Türkiye Genelinde Sığır Paratüberkülozu Prevalansının Elisa ile Araştırılması

Öz

Sığır paratüberkülozu (PTB) dünyada yaygın , yetiştiricilik endüstrisinde büyük ekonomik kayıplara yol açan, kronik seyirli bir hastalıktır. Ülkemizde bugüne kadar PTB ' nin prevalansının saptanmasına yönelik genel bir çalışma yapılmamıştır. Bu nedenle hastalığın ülkemizde oluşturduğu kayıplarda bilinmemektedir. Bu çalışmada Türkiye coğrafi özelliklerine göre 9 bölgeye bölünmüştür. Bu bölgelerdeki 2 yaş ve üzeri sığırlardan basit tesadüfi örnekleme ile 8873 kan serum örneği toplanmıştır. Örnekler absorbe ELISA ile test edilmiştir. Örneklerin 409'u pozitif bulunmuştur. ELISA ' nın sensitivitesi %44, spesifitesi %96 olarak tespit edilmiştir. Bu değerlere göre bölgelerdeki gerçek bireysel prevalans belirlenmiştir. Sonuçlar 1. bölgeden başlamak üzere sırasıyla %2.2 , %3.6, %3.7, %3.6, %0, %1.2, %9.6, %4.5 ve %4.4.olarak bulunmuştur. Türkiye genelinde gerçek bireysel prevalans %3.7 olarak tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca bu çalışmada her köy bir sürü olarak kabul edilmiş, buna göre görünen sürü prevalansı belirlenmiştir. Sonuçlar 1. bölgeden başlamak üzere sırasıyla %33.3, %43.6, %27.2, %43. 1 , %26.6, %38.0, %48.2, %31.8 ve %41.2 olarak saptanmışt ır. Sürüleri n %1 7.2'sinde pozitif hayvan, %20.5 ' inde en az 2 hayvan pozitif bulunmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Etlik Veteriner Mikrobiyoloji Dergisi
• Sığır
• Paratüberküloz
• Elisa
• Prevalans
• Türkiye

Prevalance of Paratuberculosis in the Turkish Cattle Population by Using Absorbed Elisa

Öz

Bovine paratuberculosis, widespread in the world, is a chronicle disease which causes a lot of economical losses in the agricultural industry. In our country there has been no study on estimating the prevalance of PTB so far. For this reason it is not known what losses the disease has caused in Turkey. In this study Turkey was dividcd into 9 provinces in accordance with the geographical characteristics. 8873 sera samples from the callle that were at least 2 years old were collected randomly in these provinces. The saınples were tested with absoı·bed ELISA , 409 of samples were positive. The sensitivity and the specificity of the ELISA were 44% and 96% respectively. The true individual - animal prevalance in each province was determined as regards to the sensitivity and specificity ınentioned above . The results, starting from the first province was 2.2%, 3.6%, 3.7%, 3.6%, 0%, 1 .2%, 9.6%, 4.5% and 4.4% respectively. The average true individual- aniınal prevalance in Turkey was found 3.7%. In this study each viiiage was assume as a herd and the apparent herd prevalance was determined . The results , starting from the first province was 33.3%, 43.6%, 37.2%, 43.1 %, 26.6%, 38.0%, 48.2%, 31.8% and 41.2% respectively. The herds were divided into two groups one of which had 1 positive and theothersat least 2 positive cattle. 17.2% of the herds had one positive cattle and 20.5% of the herds had at least 2 positive cattle.

