超越利什曼原虫(L. infantum):巴西东北部内脏利什曼病流行区家犬和家猫中利什曼原虫属的血清学和分子学调查。 机翻

Looking Beyond Leishmania infantum: Serological and Molecular Investigation of Leishmania spp. in Domestic Dogs and Cats from a Visceral Leishmaniasis-Endemic Area in Northeastern Brazil.

自动标签待生成
期刊Acta parasitologica
发表日期2026-09-26
物种犬猫
DOI10.1007/s11686-026-01408-9
PMID42799860

摘要

<h4>Purpose</h4>The urbanization of zoonotic leishmaniasis and the potential overlap of transmission cycles involving different Leishmania species, vertebrate hosts, and phlebotomine sand fly vectors represent a public health challenge in Latin America. This study aimed to investigate the serological and molecular occurrence of Leishmania spp. in dogs and cats from São Luís, Maranhão, northeastern Brazil.<h4>Methods</h4>Blood samples from 330 dogs and 21 cats were analyzed by indirect immunofluorescence antibody test (IFAT) using Leishmania infantum and Leishmania amazonensis antigens and by ITS1 Polymerase Chain Reaction-Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (ITS1 PCR-RFLP).<h4>Results</h4>In dogs, seroreactivity against L. amazonensis and L. infantum antigens was detected in 37.9% and 23.0%, respectively, and Leishmania DNA in 58/330 (17.6%). Of nine canine samples successfully characterized by PCR-RFLP, eight showed profiles compatible with L. infantum and one a mixed profile suggestive of both species. In cats, seroreactivity against L. amazonensis and L. infantum antigens was detected in 28.6% and 14.3%, respectively, and L. infantum DNA was identified in two animals. Univariable analysis showed associations between seroreactivity to L. infantum antigen and age, sex, and clinical signs, whereas seroreactivity to L. amazonensis antigen was associated with age, sex, street access, and the reported presence of wild animals around the household.<h4>Conclusion</h4>The higher seroreactivity to L. amazonensis antigen should be interpreted cautiously because of potential serological cross-reactivity and limited species-level molecular characterization. Together, the findings raise the possibility that Leishmania occurrence in domestic animals in this endemic area may not be restricted to L. infantum, warranting further species-specific investigation.

站内已收录开放获取全文,见下方。

全文 开放获取 · cc by 中文机翻

引言

利什曼病是一种复杂的媒介传播疾病,由利什曼原虫属的原虫引起,通过白蛉传播,仍然是热带和亚热带地区的主要公共卫生问题,影响人类和家养动物。在美洲,内脏利什曼病(VL)主要与利什曼原虫(L. infantum)相关[8, 11]。美洲皮肤利什曼病与多种利什曼原虫种相关,其中巴西利什曼原虫(Viannia亚属)被认为是美洲尤其是巴西的优势种,而亚马逊利什曼原虫(Leishmania亚属)和圭亚那利什曼原虫(Viannia亚属)也是重要的病原体[16, 44]。

这些传播循环涉及利什曼原虫种、脊椎动物宿主和多种白蛉媒介之间的相互作用,其生态和地理分布促成了不同的区域传播模式[34, 38]。在人类改造环境中,家养和家周传播可能与森林循环重叠,因为占据不同生态栖息地的脊椎动物宿主可以促进这些传播界面之间的联系[2, 38]。

然而,传统的临床-流行病学区分正受到城郊和人类改造环境中传播循环重叠证据的挑战。研究表明,生态重叠、宿主容许性和环境变化可能允许不同虫种共同循环,使传统的二分分类变得复杂[25, 50]。

在巴西,内脏利什曼病近几十年来经历了显著的流行病学转变,从主要在农村传播转变为持续的城市和城郊循环。这种扩张反映了利什曼原虫种及其媒介对人类改造环境的适应性,促进了媒介、家养储存宿主和人类群体之间更密切的接触。环境退化、人类和动物种群的迁移以及不稳定的住房被认定为促进寄生虫持续存在和地理扩张的重要因素[26, 50]。

气候变化可能通过改变影响媒介分布和疾病发生的环境条件进一步影响利什曼病传播,巴西利什曼病的地理分布可能发生变化[23]。尽管实施了国家监测和控制策略,传播在多个城市中心仍然严重,尤其是巴西东北部,地方性流行在复杂的社会环境条件下持续存在[26, 50]。

家犬被认为是利什曼原虫(L. infantum)的主要城市储存宿主;然而,其他家养物种尤其是猫正受到越来越多的关注,其流行病学作用仍不完全清楚[12]。利什曼原虫(L. infantum)和巴西利什曼原虫被认为是南美洲犬利什曼病中流行病学上最相关的虫种。值得注意的是,亚马逊利什曼原虫已从具有内脏表现的犬中分离出来,突显了非典型宿主-寄生虫相互作用以及种级鉴定的必要性。这些发现强调了在地方性流行环境中进行种级分子鉴别的必要性,因为不同利什曼原虫种可能在同一地区共存[14]。重要的是,多种利什曼原虫种的出现并不限于家养动物,因为巴西东北部的小型哺乳动物中也记录了共感染,包括在不同宿主物种中同时检测到利什曼原虫(Viannia)spp.和利什曼原虫(L. infantum)(L.)[19]。

除内脏利什曼病外,美洲皮肤利什曼病(ATL)家庭内传播的增加也引发了对其犬流行病学作用的关注[18]。同样,没有一致证据支持猫在该病流行病学链中的作用,尽管在地方性流行区经常检测到感染动物[13]。这些不确定性突显了对宿主参与和传播动态理解方面的空白,特别是在多种利什曼原虫种可能共存的地区。准确的诊断和虫种鉴定至关重要,尤其是在地方性流行区,以便描述该病的流行病学特征并支持有效的控制策略[39, 43]。

家养动物中非典型虫种分子检测的报道引发了对地方性流行区未被充分认识的传播模式的质疑。然而,家养环境中共同循环的利什曼原虫种的频率、分布和流行病学意义仍知之甚少,尤其是在城市地方性流行环境中[33]。

在此背景下,巴西东北部的圣路易斯代表了一个相关的流行病学环境,其特征是持续的内脏利什曼病传播、城郊扩张以及可能有利于媒介、家养动物和野生动物之间相互作用的环境条件。大都市区报道的白蛉区系中,最丰富的物种包括长须罗蛉和惠特曼罗蛉,以及黄盾罗蛉,这些媒介与内脏和皮肤利什曼病传播循环相关[30]。

因此,本研究旨在调查巴西东北部内脏利什曼病流行区家犬和家猫中利什曼原虫属的血清学和分子学发生情况,特别侧重于鉴定利什曼原虫(L. infantum)和亚马逊利什曼原虫的潜在共同流行。该方法旨在探讨该地区家养动物中利什曼原虫感染的流行病学背景是否可能超出主要与利什曼原虫(L. infantum)相关的经典城市循环。

方法

伦理批准

本研究经马拉尼昂州立大学动物使用伦理委员会(CEEA/UEMA 编号 09/2018)和巴西国家研究伦理委员会(Plataforma Brasil)批准。在样本采集前已获得所有动物主人的书面知情同意。

研究区域

The study was conducted in three peri-urban neighborhoods of São Luís (2° 31′ S, 44° 18′ W), Maranhão State, northeastern Brazil — Fumacê (2° 33′ 36.4″ S, 44° 20′ 23.9″ W), Anjo da Guarda (2° 33′ 45.1″ S, 44° 19′ 35.0″ W), and Mauro Fecury (2° 32′ 32.5″ S, 44° 19′ 54.2″ W) (Fig. 1). These neighborhoods are located in the Itaqui-Bacanga region, which comprises residential neighborhoods and major port and industrial activities [1]. The region also presents limitations in urban infrastructure and sanitation, including restricted sewage coverage [40]. The municipality has a tropical humid climate with marked seasonal rainfall and is historically endemic for visceral leishmaniasis [42]. According to the Brazilian Notifiable Diseases Information System (SINAN), 205 confirmed human cases of visceral leishmaniasis were reported among residents of São Luís between 2020 and 2025, indicating continued transmission in the municipality [7].

