Sığırlarda Paratüberkülozun Serolojik, Allerjik ve Bakteriyolojik Muayene Yöntemleri ile Mukayeseli Olarak Araştırılması

Öz

Paratüberküloz son zamanlarda önem kazanan bir yetiştirme hastalığı olarak ruminantlarda görülmektedir. Bu hastalıktan ileri gelen ekonomik kayıplar önemlidir. Dünyada yaygın olan bu hastalığa ülkemizde de rastlanmaktadır. Çalışmamızda paratüberkülozun çeşitli teşhis yöntemleri ile araştırılması beş ayrı işletmede serolojik, allerjik ve gaita örneklerinin bakteriyolojik yoklaması ile yapıldı ve aşağıdaki sonuçlar alındı. İşletmelerden temin edilen 5118 kan serumu komplement fikzasyon testi ile işlenip 85 pozitif 30 şüpheli reaksiyon alındı. Allerjik teşhisde PPD avian ve PPD johnin kullanılarak 4923 sığırda yapılan tüberkülin testinde 73 pozitif 19 şüpheli reaksiyon tesbit edildi. Serolojik ve allerjik testlerde reaksiyon alınan 145 sığıra PPD johnin uygulandı ve 52 pozitif , 6 şüpheli reaksiyon alındı. Bu sığılardan temin edilen gaita kültürlerinden 15 adedinde M.paratuberculosis izole edilmiştir; ayrıca rektal mukoza kazıntı örneklerinin mikroskopik yoklamalarında 4 pozitif olgu değerlendirilmişitir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sığır
• Paratüberküloz
• Bülent VURAL
• Nuray ATALA
• Mustafa ÇELEBİ
• 1995
• Etlik Veteriner Mikrobiyoloji Dergisi
• Yetiştirme Hastalıkları
• Paratüberkülozun Araştırılması

A comparative study on serological, allergic and bacteriological examination of paratuberculosıs in cattle.

Öz

Paratüberculosis has recently become an important breed ing disease in ruminants in many countries since it has caused great economic losses. Being worldwide, paratuberculosis alsa occurs in our country . in this study, the use of different diagnostic methods in paratuberculosis was investigated in 5 different farms by serological and allergical tests as well as bacteriological examination of feces samples. The results obtained are as follows : 5118 blood sera from 5 herds were tested with the antigen prepared with M.paratuberculosis 3 and 5 path strains by complement fixation test and 85 positive and 30 suspected sera were found . The sera that responded to paratuberculosis were tested with avian antigen by the complement fixation test and 76 positive and 18 suspected sera were found .Tuberculin (PPD bovine, PPD avian) administration in 4923 catle resulted in 73 positives and 19 suspected to PPD avian and no posit ives to PPD bovine. According to serological and suspected cattle were kept separately. Two months afterwards, PPD Johnin was administered on them . PPD John in tuberculin administered on 145 cattle resulted in 52 pozitives and 6 suspected . 15 M. paratuberculosis isolations were made from rectal mucosa and feces samples from 145 cattle that responded to allerg ical and serological test in bacteriological examinations (Herold egg . yolk medum with and without mycobactin) Furthermore, 9 M. pheli isolations were made, causing transient sensibilisation . In one management, 21 cattle that reacted to PPD avian were negative for PPD Johnin and serological tests . Bacteriological examinations offeces samples from these animals gave negative results. These examinations were carried out three times with 6 month intervals. In bacteriological carried out on starlings that are widely present in winter. Runyon group AAR mycobacteria were isolated. This mycobacterium induce no lesions in laboratory animals. Tuberculin (PPD bovine. PPD avian and PPD Johnin were inoculated into guinea pigs in equal doses and positive reaction occured to PPD avian only. After tuberculin administration two months later on cattle, positive reaction to PPD avian was observed to have disappeared. Ina herd , cattle vaccinated against paratuberculosis responded to PPD avian and Johnin , however, serological tests and PPD bovine results were negative. Ina herd of 22b0 cattle that hadproblemsin the past with paratuberculosis allergical tests were carried out (PPD avian and PPD John in were adm inistered with 6 month interval). In 1990, periodical hygienic applications were made in this management and 34 cattle positive for paratuberculosis in 1990 and 16 positive cattle in the first s ix months of 1991 and 11 positive cattle in the second six months of 1991 were slaughtered . Allergical and serological tests carried out in 1992 and 1993 in complete herd resulted in negative reactions . lt was concluded that this result was a consequent of the change from range system to feedlot system . In the fa rm s on which our'study was carried out no animals with prominent symptoms of paratuberculosis were observed with an exception that the animals positive after feces cultures exhibited repeated diarrhea and there was cachexia in some animals . In the positive animals, infection could be defined as subclinical or latent infection of 15 cattle whose feces cultures were positive , 11 were positive , that is diagnostic efficiency of cultures was 73,2 % i however this was 92,3 % in PPD Johnin .