Kaynakça

1. ALİBAŞOGLU M, ERTÜRK E, YÜCEL N (1973). Türkiyede rastlanan ilk keçi paratüberküloz olayları üzerinde patolojik incelemeler. A Ü Vet Fak Derg, XX, 1, 43- 63.
2. ARDA M, MİNBA Y A, LELOGLU N, AYDIN N, AKAY Ö. (1992). Özel Mikrobiyoloji. Atatürk Üniv Yay , 741 , 279-3 311.
3. BOELAERT F, WALRA VENSK , BIRONT P, VERMEERSCH J P, BERKVENS D , GODFROID J (2000). Prevalence of paratuberculosis (Johne's disease) in the Belgian cattle population.,Vet Microbio/.77 , 269-281.
4. CAMPHAUSEN R T , JONES R L , ERENNAN P J (1988). Antigenic relationship between Mycobacterium paratuberculosis and Mycobacterium avium. Am] Vet Res49,8,1307-1310.
5. COLGROVE G S , THOEN C O , BLACKBURN B O , MURPHY C D ( 1989). Paratuberculosis in cattLe: a comparison of three seralogic tests with results of fecal culture. Vet Microbiol 19, 2, 183-187.
6. COX J C , DRANE D P , JONES S L , RIDGE S , MILNER A R (1991). Development and evaluation of a rapid absorbed enzy;,ıe immunoassay test for the diagnosis of Johne's disease in cattle. Aust Vet J, 68,157-160.
7. ÇETINKAYA B , ERDOGAN H M , MORGAN K L (1997).Mycobacterium paratuberculosis infections: classification, pathogenesis, İmmunology and relationship with Crohn 's disease. Veterinarium, 8, 1- 2,89-98.
8. ÇETINKAYA B , ERDOGAN H M , MORGAN K L (1998).Prevalence, ineidence and geographical distribution of Johne 's disease in cattle in England and the Welsh borders. Vet Rec,143,265-269 .