[图:马拉尼昂州地图,突出显示圣路易斯市和三个研究地点]

论文配图

研究设计与样本量

采用横断面研究,对六个月以上的家养犬和猫进行便利抽样。

犬的样本量使用 Epi Info(CDC)的 StatCalc 模块估算,考虑有限总体。由于缺乏研究区域犬群既往患病率数据,采用50%的预期患病率作为样本量估算的保守假设[49],置信水平为95%,精确度为5%,得出调整后样本量为323只犬,向上取整为330只动物。根据此前巴西犬内脏利什曼病流行病学研究使用的每10名人类居民一只犬的比例[3],以及市卫生部门提供的数据显示采样区域约20,355名人类居民,研究区域估计犬群约为2,035只动物。

未对猫进行正式的样本量计算。猫的采样(n = 21)为探索性,样本量较小,因为在走访的家庭中猫的可获得性低于犬。此外,猫的采样受到保定和采血困难的限制,部分主人因担心操作相关应激而拒绝采血。

样本采集

采样于2020年7月至10月在纳入研究的三个城市社区(Fumacê、Anjo da Guarda 和 Mauro Fecury)进行。在当地社区卫生工作人员的协助下挨家挨户招募家庭。所有符合条件的六个月以上家养犬和猫,其主人同意参与者均被纳入,每个家庭采样动物数量无预设限制。因此,当参与家庭中存在多只符合条件的动物时,所有动物均可被采样。每个社区共采样110只犬,最终330只犬纳入研究。

通过头静脉或颈静脉穿刺采集外周血。血清经离心分离后于−20 °C保存至血清学检测。全血等分样本在野外采集后立即按 Pacheco 等[29]的方法以1:1(v/v)血液与乙醇比例保存于乙醇中。样本在冷藏条件下用带可重复使用冰袋的保温容器运送至实验室,随后于−20 °C保存用于分子学分析。选择外周血是因其微创性,可确保在大规模流行病学调查中获得更高的主人依从性,从而实现更具代表性的群体抽样。

流行病学数据

主人填写结构化问卷,内容涉及动物特征(年龄、性别、临床症状、生活方式)、环境条件(有机物存在、其他动物、既往利什曼病病例)和预防措施。具体而言,流行病学变量包括年龄、性别、街道接触、动物获取方式、有机物堆积、家庭中其他动物的存在、家庭中另一只疑似或确诊利什曼病动物的存在、家庭中利什曼原虫阳性动物或人间病例史、家庭周围野生动物的存在、宅周特征以及预防和控制措施的采用。

根据畜主报告的信息,记录了家庭周围野生动物的存在情况。这些动物不一定被归类为伴人动物。外出定义为是否允许动物离开家庭场所。预防和控制措施包括为犬使用杀虫剂浸渍项圈、环境管理及清除住所周围的有机物、使用杀虫剂、在门窗上安装纱窗、使用驱虫剂或蚊帐,以及对伴侣动物进行常规兽医监测。临床评估包括记录与犬利什曼病相符的体征,包括皮肤溃疡、弥漫性脱毛、皮炎、眼周鳞屑、甲弯曲、淋巴结肿大、肝脾肿大、黏膜苍白、干性角膜结膜炎、恶病质以及体格检查中观察到的其他临床异常。这些临床发现被记录为流行病学变量,不被视为犬利什曼病的诊断确认。

血清学分析

如前所述[27],对利什曼原虫(L. infantum)和亚马逊利什曼原虫进行了间接免疫荧光抗体试验(IFAT)。使用体外培养的前鞭毛体形式作为抗原。血清样本以1:80的临界稀释度进行筛查,与此前用于犬和猫抗利什曼原虫抗体IFAT血清学检测的方法一致[28, 32]。对利什曼原虫(L. infantum)和亚马逊利什曼原虫抗原采用相同的临界值,以标准化两种抗原之间的血清学比较。IFAT的选择依据研究进行时巴西卫生部可用的指南[6]。阳性样本进行两倍系列稀释以确定终点滴度。当观察到前鞭毛体清晰的周边荧光时,样本被视为阳性。

DNA提取和PCR扩增

使用PureLink™基因组DNA迷你试剂盒(Thermo Fisher Scientific)按照制造商说明提取基因组DNA。使用Schönian等人[41]描述的引物扩增ITS1区域。PCR反应在20 µL的最终体积中进行,包含12.7 µL超纯水、2 µL 10× PCR缓冲液、0.8 µL MgCl₂(50 mM)、2 µL dNTPs(2 mM)、0.1 µL Taq DNA聚合酶(5 U/µL;Invitrogen®,Carlsbad,USA)、0.2 µL每种引物(10 µM)和2 µL模板DNA。热循环条件包括95 °C初始变性3分钟,随后35个循环的95 °C变性30秒、53 °C退火30秒和72 °C延伸1分钟,最后72 °C终延伸5分钟。来自巴西锥虫收集中心的利什曼原虫(L. infantum)和亚马逊利什曼原虫参考DNA作为阳性对照材料纳入,而超纯水用作阴性对照以监测污染。显示约300–350 bp扩增产物(对应于预期ITS1片段)的样本被视为PCR阳性。扩增产物在经SYBR Safe染色的1.5%琼脂糖凝胶上可视化。

聚合酶链反应片段酶切

为区分利什曼原虫虫种,所有PCR阳性产物按照Schönian等人[41]的方法用HaeIII进行限制性酶切。每个酶切反应包含12.5 µL纯化PCR产物、2 µL 10×反应缓冲液、1 µL HaeIII限制性内切酶和超纯水补足最终反应体积。必要时重复PCR扩增和限制性酶切。仅将与参考对照比较后足够清晰且可解释的限制性图谱用于虫种鉴定。限制性图谱缺失、微弱或界定不清的样本未进行利什曼原虫虫种归属。

将样本获得的限制性图谱与利什曼原虫(L. infantum)和亚马逊利什曼原虫参考对照的图谱进行比较。酶切片段在2%琼脂糖凝胶上分离,并在紫外光下观察以确定虫种特异性条带模式。

统计分析

数据使用EpiInfo 6.0版(CDC,Atlanta,USA)进行分析。分类变量之间的关联酌情使用卡方检验或Fisher精确检验进行评估。计算粗比值比(ORs)及其各自的95%置信区间(95% CIs),以量化单变量分析中发现的关联强度和精确度。流行病学分析被视为探索性分析,未进行多变量调整。统计显著性设定为p < 0.05。

