Next Article in Journal
Novel Gene Rearrangement Pattern in Pachycrepoideus vindemmiae Mitochondrial Genome: New Gene Order in Pteromalidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea)
Previous Article in Journal
Salivary Cortisol in Guide Dogs
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 13
Issue 12
10.3390/ani13121984
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Seroprevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato and Anaplasma phagocytophilum Infections in German Horses

by
Heidrun Gehlen
1,*,
Katharina Inerle
1,
Alexander Bartel
2,
Sabita Diana Stöckle
1,
Sebastian Ulrich
3,
Beatrice Briese
1 and
Reinhard K. Straubinger
3
1
Equine Clinic: Surgery and Radiology, Freie Universitaet Berlin, 14163 Berlin, Germany
2
Institute for Veterinary Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Freie Universitaet Berlin, 14163 Berlin, Germany
3
Chair of Bacteriology and Mycology, Department of Veterinary Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Institute for Infectious Diseases and Zoonosis, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, 85764 Oberschleißheim, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2023, 13(12), 1984; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13121984
Submission received: 15 April 2023 / Revised: 30 May 2023 / Accepted: 10 June 2023 / Published: 14 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Equids)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

There are limited data on Lyme borreliosis, a tick-borne disease caused by the bacteria of the Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato complex, in horses. Seropositivity is not necessarily associated with clinical disease. Data on seropositivity against Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato and Anaplasma phagocytophilum in German horses are sparse. Therefore, serum samples from horses (n = 123) suspected of having Lyme borreliosis and clinically healthy horses (n = 113) residing at the same stables were tested for specific antibodies against Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato and Anaplasma phagocytophilum. First, the horses were screened for antibodies against Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato. Afterward, the horses were screened for antibodies against Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato and Anaplasma phagocytophilum (SNAP® 4Dx Plus® ELISA). The clinical signs of suspect horses included lameness (n = 36), poor performance (n = 19), and apathy (n = 12). Twenty-three percent (n = 26) of suspect horses and 17% (n = 18) of clinically healthy horses were seropositive for having a Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato infection (p = 0.371), showing that the detection of specific antibodies against Borrelia burgdorferi alone is not sufficient for a diagnosis of equine LB. Anaplasma phagocytophilum-seropositivity and seropositivity against both pathogens was 20%/6% in suspect horses and 16%/2% in the clinically healthy population, showing only minor differences (p = 0.108). Unspecific testing for antibodies against Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato without clinical suspicion of Lyme borreliosis is not recommended since the clinical relevance of seropositivity against Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato remains unknown.

Abstract

There are limited data on Lyme borreliosis (LB), a tick-borne disease caused by the Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato complex, in horses. Seropositivity is not necessarily associated with clinical disease. Data on seropositivity against Borrelia burgdorferi and Anaplasma phagocytophilum in German horses are sparse. Therefore, serum samples from horses (n = 123) suspected of having Lyme borreliosis and clinically healthy horses (n = 113) from the same stables were tested for specific antibodies against Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato and Anaplasma phagocytophilum. The samples were screened for antibodies against Borrelia burgdorferi (ELISA and an IgG line immunoblot assay). Furthermore, the samples were examined for antibodies against B. burgdorferi and Anaplasma phagocytophilum with a validated rapid in-house test (SNAP® 4Dx Plus® ELISA). The clinical signs of suspect horses included lameness (n = 36), poor performance (n = 19), and apathy (n = 12). Twenty-three percent (n = 26) of suspect horses and 17% (n = 18) of clinically healthy horses were seropositive for having a Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato infection (p = 0.371), showing that the detection of specific antibodies against B. burgdorferi alone is not sufficient for a diagnosis of equine LB. Anaplasma phagocytophilum seropositivity and seropositivity against both pathogens was 20%/6% in suspect horses and 16%/2% in the clinically healthy population, showing only minor differences (p = 0.108). Unspecific testing for antibodies against B. burgdorferi without clinical suspicion of Lyme borreliosis is not recommended since the clinical relevance of seropositivity against Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato remains to be elucidated.

1. Introduction

The first cases of equine Lyme borreliosis (LB) were published in the USA in the state of Wisconsin [1,2], a region where Borrelia burgdorferi is endemic. Other cases were described in Europe shortly thereafter [3,4]. LB is a tick-borne (Ixodes spp.) disease that is difficult to diagnose in horses because the specific antibody response against organisms of the Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato complex is not necessarily associated with clinical disease [5]. Studies on equine LB show varying seroprevalences in different geographical regions, depending on the distribution of infected Ixodes spp. ticks. However, it remains unclear whether a high antibody level in infected hosts correlates with clinical signs [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16] or if there is no association between clinical signs and a positive titer [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38]. At the earliest, two to four weeks after the first pathogen contact, antibodies of the IgM class can be detected in humans; after six to eight weeks, the detection of IgG antibodies is also possible [39,40,41]. B. burgdorferi-specific IgM antibodies reach their maximum concentration at about six to eight weeks and then gradually decrease again. In some cases, however, they are detectable for a longer time, which, in turn, makes it difficult to conclude the time of infection. In humans with persistent infection, B. burgdorferi-specific IgG antibodies increase slowly over months to years until a plateau value is reached and then remain relatively constant for a long time [42]. There are only a few tick species of the genus Ixodes that can transmit the different species of Borrelia causing LB: Ixodes ricinus is the main vector for LB in Europe [43], whereas in the USA, it is mostly I. scapularis and I. pacificus [44,45] and in Asia/Eurasia I. persulcatus [46].
Both direct and indirect pathogen detection methods are available; however, the direct detection of Borrelia spp. by culture is difficult and expensive [47]. The detection of Borrelia-specific DNA from the skin, synovial membranes, and other tissue samples is possible using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) during most stages of the disease [48,49]. However, various in-house PCR tests have not been clinically and diagnostically validated under standardized study conditions or standardized as methods for detecting Borrelia spp. from various sample materials. Furthermore, the extraction and amplification methods and the selected target genes vary significantly between different laboratories and protocols [47]. Therefore, the value of a PCR for the detection of Borrelia spp. in routine diagnostics remains limited [50]. Serological methods for detecting specific antibodies against the representatives of the B. burgdorferi complex remain a sensitive, inexpensive, and fast laboratory diagnostic method in both human and veterinary medicine. However, a specific positive antibody level without corresponding clinical signs is not a sufficient criterion for diagnosing LB [47]. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), immunofluorescence antibody tests, Western blots, and the equine multiplex assay as a one- or two-tiered test are most commonly used in equine medicine [5]. The interpretation of positive serological results should always be based on clinical findings and medical history. Other possible causes for the clinical changes should be ruled out [5]. Serological testing in two steps is recommended for the serological diagnosis of equine LB. Firstly, a sensitive screening test (e.g., ELISA) should be used and, as a second test, a highly specific immunoblot in which the sera that were classified as positive in the ELISA are characterized in more detail [51]. The gold standard method for LB diagnosis is a two-step procedure with a sensitive screening test (ELISA) and a specific confirmatory test (immunoblot). However, a study in humans who were treated with antibiotics in the early disease process and developed chronic LB concluded that the presence of chronic Lyme disease could not be excluded by the absence of antibodies against B. burgdorferi. Furthermore, they showed that a specific T-cell blastogenic response to B. burgdorferi is evidence of infection in seronegative patients with clinical indications of chronic Lyme disease [52].
Equine granulocytic anaplasmosis (EGA) caused by Anaplasma phagocytophilum was first described in the USA in 1969 [53] and has subsequently been reported in Europe (including Germany), Israel, and Brazil [54,55,56]. Whereas EGA is endemic in some regions, it does not occur in others [57]. Seroprevalence studies in horses have been performed in various European countries (Denmark, France, Italy, Sweden, Spain, and Czech Republic), with seroprevalence rates ranging from 7% (Spain) to 73% (Czech Republic) [13,28,33,58,59,60,61,62,63].
The in vitro cultivation of A. phagocytophilum from equine blood is rarely pursued because it is difficult, time-consuming, expensive, has a low diagnostic utility [64], and does not provide reliable results at every stage of the disease [64,65]. The detection of typical A. phagocytophilum inclusion bodies (morulae) in the cytoplasm of neutrophilic and sometimes eosinophilic granulocytes provides a solid basis for the diagnosis of EGA [53,66,67]. The detection of A. phagocytophilum-specific DNA via PCR is a sensitive and specific method [68,69,70], especially in the early and final stages of the disease, since the microscopic detection of morulae at these stages is often not possible [71,72]. Indirect pathogen detection methods for diagnosing EGA, such as ELISA and immunofluorescence tests, are also available [25,62]. A four-fold increase in the titers of specific antibodies over four weeks allows a reliable diagnosis [57,73]. Specific antibodies against A. phagocytophilum can be detected from day 14 to 730 post-infection [71,74].
Only limited data on the seroprevalence of B. burgdorferi and A. phagocytophilum in horses is available in Germany. Similar to B. burgdorferi, the seroprevalence of A. phagocytophilum varies according to the distribution of infectious ticks and the habitat of the horses (Table 1). Studies performed in Bulgaria reported antibodies against both B. burgdorferi and A. phagocytophilum in 6.3% (n = 192) and 7.1% (n = 155), respectively [75,76].
Therefore, this cross-sectional study aimed at determining the seroprevalence of B. burgdorferi and A. phagocytophilum in the German horse population generally, possible regional variations, and differences in the seroprevalence in horses with a clinical suspicion of LB compared to healthy horses of the same age and from the same stable.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Study Group

