BackgroundVector-borne pathogens are the subject of several investigations due to the zoonotic concern of some of them. However, limited data are available about the simultaneous presence of these pathogens in cats and their ectoparasites. The aim of the present study was to define the species of ectoparasites found on cats as well as to investigate vector-borne pathogens in cats and their ectoparasites in southern Italy.MethodsBlood from 42 cats and fleas or flea pools (n = 28) and ticks (n = 73) collected from them were investigated by quantitative PCR for the detection of vector-borne pathogens. Feline serum samples were tested by IFAT to detect IgG antibodies against Leishmania infantum, Bartonella henselae, Rickettsia conorii, Rickettsia felis, Rickettsia typhi, Babesia microti, Ehrlichia canis and Anaplasma phagocytophilum antigens.ResultsOnly one flea species (Ctenocephalides felis) and four tick species belonging to the genera Rhipicephalus and Ixodes were identified on cats from southern Italy. Molecular evidence of Bartonella spp., Rickettsia spp., hemoplasmas, Babesia vogeli and L. infantum was found in ectoparasites (fleas and/or ticks) while DNA from Hepatozoon felis and Ehrlichia/Anaplasma spp. was not detected. Likewise, DNAs from Bartonella, hemoplasma and Leishmania were the only pathogens amplified from feline blood samples. Cats had also antibodies against all the investigated pathogens with the exception of Rickettsia typhi. Agreement between serological and molecular results in individual cats and their ectoparasites was not found. The only exception was for Bartonella with a fair to moderate agreement between individual cats and their ectoparasites. Bartonella clarridgeiae was the species most frequently found in cats and their fleas followed by B. henselae.ConclusionsIn conclusion, cats harboring ticks and fleas are frequently exposed to vector-borne pathogens. Furthermore, ticks and fleas harbored by cats frequently carry pathogens of zoonotic concern therefore appropriate feline ectoparasiticide preventative treatments should be used in cats.

BackgroundCats can be carriers of infected arthropods and be infected with several vector-borne pathogens (VBP) but there is limited knowledge about their pathogenic role in cats.ResultsA cross-sectional controlled study investigated the clinical status and antibody (Bartonella henselae, Rickettsia conorii, Ehrlichia canis, Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Babesia microti and Leishmania infantum) and/or blood PCR (Mycoplasma spp., Bartonella spp., Rickettsia spp., Ehrlichia/Anaplasma spp., piroplasmids, L. infantum, Hepatozoon felis) prevalence in 197 cats. Outdoor cats lacking ectoparasiticide treatment or hosting ectoparasites (study group [SG], n = 134) and indoor cats treated against ectoparasites (control group [CG], n = 63) were enrolled. Clinical data and retroviral co-infections were compared between the two groups. Multivariable analysis tested associations between variables and VBP exposure. Lymphadenia, stomatitis, and various haematological abnormalities were statistically more frequent in SG. Antibodies against R. conorii, B. henselae, A. phagocytophylum, B. microti, E. canis and L. infantum were detected. Bartonella henselae, Bartonella clarridgeiae, Mycoplasma haemofelis, “Candidatus Mycoplasma haemominutum” and “Candidatus Mycoplasma turicensis” DNA were identified. Very high antibody (87.8%) and PCR (40.1%) positivity to at least one pathogen were detected and were significantly higher in SG. Co-infections were confirmed in about one-third of the cats and were more frequent in SG cats. Molecular and overall (antibody and PCR) positivity to Bartonella and antibody positivity to R. conorii were higher in SG. Multivariable analysis found significant associations of Bartonella spp. infection with Feline Immunodeficiency Virus (FIV) infection and increased globulins, and of Mycoplasma spp. infection with adult age, FIV infection, anaemia, and increased creatinine.ConclusionsA very high prevalence of exposure to zoonotic VBP was found in cats, with Rickettsia and Bartonella infections being most prevalent. Some risk factors were documented namely for Mycoplasma spp. and Bartonella spp. The lifestyle of cats is clinically relevant and requires specific preventative measures to protect their health.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13071-018-2725-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundAnti-Leishmania antibodies are increasingly investigated in cats for epidemiological studies or for the diagnosis of clinical feline leishmaniosis. The immunofluorescent antibody test (IFAT), the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and western blot (WB) are the serological tests more frequently used. The aim of the present study was to assess diagnostic performance of IFAT, ELISA and WB to detect anti-L. infantum antibodies in feline serum samples obtained from endemic (n = 76) and non-endemic (n = 64) areas and from cats affected by feline leishmaniosis (n = 21) by a Bayesian approach without a gold standard.MethodsCut-offs were set at 80 titre for IFAT and 40 ELISA units for ELISA. WB was considered positive in presence of at least a 18 KDa band. Statistical analysis was performed through a written routine with MATLAB software in the Bayesian framework. The latent data and observations from the joint posterior were simulated in the Bayesian approach by an iterative Markov Chain Monte Carlo technique using the Gibbs sampler for estimating sensitivity and specificity of the three tests.ResultsThe median seroprevalence in the sample used for evaluating the performance of tests was estimated at 0.27 [credible interval (CI) = 0.20–0.34]. The median sensitivity of the three different methods was 0.97 (CI: 0.86–1.00), 0.75 (CI: 0.61–0.87) and 0.70 (CI: 0.56–0.83) for WB, IFAT and ELISA, respectively. Median specificity reached 0.99 (CI: 0.96–1.00) with WB, 0.97 (CI: 0.93–0.99) with IFAT and 0.98 (CI: 0.94–1.00) with ELISA. IFAT was more sensitive than ELISA (75 vs 70%) for the detection of subclinical infection while ELISA was better for diagnosing clinical leishmaniosis when compared with IFAT (98 vs 97%).ConclusionsThe overall performance of all serological techniques was good and the most accurate test for anti-Leishmania antibody detection in feline serum samples was WB.

No abstract

No abstract