结果

研究群体

本研究共纳入330只家养犬和21只猫。犬中,165只(50%)为雄性,165只(50%)为雌性,大多数年龄超过一岁(254/330;76.96%)。猫中,11只(52.38%)为雄性,大多数年龄超过一岁(16/21;76.19%)。

犬和猫的血清学结果

Seroreactivity against L. amazonensis antigen was detected in 125/330 (37.9%) dogs and against L. infantum antigen in 76/330 (23.0%). These totals include animals seroreactive to both antigens. Accordingly, among the 330 dogs, 75 (22.7%) were seroreactive only to L. amazonensis antigen, 26 (7.9%) only to L. infantum antigen, and 50 (15.2%) to both antigens (Fig. 2A). Antibody titers among the 125 dogs seroreactive to L. amazonensis antigen and the 76 dogs seroreactive to L. infantum antigen ranged from 1:80 to 1:5,120 (Table 1). Among dogs seroreactive against L. amazonensis antigen, 74/125 (59.2%) were male and 107/125 (85.6%) were older than one year.

[图:显示犬(A)和猫(中针对利什曼原虫(L. infantum)和亚马逊利什曼原虫抗原血清反应性的维恩图]

论文配图

Table 1. Anti- Leishmania infantum and Leishmania amazonensis antibody titers in dogs and cats tested by indirect immunofluorescence antibody test (IFAT)

Table 1 Anti- Leishmania infantum and Leishmania amazonensis antibody titers in dogs and cats tested by indirect immunofluorescence antibody test (IFAT)
Leishmania infantum Leishmania amazonensis
TiterDogs n (%)Cats n (%)Dogs n (%)Cats n (%)
1:8029 (38.16)3 (100.00)40 (32.00)4 (66.67)
1:16023 (30.26)–38 (30.40)2 (33.33)
1:32015 (19.74)–31 (24.80)–
1:6407 (9.21)–8 (6.40)–
1:1,2802 (2.63)–6 (4.80)–
1:2,560––1 (0.80)–
1:5,120––1 (0.80)–
Total76 (100.00)3 (100.00)125 (100.00)6 (100.00)

在76只对利什曼原虫(L. infantum)抗原呈血清反应性的犬中,16只(21.1%)记录到与犬利什曼病相符的临床症状,包括皮肤溃疡、弥漫性脱毛、皮炎、甲弯曲、恶病质、肝脾肿大和淋巴结肿大。

在猫中,6/21(28.6%)检测到针对亚马逊利什曼原虫抗原的血清反应性,3/21(14.3%)检测到针对利什曼原虫(L. infantum)抗原的血清反应性。这些总数包括对两种抗原本均呈血清反应性的动物。因此,在21只猫中,4只(19.0%)仅对亚马逊利什曼原虫抗原呈血清反应性,1只(4.8%)仅对利什曼原虫(L. infantum)抗原呈血清反应性,2只(9.5%)对两种抗原均呈血清反应性(图2B)。6只对亚马逊利什曼原虫抗原呈血清反应性的猫和3只对利什曼原虫(L. infantum)抗原呈血清反应性的猫的抗体滴度范围为1:80至1:160(表1)。一只血清反应性猫表现出皮肤病变。

分子检测与虫种鉴定

PCR在58/330(17.6%)只犬和2/21(9.5%)只猫中检测到利什曼原虫DNA。通过针对ITS1区域的PCR–RFLP进行分子鉴定,基于已建立的限制性酶切图谱实现了利什曼原虫虫种的区分。在9/58份PCR阳性犬样本中实现了虫种鉴定。其余49份PCR阳性犬样本未能产生足够质量的限制性酶切图谱以进行可靠的虫种判定,因此在虫种水平上仍未明确。8份样本显示出利什曼原虫(L. infantum)特征性的限制性片段,而1份样本显示出混合限制性酶切图谱,提示存在利什曼原虫(L. infantum)和亚马逊利什曼原虫两者的基因组片段。

在8份显示利什曼原虫(L. infantum)限制性酶切图谱的犬样本中,4份仅对利什曼原虫(L. infantum)抗原呈血清反应性,4份对利什曼原虫(L. infantum)和亚马逊利什曼原虫两种抗原均呈血清反应性。显示混合限制性酶切图谱的犬样本也对两种抗原均呈血清反应性。两份PCR阳性猫样本均显示与利什曼原虫(L. infantum)相符的图谱。两只猫通过IFAT对利什曼原虫(L. infantum)和亚马逊利什曼原虫均呈血清阴性。

血清学与分子学发现及相关因素的综合分析

在PCR阳性犬(n = 58)中,14只(24.14%)同时对利什曼原虫(L. infantum)抗原呈血清反应性,20只(34.48%)对亚马逊利什曼原虫抗原呈血清反应性(包括8只对两种抗原均呈血清反应性的犬),32只(55.17%)通过IFAT对两种抗原均呈血清阴性。

对于利什曼原虫(L. infantum),单变量分析显示血清反应性与年龄大于一岁(OR = 2.27;95% CI 1.10–4.67;p = 0.023)(表2)、雄性(OR = 1.81;95% CI 1.07–3.07;p = 0.025)以及存在与犬利什曼病相符的临床症状(OR = 2.87;95% CI 1.42–5.81;p = 0.002)之间存在显著关联。表2. 巴西马拉尼昂州圣路易斯市犬对利什曼原虫(L. infantum)抗原血清反应性相关因素的单变量分析

对于亚马逊利什曼原虫,观察到与年龄大于一岁(p = 0.003)、雄性(p = 0.009)、可上街活动(p = 0.002)以及住所周围存在野生动物(p = 0.003)存在显著关联(表3)。表3. 巴西马拉尼昂州圣路易斯市犬对亚马逊利什曼原虫抗原血清反应性相关因素的单变量分析

讨论

本研究调查了巴西东北部内脏利什曼病流行区家养犬和猫中利什曼原虫属的发生情况,重点关注利什曼原虫(L. infantum)和亚马逊利什曼原虫的潜在共同流行。在犬中,检测到对利什曼原虫(L. infantum)和亚马逊利什曼原虫两种抗原的血清反应性,而分子鉴定主要鉴定为利什曼原虫(L. infantum),其中一份样本显示混合限制性酶切图谱,提示两种虫种同时存在。

血清学分析显示,犬对亚马逊利什曼原虫的反应性高于对利什曼原虫(L. infantum)的反应性。巴西既往研究报告了亚马逊利什曼原虫的血清阳性率存在差异,范围为3.5%至74.8%,取决于所采用的地区和诊断方法[20, 39]。在本研究中,在一个传统上被认定为内脏利什曼病流行区的地区,对亚马逊利什曼原虫抗原的血清反应性较高值得注意,尽管仅凭这一发现不能解释为物种特异性感染的证据。

出现不同的血清学特征值得注意,包括某些动物对亚马逊利什曼原虫的滴度高于对利什曼原虫(L. infantum)的滴度。然而,仅凭血清学反应性并不一定表明存在活动性感染或物种特异性感染[37],尤其是在不同利什曼原虫物种可能共存且可能发生血清学交叉反应的地区。