This cross-sectional study was a co-operation between the equine clinic of the Freie Universitaet Berlin and the Institute for Infectious Medicine and Zoonoses of the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (LMU). The blood samples of horses showing clinical changes typical of LB and clinically healthy animals that resided in the same stable were collected and analyzed. The study was approved by the Landesamt für Gesundheit und Soziales (LAGeSo) in Berlin, Germany (A 0284/17).
The inclusion criteria for clinically suspected animals comprised a suspected diagnosis of equine LB by a veterinarian and the possibility of tick exposure confirmed by the horse owner. In addition to residing at the same stable as the suspected animals, the inclusion criteria for the clinically healthy horses involved the absence of any clinical issues during the previous six months, according to the veterinarian. The responsible veterinarian and the horse owner were asked to participate in a survey, which was available online (LimeSurvey GmbH; Version 2.56.1 + 161118, Hamburg, Germany). It included questions about the clinical signs and the general health status, previous diagnostics, the therapy initiated, and its success.

2.2. Serological and Hematological Analysis

Approximately 5 mL of EDTA blood and 10 mL of serum were collected from each horse. All blood samples were analyzed hematologically (inclusion of bodies in EGA in the blood smear) and serologically (detection of Borrelia spp. and Anaplasma antibodies). A quantitative kinetic ELISA, a SNAP® 4Dx test (IDEXX Laboratories Inc., Westbrook, ME, USA), and a line immunoblot test system (LIA; Borrelia Veterinary plus OspA LINE, Sekisui Virotech GmbH, Rüsselsheim, Germany) based on an IgG immunoblot were used for the serological examination. The Borrelia spp. antigens DbpA Mix, Osp A Mix, OspC Mix, p39 (BmpA), p58, p83, and VlsE Mix horse were detected in the LIA.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed with the IBM SPSS Statistics program (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA, version 25). Multiple answers were possible for most questions in the questionnaire. Regarding questions with multiple possible responses, multiple answer sets were defined using the method of multiple dichotomies. A significance level of p ≤ 0.05 was set.
Skewness, kurtosis, and the standard error of the mean, median, and mean, as well as graphics (histograms and QQ plots) and statistical test methods, such as the Shapiro–Wilk and Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, were used to check the normal distribution of the data. In addition, frequency tables, bar charts, and pie charts were considered, and information on the measures of location scales was also used for the descriptive analysis.
The chi-square test was used for the association analysis, and Fisher’s exact test was used if the prerequisites for the chi-square test were not met. Furthermore, the odds ratio was determined. Finally, the age distribution was examined using a one-factorial ANOVA regarding the serological B. burgdorferi antibody findings.

3. Results

3.1. Study Group

The blood samples of 236 horses aged 6 months to 30 years were collected from May 2017 to August 2018. The samples were collected by veterinarians throughout Germany, except for the samples of four patients presented directly to the equine clinic of the Freie Universitaet Berlin.
The study population included 123 suspect (symptomatic) and 113 clinically healthy animals. The healthy horses could be used as clinically healthy animals more than the suspect horses from the same stable. Serological examinations were performed on all blood samples collected. All inclusion criteria were fulfilled in 123 suspect horses (blood samples and completed veterinary and owner survey) and 113 clinically healthy horses. These data were included in the statistical evaluation of the questionnaires.
Not all data were available for all horses.
The clinically suspect animals (n = 113) were 12.5 ± 5.7 years old, and the clinically healthy horses (n = 101) were 13.6 ± 5.0 years old. The years of life were normally distributed in both groups.
Most of the horses resided in northern Germany (86/114; 75.4%; North Rhine-Westphalia, Lower Saxony, Schleswig—Holstein, Brandenburg, Mecklenburg—Western Pomerania, Hamburg, Saxony—Anhalt); the rest were from southern Germany (28/114; 24.6%; Bavaria, Baden-Wuerttemberg, and Hessia), with central Germany remaining under-represented (Figure 1). Slightly more than half of the horses were kept in stable housing (52.6%), followed by those held in open stables (26.3%), exclusively on pasture (15.8%), and in an exercise pen (3.5%).