Kaynakça

1. Abbas B. Riemann H.P., Lnnerdal B. (1983): Isolation ofspecific peptides from Mycobacterium paratuberculosis protoplasm and their use in an enzymelinked immunosorbent assay for the detection of paratuberculosis in cattle. Am.J.Vet. Res.1983;44:2229-2236.
2. Albaşoğlu, M., Demirer, F., Yücel, N. (1969): Paratüberkülozda allerjik reaksiyonların patolojik bulgularla uygunluk derecesi üzerinde araştırma . Ankara Üniversitesi Vet.Fak.Derg. 16-3: 236-256.
3. Belletti, G.L., Zuvenella, M. (L987) : L'esame calturalle delle feci per la diagnosi dı paratubercolosı. Selezione Veternaria, 20-6: 891-896.
4. Berg. J.J. (1982): An improved medium for culture of M . paratuberculosıs from bovine faeces. Acta Vet. Scand. 23: 325-335.
5. Buerget, C.D., Delisle, G. , and Hall, C.E. (1978): Am.J.Vet.Res. 39: 591- .594).
6. Buergelt, C.D. and J.R.Duncan (1978): And Milk Production data ofcattle c,ulled from a dairy herd with paratuberculosıs . J.Amer.Vet.Med.Assoc. 173: 478-480.
7. Chiodini, R.J., Van Kruiningen , H.J. and Merkal, R.S. (1984): Ruminant paratuberculosıs (Johne disease): The current status and futur prospects. Cornell Vet. 74: 218-264.
8. Cloude, K.T. and Roussel, A.J. (1987): Paratuberculosıs : A review; The Southwestern Veterinarian.38.1: 25-31 .