分子检测在58/330(17.6%)份犬样本中鉴定出利什曼原虫DNA,但仅在9/58份PCR阳性样本中获得了可解读的PCR–RFLP图谱。其余样本的酶切图谱缺失、微弱或界定不清,因此未进行物种鉴定。尽管使用外周血可能因寄生虫载量低而给分子检测带来挑战[17, 51],但这不能单独解释本研究中观察到的PCR–RFLP鉴定有限的情况。在成功鉴定的样本中,利什曼原虫(L. infantum)占优势,而一份混合酶切图谱提示同时存在利什曼原虫(L. infantum)和亚马逊利什曼原虫。鉴于在物种水平上鉴定的样本数量有限,这一发现在对两种抗原均有血清反应性的背景下值得注意,但应谨慎解读。

血清学与分子结果之间的差异,包括PCR阳性/血清阴性动物,可能反映感染阶段、免疫应答或样本类型的差异[15]。在流行区也报告过类似的不一致发现[26]。尽管对亚马逊利什曼原虫抗原的血清反应性较高,但分子鉴定有限,这可能反映寄生虫载量、样本类型或其他方法学因素的差异,因此应谨慎解读。

与利什曼原虫(L. infantum)抗原血清反应性相关的因素包括年龄大于一岁、雄性性别和临床症状,而与亚马逊利什曼原虫抗原血清反应性相关的因素包括年龄大于一岁、雄性性别、可接触街道以及报告住所周围存在野生动物。这些发现与既往报告一致,提示更大的环境暴露可能与接触感染性白蛉增加有关[5]。成年动物可能随时间累积媒介暴露,而游荡行为可能增加接触媒介的机会。

在一部分血清反应阳性犬中观察到与犬利什曼病相符的临床症状,这与所报道的犬利什曼病临床表现多样一致。既往研究表明,感染不一定导致临床症状,相当比例的感染犬保持无症状[4, 45]。从无症状感染到严重疾病的各种临床表现受宿主免疫应答和寄生虫载量的影响[46]。在本研究中观察到的这些临床症状属于犬利什曼病中最常见的报告症状之列。

在猫中,血清反应性低于犬,分子检测仅限于两份鉴定为利什曼原虫(L. infantum)的样本。巴西关于亚马逊利什曼原虫感染猫的报告仍然罕见[9, 47, 48]。在两只猫中分子检测到利什曼原虫(L. infantum),证实了研究地区存在猫感染,这与既往报告一致,即猫感染通常为亚临床或与皮肤症状相关[31]。本研究中猫样本量小,限制了对某流行病学作用的任何推断,但观察到了血清反应性和分子检测阳性,其对传播动态的贡献仍有待进一步研究。

研究报告的研究地区环境特征——包括卫生和污水处理基础设施有限,以及报告住所周围存在小家鼠和负鼠等动物——可能有利于媒介维持[22]。尽管未进行昆虫学调查,但既往报告已记录圣路易斯存在合格的白蛉媒介[21, 35],支持这些城郊环境中存在活动性传播的可能性。

在考虑该地区可能出现不同利什曼原虫虫种时,媒介成分也具有重要意义。Lutzomyia longipalpis是美洲利什曼原虫(L. infantum)的主要媒介,被认为是一种允许性白蛉媒介,因为它能够支持不同利什曼原虫虫种的发育,而选择性媒介则表现出更为受限的寄生虫–媒介相容性[36, 52]。尽管亚马逊利什曼原虫经典上与Lutzomyia flaviscutellata相关,但其DNA也已在巴西东北部自然感染的Lu. longipalpis中被检测到[10]。这些观察表明,媒介–寄生虫关联可能比单一白蛉与单一利什曼原虫虫种之间的严格对应关系更为复杂。然而,实验条件下的允许性或现场采集白蛉中寄生虫DNA的检测并不能确立其在自然传播中的作用。由于本研究未进行昆虫学调查,家养动物中的血清学和分子学发现不能归因于任何特定媒介虫种。

本研究中观察到的动物发现还应在当地人间内脏利什曼病的流行病学背景下加以考虑。Itaqui-Bacanga地区曾参与圣路易斯内脏利什曼病的城市扩张,而Anjo da Guarda——此处调查的社区之一——属于该病城市化及地理扩张期间受人间病例影响的地区[24]。更近期的监测数据表明,该市人间VL继续发生,2020年至2025年间报告了205例确诊病例[7]。在此背景下,犬中检测到利什曼原虫DNA以及成功鉴定样本中以利什曼原虫(L. infantum)为主,与圣路易斯VL的地方性流行背景相一致。然而,由于未调查人间感染,且现有监测数据针对整个市,无法建立动物发现与三个社区人间病例发生之间的直接关系。

重要的是,对亚马逊利什曼原虫抗原的血清反应性,连同在一只犬中检测到混合PCR–RFLP图谱,提示该流行病学环境中可能涉及不同利什曼原虫虫种,尽管仅凭混合图谱并不能确认共感染。

本研究存在局限性,包括仅使用外周血进行分子检测、猫样本数量少以及PCR–RFLP虫种鉴定成功率较低。此外,缺乏组织采样和昆虫学调查可能限制了研究区域寄生虫多样性和传播动力学的检测。

由于流行病学关联基于单变量分析,不能排除所评估因素之间的潜在混杂。因此,这些发现应解释为探索性关联而非独立危险因素。

总之,在内脏利什曼病地方性流行地区的家犬和家猫中检测到对利什曼原虫(L. infantum)和亚马逊利什曼原虫抗原的血清反应性,而分子鉴定主要鉴定为利什曼原虫(L. infantum)。犬中对亚马逊利什曼原虫抗原较高的血清反应性,连同在一只动物中观察到的混合PCR–RFLP图谱,提出了该地区家养动物中利什曼原虫的发生可能不限于利什曼原虫(L. infantum)的可能性。然而,考虑到潜在的血清学交叉反应和有限的虫种水平分子鉴定,这些发现应谨慎解释。总体而言,结果凸显了在流行病学调查中考虑不同利什曼原虫虫种以及结合血清学和分子学方法以更好地理解城市地方性流行环境中利什曼原虫发生的价值。

查看英文原文▾

Introduction

Leishmaniasis is a complex vector-borne disease caused by protozoa of the genus Leishmania, transmitted by phlebotomine sandflies, and remains a major public health concern in tropical and subtropical regions, affecting both humans and domestic animals. In the Americas, visceral leishmaniasis (VL) is primarily associated with Leishmania infantum [8, 11]. American tegumentary leishmaniasis is associated with several Leishmania species, with Leishmania (Viannia) braziliensis recognized as the predominant species in the Americas and particularly in Brazil, while Leishmania (Leishmania) amazonensis and Leishmania (Viannia) guyanensis are also important etiological agents [16, 44].

These transmission cycles involve interactions among Leishmania species, vertebrate hosts, and diverse phlebotomine sand fly vectors, whose ecological and geographic distributions contribute to distinct regional transmission patterns [34, 38]. In anthropized environments, domestic and peridomestic transmission may overlap with sylvatic cycles, as vertebrate hosts occupying different ecological habitats can contribute to connections between these transmission interfaces [2, 38].

