Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42243407›Full record

ArticleTropical animal health and production2026

Demonstration of Anaplasma marginale transmission to cattle through the intra-transstadial and by unfed larvae of Rhipicephalus microplus routes, with subsequent calculation of infection rates.

Luciana Maffini Heller, Dina María Beltrán Zapa, Igor Maciel Lopes de Morais, Vanessa Ferreira Salvador, Luccas Lourenzzo Lima Lins Leal, Luiz Fellipe Monteiro Couto, Lídia Mendes de Aquino, Lucianne Cardoso Neves, Bianca Barbara Fonseca da Silva, Lorena Lopes Ferreira and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tropical animal health and production, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

13 authors.

Luciana Maffini HellerCentro de Parasitologia Veterinária, Escola de Veterinária e Zootecnia, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil.
Dina María Beltrán ZapaCentro de Parasitologia Veterinária, Escola de Veterinária e Zootecnia, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil.
Igor Maciel Lopes de MoraisCentro de Parasitologia Veterinária, Escola de Veterinária e Zootecnia, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil.
Vanessa Ferreira SalvadorCentro de Parasitologia Veterinária, Escola de Veterinária e Zootecnia, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil.
Luccas Lourenzzo Lima Lins LealCentro de Parasitologia Veterinária, Escola de Veterinária e Zootecnia, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil.
Luiz Fellipe Monteiro CoutoCentro de Parasitologia Veterinária, Escola de Veterinária e Zootecnia, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil.
Lídia Mendes de AquinoCentro de Parasitologia Veterinária, Escola de Veterinária e Zootecnia, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil.
Lucianne Cardoso NevesDepartamento de Medicina Veterinária, Escola de Veterinária e Zootecnia, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil.
Bianca Barbara Fonseca da SilvaDepartamento de Medicina Veterinária, Escola de Veterinária e Zootecnia, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil.
Lorena Lopes FerreiraDepartamento de Medicina Veterinária Preventiva, Escola de Veterinária, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Felipe da Silva KrawczakDepartamento de Medicina Veterinária, Escola de Veterinária e Zootecnia, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil.
Caio Marcio de Oliveira MonteiroCentro de Parasitologia Veterinária, Escola de Veterinária e Zootecnia, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil.
Welber Daniel Zanetti LopesCentro de Parasitologia Veterinária, Escola de Veterinária e Zootecnia, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil. wdzlopes@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8009-8436

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this study was to assess the infection rate of Anaplasma marginale in cattle by Rhipicephalus microplus. Two experiments were conducted for this purpose. Experiment 1 evaluated the infection rate by the intrastadial and transstadial routes. Calves naturally infected with A. marginale were infested with R. microplus and were called "positive with ticks" (PWT). These PWT animals were housed together with A. marginale-negative, tick-free calves, called "negative and free-tick" (NFT) for 31 consecutive days. On day 31, the PWT animals were removed from the pens and returned to the farm/herd of origin. The NFT animals remained in the pens until day 84, and the possible infection rate of these calves with A. marginale by cattle ticks via the transstadial or intrastadial route was investigated (using blood smears, PCR, and ELISA). During this period, we evaluated the transfer rate of R. microplus from PWT to NFT animals. As a result of Experiment 1, only adult male and female ticks were found on the NFT animals. The transfer rate of ticks from PWTs to NFT calves was 0.10% (31/28464), and 70% (7 of 10), and all the NFT animals housed along with PWT animals became infected by A. marginale. In Experiment 2, the infection rate of A. marginale in calves by R. microplus larvae was carried out in two steps. The first step involved the use of the first tick generation larvae, which were used to infest (at 40,000 larvae per animal) five NFT calves. If any of these five NFT animals became infected with this rickettsia, fully engorged females detached from these animals were collected to perform the second step of the Experiment 2, conducted with the second-generation larvae. The second-generation larvae came from the first generation. Another five NFT calves were infested with 40,000 larvae/animal from the second tick generation. As a result of Experiment 2, 100% of NFT calves were infected by A. marginale due to infestation with R. microplus larvae of the first and second generations. This tick species has epidemiological importance in the transmission of A. marginale to calves by the intra-transstadial or unfed larval route.

Indexed as

Anaplasma marginaleAnaplasmosisCattle DiseasesRhipicephalusTick InfestationsAnimalsCattleEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayFemaleLarvaMalePolymerase Chain ReactionAnaplasmosisCattle tickTick fever

Identifiers

PMID42243407
PMCPMC13236803

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.