9. De Lisle, G.W., B.S. Samagh and J.R . Dunccan (1980) : Savine paratuberculosıs . 11 . A comparison of fecal culture and theantibody response. Can.J .Comp.Med.44: .183-191 .
10. Demirer, F., Y ücel, N.(1964) : Çifteler Harası ile Alpu'daki Mesut Zeytinoğluna ait çiftlikteki sığırların gaitasından M.paratuberculosıs (Johne's) in memleketimizde ilk izolasyonu. Türk Vet.Hek.Derg.34.3-4:170-171.
11. Desmecht, M. (1975): Annales Medicine Veterinaire. 119,371.
12. Doyle, T: M. (1945): Isolation of Johne's bacili from the udders of clinically affected cows. Br.Vet.J.11 0:215-218.
13. Doyle, T.M. (1956): Veterinary Record. 68.869.
14. Doyle, T.M. (1959): Johne's Disease in lnfectius disease of animals, Disease due to bacteria, by stablforth. A.W. and Galloway, I.A. Butterworths Sicentific Publications, London.1 :319-345.
15. G. Benedictus, AA. Dijkhuizen, J. Stelwagen. (1987) : Economic losses du e to paratuberculosis in dairy cattle. Veterinary Record. (1987) 121 : 142- 146.
16. Hole, N.H. (1956): Johne's disease in bovine enfection and spread , epidomiology, diagnosis in control of Johne disease in cattle, sheep and goats. Org. Ec. Coop. Paris Proj. 207: 83-120.
17. Hutchison, L.J . et all.(1986): Johne's disease what we know. What we need to know. Animal Health and Nutrition. 41: 24-28.
18. Johne, H.A. and Frothingam, L. (1895): L. Dtsch. 2. Tiermed 21.438. Cited by Hagan, W.A. and Bruner, D.W. the enfectious disease of domestic animals. ithaca. New York, (1961): 416-431.
19. Jorgensen, J.B. (1977): Nord Veteriniaer Med. 29:267-270.
20. Jorgensen , J .B. (1982) : An improved medium for cultur of M.paratuberculosis from·bovine feaces. Acta Vet. Scand. 23:325-335.
21. Jullian, R.J. (1975) : A short review and some observations on Johne diease with recomandations for control. Can. Vet. J. 16: 33-43.
22. Laboratuvary methods in veterinary mycobacteriology. Ames, lowa: Mycobacteriologgy Unit, National Veterinary Services Laboratories, APHIS, USDA, 1985.
23. Larsen, A.B.,K.E. Vardarnan and R.S. Merkal (1963): An extended study of a herd of cattle naturally infected with Johne disease. Am. J. Vet. Res. 24: 948-950.
24. Larsen, A.B. and Kopecky, K.E. (1965): Studies on the intravenous administration of johnin to diagnose Johne's disease. Am. J. Vet. Res. 26: 673- 675.
25. Larsen, A.B . and Kopecky, K.E. (1970): M.paratuberculosis in reproductivite organs and semen of bulls. Am. J. Vet. Res. 31 : 255-257.
26. Larsen, A.B. (1972): Paratuberculosis: Tha status of our knowledge. J. Am. Vet.Med.Assoc. 161 : 1539-1541 .
27. Larsen, A .B., Stalheim, O.H., Hughes, D.E., et all. (1981) : M.paratuberculosis inthesemen and the genital organs of a semen donor bull. J. Am. Vet.Med.Assoc. 179: 169-171 .
28. Lawrece, W.E. (1956): Congenital infection with M.johnei cattle.Vet. Rec. 68: 312-314.
29. Merchant, I.A. and Berner, R.D. (1971): lnfectious diease of domestic animals. 3rd. ed. chapter 60. lova State Univ. Press. Ames.
30. Merkal, R.C., Kopecky, K.E., Larsen, A.B., Thurston, J.R. (1964): lmprovments in the tecniques for primary cultivation of M.paratuberculosis. Am . . J. Vet. Res. 25: 1290-1294.
31. Merkal, R.S., Larsen, A.B., Kopecky, K.E. and Nees, R.D. (1968): Am. J. Vet. Res. 29: 1533-1538.
32. Merkal, R.S. and W D. Richards (1972): lnhibition of fungal growth in the cultural isolation of Mycobacteria. Appl. Microbiol. 24: 205-207.
33. Merkal, R.S. (1973): Laboratuvary diagnosis of bovine paratuberculosis. J. Amer. Vet. Med. Ass. 163: 1100-1102.
34. Merkal, R.S., Larsen, A.B., and Booth, G.D. (1975): Am.J.Vet.Res. 36: 837-839.
35. Merkal, R.S., Mc. Cullough, W.G. (1982): A new mycbactin J. fron:ı M.paratuberculosis. Current Microbiol. 7: 333-335.
36. Merkal, R.S. (1984): Prevalance, diagnosis, prevention and treatment proceeding. A.A.B.P., 64-65.
37. Merkal, R.S. (1984): Paratuberculosis: Advences in cultural, serolojic and vaccination methods. J. Amer. Vet. Med. Ass. 184: 9~9-943.
38. OIE Mannual (1990): Paratuberculosis (Johne's disease) (Amendment 1, April1990): 1-16-16-16.