However, the classical clinical–epidemiological distinction is being challenged by evidence of overlapping transmission cycles in peri-urban and anthropized environments. Studies suggest that ecological overlap, host permissiveness, and environmental changes may allow different species to circulate together, complicating the traditional dichotomous classification [25, 50].

In Brazil, visceral leishmaniasis has undergone a marked epidemiological transition over recent decades, shifting from predominantly rural transmission to sustained urban and peri-urban cycles. This expansion reflects the adaptability of Leishmania spp. and their vectors to human-modified environments, facilitating closer contact between vectors, domestic reservoirs, and human populations. Environmental degradation, migration of human and animal populations, and precarious housing are recognized as important factors contributing to parasite persistence and geographic expansion [26, 50].

Climate change may further influence leishmaniasis transmission by altering environmental conditions that affect vector distribution and disease occurrence, with potential changes in the geographic distribution of leishmaniasis in Brazil [23]. Despite the implementation of national surveillance and control strategies, transmission remains intense in several urban centers, particularly in northeastern Brazil, where endemicity persists under complex socio-environmental conditions [26, 50].

Domestic dogs are considered the main urban reservoir of L. infantum; however, growing attention has been given to other domestic species, particularly cats, whose epidemiological role remains incompletely understood [12]. L. infantum and Leishmania braziliensis are considered the most epidemiologically relevant species in canine leishmaniasis in South America. Notably, L. amazonensis has been isolated from dogs with visceral manifestations, highlighting atypical host–parasite interactions and the need for species-level identification. These findings reinforce the need for species-level molecular discrimination in endemic settings, as distinct Leishmania species may coexist in the same area [14]. Importantly, the occurrence of multiple Leishmania species is not restricted to domestic animals, as coinfection has also been documented in small mammals in northeastern Brazil, including the simultaneous detection of L. (Viannia) spp. and L. (L.) infantum in different host species [19].

Beyond visceral leishmaniasis, the increasing domestic transmission of American Tegumentary Leishmaniasis (ATL) has also raised concerns regarding the epidemiological role of dogs [18]. Likewise, there is no consistent evidence supporting the role of cats in the epidemiological chain of the disease, although infected animals are frequently detected in endemic areas [13]. These uncertainties highlight gaps in understanding host participation and transmission dynamics, particularly where multiple Leishmania species may coexist. Accurate diagnosis and species identification are essential, especially in endemic regions, in order to characterize the epidemiological profile of the disease and support effective control strategies [39, 43].

Reports of molecular detection of atypical species in domestic animals have raised questions regarding under-recognized transmission patterns in endemic areas. However, the frequency, distribution, and epidemiological significance of co-circulating Leishmania species in domestic environments remain poorly understood, particularly in urban endemic settings [33].

In this context, São Luís, in northeastern Brazil, represents a relevant epidemiological setting, characterized by sustained visceral leishmaniasis transmission, peri-urban expansion, and environmental conditions that may favor the interaction between vectors, domestic animals, and wildlife. Phlebotomine fauna reported in the metropolitan region includes Lutzomyia longipalpis and Lutzomyia whitmani among the most abundant species, as well as Lutzomyia flaviscutellata, vectors associated with visceral and tegumentary leishmaniasis transmission cycles [30].

Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the serological and molecular occurrence of Leishmania spp. in domestic dogs and cats from an endemic area for visceral leishmaniasis in northeastern Brazil, with special emphasis on identifying potential co-circulation of L. infantum and L. amazonensis. This approach was intended to explore whether the epidemiological context of Leishmania infection in domestic animals in this area could extend beyond the classical urban cycle predominantly associated with L. infantum.

Methods

Ethical Approval

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee on Animal Use of the State University of Maranhão (CEEA/UEMA no. 09/2018) and by the Brazilian National Research Ethics Commission (Plataforma Brasil). Written informed consent was obtained from all animal owners prior to sample collection.

Study Area

The study was conducted in three peri-urban neighborhoods of São Luís (2° 31′ S, 44° 18′ W), Maranhão State, northeastern Brazil — Fumacê (2° 33′ 36.4″ S, 44° 20′ 23.9″ W), Anjo da Guarda (2° 33′ 45.1″ S, 44° 19′ 35.0″ W), and Mauro Fecury (2° 32′ 32.5″ S, 44° 19′ 54.2″ W) (Fig. 1). These neighborhoods are located in the Itaqui-Bacanga region, which comprises residential neighborhoods and major port and industrial activities [1]. The region also presents limitations in urban infrastructure and sanitation, including restricted sewage coverage [40]. The municipality has a tropical humid climate with marked seasonal rainfall and is historically endemic for visceral leishmaniasis [42]. According to the Brazilian Notifiable Diseases Information System (SINAN), 205 confirmed human cases of visceral leishmaniasis were reported among residents of São Luís between 2020 and 2025, indicating continued transmission in the municipality [7].

[图:Maranhão State map, highlighting the city of São Luís and the three studied locations]

论文配图

Study Design and Sample Size

A cross-sectional study was conducted using convenience sampling of domiciled dogs and cats older than six months.

Sample size for dogs was estimated using the StatCalc module of Epi Info (CDC), considering a finite population. In the absence of previous prevalence data for the canine population in the study area, an expected prevalence of 50% was adopted as a conservative assumption for sample size estimation [49], with a 95% confidence level and 5% precision, resulting in an adjusted sample size of 323 dogs, which was rounded up to 330 animals. The estimated canine population in the study area was approximately 2,035 animals, based on a ratio of one dog per 10 human inhabitants, as previously used in a Brazilian epidemiological study of canine visceral leishmaniasis [3], and a human population of approximately 20,355 inhabitants in the sampled area, according to data provided by the Municipal Health Department.

No formal sample size calculation was performed for cats. Feline sampling (n = 21) was exploratory and resulted in a smaller sample because cats were less frequently available than dogs in the households visited. In addition, feline sampling was constrained by difficulties in restraint and blood collection, and some owners declined blood collection because of concerns about handling-related stress.

Sample Collection

Sampling was conducted from July to October 2020 in the three urban neighborhoods included in the study (Fumacê, Anjo da Guarda, and Mauro Fecury). Households were recruited door-to-door with the assistance of local Community Health Agents. All eligible domiciled dogs and cats older than six months whose owners agreed to participate were included, with no predefined limit on the number of animals sampled per household. Thus, when multiple eligible animals were present in a participating household, all could be sampled. A total of 110 dogs were sampled in each neighborhood, resulting in 330 dogs being included in the study.

Peripheral blood was collected by cephalic or jugular venipuncture. Serum was separated by centrifugation and stored at −20 °C until serological testing. Whole blood aliquots were preserved in ethanol at a 1:1 (v/v) blood-to-ethanol ratio immediately after collection in the field, following Pacheco et al. [29]. The samples were transported under refrigeration in insulated containers with reusable ice packs until arrival at the laboratory and subsequently stored at −20 °C for molecular analyses. Peripheral blood was selected due to its minimally invasive nature, which ensures higher owner compliance in large-scale epidemiological surveys, allowing for a more representative population sampling.

