheep in the Central Italian Alps. J. Wildl. Dis. 2006, 42, 685–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Moskwa, B.; Kornacka, A.; Cybulska, A.; Cabaj, W.; Reiterova, K.; Bogdaszewski, M.; Steiner-Bogdaszewska, Z.; Bien, J. Seroprevalence of Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum Infection in Sheep, Goats, and Fallow Deer Farmed on the Same Area. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 96, 2468–2473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Panadero, R.; Painceira, A.; López, C.; Vázquez, L.; Paz, A.; Díaz, P.; Dacal, V.; Cienfuegos, S.; Fernández, G.; Lago, N.; et al. Seroprevalence of Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum in Wild and Domestic Ruminants Sharing Pastures in Galicia (Northwest Spain). Res. Vet. Sci. 2010, 88, 111–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Astorga, R.J.; Reguillo, L.; Hernández, M.; Cardoso-Toset, F.; Tarradas, C.; Maldonado, A.; Gómez-Laguna, J. Serosurvey on Schmallenberg Virus and Selected Ovine Reproductive Pathogens in Culled Ewes from Southern Spain. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2014, 61, 4–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Ruiz-Fons, F.; González-Barrio, D.; Aguilar-Ríos, F.; Soler, A.J.; Garde, J.J.; Gortázar, C.; Fernández-Santos, M.D.R. Infectious Pathogens Potentially Transmitted by Semen of the Black Variety of the Manchega Sheep Breed: Health Constraints for Conservation Purposes. Anim. Reprod Sci. 2014, 149, 152–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Díaz, J.M.; Fernández, G.; Prieto, A.; Valverde, S.; Lago, N.; Díaz, P.; Panadero, R.; López, C.; Morrondo, P.; Díez-Baños, P. Epidemiology of Reproductive Pathogens in Semi-Intensive Lamb-Producing Flocks in North-West Spain: A Comparative Serological Study. Vet. J. 2014, 200, 335–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Clune, T.; Lockwood, A.; Hancock, S.; Bruce, M.; Thmpson, A.N.; Beetson, S.; Campbell, A.J.; Glanville, E.; Brookes, D.; Trengove, C.; et al. Neospora caninum Is Not an Important Contributor to Poor Reproductive Performance of Primiparous Ewes from Southern Australia: Evidence from a Cross-Sectional Study. Parasitol. Res. 2021, 120, 3875–3882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Reichel, M.P.; Ross, G.P.; McAllister, M.M. Evaluation of an Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay for the Serological Diagnosis of Neospora caninum Infection in Sheep and Determination of the Apparent Prevalence of Infection in New Zealand. Vet. Parasitol. 2008, 151, 323–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Blaizot, S.; Herzog, S.A.; Abrams, S.; Theeten, H.; Litzroth, A.; Hens, N. Sample Size Calculation for Estimating Key Epidemiological Parameters Using Serological Data and Mathematical Modelling. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2019, 19, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Corbellini, L.G.; Smith, D.R.; Pescador, C.A.; Schmitz, M.; Correa, A.; Steffen, D.J.; Driemeier, D. Herd-Level Risk Factors for Neospora caninum Seroprevalence in Dairy Farms in Southern Brazil. Prev. Vet. Med. 2006, 74, 130–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Dubey, J.P.; Schares, G. Neosporosis in Animals—The Last Five Years. Vet. Parasitol. 2011, 180, 90–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Della Rosa, P.; Fiorentino, M.A.; Morrell, E.L.; Scioli, M.V.; Paolicchi, F.A.; Moore, D.P.; Cantón, G.J.; Hecker, Y.P. Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii as Causes of Reproductive Losses in Commercial Sheep Flocks from Argentina. Curr Res. Parasitol. Vector Borne Dis. 2021, 1, 100057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Rizzo, H.; Villalobos, E.M.C.; Meira Júnior, E.B.S.; Marques, E.C.; Beraldi, F.; Gregory, L. Occurrence of Antibodies Anti-Toxoplasma Gondii and Anti-Neospora Caninum in Sheep with History of Reproductive Disorders and Risk Factors. Pesq. Vet. Bras. 2018, 38, 1317–1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Asadpour, R.; Jafari-Joozani, R.; Salehi, N. Detection of Neospora caninum in Ovine Abortion in Iran. J. Parasit. Dis. 2013, 37, 105–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Gharekhani, J.; Tavoosidana, G.; Zandieh, M. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum in Sheep from Western Iran. Vet. World 2013, 6, 709–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Sasani, F.; Javanbakht, J.; Seifori, P.; Hassan, M. Neospora caninum as Causative Agent of Ovine Encephalitis in Iran. Pathol. Discov. 2013, 1, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Razmi, G.; Naseri, Z. Molecular Detection of Neospora caninum Infection in Ovine Aborted Foetuses in the Mashhad Area, Iran. Ann. Parasitol. 2017, 63, 45–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Khodadadi, A.; Malekifard, F.; Batavani, R.A. Investigation of Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum as Cause of Ovine Abortion in Affected Flocks of Urmia, Northwest of Iran. Bulg. J. Vet. Med. 2022, 25, 308–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Salehi, B.; Amouei, A.; Dodangeh, S.; Daryani, A.; Sarvi, S.; Safari-Kharyeki, M.R.; Salehi, S.; Hosseini, S.A.; Hosseininejad, Z. Molecular Identification of Neospora caninum Infection in Aborted Fetuses of Sheep, Cattle, and Goats in Mazandaran Province, Northern Iran. Iran. J. Parasitol. 