39. Patersson, A.B. (1959): Tuberculosis hacteriology in infectious disease of an ima ls; Disease due to bacteria by stable forth, A.W. and Golloway, I:A.Buttherworths scintifıc publication, London, 2: 671-687 ..
40. Patterson, D.S.P., W.M. Alien and S. Beretti (1965): Plasma enzmes in elinical Jonne's Vet. Rec. 77: 1287-1289.
41. Patterson, D.S.P. , W.M. Alien and M.K. Lloyd (1967): Clinical Johne's diseaseasa protein losing enteropathy. Vet. Rec. 80: 717-718.
42. Patterson, D.S.P. and S. Beretti. (1968): Malabsorption in Johne's disease of cattle. Vet. .Rec. 81 : 55-56.
43. Pearson, J.K.L. and Mc. Clelland, T.G. (1962): Studieson Johne's disease in cattle Northem lreland: In diagnosis of nonelinical infections. Serological and allergic test in Northern lreland. Brit. Vet. J. 118: 98-106.
44. Rankin, J.D. (1961 ): The non-specifıty of a complement-fıxati on test u sed in the diaggnosis of Johne's disease in cattle.
45. Riemann, H.P and Abbas, B. (1983): Diagnosis and control of bovine paratuberculosis (Johne's disease) Vet. Science and comparative medicine. 27: 481-506.
46. Ringdal, G. (1963): Culture of M.johnei. Acta Vet. Scand, 4: 85-91 .
47. Ringdal, G. (1965): Studies on Johne's diseaseina single herd during a fıve-year period. Nord. Vet. Med. 1965, 17: 71 -96.
48. Rodrick, J. Chiodini and Herbert, J. Van Kruiningen (1986): The prevalance paratuberculosis in culled New England cattle. Cornell Vet. 76: 91- 104.
49. Sezginer, F.R. (1928): Ehli hayvanlarda intani hastalıklar . Hilal Matbaası, Istanbul, 252-259.
50. Sherman, D.M., Markham, J.F. and Bates, F. (1984) : Agar gel immunodiffusion test for diagnosis of elinical paratuberculosis in cattle. J.A. V. M.A. 185: 179-182.
51. Sherman, D.M., Bray, B., Gay, J.M., Bates, F. (1989): Evolution of the agar gel immunodiffusion test for diagnosis of subelinical paratuberculosis fn cattle. Am. J. Vet. Res. 50, 4: 525-530.
52. Smith, K. (1969): Electrömicroscopical observation on M.johnei. Re. Vet. Sci. 10: 1-3.
53. Smythe, R.H. (1950) Some observations on Johne's disease. Vet. Rec. 62: 429-440.
54. Summers, B.A. (1981): Laboratary diagnosis of Johne's disease: A potential source of error. VET. rec. 108: 166-167.
55. Taylor, T .K., C .R., Mc. Queen, D.S . (1981) : Isolation of M.paratuberculosis from the milk of a cow with Johne's disease. Vet. Rec. 109: 532-533.
56. Thayer, W.R. et all. (1984): Inflamatery bowel disease ll. Mycobacterial antibodies in crohn's disease digestive. 29: 1 020-1025.
57. Thoen, C.O., C.C. Muscoplat (1979): Recent developmentsin diagnosis of paratuberculosis (Jone's disease) J. Amer. Med. Ass. 17 4: 838-840.
58. Thoen, C. O., Baum, K. H. (1988): Current knowledge on paratuberculosis J, Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 192: 1609-1611 ,
59. Vural, B., Atala, N. (1988): lçanadolu Bölgesinde sığırlardaki paratüberkülozisin mikro CF. ve tüp CF. testi ile serolajik olarak tetkiki. Etlik Vet. Mikrobiyoloji Dergisi. 3, 6: 87-97.
60. Wenting, J.H., Bongers, J.H., Vas, A.A.P.A, Zeewen (1993): Relationship between negative .skin test with johnin after vaccination and postmortem fındings . The Vet. Rec. 9: 38-39.
61. Whipple, D.L. , Merkal, R.S. (1983): Modification in the techniques for cultivation of M.paratuberculosis. In proceeding of the international collogium on research in paratuberculosis. The National Animal Disease Centre. Ames, lowa, USA, June, 16-18pp. 82-92.
62. Wılks , C.R., T.K. Taylor and E.G. Russel (1981): Isolation of mycobacteria inducing cross reactions in the CF test for Johne's disease. Res. Vet. Sci. 30: 323-327.
63. Worthington, R. (1963): FAO Agric. Stud. 61 : 157-186.
64. Yokomizo, Y. Merkal, R.S. and Lyle P.A.S. (1983): Enzyme-Linked lmmunosorbent assay for dedection of bovine immunglobulin G1 antibody to a protoplasmic antigen of M.paratuberculosis. Am.J. Vet. Res. 44: 2205-2207.
65. Yokomizo, Y., Yugi, H. and Merkal, R.S. (1985): A method for avoiding false positive reactions in an Enzyme-Linked lmmunosorbent Assay (ELISA) · for the diagnosis of bovine paratuberculose. Jpn. Vet. Sc i. 47(1 ): 111-119.