3.2. Results of the Serological Examination

SNAP® 4Dx test (Sensitivity: A. phagocytophilum 94.1% and B. burgdorferi 95.5%; Specificity: A. phagocytophilum 98.4% and B. burgdorferi 99.4%): this rapid test was used for the semi-quantitative detection of the specific immune reactions to A. phagocytophilum and B. burgdorferi. The A. phagocytophilum-specific antibodies were detected in 19.5% of the suspect and 16.8% of the clinically healthy horses, and C6 (B. burgdorferi)-specific antibodies were detected in 46.3% of the clinically suspect and 46.9% of the clinically healthy animals.
Kinetic ELISA (KELA): the B. burgdorferi IgG kinetic ELISA detected KELA units for clinically suspect and clinically healthy horses. These KELA units result from an automatic optical density conversion from the absorbance measurement used in the kinetic ELISA. The mean value of the KELA unit was 259.2 ± 154.2 for the clinically suspect and 254.8 ± 136.9 for the clinically healthy animals. KELA offers an indirect possibility to quantify existing antibodies in comparison to an antibody titer determination. No cut-off value has been defined for horses yet.
Therefore, an average KELA score of 250 was used to subdivide the groups to classify the KELA test results. A statistically significant difference between the evaluation groups “seropositive,” “borderline”, and “seronegative” was determined (p < 0.0001). Additionally, higher KELA values (>250) were found in the B. burgdorferi seropositive group regarding the results of the LIA (40% had KELA values > 250) than in the borderline group (30.9% KELA > 250) and the seronegative group (29.1%; KELA > 250).
Line Immunoassay (LIA): the results of the “Borrelia Veterinary plus OspA Line Immunoblot” used in the study are displayed in Table 2.
Furthermore, 35 of the 123 clinically suspect and 32 of the 113 clinically healthy horses were tested for OspA antibodies (indicative of vaccination status) with the LIA. There were two “+++” ratings for the suspect horses (5.7%) and two “+” ratings for the clinically healthy animals (6.3%). All of these horses were vaccinated against B. burgdorferi.
An overall assessment of the serological B. burgdorferi result was made based on the LIA. Half (118; 50%, n = 236) of the total blood samples examined (total population = suspect + clinically healthy horses) were evaluated with the finding “no suspicion of pathogen contact” (negative), 74 (31.4%) with the finding “indicative of pathogen contact” (borderline), and 44 (18.6%) with the finding “evidence of infection” (positive). Looking at the two different groups, the following resulted: a total of 51% (n = 63) of the clinically suspect and 49% (n = 55) of the clinically healthy horses tested negative, 28% (n = 34) of the clinically suspect and 35% (n = 40) of the clinically healthy horses tested borderline, and 21% (n = 26) of the clinically suspect and 16% (n = 18) of the clinically healthy horses tested positive for B. burgdorferi antibodies (p = 0.371).
Anaplasma phagocytophilum: the number of A. phagocytophilum-seropositive horses (clinically suspect 20.2%; n = 32; clinically healthy 15.9%; n = 17) and horses with evidence of co-infection with both pathogens (suspect 6.1%; n = 7; clinically healthy 1.9%; n = 2) was higher in the clinically suspect than the clinically healthy population, although this was not statistically significant (p = 0.108, Table 3).
Topographical distribution: based on the information on the stables’ location, the seroprevalence distribution in the different federal states was assessed (Table 4). The B. burgdorferi seroprevalence of the clinically suspect group (n = 114) from southern Germany was 39% (n = 11) and 15% (n = 4 animals positive for B. burgdorferi-specific antibodies) in the clinically healthy group (n = 107). The B. burgdorferi seroprevalence in the group of clinically suspect horses in northern Germany was 17% (n = 15) and 18% (n = 14) in the group of clinically healthy horses (Table 4).
Summarizing the findings of all horses, including information about their location provided (n = 221), resulted in a B. burgdorferi seroprevalence of 27% (15/55) for southern Germany and 18% (29/166) for northern Germany. The federal states with the highest B. burgdorferi seroprevalence were Hesse (67%), Hamburg (50%), and Baden-Württemberg (36%). The federal states with the lowest B. burgdorferi seroprevalence were Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (0%), Saxony-Anhalt (0%), and Lower Saxony (11%).

3.3. Statistical Analysis

No significant differences between the groups were found when comparing the serological findings of the suspect and clinically healthy horses. However, there was a statistically significant difference between serostatus and age (p = 0.011): the median age of seronegative horses was 13 years (1–25 years) and 15 years (5–23 years) for seropositive animals. Horses with borderline serological results had a median age of 11 years (6–30 years).
Forty-two of the participating horses that were suspected of having LB had the same serostatus as their paired clinically healthy animals. The constellation suspect horse positive and clinically healthy horse negative or clinically suspect horse negative and clinically healthy horse positive occurred in 17.8% (n = 19) of the cases. The rest of the pairs (n = 46; 43.0%) had a B. burgdorferi serostatus that differed by one gradation, which means that, for example, the suspect horse had a positive and the clinically healthy horse a borderline B. burgdorferi serostatus.
Statistically significant group differences were found between horses with and without cranial nerve deficits (p = 0.030), clinical signs of meningoencephalitis and no clinical signs of meningoencephalitis (p = 0.003), and simultaneous serological evidence of co-infection. These clinical changes were found more frequently than expected in the co-infected animals.

