Микоплазмоз И Уреаплазмоз Собак И Кошек

Страница 1 из 1

Микоплазмоз И Уреаплазмоз Собак И Кошек Journal club

#1   Parasitology

  • Паразитолог
  • Группа: Отец - основатель
  • Сообщений: 518
  • Регистрация: 06 Сентябрь 09
  • Имя:Сергей
  • Отчество:Владимирович
  • Должность:Научный сотрудник
  • ГородНовосибирск

Отправлено 08 Январь 2010 - 21:23

Выведенный из себя очередным заключением лабораторий по микромиру залез в Пабмед. Хочу поделиться.

Ureaplasma felinum sp. nov. and Ureaplasma cati sp. nov. isolated from the oral cavities of cats.

Harasawa R, Imada Y, Ito M, Koshimizu K, Cassell GH, Barile MF.

Department of Veterinary Microbiology, Faculty of Agriculture, Miyazaki University, Japan.

Seven ureaplasma strains isolated from the oral cavities of domestic cats (Felis domestica) were characterized and compared with the type strains of the three previously established species of this genus, Ureaplasma urealyticum (humans), Ureaplasma diversum (cattle), and Ureaplasma gallorale (chickens). The feline strains hydrolyzed urea but not arginine or glucose, were membrane bound, lacked cell walls, passed through 0.45-micron membrane filters, required cholesterol for growth, and formed minute (15- to 140-microns) colonies on agar medium. The seven feline strains fell into two distinct groups based on (i) their antigenic properties (determined by using the metabolism and growth inhibition and indirect immunoperoxidase procedures), (ii) their genomic properties (determined by using DNA-DNA hybridization and DNA cleavage pattern procedures), and (iii) their polypeptide profiles (determined by using sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis analyses). Based on these properties, the two feline groups were unrelated to each other or to the three previously established species, and each group represents a distinct Ureaplasma species. Thus, we propose that ureaplasmas with these phylogenetic and genomic properties be given taxonomic status as Ureaplasma felinum and Ureaplasma cati, with strain FT2-B (= ATCC 49229 = NCTC 11709) and strain F2 (= ATCC 49228 = NCTC 11710) as the type strains, respectively.


Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 1996 Mar;26(2):305-8.
The role of Mycoplasma species and Ureaplasma species in feline lower urinary tract disease.

Senior DF, Brown MB.

Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, USA.

The cause of feline lower urinary tract disease (FLUTD) is frequently difficult to determine and may be multifactorial. A controlled cohort study was performed to examine the role of Mycoplasma species and Ureaplasma species in FLUTD. Based on culture and serologic criteria, these microorganisms did not appear to be involved in the group of cats studied. At this time, there is no evidence to implicate Mycoplasma species and Ureaplasma species in FLUTD.


Vet Microbiol. 2006 Aug 25;116(1-3):246-7. Epub 2006 Jul 3.
PCR-based detection reveals no causative role for Mycoplasma and Ureaplasma in feline lower urinary tract disease.

Abou N, Houwers DJ, van Dongen AM.


Ureaplasma canigenitalium sp. nov., isolated from dogs.

Harasawa R, Imada Y, Kotani H, Koshimizu K, Barile MF.

Animal Center for Biomedical Research, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tokyo, Japan.

Ureaplasma strains isolated from dogs (Canis familiaris) were characterized and compared with the type strains of five previously described species of the genus Ureaplasma, Ureaplasma urealyticum (isolated from humans), Ureaplasma diversum (isolated from cattle), Ureaplasma gallorale (isolated from chickens), Ureaplasma cati (isolated from cats), and Ureaplasma felinum (isolated from cats). The canine strains hydrolyzed urea but not arginine or glucose, were membrane bound, lacked a cell wall, passed through 450-nm-pore-size membrane filters, required cholesterol for growth, and formed minute colonies (diameter, 20 to 140 microns) on agar medium. These canine ureaplasma strains have been reported to be members of four serovars. The four serovars of canine strains fell into a single group on the basis of their genomic properties, as determined by DNA-DNA hybridization. On the basis of these findings, we propose that ureaplasmas with these characteristics belong to a new species, Ureaplasma canigenitalium, with strain D6P-C (= ATCC 51252) as the type strain.