9. DANIEL TM and DEBANNE S M (1987). The seradiagnosis of tuberculosis and other Mycobacteriel diseases by Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay. Anı Rev Respir Dis 135,1137-1151.
10. DEMİRER F , YÜCEL N (1964).Çifteler Haraası ile Alpu 'daki Mesut Zeytinoğluna ait çiftlikteki sığırların gaitasından M.paratuberculosis (Johne's) ın memeleketimizde ilk İzolasyonu. Türk Vet Hek Derg, 34,3-4,170-171.
11. DIMECH W (2000). Automation of an absorbed enzyın immunoassay for the detection of Mycobacterium paratuberculosis antibodies for an eradication program. Vet Microbiol, 77,35 1- 355.
12. ELLIS TM, CARSON BA , KALKHOVEN MJ , MARTIN PAJ (1998).Specifity of two absorbed ELISA's for surveys of Mycobacterium paratuberculosis in cattle. ,Aust Vet 1,76,497-499.
13. EMRE MN (1967). Yurdumuz sığırlarında paratüberkülozun teşhis metodlarıüzerinde mukayeseli atraştırmalar ve değişik M.paratüberküloz suşlarının bazı antiseptiklere karşı hassasiyetlerinin tayini. Güven Matbaast , ANKARA.
14. GRIFFITH AS, TYTLER WH, CUMMIS SL, MCINTOS J, WHITBY LEH, BILLOCH W , FLEMING A , OKELL CC, GLOYNE SR ( 1930). Johne's diseases. In: A System of Bacteriology ın Relation to Medicine. Majesty's Station e1y Office, London, p.: 333--344.
15. JACOBE HB, CARRIGAN M, COCKRAM F, CORNER LA, GILL IJ, HILL JF , JESSEP T , MILNER AR, WOOD PR (1992).A comparison of the interferon gamma assay with the absorbed ELISA for the diagnosis of Johne 's disease in cattle. Aust Vet 1. 69,25-28.
16. MARCHEVSKY N (1974). Errors ın prevalence estimates in population studies: A practical method for calculating real prevalence. Zoonosis. 16, 98- 109.
17. MERKAL R S (1984). Paratuberculosis: Advances ın cultural, serologic, and vaccination methods. lA VMA , 184, 8, 939- 943.
18. MILNER AR, MACK WN, COATES KJ, HILL J, GILL I, SHELDRICK P (1990). The sensitivity and specificity of a ınodifıed ELISA for the diagnosis of Johne's disease from a field trial in cattle. Vet Microbiol.25 , 193-198.
19. MILNER A R , MACK W N , COATES K , WOOD P R SHELDRICK P , HILL J , GILL I (1989).The absorbed ELISA for the diagnosis of Johne's disease in cattle. Vet Bul 158-163.
20. OIE (1996). World Organisation for Animal Health, Manuel of standards for diagnostic tests and vaccines, 267-275.
21. ÖKTEM Z (1967). Mycobacterium. İç .: Tıbbi Bakteriyoloji. IL Cild, Menleş Kitabevi, İstanbul, p.: 604-673.
22. REICHEL MP, KıTTELBERGER R, PENROSE ME, MEYNELL RM, COUSINS D, ELLIS T, MUTHARIA LM, SUGDEN EA, JOHNS AH, DE LISLE GW (1999). Comparison of serological tests and faecal culture for the detection of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis infection in cattle and analysis of the antigens involved. Vet Microbiol, 66, 135- 150 .
23. RIDGE SE, MORGAN IR, SOCKETT DC, COLLINS MT, CONDRON RJ, SKILBECK NW, WEB BER JJ (1991 ). Comparison of the Johne's absorbed EIA and the complement-fixation test for the diagnosis of Johne' s disease in cattle . Aust Vet 1, 68 ,253-257.
24. RINGDAL G (1963). Johne's disease in pigs. Nord Vet Med, 15 , 217-238.
25. RINGDAL G (1965). Studies on Johne's disease in a single herd during a few year period. Nord Vet Med, 17 , 73-96.
26. SCHAIK G, KALIS CHJ, BENEDICTUS G, DIJKHUIZEN AA, HUIRNE RBM ( 1996). Cost-benefit analysis of vaccination against paratuberculosis in dairy cattle. Vet Rec 139,624-627.
27. SEZGİNER FR (1928). Ehli hayvanlarda intani hastalıklar. Hilal Matbaası, İstanbul, 252-259.
28. SOCKETT DC (2000). Johne's disease diagnosis and control. Wisconsin Animal Health Lab.-Madison,
29. STABLEFORTH AV (1961). Thecontrol of Johne' s disease. Tijdschr(f V oor Diergeneeskunde 86 E Deel AFL, 25, 1744- 1750.
30. SWEENEY RW, WHITLOCK RH, ROSENBERGER AE (1992). Mycobacteriuın paratuberc ulosis isolated from foetuses of infected cows not manifesting signs of the di sease. Am J Vet Res,53,4,477- 480.
31. SWEENEY RW, WHITLOCK RH, HAMIR AN, ROSENBERGER AE, HERR SA ( 1992).Isolation of Mycobacterium paratuberculosis after oral inoculation in uninfected cattle. Am J Vet Res, 53,8 ,1312- 1314.
32. WAYNE LG , KUBICA GP ( 1986). The Mycobacteria. In: Bergey's Manuel of Determinative Bacteriology. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, p.: 1435-1457.
33. WENTING GH, BONGERS JH, VOS JH, ZEEUWEN AA PA (1993). Relationship between negative skin test with Johnin after vaccination and post mortem finding. Vet Rec, 132,38-39.
34. WILLIAMS ES, DEMARTİNİ JC, SNYDER SP ( 1985). Lymphocyte blastogenesis, complement fixation , and faecal culture as diagnostic tests for paratuberculosis ın North American wild ruminants and domestic sheep. Am J Vet Res, 46,11 ,2317-2321.
35. YOKOMIZO Y ( 1986). Evaluation of an enzym-linked immunosorbent as say (ELISA) usıng Mycobacterium phleiabsorbed serum for the diagnos is of bovine paratuberculosis in a field study. Jpn Agric Res,20, 59-67.
36. YOKOMIZO Y, YUGI H and MERKAL RS (1985). A method for avoiding falsepozitive reactions ın an enzym-linked imunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the diagnosis of bovine paratuberculosis. Jpn J VetSci,47, 111-119.