4. Discussion

The present study provides valuable data on the seroprevalence indicative of B. burgdorferi and A. phagocytophilum infection in German horses and its geographical distribution. Strictly speaking, the serological findings collected are not seroprevalences without bias. The preselection of the sampled population was performed because the subjects of the suspect group showed a suspicion of LB, and also, the group of clinically healthy animals was not randomly selected. Not only was it necessary for at least one horse in the same barn to show clinical signs of LB to participate in the study, but the prerequisite for eligibility as a clinically healthy animal was also to be judged as “clinically healthy”. However, the bias was reduced because clinically healthy horses (most probably representing a cross-section of the German horse population) were included in the study. In addition, the serological findings of the clinically healthy group may assist in the interpretation of positive “LB tests” in clinically healthy horses. The sole evidence of B. burgdorferi-specific antibodies has only limited significance if only nonspecific clinical signs are present [47] and must therefore be interpreted with caution [82].
For an approximation of the actual seroprevalence, the clinically healthy group is best suited, as it represents a cross-section of the horse population. In addition, the serological findings of this group allow an assessment of how the positive LB test results in horses without clinical signs represent clinically healthy horses. Unfortunately, only breed, age, and sex were recorded for the clinically healthy group. Risk factors, such as husbandry, use, and tick prophylaxis, cannot be assessed for this group based on the data collected, which somewhat limits the study results with respect to risk factor analysis.
The use of the KELA and SNAP® 4Dx as highly sensitive tools in B. burgdorferi indirect diagnostics combined with the highly specific LIA corresponds to the current gold standard in the diagnostics of equine LB as a two-tier test [83] because the important detection of antigens, such as VlsE and C6, are included [84]. In addition, reliable results can be generated for A. phagocytophilum-specific antibody diagnostics [85]. The horses classified as seropositive showed high KELA values (>250), but the seronegative animals had low values (<250). This result was statistically highly significant (p = 0.000).
SNAP® 4Dx can be used as a screening test but should be checked by immunoblot and classified in more detail if positive [5,77].
In addition to specific antibodies against the B. burgdorferi C6 antigen, SNAP® 4Dx also detects specific antibodies against A. phagocytophilum. Therefore, simultaneous infections with both pathogens may occur independently since the antibodies against A. phagocytophilum and B. burgdorferi remain detectable for more extended periods [86,87,88,89], or persistent infection may occur [90,91].
Diagnostic procedures may vary significantly between laboratories [30,31]. It is difficult to give an indication of the sensitivity and specificity of the test methods used since, in B. burgdorferi diagnostics, there is not one gold standard in diagnostics with which to compare the results [5].
For A. phagocytophilum diagnostics, IFAT for the detection of antibodies against A. phagocytophilum can be used as a reference. The relative sensitivity and specificity of the commercially available ELISA (SNAP® 4Dx, IDEXX Laboratories Inc., Westbrook, Maine, USA) when compared with IFAT for the detection of antibodies against A. phagocytophilum are 87–100% and 100%, respectively [36,84]. No sensitivity and specificity can be given for KELA, as no clear classification of the results into seropositive, limited, or negative was made here.
Determining highly specific antibodies in a species-specific immunoblot is of great importance in B. burgdorferi diagnostics [92]. In this study, horses were classified as B. burgdorferi-seropositive if the immune reactions evaluated suggested the presence of an active B. burgdorferi infection. Accordingly, 26 horses (21%) from the clinically suspect and 18 horses (17%) from the clinically healthy group had a positive result. Just over half (51%) of the suspect and just under half (49%) of the clinically healthy horses tested negative, whereas 28% of the suspect and 35% of the clinically healthy horses tested borderline for B. burgdorferi antibodies. Therefore, the serostatus of the clinically healthy horses hardly differed from that of suspect horses (p = 0.887).
Consequently, it can be concluded that the detection of specific antibodies against B. burgdorferi alone is not sufficient for a diagnosis of equine LB, which is consistent with the results of Divers et al. [5]. Evidence of previous infections with pathogens of the B. burgdorferi complex was found even in a relatively high proportion of clinically healthy horses. This finding reflects the observation of other authors that horses regularly deal with the pathogen without the development of clinical signs [93,94,95] and with the observations from human medicine that high antibody levels against B. burgdorferi can be found particularly in people with high pathogen exposure [96]. Similar to horses, a diagnosis of LB in humans can only be made when the typical clinical signs are observed. A corresponding causal therapy alleviates the manifestation of clinical signs [96,97]. Highly specific, highly sensitive qualitative, and semi-quantitative direct detection methods or the analysis of the T-cell response against B. burgdorferi, as described by Dattwyler in humans [52], would help remedy this situation but do not appear to be near at hand.
In this study, A. phagocytophilum-specific antibodies were detected in 19.5% of the clinically suspect and 16.8% of the clinically healthy horses. Furthermore, co-infection with B. burgdorferi and A. phagocytophilum was found in seven suspect and two clinically healthy animals. Egenvall et al. [28] were able to show a possible association between the seropositivity of both pathogens and host factors, such as gender, age, breed, use and exposure to ticks, and clinical signs. The two titers were correlated significantly, and it can be assumed that a previous infection or co-infection with A. phagocytophilum may lead to immunosuppression and, thus, might promote B. burgdorferi infection [98,99]. On the one hand, other studies have not been able to link such a connection between the specified host factors and seroprevalence [100]. Then again, an age dependency was also found in the present study: age and seroprevalence correlated positively, which agrees with the results of other authors [28]. Since B. burgdorferi antibodies persist over extended time periods [86], a higher average age with a positive finding can be explained because older horses have a higher probability of previous contact with the pathogen.
The B. burgdorferi seroprevalences observed are challenging to compare depending on the country of origin, the number of samples, and the varying determination methods. The immunofluorescence antibody test is commonly used, but it often delivers false-positive results due to its low specificity [101]. It is now considered an unsuitable diagnostic tool due to the lack of comparability of the results [39,102] and the inability to distinguish between vaccinated individuals and field infections [103]. The unspecific serological testing of horses in endemic areas is critical as it leads to an overdiagnosis of equine LD [82].
Another similar study performed in Germany determined an overall seroprevalence of 13.1% in Germany [79], which is similar to the seroprevalence in this study. The intention of our study was to screen horses throughout Germany for infection with the tick-borne diseases Lyme borreliosis and equine granulocytic anaplasmosis. A wide range of data not limited to the geographic origin and symptoms of the subjects was collected and included tick exposure, prophylactic measures, health status, and previous diagnostics and therapy. Our results clearly showed that horses in Germany may have been infected with B. burgdorferi but do not necessarily develop clinical signs.

5. Conclusions

Since the relevance of a positive antibody titer against these pathogens remains to be elucidated, the unspecific testing for antibodies against B. burgdorferi without a definite clinical suspicion of LB is not recommended.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: H.G. and B.B., Methodology: H.G. and B.B., Investigation: K.I. and R.K.S., Formal Analysis: K.I. and A.B., Writing—Original Draft Preparation: S.D.S., K.I. and H.G., Writing—Review & Editing: H.G., K.I., A.B., S.D.S., B.B., S.U. and R.K.S., Supervision: H.G., Project Administration: H.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the Landesamt für Gesundheit und Soziales (LAGeSo) in Berlin, Germany (A 0284/17).

Informed Consent Statement

The owners’ written informed consent was obtained from the owners of all study subjects.