J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1984 Jul 1;185(1):45-7.
Mycoplasma as a cause of canine urinary tract infection.

Jang SS, Ling GV, Yamamoto R, Wolf AM.

Mycoplasmas were isolated from 60 specimens of urine obtained by cystocentesis from 41 dogs (23 males and 18 females) with urinary tract infection. Mycoplasmas were isolated in pure culture from 41 (68%) of the specimens, and were isolated in conjunction with one or more bacterial species from 19 (32%) specimens. Clinical signs of urinary tract infection were noted in 20 of 31 dogs in which mycoplasmas were isolated in pure culture, and numbers of WBC in the urine sediment were above the reported normal range in 22 of 25 urine specimens from those 20 dogs. Twenty-four of 29 mycoplasma isolates were found to be Mycoplasma canis, 4 were found to be M spumans, and 1 was identified as M cynos.

Vet Rec. 2003 Aug 23;153(8):231-5.
Mycoplasma canis and urogenital disease in dogs in Norway.

L'Abee-Lund TM, Heiene R, Friis NF, Ahrens P, S?rum H.

Department of Pharmacology, Microbiology and Food Hygiene, Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, PO Box 8146 Dep, 003 Oslo, Norway.

Mycoplasmas identified as Mycoplasma canis were isolated from nine dogs with clinical signs of urogenital disease in Norway over a period of 20 months. Some of the dogs had been treated unsuccessfully with antibiotics, and three were euthanased as a result of severe persistent disease. Seven of the dogs had a urinary tract infection, one had chronic purulent epididymitis and one had chronic prostatitis. Overt haematuria was frequently observed among the dogs with cystitis. M canis was isolated in pure culture from seven of the dogs and in mixed culture from the other two. In three cases the mycoplasma was cultivated only from urinary sediment, and it was typically obtained in smaller numbers than would be considered indicative of a urinary tract infection. In contrast with most mycoplasmas, the M canis isolated from all the dogs grew on ordinary blood agar plates used for routine bacteriological cultivation. Specific mycoplasma media were not used and the presence of other Mycoplasma or Ureaplasma species cannot be excluded.

Неплохая статейка, но старенькая
http://www.ncbi.nlm....d00019-0025.pdf

#2   vasya_906

  • Прохожий
  • Pip
  • Группа: Ветеринар
  • Сообщений: 35
  • Регистрация: 20 Октябрь 09
  • Имя:Евгения
  • Отчество:Николаевна
  • Должность:Научный сотрудник
  • ГородЕкатеринбург

Отправлено 08 Январь 2010 - 23:09

и все таки роль этих микроорганизмов в качестве патогенного агента спорна. хоть у мелких, хоть у каких нибудь крс.

#3   Parasitology

  • Паразитолог
  • Группа: Отец - основатель
  • Сообщений: 518
  • Регистрация: 06 Сентябрь 09
  • Имя:Сергей
  • Отчество:Владимирович
  • Должность:Научный сотрудник
  • ГородНовосибирск

Отправлено 08 Январь 2010 - 23:55

Судя по статьям, для кошек вопрос о патогенности уреаплазм и микоплазм в мочевыводящей системе как стартового механизма то что у нас обычно называют мочекаменной закрыт. У собак же с половыми проблемами показано, что среди заражённых больше клинических проявлений, чем среди не заражённых. Специально привёл пример с описанными уреаплазмами ротовой полости у кошек. Стоило бы отметить, что гемобартонелл кошек тоже уже перевели в род Микоплазма. Вот меня и интересует в свете всего этого, что это такое в бланке анализа - "обнаружена Ureaplasma"?

Ни одна лаборатория объяснить, что это за услуга - определение микоплазм и уреаплазм, и какое клиническое значение, этот скажем сразу не дешёвый тест, имеет.

Может кто-нибудь объяснит?
Страница 1 из 1