2021, 16, 483–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  141. Spilovská, S.; Reiterová, K.; Kovácová, D.; Bobáková, M.; Dubinský, P. The First Finding of Neospora caninum and the Occurrence of Other Abortifacient Agents in Sheep in Slovakia. Vet. Parasitol. 2009, 164, 320–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Helmick, B.; Otter, A.; McGarry, J.; Buxton, D. Serological Investigation of Aborted Sheep and Pigs for Infection by Neospora caninum. Res. Vet. Sci. 2002, 73, 187–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Bartley, P.M.; Guido, S.; Mason, C.; Stevenson, H.; Chianini, F.; Carty, H.; Innes, E.A.; Katzer, F. Detection of Neospora caninum DNA in Cases of Bovine and Ovine Abortion in the South-West of Scotland. Parasitology 2019, 146, 979–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. West, D.M.; Pomroy, W.E.; Collett, M.G.; Hill, F.I.; Ridler, A.L.; Kenyon, P.R.; Morris, S.T.; Pattison, R.S. A Possible Role for Neospora caninum in Ovine Abortion in New Zealand. Small Rumin. Res. 2006, 62, 135–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Nunes, A.C.B.T.; Yamasaki, E.M.; Kim, P.C.P.; Melo, R.P.B.; Ribeiro-Andrade, M.; Porto, W.J.N.; Mota, R.A. Transplacental Transmission of Neospora Caninum in Naturally Infected Small Ruminants from Northeastern Brazil. Pesq. Vet. Bras. 2017, 37, 921–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Howe, L.; West, D.M.; Collett, M.G.; Tattersfield, G.; Pattison, R.S.; Pomroy, W.E.; Kenyon, P.R.; Morris, S.T.; Williamson, N.B. The Role of Neospora caninum in Three Cases of Unexplained Ewe Abortions in the Southern North Island of New Zealand. Small Rumin. Res. 2008, 75, 115–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Koyama, T.; Kobayashi, Y.; Omata, Y.; Yamada, M.; Furuoka, H.; Maeda, R.; Matsui, T.; Saito, A.; Mikami, T. Isolation of Neospora caninum from the Brain of a Pregnant Sheep. J. Parasitol. 2001, 87, 1486–1488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Pena, H.F.J.; Soares, R.M.; Ragozo, A.M.A.; Monteiro, R.M.; Yai, L.E.O.; Nishi, S.M.; Gennari, S.M. Isolation and Molecular Detection of Neospora caninum from Naturally Infected Sheep from Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 2007, 147, 61–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. García-Sánchez, M.; Moreno-Gonzalo, J.; González-Warleta, M.; Mezo, M.; Ortega-Mora, L.M.; Regidor-Cerrillo, J. Isolation and Genetic Characterization of Neospora caninum from Naturally Infected Sheep. Vet. Parasitol. 2020, 280, 109091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Animals 12 02074 g001 550
Figure 1. Microscopic lesions of ovine neosporosis. (A) Placenta. Focus of necrosis and scant infiltration of inflammatory cells, mainly lymphocytes and macrophages, within the maternal–fetal interface area of the placenta. Note mineralization at the center of the necrotic area (deep purple-pigment, arrowheads); HE. 4×. (B) Fetal brain; encephalitis characterized by multifocal glial foci randomly distributed within the neuropil; HE. 2×. (C) Fetal brain; higher magnification of the mononuclear glial foci within the grey matter of the cerebral cortex. There is mild mononuclear cell inflammation within the adjacent meninges; HE. 4×. (D) Fetal brain; parasite tissue cysts (arrowheads) within the neuropil. Note the scant inflammatory cell reaction in relation to the tissue cysts; HE. 40×. (E) Fetal liver; focus of caseous necrosis and infiltration of mononuclear cells—mainly macrophages—within the hepatic parenchyma. The aggregates of dark, mononuclear cells are foci of hematopoietic tissue—a normal finding in the fetal liver; HE. 10×.
Figure 1. Microscopic lesions of ovine neosporosis. (A) Placenta. Focus of necrosis and scant infiltration of inflammatory cells, mainly lymphocytes and macrophages, within the maternal–fetal interface area of the placenta. Note mineralization at the center of the necrotic area (deep purple-pigment, arrowheads); HE. 4×. (B) Fetal brain; encephalitis characterized by multifocal glial foci randomly distributed within the neuropil; HE. 2×. (C) Fetal brain; higher magnification of the mononuclear glial foci within the grey matter of the cerebral cortex. There is mild mononuclear cell inflammation within the adjacent meninges; HE. 4×. (D) Fetal brain; parasite tissue cysts (arrowheads) within the neuropil. Note the scant inflammatory cell reaction in relation to the tissue cysts; HE. 40×. (E) Fetal liver; focus of caseous necrosis and infiltration of mononuclear cells—mainly macrophages—within the hepatic parenchyma. The aggregates of dark, mononuclear cells are foci of hematopoietic tissue—a normal finding in the fetal liver; HE. 10×.
Animals 12 02074 g001
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Benavides, J.; González-Warleta, M.; Arteche-Villasol, N.; Pérez, V.; Mezo, M.; Gutiérrez-Expósito, D. Ovine Neosporosis: The Current Global Situation. Animals 2022, 12, 2074. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12162074

AMA Style

Benavides J, González-Warleta M, Arteche-Villasol N, Pérez V, Mezo M, Gutiérrez-Expósito D. Ovine Neosporosis: The Current Global Situation. Animals. 2022; 12(16):2074. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12162074

Chicago/Turabian Style

Benavides, Julio, Marta González-Warleta, Noive Arteche-Villasol, Valentín Pérez, Mercedes Mezo, and Daniel Gutiérrez-Expósito. 2022. "Ovine Neosporosis: The Current Global Situation" Animals 12, no. 16: 2074. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12162074

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