Epidemiological Data

Owners completed a structured questionnaire addressing animal characteristics (age, sex, clinical signs, lifestyle), environmental conditions (presence of organic matter, other animals, previous leishmaniasis cases), and preventive measures. Specifically, the epidemiological variables included age, sex, access to the street, mode of acquisition of the animal, accumulation of organic matter, presence of other animals in the household, presence of another animal with suspected or diagnosed leishmaniasis in the household, history of Leishmania-positive animals or human cases in the household, presence of wild animals around the household, peridomiciliary characteristics, and adoption of preventive and control measures.

The presence of wild animals around the household was recorded based on information reported by the owners. These animals were not necessarily classified as synanthropic. Access to the street was defined as whether the animal was allowed to leave the household premises. Preventive and control measures included the use of insecticide-impregnated collars for dogs, environmental management and removal of organic matter from the peridomicile, insecticide use, installation of screens on doors and windows, use of repellents or mosquito nets, and routine veterinary monitoring of companion animals. Clinical evaluation included the recording of signs compatible with canine leishmaniasis, including cutaneous ulcers, diffuse alopecia, dermatitis, periocular scaling, onychogryphosis, lymphadenomegaly, hepatosplenomegaly, mucosal pallor, keratoconjunctivitis sicca, cachexia and other clinical abnormalities observed during physical examinations. These clinical findings were recorded as epidemiological variables and were not considered diagnostic confirmation of canine leishmaniasis.

Serological Analysis

Indirect immunofluorescence antibody tests (IFAT) were performed for L. infantum and L. amazonensis as previously described [27]. Promastigote forms cultured in vitro were used as antigens. Serum samples were screened at a cutoff dilution of 1:80, as previously adopted for IFAT-based serological detection of anti-Leishmania antibodies in dogs and cats [28, 32]. The same cutoff was applied to both L. infantum and L. amazonensis antigens to standardize the serological comparison between the two antigens. IFAT was selected in accordance with the Brazilian Ministry of Health guidelines available at the time the study was conducted [6]. Positive samples were serially diluted two-fold to determine endpoint titers. Samples were considered positive when clear peripheral fluorescence of promastigotes was observed.

DNA Extraction and PCR Amplification

Genomic DNA was extracted using the PureLink™ Genomic DNA Mini Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific) following the manufacturer’s instructions. The ITS1 region was amplified using primers described by Schönian et al. [41]. PCR reactions were performed in a final volume of 20 µL containing 12.7 µL of ultrapure water, 2 µL of 10× PCR buffer, 0.8 µL of MgCl₂ (50 mM), 2 µL of dNTPs (2 mM), 0.1 µL of Taq DNA polymerase (5 U/µL; Invitrogen®, Carlsbad, USA), 0.2 µL of each primer (10 µM), and 2 µL of template DNA. The thermal cycling conditions consisted of an initial denaturation at 95 °C for 3 min, followed by 35 cycles of denaturation at 95 °C for 30 s, annealing at 53 °C for 30 s, and extension at 72 °C for 1 min, with a final extension at 72 °C for 5 min. Reference DNA from L. infantum and L. amazonensis, obtained from the Brazilian Trypanosomatid Collection, was included as positive-control material, whereas ultrapure water was used as the negative control to monitor contamination. Samples showing an amplification product of approximately 300–350 bp, corresponding to the expected ITS1 fragment, were considered PCR-positive. Amplified products were visualized on 1.5% agarose gels stained with SYBR Safe.

Digestion of Polymerase Chain Reaction Fragments

To differentiate Leishmania species, all PCR-positive products were subjected to restriction digestion with HaeIII according to Schönian et al. [41]. Each digestion reaction contained 12.5 µL of purified PCR product, 2 µL of 10× reaction buffer, 1 µL of HaeIII restriction enzyme, and ultrapure water to complete the final reaction volume. PCR amplification and restriction digestion were repeated when necessary. Only restriction profiles that were sufficiently clear and interpretable by comparison with the reference controls were used for species characterization. Samples yielding absent, weak, or poorly defined restriction profiles were not assigned to a Leishmania species.

The restriction profiles obtained from the samples were compared with those of L. infantum and L. amazonensis reference controls. Digested fragments were separated on 2% agarose gels and visualized under UV light to determine species-specific banding patterns.

Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed using EpiInfo version 6.0 (CDC, Atlanta, USA). Associations between categorical variables were evaluated using Chi-square or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate. Crude odds ratios (ORs) and their respective 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated to quantify the magnitude and precision of the associations identified in the univariable analysis. The epidemiological analyses were considered exploratory, and no multivariable adjustment was performed. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results

Study Population

A total of 330 domiciled dogs and 21 cats were included in this study. Among dogs, 165 (50%) were male and 165 (50%) were female, and the majority were older than one year (254/330; 76.96%). Among cats, 11 (52.38%) were male, and most were older than one year (16/21; 76.19%).

Serological Findings in Dogs and Cats

Seroreactivity against L. amazonensis antigen was detected in 125/330 (37.9%) dogs and against L. infantum antigen in 76/330 (23.0%). These totals include animals seroreactive to both antigens. Accordingly, among the 330 dogs, 75 (22.7%) were seroreactive only to L. amazonensis antigen, 26 (7.9%) only to L. infantum antigen, and 50 (15.2%) to both antigens (Fig. 2A). Antibody titers among the 125 dogs seroreactive to L. amazonensis antigen and the 76 dogs seroreactive to L. infantum antigen ranged from 1:80 to 1:5,120 (Table 1). Among dogs seroreactive against L. amazonensis antigen, 74/125 (59.2%) were male and 107/125 (85.6%) were older than one year.

[图:Venn diagrams showing seroreactivity to Leishmania infantum and Leishmania amazonensis antigens in dogs ( A ) and cats (]

论文配图

Table 1. Anti- Leishmania infantum and Leishmania amazonensis antibody titers in dogs and cats tested by indirect immunofluorescence antibody test (IFAT)

Table 1 Anti- Leishmania infantum and Leishmania amazonensis antibody titers in dogs and cats tested by indirect immunofluorescence antibody test (IFAT)
Leishmania infantum Leishmania amazonensis
TiterDogs n (%)Cats n (%)Dogs n (%)Cats n (%)
1:8029 (38.16)3 (100.00)40 (32.00)4 (66.67)
1:16023 (30.26)–38 (30.40)2 (33.33)
1:32015 (19.74)–31 (24.80)–
1:6407 (9.21)–8 (6.40)–
1:1,2802 (2.63)–6 (4.80)–
1:2,560––1 (0.80)–
1:5,120––1 (0.80)–
Total76 (100.00)3 (100.00)125 (100.00)6 (100.00)

Clinical signs compatible with canine leishmaniasis were recorded in 16/76 (21.1%) dogs seroreactive to L. infantum antigen, including cutaneous ulcers, diffuse alopecia, dermatitis, onychogryphosis, cachexia, hepatosplenomegaly and lymphadenomegaly.

In cats, seroreactivity against L. amazonensis antigen was detected in 6/21 (28.6%) animals and against L. infantum antigen in 3/21 (14.3%). These totals include animals seroreactive to both antigens. Accordingly, among the 21 cats, 4 (19.0%) were seroreactive only to L. amazonensis antigen, 1 (4.8%) only to L. infantum antigen, and 2 (9.5%) to both antigens (Fig. 2B). Antibody titers among the six cats seroreactive to L. amazonensis antigen and the three cats seroreactive to L. infantum antigen ranged from 1:80 to 1:160 (Table 1). One seroreactive cat showed cutaneous lesions.

