Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37548875›Full record

ArticleVeterinary research communications2024

Bovine campylobacteriosis in heifer: pathogenesis study and insights in the conventional and molecular diagnosis in an experimental bovine model and field cases.

Juan A García, Pablo D Farace, Andrea K Gioffre, Florencia Romeo, Andrea Verna, María A Mendez, Claudia Morsella, Juan F Aller, Marcelo Signorini, Fernando A Paolicchi

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Veterinary research communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Juan A GarcíaInstituto de Innovación para la Producción Agropecuaria y el Desarrollo Sostenible (IPADS INTA-CONICET), Balcarce, Buenos Aires, 7620, Argentina. garciajuanagustin89@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8047-6724
Pablo D FaraceInstituto de Agrobiotecnología y Biología Molecular, Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (IABIMO INTA-CONICET), Hurlingham, Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3586-1524
Andrea K GioffreInstituto de Agrobiotecnología y Biología Molecular, Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (IABIMO INTA-CONICET), Hurlingham, Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8538-5936
Florencia RomeoInstituto de Innovación para la Producción Agropecuaria y el Desarrollo Sostenible (IPADS INTA-CONICET), Balcarce, Buenos Aires, 7620, Argentina.
Andrea VernaInstituto de Innovación para la Producción Agropecuaria y el Desarrollo Sostenible (IPADS INTA-CONICET), Balcarce, Buenos Aires, 7620, Argentina.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3317-7331
María A MendezInstituto de Innovación para la Producción Agropecuaria y el Desarrollo Sostenible (IPADS INTA-CONICET), Balcarce, Buenos Aires, 7620, Argentina.
Claudia MorsellaInstituto de Innovación para la Producción Agropecuaria y el Desarrollo Sostenible (IPADS INTA-CONICET), Balcarce, Buenos Aires, 7620, Argentina.
Juan F AllerInstituto de Innovación para la Producción Agropecuaria y el Desarrollo Sostenible (IPADS INTA-CONICET), Balcarce, Buenos Aires, 7620, Argentina.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6763-891X
Marcelo SignoriniInstituto de Investigación de la Cadena Láctea (INTA - CONICET), Rafaela, Santa Fe, Argentina.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6537-8782
Fernando A PaolicchiInstituto de Innovación para la Producción Agropecuaria y el Desarrollo Sostenible (IPADS INTA-CONICET), Balcarce, Buenos Aires, 7620, Argentina.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7481-2285
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas · ARCentro para la Investigación en Sistemas Sostenibles de Producción Agropecuaria · CO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Campylobacter fetus spp. is a bacterium associated to reproductive losses in cattle worldwide. It is a venereal infectious disease known as bovine campilobacteriosis, with high impact mainly in countries with extensive production systems. Here, we show pathogenesis and diagnostic methods for Campylobacter fetus detection in cervico-vaginal mucus (CVM) samples from heifers experimentally infected and field cases from herds with low reproductive performance by campylobacteriosis infection. Bacterial culture, direct immunofluorescence test and qPCR were used as diagnostic methods to evaluate detection of C. fetus. In the experimental model 30 Aberdeen Angus and crossbred heifers and 4 Aberdeen Angus bulls for natural mating were assigned to 3 groups experimentally challenged with C. fetus subsp. fetus (Cff), C. fetus subsps venerealis (Cfv) and C. fetus subsp venerealis biovar intermedius (Cfvi), respectively, and a negative control group, all followed for 9 months. Also, field samples of CVM and aborted fetuses were recollected from seven beef cattle farms. Bacteriological culture had the higher C. fetus detection rate in CVM being the most appropriate, followed by qPCR (with commercial extraction DNA kit), direct immunofluorescence test and qPCR (with in-house extraction DNA method), in both, experimental model and field cases. From experimental model after natural mating, 62.5% and 25% heifers got pregnant from Cff and Cfvi groups, respectively, while from Cfv no pregnancy was detected. The strain more frequently detected was Cfvi, followed by Cff and Cfv. Colonization of Cff in female genital tract with high number of carriers and presence in aborted fetuses was evidenced, suggesting a high risk to bovine reproductive health. Bacteriemia was not detected after genital infection. Given the low detection rate of either test, we suggest the use of both, PCR based methods and bacterial culture could result in higher detection rate in farms with endemic campylobacteriosis.

Indexed as

Campylobacter InfectionsCattle DiseasesAnimalsCattleCervix UteriDNAFemaleMaleVaginaDNABovine genital campylobacteriosisExperimental modelMolecular testsRuminantsSexually transmitted disease

Identifiers

PMID37548875
OpenAlexW4385620488

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.