Data Availability Statement

Further Data can be obtained from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Burgess, E.C.; Gillette, D.; Pickett, J.P. Arthritis and panuveitis as manifestations of Borrelia burgdorferi infection in a Wisconsin pony. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 1986, 189, 1340–1342. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  2. Burgess, E.C.; Mattison, M. Encephalitis associated with Borrelia burgdorferi infection in a horse. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 1987, 191, 1457–1458. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  3. Hahn, C.N.; Mayhew, I.G.; Whitwell, K.E.; Smith, K.C.; Carey, D.; Carter, S.D.; Read, R.A. A possible case of Lyme borreliosis in a horse in the UK. Equine Vet. J. 1996, 28, 84–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Karlsson, M.; Hovind-Hougen, K.; Svenungsson, B.; Stiernstedt, G. Cultivation and characterization of spirochetes from cerebrospinal fluid of patients with Lyme borreliosis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1990, 28, 473–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Divers, T.J.; Gardner, R.B.; Madigan, J.E.; Witonsky, S.G.; Bertone, J.J.; Swinebroad, E.L.; Schutzer, S.E.; Johnson, A.L. Borrelia burgdorferi Infection and Lyme Disease in North American Horses: A Consensus Statement. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2018, 32, 617–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Burgess, B. British Columbia. Lyme Disease in horses. Can. Vet. J. 1988, 29, 393–394. [Google Scholar]
  7. Magnarelli, L.A.; Anderson, J.F.; Shaw, E.; Post, J.E.; Palka, F.C. Borreliosis in equids in northeastern United States. Am. J. Vet. Res. 1988, 49, 359–362. [Google Scholar]
  8. Magnarelli, L.A.; Anderson, J.F. Class-specific and polyvalent enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for detection of antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi in equids. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 1989, 195, 1365–1368. [Google Scholar]
  9. Browning, A.; Carter, S.D.; Barnes, A.; May, C.; Bennett, D. Lameness associated with Borrelia burgdorferi infection in the horse. Vet. Rec. 1993, 132, 610–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Liebisch, G.; Assmann, G.; Liebisch, A. Infektion mit Borrelia burgdorferi sl als Krankheitsursache der Lyme-Borreliose bei Pferden in Deutschland. Prakt. Tierarzt 1999, 80, 498–516. [Google Scholar]
  11. Manion, T.B.; Bushmich, S.L.; Khan, M.I.; Dinger, J.; Werner, H.; Mittel, L.; Laurendeau, M.; Reilly, M. Suspected clinical Lyme disease in horses: Serological and antigen testing differences between clinically ill and clinically normal horses from an endemic region. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2001, 21, 229–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Durrani, A.Z.; Goyal, S.M.; Kamal, N. Retrospective study on seroprevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi antibodies in horses in Minnesota. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2011, 31, 427–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Laus, F.; Veronesi, F.; Passamonti, F.; Paggi, E.; Cerquetella, M.; Hyatt, D.; Tesei, B.; Fioretti, D.P. Prevalence of tick borne pathogens in horses from Italy. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 2013, 75, 715–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Funk, R.; Pleasant, R.; Witonsky, S.; Reeder, D.; Werre, S.; Hodgson, D. Seroprevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi in horses presented for Coggins testing in Southwest Virginia and change in positive test results approximately 1 year later. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2016, 30, 1300–1304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Maloney, E.; Lindenmayer, J. Seroprevalence and Clinical Signs of Lyme Disease in Cape Cod Horses. Equine Pract. 1992. [Google Scholar]
  16. Lindenmayer, J.; Weber, M.; Onderdonk, A. Borrelia burgdorferi infection in horses. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 1989, 194, 1384. [Google Scholar]
  17. Marcus, L.; Patterson, M.; Gilfillan, R.; Urband, P. Antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi in New England horses: Serologic survey. Am. J. Vet. Res. 1985, 46, 2570–2571. [Google Scholar]
  18. Cohen, D.; Bosler, E.M.; Bernard, W.; Meirs, D., 2nd; Eisner, R.; Schulze, T.L. Epidemiologic studies of Lyme disease in horses and their public health significance. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1988, 539, 244–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bernard, W.; Cohen, D.; Bosler, E.; Zamos, D. Serologic survey for Borrelia burgdorferi antibody in horses referred to a mid-Atlantic veterinary teaching hospital. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 1990, 196, 1255–1258. [Google Scholar]
  20. Cohen, N.; Heck, F.; Heim, B.; Flad, D.; Bosler, E.; Cohen, D. Seroprevalence of antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi in a population of horses in central Texas. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 1992, 201, 1030–1034. [Google Scholar]
  21. Käsbohrer, A.; Schönberg, A. Serologische Untersuchungen zum Vorkommen von Borrelia burgdorferi bei Haustieren in Berlin (West). Berl. Munch. Tierarztl. Wochenschr. 1990, 103, 374–378. [Google Scholar]
  22. Tasai, M.; Takashima, I.; Kariwa, H.; Hashimoto, N.; Kondo, T.; Sugiura, T.; Kamada, M. Serological survey of Lyme borreliosis in horses in Japan by immunofluorescent antibody test and fluorescent enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Bull. Equine Res. Inst. 1993, 1993, 37–42. [Google Scholar]
  23. Gerhards, H.; Wollanke, B. Antibody titers against Borrelia in horses in serum and in eyes and occurrence of equine recurrent uveitis. Berl. Munch. Tierarztl. Wochenschr. 1996, 109, 273–278. [Google Scholar]
  24. Carter, S.; May, C.; Barnes, A.; Bennett, D. Borrelia burgdorferi infection in UK horses. Equine Vet. J. 1994, 26, 187–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Magnarelli, L.A.; IJdo, J.W.; Van Andel, A.E.; Wu, C.; Padula, S.J.; Fikrig, E. Serologic confirmation of Ehrlichia equi and Borrelia burgdorferi infections in horses from the northeastern United States. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2000, 217, 1045–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Štefančíková, A.; Štepánová, G.; Pet’ko, B.; Nadzamová, D.; Szestáková, E.; Škardová, I.; Leinstein, R. Prevalence of antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi in horses of East Slovakia. Vet. Med. 2000, 45, 227–231. [Google Scholar]
  27. Stefancikova, A.; Adaszek, Ł.; Pet’ko, B.; Winiarczyk, S.; Dudinak, V. Serological evidence of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato in horses and cattle from Poland and diagnostic problems of Lyme borreliosis. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. AAEM 2008, 15, 37–43. [Google Scholar]
  28. Egenvall, A.; Franzén, P.; Gunnarsson, A.; Engvall, E.O.; Vågsholm, I.; Wikström, U.-B.; Artursson, K. Cross-sectional study of the seroprevalence to Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato and granulocytic Ehrlichia spp. and demographic, clinical and tick-exposure factors in Swedish horses. Prev. Vet. Med. 2001, 49, 191–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Salinas-Mélendez, J.; de la Garza, S.G.; Riojas-Valdés, V.; González, A.W.; Avalos-Ramírez, R. Antibody detection against Borrelia burgdorferi in horses located in the suburban areas of Monterrey, Nuevo León. Rev. Latinoam. Microbiol. 2001, 43, 161–164. [Google Scholar]
