Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Aug 8;16(8):e0010596.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010596. eCollection 2022 Aug.

Evidence of co-exposure with Brucella spp, Coxiella burnetii, and Rift Valley fever virus among various species of wildlife in Kenya

Affiliations

Evidence of co-exposure with Brucella spp, Coxiella burnetii, and Rift Valley fever virus among various species of wildlife in Kenya

Francis Gakuya et al. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. .

Abstract

Background: Co-infection, especially with pathogens of dissimilar genetic makeup, may result in a more devastating impact on the host. Investigations on co-infection with neglected zoonotic pathogens in wildlife are necessary to inform appropriate prevention and control strategies to reduce disease burden in wildlife and the potential transmission of these pathogens between wildlife, livestock and humans. This study assessed co-exposure of various Kenyan wildflife species with Brucella spp, Coxiella burnetii and Rift Valley fever virus (RVFV).

Methodology: A total of 363 sera from 16 different wildlife species, most of them (92.6%) herbivores, were analysed by Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for IgG antibodies against Brucella spp, C. burnetii and RVFV. Further, 280 of these were tested by PCR to identify Brucella species.

Results: Of the 16 wildlife species tested, 15 (93.8%) were seropositive for at least one of the pathogens. Mean seropositivities were 18.9% (95% CI: 15.0-23.3) for RVFV, 13.7% (95% CI: 10.3-17.7) for Brucella spp and 9.1% (95% CI: 6.3-12.5) for C. burnetii. Buffaloes (n = 269) had higher seropositivity for Brucella spp. (17.1%, 95% CI: 13.0-21.7%) and RVFV (23.4%, 95% CI: 18.6-28.6%), while giraffes (n = 36) had the highest seropositivity for C. burnetii (44.4%, 95% CI: 27.9-61.9%). Importantly, 23 of the 93 (24.7%) animals positive for at least one pathogen were co-exposed, with 25.4% (18/71) of the positive buffaloes positive for brucellosis and RVFV. On molecular analysis, Brucella DNA was detected in 46 (19.5%, CI: 14.9-24.7) samples, with 4 (8.6%, 95% CI: 2.2-15.8) being identified as B. melitensis. The Fisher's Exact test indicated that seropositivity varied significantly within the different animal families, with Brucella (p = 0.013), C. burnetii (p = <0.001) and RVFV (p = 0.007). Location was also significantly associated (p = <0.001) with Brucella spp. and C. burnetii seropositivities.

Conclusion: Of ~20% of Kenyan wildlife that are seropositive for Brucella spp, C. burnetii and RVFV, almost 25% indicate co-infections with the three pathogens, particularly with Brucella spp and RVFV.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Total number of tested animals categorized by region sampled and corresponding positivity rates for antibodies against Brucella, C. burnetii and RVFV.
The country boundary was obtained from https://gadm.org/download_country.html. The wildlife parks region boundaries are author-generated based on spatial boundaries provided by the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS). The base layers used were appropriately licensed (https://gadm.org/license.html).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Rahman T, Sobur A, Islam S, Ievy S, Hossain J, El Zowalaty ME, et al.. Zoonotic Diseases: Etiology, Impact, and Control. Microorganisms. 2020. Sep;8(9):1405. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/8/9/1405. - PMC - PubMed
    1. FAO, OIE and WHO. Taking a Multisectoral, One Health Approach: A Tripartite Guide to Addressing Zoonotic Diseases in Countries. 2019.
    1. Christou L. The global burden of bacterial and viral zoonotic infections. Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 2011. Mar;17(3):326–30. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1198743X14638635. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2010.03441.x - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kruse H, Kirkemo AM, Handeland K. Wildlife as Source of Zoonotic Infections. Emerg Infect Dis. 2004. Dec;10(12):2067–72. Available from: http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/10/12/04-0707_article.htm. doi: 10.3201/eid1012.040707 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Allen T, Murray KA, Zambrana-Torrelio C, Morse SS, Rondinini C, Di Marco M, et al.. Global hotspots and correlates of emerging zoonotic diseases. Nat Commun. 2017. Dec;8(1):1124. Available from: http://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-00923-8. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-00923-8 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types