Molecular Detection and Species Identification

PCR detected Leishmania DNA in 58/330 (17.6%) dogs and 2/21 (9.5%) cats. Molecular identification via PCR–RFLP targeting the ITS1 region allowed for the differentiation of Leishmania species based on well-established restriction profiles. Species identification was achieved in 9/58 PCR-positive canine samples. The remaining 49 PCR-positive canine samples did not yield restriction profiles of sufficient quality for reliable species assignment and therefore remained uncharacterized at the species level. Eight samples showed restriction fragments characteristic of L. infantum, while one sample demonstrated a mixed restriction pattern, suggesting the presence of genomic fragments from both L. infantum and L. amazonensis.

Among the eight canine samples showing an L. infantum restriction profile, four were seroreactive only to L. infantum antigen and four were seroreactive to both L. infantum and L. amazonensis antigens. The canine sample showing the mixed restriction profile was also seroreactive to both antigens. Both PCR-positive feline samples showed patterns compatible with L. infantum. Both cats were seronegative by IFAT for L. infantum and L. amazonensis.

Integrated Analysis of Serological and Molecular Findings and Associated Factors

Among PCR-positive dogs (n = 58), 14 (24.14%) were also seroreactive to L. infantum antigen, 20 (34.48%) to L. amazonensis antigen, including eight dogs that were seroreactive to both antigens, and 32 (55.17%) were seronegative by IFAT for both antigens.

For L. infantum, univariable analysis showed significant associations between seroreactivity and age greater than one year (OR = 2.27; 95% CI 1.10–4.67; p = 0.023) (Table 2), male sex (OR = 1.81; 95% CI 1.07–3.07; p = 0.025), and the presence of clinical signs compatible with canine leishmaniasis (OR = 2.87; 95% CI 1.42–5.81; p = 0.002).

Table 2. Univariable analysis of factors associated with seroreactivity to Leishmania infantum antigen in dogs from São Luís, Maranhão, Brazil

Table 2 Univariable analysis of factors associated with seroreactivity to Leishmania infantum antigen in dogs from São Luís, Maranhão, Brazil
VariableCategoryPositive/Exposed%Negative/Exposed%Crude OR (95% CI) P value
Access to the streetNo15/5626.7941/5673.211.000.426
Yes60/27421.90214/27478.10.77 (0.40–1.48)
Accumulation of organic matterNo9/3525.7126/3574.291.000.656
Yes66/29522.37229/29577.630.83 (0.37–1.86)
Animal with suspected or diagnosed leishmaniasis in the householdNo66/28523.16219/28576.841.000.639
Yes9/4520.0036/45800.83 (0.38–1.81)
Other animals in the householdNo38/14725.85109/14774.151.000.225
Yes37/18320.22146/18379.780.73 (0.43–1.22)
History of an animal leishmaniasis caseNo69/30922.33240/30977.671.000.509
Yes6/2128.5715/2171.431.39 (0.52–3.72)
History of a human leishmaniasis caseNo75/32922.80254/32977.21.001.000†
Yes0/10.001/1100NE
Adoption of control measuresNo38/18520.54147/18579.461.000.284
Yes37/14525.52108/14574.481.33 (0.79–2.22)
Age< 1 year10/7613.1666/7686.841.000.023*
>1 year65/25425.59189/25474.412.27 (1.10–4.67)
Reported presence of wild animals around the householdNo10/7014.2960/7085.711.000.058
Yes65/26025.00195/260752.00 (0.97–4.13)
SexFemale29/16517.58136/16582.421.000.026*
Male46/16527.88119/16572.121.81 (1.07–3.07)
Presence of clinical signs compatible with canine leishmaniasisNo59/29220.21233/29279.791.000.002*
Yes16/3842.1122/3857.892.87 (1.42–5.81)
PeridomicileResidences44/19722.34153/19777.661.000.836
Wasteland31/13323.31102/13376.691.06 (0.63–1.78)
How acquired the animal?Bought9/4420.4535/4479.551.000.699
Adopted66/28623.08220/28676.921.17 (0.53–2.55)

For L. amazonensis, significant associations were observed with age greater than one year (p = 0.003), male sex (p = 0.009), street access (p = 0.002), and presence of wild animals around the household (p = 0.003) (Table 3).

Table 3. Univariable analysis of factors associated with seroreactivity to Leishmania amazonensis antigen in dogs from São Luís, Maranhão, Brazil

Table 3 Univariable analysis of factors associated with seroreactivity to Leishmania amazonensis antigen in dogs from São Luís, Maranhão, Brazil
VariableCategoryPositive/Exposed%Negative/Exposed%Crude OR (95% CI) P value
Access to the streetNo11/5619.6445/5680.361.000.002*
Yes114/27441.61160/27458.392.91 (1.45–5.88)
Accumulation of organic matterNo13/3537.1422/3562.861.000.924
Yes112/29537.97183/29562.031.04 (0.50–2.14)
Animal with suspected or diagnosed leishmaniasis in the householdNo110/28538.60175/28561.401.000.498
Yes15/4533.3330/4566.670.80 (0.41–1.55)
Other animals in the householdNo58/14739.4689/14760.541.000.596
Yes67/18336.61116/18363.390.89 (0.57–1.39)
History of an animal leishmaniasis caseNo118/30938.19191/30961.811.000.657
Yes7/2133.3314/2166.670.81 (0.32–2.06)
History of a human leishmaniasis caseNo125/32937.99204/32962.011.001.000†
Yes0/10.001/1100.00NE
Adoption of control measuresNo70/18537.84115/18562.161.000.986
Yes55/14537.9390/14562.071.00 (0.64–1.57)
Age< 1 year18/7623.6858/7676.321.000.003*
>1 year107/25442.13147/25457.872.35 (1.31–4.21)
Reported presence of wild animals around the householdNo16/7022.8654/7077.141.000.003*
Yes109/26041.92151/26058.082.44 (1.32–4.48)
SexFemale51/16530.91114/16569.091.000.009*
Male74/16544.8591/16555.151.82 (1.16–2.85)
Presence of clinical signs compatible with canine leishmaniasisNo106/29236.30186/29263.701.000.101
Yes19/3850.0019/3850.001.75 (0.89–3.46)
PeridomicileResidences68/19734.52129/19765.481.000.125
Wasteland57/13342.8676/13357.141.42 (0.91–2.24)
How acquired the animal?Bought20/4445.4524/4454.551.000.265
Adopted105/28636.71181/28663.290.70 (0.37–1.32)

Discussion

This study investigated the occurrence of Leishmania spp. in domestic dogs and cats from a visceral leishmaniasis–endemic area in northeastern Brazil, focusing on the potential co-circulation of L. infantum and L. amazonensis. In dogs, seroreactivity to both L. infantum and L. amazonensis antigens were detected, while molecular characterization predominantly identified L. infantum, with one sample showing a mixed restriction profile suggestive of the presence of both species.

