Equine leptospirosis: Experimental challenge of Leptospira interrogans serovar Bratislava fails to establish infection in naïve horses. (25th March 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Zilch, Tiago J.; Lee, Jen‐Jie; Saleem, Muhammad Zain; Zhang, Hui; Cortese, Victor; Voris, Nathan; McDonough, Sean P.; Divers, Thomas J.; Chang, Yung‐Fu
• Is Part Of: Equine veterinary journal. Volume 53:Number 4(2021)
• Page Start: 845
• Page End: 854
• Publication Date: 2021-03-25
• Subjects: horse -- antibody titre -- aqueous humour -- Bratislava -- leptospirosis in horses -- seroprevalence; Horses -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 636.108905
• DOI: 10.1111/evj.13442
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0425-1644

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Little information is available about experimental inoculation of leptospirosis in horses and the pathogenicity of Leptospira interrogans serovar Bratislava in this host. Objectives: To determine the serological, clinical, pathological and haematological responses of horses to L. interrogans serovar Bratislava strain PigK151. Study design: Randomised controlled in vivo experiment. Methods: Ten seronegative female foals were divided into 2 groups, control (n = 4) and challenged (n = 6). The challenged group received 1 × 10 9 leptospires divided equally between topical ocular and intraperitoneal injections. Blood and urine samples were analysed. The temperature was recorded daily for the first 9 days, then weekly. Sera were tested by microscopic agglutination test (MAT). Automated complete blood count, differential and chemistry panel were performed. Histopathological analysis was performed on sections of liver, kidney, urinary bladder, uterine body and pineal gland. Sample culturing was performed from blood, urine, liver, kidney, reproductive tract and vitreous humour. Results: No pyrexia was noted. PCR and culture were negative from all samples. Differences between groups were found in CBC, differential counts and serum biochemistry panel (or profile), suggesting that leptospiral challenge triggered an inflammatory response. No evidence of leptospirosis was found from histopathological analysis. All challenged foals developed a humoral response. The MAT allowed the confirmation of the infecting serovar at a later stage, but it also revealed cross‐reactive results that were further explained by genomic analysis. Main limitations: This experimental challenge had two main limitations: (a) the results might have varied if another strain from the same serovar had been used and (b) the use of another route of infection and a higher bacterial dose might have achieved colonisation. Conclusions: Based on these findings, it may suggest that L. interrogans serovar Bratislava is neither pathogenic nor host‐adapted serovar for horses, although these results might have varied if another strain from the same serovar had been used instead.