  30. Müller, I.; Khanakah, G.; Kundi, M.; Stanek, G. Horses and Borrelia: Immunoblot patterns with five Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato strains and sera from horses of various stud farms in Austria and from the Spanish Riding School in Vienna. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2002, 291, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Schoenert, S.; Grabner, A.; Heidrich, J.; Schoenberg, A.; Noeckler, K.; Bahn, P.; Luge, E.; Brem, S.; Mueller, W. Lyme disease in the horse? Comparative studies of direct and indirect testing for Borrelia burgdorferi. Prakt. Tierarzt 2002, 83, 1064–1068. [Google Scholar]
  32. Bhide, M.; Yilmaz, Z.; Golcu, E.; Torun, S.; Mikula, I. Seroprevalence of anti-Borrelia burgdorferi antibodies in dogs and horses in Turkey. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2008, 15, 85–90. [Google Scholar]
  33. Hansen, M.G.; Christoffersen, M.; Thuesen, L.R.; Petersen, M.R.; Bojesen, A.M. Seroprevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato and Anaplasma phagocytophilum in Danish horses. Acta Vet. Scand. 2010, 52, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  34. Kiss, T.; Cadar, D.; Krupaci, A.F.; Bordeanu, A.; Brudaşcă, G.F.; Mihalca, A.D.; Mircean, V.; Gliga, L.; Dumitrache, M.O.; Spînu, M. Serological reactivity to Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato in dogs and horses from distinct areas in Romania. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2011, 11, 1259–1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Ebani, V.V.; Bertelloni, F.; Pinzauti, P.; Cerri, D. Seroprevalence of Leptospira spp. and Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato in Italian horses. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2012, 19, 237–240. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  36. Veronesi, F.; Laus, F.; Passamonti, F.; Tesei, B.; Fioretti, D.P.; Genchi, C. Occurrence of Borrelia lusitaniae infection in horses. Vet. Microbiol. 2012, 160, 535–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Lee, S.-H.; Yun, S.-H.; Choi, E.; Park, Y.-S.; Lee, S.-E.; Cho, G.-J.; Kwon, O.-D.; Kwak, D. Serological detection of Borrelia burgdorferi among horses in Korea. Korean J. Parasitol. 2016, 54, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Meersschaert, C.; Cerri, S.; Pitel, P.-H.; De Waele, V.; Hendrickx, G.; Amory, H. Seroprevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi in horses in the southern part of Belgium: A “one health” driven study. In Proceedings of the AESA Congress, Liege, Belgium, 7–9 September 2016. [Google Scholar]
  39. Craft, J.E.; Grodzicki, R.L.; Steere, A.C. Antibody response in Lyme disease: Evaluation of diagnostic tests. J. Infect. Dis. 1984, 149, 789–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Christen, H.J.; Hanefeld, F.; Eiffert, H.; Thomssen, R. Epidemiology and clinical manifestations of Lyme borreliosis in childhood: A prospective multicentre study with special regard to neuroborreliosis. Acta Paediatr. 1993, 82, 1–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Frey, A.B.; Rao, T.D. Single exposure of mice to Borrelia burgdorferi elicits immunoglobulin G antibodies characteristic of secondary immune response without production of interleukin-4 by immune T cells. Infect. Immun. 1995, 63, 2596–2603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Dattwyler, R.J.; Volkman, D.J.; Luft, B.J. Immunologic Aspects of Lyme Borreliosis. Rev. Infect. Dis. 1989, 11, S1494–S1498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Hubálek, Z.; Halouzka, J. Distribution of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato genomic groups in Europe, a review. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 1997, 13, 951–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Anderson, J.F. Epizootiology of Borrelia in Ixodes tick vectors and reservoir hosts. Rev. Infect. Dis. 1989, 11 (Suppl. S6), S1451–S1459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Lane, R.S.; Piesman, J.; Burgdorfer, W. Lyme borreliosis: Relation of its causative agent to its vectors and hosts in North America and Europe. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1991, 36, 587–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Narankhajid, M.; Yeruult, C.; Gurbadam, A.; Battsetseg, J.; Aberle, S.W.; Bayartogtokh, B.; Joachim, A.; Duscher, G.G. Some aspects on tick species in Mongolia and their potential role in the transmission of equine piroplasms, Anaplasma phagocytophilum and Borrelia burgdorferi L. Parasitol. Res. 2018, 117, 3557–3566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Fingerle, V.; Eiffert, H.; Gessner, A.; Göbel, U.; Hofmann, H.; Hunfeld, K.; Krause, A.; Pfister, H.; Reischl, U.; Sing, A. MiQ 12 Lyme-Borreliose. Qualitätsstandards in der Mikrobiologisch-Infektiologischen Diagnostik; Urban und Fischer/Elsevier: Munich, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  48. Priest, H.L.; Irby, N.L.; Schlafer, D.H.; Divers, T.J.; Wagner, B.; Glaser, A.L.; Chang, Y.F.; Smith, M.C. Diagnosis of Borrelia-associated uveitis in two horses. Vet. Ophthalmol. 2012, 15, 398–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rosa, P.A.; Schwan, T.G. A specific and sensitive assay for the Lyme disease spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi using the polymerase chain reaction. J. Infect. Dis. 1989, 160, 1018–1029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Krupka, I. Infektionen Mit Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato und Deren Serologischer Nachweis Mittels Spezifischer C6-Peptide bei Hunden Sowie im Murinen Infektionsmodell. Ph.D. Dissertation, Universität Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  51. Johnson, B.J. Laboratory diagnostic testing for Borrelia burgdorferi infection. In Lyme Disease: An Evidence-Based Approach; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2011; pp. 73–88. [Google Scholar]
  52. Dattwyler, R.J.; Volkman, D.J.; Luft, B.J.; Halperin, J.J.; Thomas, J.; Golightly, M.G. Seronegative Lyme disease. Dissociation of specific T- and B-lymphocyte responses to Borrelia burgdorferi. N. Engl. J. Med. 1988, 319, 1441–1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Gribble, D.H. Equine ehrlichiosis. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 1969, 155, 462–469. [Google Scholar]
  54. Von Loewenich, F.; Stumpf, G.; Baumgarten, B.; Röllinghoff, M.; Dumler, J.; Bogdan, C. A case of equine granulocytic ehrlichiosis provides molecular evidence for the presence of pathogenic Anaplasma phagocytophilum (HGE agent) in Germany. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2003, 22, 303–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Levi, O.; Waner, T.; Baneth, G.; Keysary, A.; Bruchim, Y.; Silverman, J.; Harrus, S. Seroprevalence of Anaplasma phagocytophilum among healthy dogs and horses in Israel. J. Vet. Med. Ser. B 2006, 53, 78–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Salvagni, C.A.; Dagnone, A.S.; Gomes, T.S.; Mota, J.S.; Andrade, G.M.; Baldani, C.D.; Machado, R.Z. Serologic evidence of equine granulocytic anaplasmosis in horses from central West Brazil. Rev. Bras. De Parasitol. Veterinária 2010, 19, 135–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Madigan, J.; Hietala, S.; Chalmers, S.; DeRock, E. Seroepidemiologic survey of antibodies to Ehrlichia equi in horses of northern California. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 1990, 196, 1962–1964. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  58. Leblond, A.; Pradier, S.; Pitel, P.; Fortier, G.; Boireau, P.; Chadoeuf, J.; Sabatier, P. An epidemiological survey of equine anaplasmosis (Anaplasma phagocytophilum) in southern France. Rev. Sci. Et Tech. Int. Off. Epizoot. 2005, 24, 899–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Maurizi, L.; Marié, J.-L.; Courtin, C.; Gorsane, S.; Chal, D.; Davoust, B. Seroprevalence survey of equine anaplasmosis in France and in sub-Saharan Africa. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2009, 15, 68–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Passamonti, F.; Fabrizia, V.; Katia, C.; Stefano, C.; Giacomo, C.; Luisa, M.M.; Daniela, P.F.; Andrea, V.S.; Mauro, C. Anaplasma phagocytophilum in horses and ticks: A preliminary survey of Central Italy. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2010, 33, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Butler, C.; Nijhof, A.; Jongejan, F.; Van der Kolk, J. Anaplasma phagocytophilum infection in horses in the Netherlands. Vet. Rec. 2008, 162, 216–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Amusategui, I.; Sainz, A.; Tesouro, M.A. Serological evaluation of Anaplasma phagocytophilum infection in livestock in northwestern Spain. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2006, 1078, 487–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Praskova, I.; Bezdekova, B.; Zeman, P.; Jahn, P. Seroprevalence of Anaplasma phagocytophilum in horses in the Czech Republic. Ticks Tick-Borne Dis. 2011, 2, 111–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Munderloh, U.G.; Madigan, J.E.; Dumler, J.S.; Goodman, J.L.; Hayes, S.F.; Barlough, J.E.; Nelson, C.M.; Kurtti, T.J. Isolation of the equine granulocytic ehrlichiosis agent, Ehrlichia equi, in tick cell culture. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1996, 34, 664–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Goodman, J.L.; Nelson, C.; Vitale, B.; Madigan, J.E.; Dumler, J.S.; Kurtti, T.J.; Munderloh, U.G. Direct cultivation of the causative agent of human granulocytic ehrlichiosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 1996, 334, 209–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Pusterla, N.; Huder, J.B.; Feige, K.; Lutz, H. Identification of a granulocytic Ehrlichia strain isolated from a horse in Switzerland and comparison with other rickettsiae of the Ehrlichia phagocytophila genogroup. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1998, 36, 2035–2037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  67. Sells, D.M.; Hildebrandt, P.K.; Lewis, G.E., Jr.; Nyindo, M.B.; Ristic, M. Ultrastructural observations on Ehrlichia equi organisms in equine granulocytes. Infect. Immun. 1976, 13, 273–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  68. Barlough, J.E.; Madigan, J.E.; DeRock, E.; Bigornia, L. Nested polymerase chain reaction for detection of Ehrlichia equi genomic DNA in horses and ticks (Ixodes pacificus). Vet. Parasitol. 1996, 63, 319–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Pusterla, N.; Huder, J.B.; Leutenegger, C.M.; Braun, U.; Madigan, J.E.; Lutz, H. Quantitative real-time PCR for detection of members of the Ehrlichia phagocytophila genogroup in host animals and Ixodes ricinus ticks. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1999, 37, 1329–1331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Drazenovich, N.; Foley, J.; Brown, R.N. Use of real-time quantitative PCR targeting the msp2 protein gene to identify cryptic Anaplasma phagocytophilum infections in wildlife and domestic animals. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2006, 6, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Franzén, P.; Aspan, A.; Egenvall, A.; Gunnarsson, A.; Aberg, L.; Pringle, J. Acute clinical, hematologic, serologic, and polymerase chain reaction findings in horses experimentally infected with a European strain of Anaplasma phagocytophilum. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2005, 19, 232–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Pusterla, N.; Madigan, J.E. Anaplasma phagocytophilum infection. In Equine Infectious Diseases; Sellon, D.C., Long, M.T., Eds.; Saunders: St. Louis, MI, USA, 2014; pp. 344–347. [Google Scholar]
  73. Songer, J.G.; Post, K.W. The family Anaplasmataceae. In Veterinary Microbiology: Bacterial and Fungal Agents of Animal Disease; Songer, J.G., Post, K.W., Eds.; Saunders: St. Louis, MI, USA, 2005; pp. 325–326. [Google Scholar]
  74. Madigan, J.E.; Gribble, D. Equine ehrlichiosis in northern California: 49 cases (1968–1981). J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 1987, 190, 445–448. [Google Scholar]
  75. Tsachev, I.; Pantchev, N.; Marutsov, P.; Petrov, V.; Gundasheva, D.; Baymakova, M. Serological Evidence of Borrelia burgdorferi, Anaplasma phagocytophilum and Ehrlichia spp. Infections in Horses from Southeastern Bulgaria. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2018, 18, 588–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Tsachev, I.; Baymakova, M.; Pantchev, N. Seroprevalence of Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Ehrlichia spp. and Borrelia burgdorferi infections in horses: First report from Northern Bulgaria—Short communication. Acta Vet. Hung. 2019, 67, 197–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Cerri, S.; Meersschaert, C.; Houben, R.; Pitel, P.-H.; De Waele, V.; Hendrickx, G.; Amory, H. Diagnostic Value of Serologic Tests and Seroprevalence of Borreliosis in Horses Living in Southern Belgium. In Proceedings of the 9th ECEIM Congress, Helsinki, Finland, 3–5 November 2016. [Google Scholar]
  78. Doby, J.; Chevrier, S.; Couatarmanac’h, A. Spirochétose à tiques par Borrelia burgdorferi chez le cheval en Bretagne. Résultats d’une enquête sérologique portant sur 400 chevaux. Bull. Soc. Fr. Parasitol. 1987, 5, 285–295. [Google Scholar]
  79. Fritz, C.I. Retrospektive Betrachtung Serologischer Ergebnisse Verschiedener Borrelien-Antikörper-Nachweisverfahren unter dem Aspekt einer Möglichen Kategorisierung Klinischer Befunde bei Equiden; LMU: Munich, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  80. Palm, K. Nachweis Spezifischer Antikörper gegen Borrelia Burgdorferi in Equinen Serumproben aus dem Bayerischen Haupt-und Landgestüt Schwaiganger unter Berücksichtigung Aktueller Kriterien der Diagnostik. Ph.D. Dissertation, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  81. Wollanke, B. Untersuchungen zur Ätiologie der Equinen Rezidivierenden Uveitis. Ph.D. Dissertation, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  82. Bartol, J. Is Lyme disease overdiagnosed in horses? Equine Vet. J. 2013, 45, 529–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Divers, T.J. Equine lyme disease. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2013, 33, 488–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Chandrashekar, R.; Daniluk, D.; Moffitt, S.; Lorentzen, L.; Williams, J. Serologic diagnosis of equine borreliosis: Evaluation of an in-clinic enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (SNAP (R) 4Dx (R)). Int. J. Appl. Res. Vet. Med. 2008, 6, 145–150. [Google Scholar]
  85. Chandrashekar, R.; Mainville, C.A.; Beall, M.J.; O’Connor, T.; Eberts, M.D.; Alleman, A.R.; Gaunt, S.D.; Breitschwerdt, E.B. Performance of a commercially available in-clinic ELISA for the detection of antibodies against Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Ehrlichia canis, and Borrelia burgdorferi and Dirofilaria immitis antigen in dogs. Am. J. Vet. Res. 2010, 71, 1443–1450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Zöller, L.; Haude, M.; Hassler, D.; Burkard, S.; Sonntag, H. Spontaneous and post-treatment antibody kinetics in late Lyme borreliosis. Serodiagn. Immunother. Infect. Dis. 1989, 3, 345–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Preac Mursic, V.; Patsouris, E.; Wilske, B.; Reinhardt, S.; Gross, B.; Mehraein, P. Persistence of Borrelia burgdorferi and histopathological alterations in experimentally infected animals. A comparison with histopathological findings in human Lyme disease. Infection 1990, 18, 332–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Van Andel, A.; Magnarelli, L.; Heimer, R.; Wilson, M. Development and duration of antibody response against Ehrlichia equi in horses. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 1998, 212, 1910–1914. [Google Scholar]