Serological analysis showed greater reactivity to L. amazonensis than to L. infantum in dogs. Previous studies in Brazil have reported variable seroprevalence rates for L. amazonensis, ranging from 3.5 to 74.8%, depending on the region and diagnostic method employed [20, 39]. In the present study, the higher seroreactivity to L. amazonensis antigen is noteworthy in an area traditionally recognized as endemic for visceral leishmaniasis, although this finding alone cannot be interpreted as evidence of species-specific infection.

The occurrence of distinct serological profiles, including animals with higher titers for L. amazonensis than for L. infantum, is noteworthy. However, serological reactivity alone does not necessarily indicate active or species-specific infection [37], particularly in areas where different Leishmania species may co-exist and serological cross-reactivity may occur.

Molecular detection identified Leishmania DNA in 58/330 (17.6%) canine samples, although interpretable PCR–RFLP profiles were obtained for only 9/58 PCR-positive samples. The remaining samples yielded absent, weak, or poorly defined restriction profiles and were therefore not assigned to a species. Although the use of peripheral blood may pose challenges for molecular detection because of low parasite loads [17, 51], it cannot alone explain the limited PCR–RFLP characterization observed here. Among the successfully characterized samples, L. infantum predominated, while one mixed restriction profile suggested the presence of both L. infantum and L. amazonensis. This finding is noteworthy in the context of seroreactivity to both antigens but should be interpreted cautiously given the limited number of samples characterized at the species level.

The discrepancy between serological and molecular results, including PCR-positive/seronegative animals, may reflect differences in infection stage, immune response, or sample type [15]. Similar discordant findings have been reported in endemic regions [26]. The limited molecular characterization, despite the higher seroreactivity to L. amazonensis antigen, may reflect differences in parasite load, sample type, or other methodological factors and should therefore be interpreted cautiously.

Factors associated with seroreactivity to L. infantum antigen included age greater than one year, male sex, and clinical signs, whereas seroreactivity to L. amazonensis antigen was associated with age greater than one year, male sex, street access, and the reported presence of wild animals around the household. These findings are consistent with previous reports suggesting that greater environmental exposure may be associated with increased contact with infected sand flies [5]. Adult animals may accumulate vector exposure over time, and roaming behavior may increase opportunities for vector contact.

Clinical signs compatible with canine leishmaniasis were observed in a subset of seroreactive dogs, consistent with the variable clinical presentation reported for canine leishmaniasis. Previous research has shown that infection does not necessarily lead to clinical symptoms, and a significant proportion of infected dogs remain asymptomatic [4, 45]. The wide range of clinical manifestations, extending from asymptomatic infections to severe disease, is influenced by the host's immune response and parasite load [46]. When observed in this study, these clinical signs were among the most common reported in canine leishmaniasis.

In cats, seroreactivity was lower than in dogs, and molecular detection was limited to two samples identified as L. infantum. Reports of feline infection by L. amazonensis remain rare in Brazil [9, 47, 48]. The molecular detection of L. infantum in two cats confirms the occurrence of feline infection in the study area, consistent with previous reports indicating that infection in cats is generally subclinical or associated with dermatological symptoms [31]. The small feline sample size in this study limits any inference regarding their epidemiological role, but seroreactivity and molecular detection were observed, and their contribution to transmission dynamics remains a subject for further investigation.

Environmental characteristics reported in the study areas—including limitations in sanitation and sewage infrastructure and the reported presence of animals such as Mus musculus and Didelphis marsupialis around households—may favor vector maintenance [22]. Although entomological surveys were not performed, previous reports have documented the presence of competent sandfly vectors in São Luís [21, 35], supporting the plausibility of active transmission in these peri-urban settings.

The vector component is also relevant when considering the possible occurrence of different Leishmania species in this setting. Lutzomyia longipalpis, the principal vector of L. infantum in the Americas, is considered a permissive sand fly vector because it can support the development of different Leishmania species, whereas selective vectors exhibit more restricted parasite–vector compatibility [36, 52]. Although L. amazonensis is classically associated with Lutzomyia flaviscutellata, its DNA has also been detected in naturally infected Lu. longipalpis in northeastern Brazil [10]. These observations illustrate that vector–parasite associations may be more complex than a strict correspondence between a single sand fly and a single Leishmania species. However, permissiveness under experimental conditions or detection of parasite DNA in field-collected sand flies does not establish their role in natural transmission. Because no entomological survey was performed in the present study, the serological and molecular findings in domestic animals cannot be attributed to any particular vector species.

The animal findings observed in this study should also be considered within the local epidemiological context of human visceral leishmaniasis. The Itaqui-Bacanga region was involved in the urban expansion of visceral leishmaniasis in São Luís, and Anjo da Guarda, one of the neighborhoods investigated here, was among the areas affected by human cases during the urbanization and geographic expansion of the disease [24]. More recent surveillance data indicate that human VL continues to occur in the municipality, with 205 confirmed cases reported between 2020 and 2025 [7]. In this context, the detection of Leishmania DNA in dogs and the predominance of L. infantum among the successfully characterized samples are consistent with the endemic context of VL in São Luís. However, because human infection was not investigated and the available surveillance data refer to the municipality as a whole, no direct relationship between the animal findings and the occurrence of human cases in the three neighborhoods can be established.

Importantly, seroreactivity to L. amazonensis antigen, together with the detection of a mixed PCR–RFLP profile in one dog, suggests the possibility of involvement of different Leishmania species in this epidemiological setting, although the mixed profile alone does not confirm coinfection.

This study has limitations, including the exclusive use of peripheral blood for molecular detection, the low number of feline samples, and the reduced success rate of species identification by PCR–RFLP. Additionally, the absence of tissue sampling and entomological investigation may have limited the detection of parasite diversity and transmission dynamics in the study area.

Because the epidemiological associations were based on univariable analyses, potential confounding among the evaluated factors cannot be excluded. Therefore, these findings should be interpreted as exploratory associations rather than independent risk factors.

In conclusion, seroreactivity to both L. infantum and L. amazonensis antigens was detected in domestic dogs and cats from a visceral leishmaniasis–endemic area, while molecular characterization predominantly identified L. infantum. The higher seroreactivity to L. amazonensis antigen in dogs, together with the mixed PCR–RFLP profile observed in one animal, raises the possibility that Leishmania occurrence in domestic animals in this area may not be restricted to L. infantum. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously considering potential serological cross-reactivity and the limited species-level molecular characterization. Overall, the results highlight the value of considering different Leishmania species in epidemiological investigations and of combining serological and molecular approaches to better understand Leishmania occurrence in urban endemic settings.

本文为开放获取(Open Access)文章,全文转载自 Europe PMC,遵循原许可协议(cc by); 来源:Acta parasitologica · DOI: 10.1007/s11686-026-01408-9,版权归原作者及出版方所有;中文为机器翻译,临床术语以英文原文为准。 查看原文 ↗

跳转原文 ↗ 返回列表

快捷键 S 一键收藏本文,收藏内容在 我的收藏 查看;PubMed 位于境外,直接访问原文可能需要国际网络环境,站内摘要无需翻墙即可阅读。

采集时间:2026-10-25 12:51:36 · 中文解读将在编辑审核后另行发布,未经审核的自动标注不构成临床依据。