  89. Nyindo, M.; Ristic, M.; Lewis, G., Jr.; Huxsoll, D.; Stephenson, E. Immune response of ponies to experimental infection with Ehrlichia equi. Am. J. Vet. Res. 1978, 39, 15–18. [Google Scholar]
  90. Franzén, P.; Aspan, A.; Egenvall, A.; Gunnarsson, A.; Karlstam, E.; Pringle, J. Molecular evidence for persistence of Anaplasma phagocytophilum in the absence of clinical abnormalities in horses after recovery from acute experimental infection. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2009, 23, 636–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Barthold, S.W.; Persing, D.; Armstrong, A.L.; Peeples, R.A. Kinetics of Borrelia burgdorferi dissemination and evolution of disease after intradermal inoculation of mice. Am. J. Pathol. 1991, 139, 263. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  92. Krupka, I.; Bechtel, M.; Loehnert-Thiel, U.; Eppendorf, R.; Straubinger, R.K. Borreliose: Möglichkeiten und Perspektiven der Diagnostik. Leipz. Blaue Hefte 2012, 319. [Google Scholar]
  93. Burgess, E.; Gendron-Fitzpatrick, A. Experimental infection of equines with Borrelia burgdorferi. In Proceedings of the Lyme Borreliosis 1990, Stockholm, Sweden, 18–21 June 1990. [Google Scholar]
  94. Chang, Y.-F.; Novosol, V.; McDonough, S.; Chang, C.-F.; Jacobson, R.; Divers, T.; Quimby, F.; Shin, S.; Lein, D. Experimental infection of ponies with Borrelia burgdorferi by exposure to Ixodid ticks. Vet. Pathol. 2000, 37, 68–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  95. Chang, Y.-F.; Ku, Y.-W.; Chang, C.-F.; Chang, C.-D.; McDonough, S.P.; Divers, T.; Pough, M.; Torres, A. Antibiotic treatment of experimentally Borrelia burgdorferi-infected ponies. Vet. Microbiol. 2005, 107, 285–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Fahrer, H.; van der Linden, S.; Sauvain, M.-J.; Gern, L.; Zhioua, E.; Aeschlimann, A. A positive “Lyme-Serology”—What does it mean clinically? Preliminary results of a Swiss prospective study. Lyme Borreliosis II. Zbl Bakt. 1989, 329–333. [Google Scholar]
  97. Satz, N. [Immunology and diagnostic test results in Lyme borreliosis]. Schweiz. Med. Wochenschr. 1992, 122, 1779–1791. [Google Scholar]
  98. Nyarko, E.; Grab, D.J.; Dumler, J.S. Anaplasma phagocytophilum-infected neutrophils enhance transmigration of Borrelia burgdorferi across the human blood brain barrier in vitro. Int. J. Parasitol. 2006, 36, 601–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Beall, M.J.; Chandrashekar, R.; Eberts, M.D.; Cyr, K.E.; Diniz, P.P.; Mainville, C.; Hegarty, B.C.; Crawford, J.M.; Breitschwerdt, E.B. Serological and molecular prevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi, Anaplasma phagocytophilum, and Ehrlichia species in dogs from Minnesota. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2008, 8, 455–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Socoloski, S.N.G.; de Castro, B.G.; Cordeiro, M.D.; da Fonseca, A.H.; Cepeda, M.B.; Nicolino, R.R.; Lopes, L.B. Epidemiological investigation of Borrelia burgdorferi in horses in the municipality of Sinop-MT, Brazil. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2018, 50, 831–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Dzierzecka, M.; Kita, J. The use of chosen serological diagnostic methods in Lyme disease in horses. Part I. Indirect immunofluorescence and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Pol. J. Vet. Sci. 2002, 5, 71–77. [Google Scholar]
  102. Straubinger, R.K. Spirochäten. In Tiermedizinische Mikrobiologie, Infektions-und Seuchenlehre, 10th ed.; Selbitz, H.-J., Truyen, U., Valentin-Weigand, P., Eds.; Enke Verlag: Stuttgart, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  103. Littman, M.P.; Goldstein, R.E.; Labato, M.A.; Lappin, M.R.; Moore, G.E. ACVIM small animal consensus statement on Lyme disease in dogs: Diagnosis, treatment, and prevention. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2006, 20, 422–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Animals 13 01984 g001 550
Figure 1. Percentage (%) of B. burgdorferi seropositive results with number of horses tested positive and total number of horses tested in the federal state (n/n; n = 221).
Figure 1. Percentage (%) of B. burgdorferi seropositive results with number of horses tested positive and total number of horses tested in the federal state (n/n; n = 221).
Animals 13 01984 g001
Table
Table 1. Seroprevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi and Anaplasma phagocytophilum in European countries.
Table 1. Seroprevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi and Anaplasma phagocytophilum in European countries.
Country B. burgdorferi
Seroprevalence		A. phagocytophilum
Seroprevalence
Austria15–93% [30]
Belgium22% [77]
22% [38]
Czech Republic 72.8% [63]
Denmark29% [33]22.3% [33]
France23.7–52% [78]11.3% [58]
13.5% [59]
Germany14.5% [79]
0–64% [80] (focus on Bavaria)
3.3–61.1% [31]
47.9% [10]
27–48% [81]
0–16.1% [21]
Italy2.3–7% [13]13.4% [13]
5.1–15.3% [36]17% [60]
24.3% [35]
Spain 6.5% [62]
Sweden16.8% [28]16.7% [28]
The Netherlands 9.8% [61]
Table
Table 2. Results of the line immunoassay in 123 suspicious and 113 clinically healthy horses.
Table 2. Results of the line immunoassay in 123 suspicious and 113 clinically healthy horses.
AntigenSuspect Horses (n = 123)Clinically Healthy Horses (n = 113)
NegativePositiveNegativePositive
DbpA Mix102219518
OspC Mix97269914
p3987368132
p5898253380
p8339843380
VlsE Mix64595855
Table
Table 3. Serological results compared between Borrelia burgdorferi and Anaplasma phagocytophilum.
Table 3. Serological results compared between Borrelia burgdorferi and Anaplasma phagocytophilum.
Borrelia burgdorferiAnaplasma phagocytophilumCo-Infection
NegativeBorderlinePositiveNegativePositiveNegativePositive
Suspect horses (n = 114)56322691231077
Clinically healthy horses (n = 107)51381890171052
Table
Table 4. Distribution of the Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato seroprevalence in the federal states of Germany.
Table 4. Distribution of the Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato seroprevalence in the federal states of Germany.
RegionFederal StateClinically Suspect (n = 114)Clinically Healthy (n = 107)
NegativeBorderlinePositiveNegativeBorderlinePositive
Southern GermanyBW213401
BY8568101
HE102102
Total1161113104
Northern GermanyBB431232
HH001100
MV120210
NI173410121
NRW141571869
SH832552
ST100010
Total452615382814
BW: Baden-Württemberg, BY: Bavaria, HE: Hesse, BB: Brandenburg, HH: Hamburg, MV: Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, NI: Lower Saxony, NRW: North Rhine-Westphalia, SH: Schleswig-Holstein, ST: Saxony-Anhalt.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gehlen, H.; Inerle, K.; Bartel, A.; Stöckle, S.D.; Ulrich, S.; Briese, B.; Straubinger, R.K. Seroprevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato and Anaplasma phagocytophilum Infections in German Horses. Animals 2023, 13, 1984. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13121984

AMA Style

Gehlen H, Inerle K, Bartel A, Stöckle SD, Ulrich S, Briese B, Straubinger RK. Seroprevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato and Anaplasma phagocytophilum Infections in German Horses. Animals. 2023; 13(12):1984. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13121984

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gehlen, Heidrun, Katharina Inerle, Alexander Bartel, Sabita Diana Stöckle, Sebastian Ulrich, Beatrice Briese, and Reinhard K. Straubinger. 2023. "Seroprevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato and Anaplasma phagocytophilum Infections in German Horses" Animals 13, no. 12: 1984. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13121984

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop