Skip to main content
Advertisement
  • Loading metrics

Domestic dogs in indigenous Amazonian communities: Key players in Leptospira cycling and transmission?

  • Diego A. Guzmán,

    Roles Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Instituto de Microbiología, Colegio de Ciencias Biológicas y Ambientales, Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador

  • Eduardo Diaz,

    Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Escuela de Medicina Veterinaria, Colegio de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ, Quito, Ecuador

  • Carolina Sáenz,

    Roles Methodology, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Hospital de Fauna Silvestre TUERI, Instituto de Biodiversidad Tropical IBIOTROP, Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ, Quito, Ecuador

  • Hernán Álvarez,

    Roles Methodology, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Wildlife Conservation Society–Ecuador Program, Quito, Ecuador

  • Rubén Cueva,

    Roles Methodology, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Wildlife Conservation Society–Ecuador Program, Quito, Ecuador

  • Galo Zapata-Ríos,

    Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Wildlife Conservation Society–Ecuador Program, Quito, Ecuador

  • Belén Prado-Vivar,

    Roles Methodology, Writing – review & editing

    Current address: Mueller Lab, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Medical Biology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

    Affiliation Instituto de Microbiología, Colegio de Ciencias Biológicas y Ambientales, Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador

  • Mercy Falconí,

    Roles Methodology, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Agencia de Regulación y Control Fito y Zoosanitario-Agrocalidad, Quito, Ecuador

  • Talima Pearson ,

    Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

    talima.pearson@nau.edu (TP); vbarragan@usfq.edu.ec (VB)

    Affiliation Pathogen and Microbiome Institute, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, United States of America

  • Veronica Barragan

    Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    talima.pearson@nau.edu (TP); vbarragan@usfq.edu.ec (VB)

    Affiliation Instituto de Microbiología, Colegio de Ciencias Biológicas y Ambientales, Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador

Abstract

Background

Leptospirosis is the world’s most common zoonotic disease. Mitigation and control rely on pathogen identification and understanding the roles of potential reservoirs in cycling and transmission. Underreporting and misdiagnosis obscure the magnitude of the problem and confound efforts to understand key epidemiological components. Difficulties in culturing hamper the use of serological diagnostics and delay the development of DNA detection methods. As a result, especially in complex ecosystems, we know very little about the importance of different mammalian host species in cycling and transmission to humans.

Methodology/principal findings

We sampled dogs from five indigenous Kichwa communities living in the Yasuní National Park in the Ecuadorian Amazon basin. Blood and urine samples from domestic dogs were collected to assess the exposure of these animals to Leptospira and to identify the circulating species. Microscopic Agglutination Tests with a panel of 22 different serovars showed anti-leptospira antibodies in 36 sampled dogs (75%), and 7 serogroups were detected. Two DNA-based detection assays revealed pathogenic Leptospira DNA in 18 of 19 dog urine samples (94.7%). Amplicon sequencing and phylogenetic analysis of 16S rRNA and SecY genes from 15 urine samples revealed genetic diversity within two of three different Leptospira species: noguchii (n = 7), santarosai (n = 7), and interrogans (n = 1).

Conclusions/significance

The high prevalence of antibodies and Leptospira DNA provides strong evidence for high rates of past and current infections. Such high prevalence has not been previously reported for dogs. These dogs live in the peridomestic environment in close contact with humans, yet they are free-ranging animals that interact with wildlife. This complex web of interactions may explain the diverse types of pathogenic Leptospira observed in this study. Our results suggest that domestic dogs are likely to play an important role in the cycling and transmission of Leptospira. Future studies in areas with complex ecoepidemiology will enable better parsing of the significance of genotypic, environmental, and host characteristics.

Author summary

People around the world interact with a wide range of animals, but one of the closest is the domestic dog. Dogs can be reservoirs of several zoonotic infectious diseases, including leptospirosis. The frequent ecological interactions between people, dogs, and wildlife in indigenous communities living in the Amazon basin might increase the complexity of leptospirosis transmission, in comparison with what has been described for other settings. In the Amazon basin, wild animals and domestic animals may act as reservoirs of the pathogen, excreting the bacteria through their urine. In this work, we analyzed serum and urine samples from dogs living within Kichwa communities from the Yasuní National Park in Ecuador. Serum samples were analyzed with MAT and urine samples with qPCR assays that detect the presence of pathogenic Leptospira. Our results suggest that a high percentage of dogs have been exposed to Leptospira. We identified the presence of ten serovars and three different Leptospira species. These findings provide important insights into the epidemiology of leptospirosis in this ecosystem, showing that dogs are a common reservoir and thus likely to play a critical role in the transmission of the disease.

Introduction

Leptospirosis is a zoonosis that continues to be an important, albeit neglected infectious disease affecting humans and animals worldwide [1]. Leptospirosis particularly affects people living in poverty and with poor sanitation [25]. Humans contract leptospirosis when pathogenic Leptospira spp. come into contact with injured skin or mucous membranes either through direct contact with urine of infected animals, or contact with urine-contaminated environments [69]. Mild disease occurs in most cases, characterized by a nonspecific, febrile, flu-like illness. On the other hand, severe leptospirosis can cause dysfunction of the kidneys, lungs, and liver, leading to the death of the patient in approximately 5% of cases [10,11]. Unfortunately, diverse symptoms and co-circulation of other febrile diseases (e.g., Dengue and Malaria) lead to under- or misdiagnosis, resulting in an underestimation of the prevalence and severe epidemiological knowledge gaps in our understanding of reservoirs and modes of transmission [7,12,13].

A diverse array of domestic and wild animals likely serve as reservoirs by excreting Leptospira in their urine [1416]. Rats are thought to be important in transmission of Leptospira to humans, however in some settings, prevalence is higher in livestock suggesting that other animals also play significant roles [1623]. Unfortunately reports of seroprevalence in wild animals are scarce [2431], leaving gaps in our understanding of how interactions between domestic animals and wildlife influence prevalence in domestic animals and ultimately, transmission to humans. While some epidemiological parameters may be similar across regions, other attributes such as host densities, prevalence, and interactions (with human and non-human hosts) may be site-specific and are likely highly important for the circulation and transmission of Leptospira [17]. For effective control and prevention of leptospirosis, it is vital to explore how local factors influence disease epidemiology.

Humans across the world interact with a variety of animals, but one of the closest is the domestic dog. The exposure of dogs to pathogenic leptospires may depend on: 1) interactions with, or proximity to other domestic and wild animals, and 2) attributes of the local environment in which the animals live, such as hygiene and local weather conditions [3235]. Dogs can present with mild to severe signs similar to humans; the most common signs are anorexia, lethargy, diarrhea, jaundice, fever, and weakness. Severe leptospirosis in dogs can progress to kidney failure, liver failure, shock, and often death [36]. Importantly, dogs can excrete the bacteria in their urine even without showing signs of disease [3740]. While the role of dogs in leptospirosis transmission remains poorly understood, their proximity to humans and potential to excrete the pathogen in the peridomestic environment suggests that these animals may play an important role in the epidemiology of human disease [33,4147].

Kichwa people, one of the indigenous ethnic groups that live in the Ecuadorian Amazon basin, own domestic dogs. However, unlike dogs in most urban settings, these animals are not confined indoors or the immediate vicinity of the homes; they drink water from the river or stagnant pools, roam freely in the forest, and hunt small wild animals. These behaviors, combined with the region’s climatic conditions which favor the environmental persistence of Leptospira, increase the likelihood of exposure and transmission of pathogenic Leptospira species to humans and wildlife. Thus, the proximity of dogs to people, especially children, may be an important risk factor for leptospirosis in these indigenous communities.

In this study, we investigated whether domestic dogs from five Kichwa communities living on the riverbanks of the Napo River in the Ecuadorian Amazon were exposed to Leptospira through serological analyses. We also aimed to determine if these dogs were excreting leptospires by molecular detection of Leptospira DNA in their urine. Finding high prevalence of past infection and presence of this pathogen in urine would suggest that humans and animals that interact with these dogs are at high risk of exposure to Leptospira, and thus domestic dogs likely play an important role in the local epidemiology of leptospirosis.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

Ethical approval for sample collection was issued by the Animal Bioethics Committee at Universidad San Francisco de Quito (CEIDA-USFQ 2017–010).

Study site

This study was carried out in the northern part of Yasuní National Park, in eastern Ecuador (00°30’14” S; 76°28’19” W). This protected area contains parts of the territory of five Kichwa indigenous communities (approximately 88 000 ha). Yasuní National Park is located on the western Amazon and has been recognized as a major biodiversity hotspot [48]. Encompassing almost 1 million ha, Yasuní is one of the most species diverse forests in the world [49,50]. The study area is classified as a tropical rain forest [51], dominated by large tracts of terra firme forest mixed with smaller extensions of palm swamps. There are still large expanses of continuous undisturbed vegetation in the eastern and southern portions of the park, but its northern and western boundaries are surrounded by a growing matrix of pastures, agricultural lands, and secondary vegetation [52].

With a population of more than 100,000 people, the Kichwa constitutes Amazonian Ecuador’s largest indigenous group [53]. This study was performed in five Kichwa communities (Pompeya, Indillama, Nueva Providencia, Sani Isla, and San Roque) located along the Napo River and established 40 years ago when a few families moved to the area looking for new hunting grounds (Fig 1). Although some ecotourism activities occur in the area, the local economy is primarily based on subsistence agriculture (mainly plantain and manioc), and a high percentage of protein intake comes from wild meat.

thumbnail
Fig 1. Geographic location of study sites in the Yasuní Biosphere Reserve.

The five Kichwa communities that were sampled are shown as grey dots: Pompeya (lat:-0.44148, long:-76.60161), Indillama (lat:-0.44281, long:-76.5184), Nueva Providencia (lat:-0.48804, long:-76.48771), Sani Isla (lat:-0.48152, long:-76.27553), and San Roque (lat:-0.45611, long:-76.20086). Dark gray color shows the boundaries for the Yasuní National Park, and the lighter gray color indicates the park buffer zone. Maps were created using ArcGIS software by ESRI (https://www.esri.com/en-us/home) ArcGIS and ArcMap are the intellectual property of ESRI and are used herein under license. Copyright Esri. All rights reserved. Base layer was obtained from: (https://wcs-global.maps.arcgis.com/ - Reserva de Biósfera Yasuní) and (https://www.portal30x30.com - Áreas Protegidas Ecuador SNAP).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0011671.g001

Sampled population

A total of 51 dogs were included in this study, all dogs were sampled during a deworming campaign performed in August 2019 by the Universidad San Francisco de Quito (USFQ) and the Wildlife Conservation Society–Ecuador (WCS–Ecuador). Our inclusion/exclusion criterion was permission from the dog owner. Based on data from a previous dog census conducted by WCS-Ecuador from June to November 2018, the total population of domestic dogs was 550. The 51 dogs that we sampled therefore represented almost 10% of the total population (48 serum samples were analyzed using MAT, and 19 urine samples were analyzed using PCR) Sample collection.

Urine and blood samples were collected in August 2019 from domestic dogs living in the communities as follows. Blood samples we collected from the cephalic vein for all domestic dogs except for three, resulting in a total sample size of 48 dogs: Pompeya (n = 7), Sani Isla (n = 12), San Roque (n = 12), Indillama (n = 5), and Nueva Providencia (n = 12). We collected urine samples from 19 male dogs by transurethral catheterization. It was not possible to get this type of sample from all dogs due to the absence of urine in the bladder of some animals. Transurethral catheterization is difficult in female dogs and thus urine samples from female dogs were not collected. To prevent DNA degradation, 4 ml of urine was added to 4 ml of 2X DNA/RNA Shield (Zymo, USA). Serum and urine samples were stored and transported on ice to the Institute of Microbiology at Universidad San Francisco de Quito and thereafter maintained at -20°C until DNA extraction.

Serological detection of Leptospira infection

The 48 dog serum samples were analyzed by the National Reference Laboratory for Animal Diagnostics (AGROCALIDAD) using Microscopic Agglutination Test (MAT) using standard methods [54] and performed with a panel of 22 different available serovars that belong to 16 serogroups: Australis (Australis and Bratislava), Autumnalis (Autumnalis and Djasiman), Icterohaemorrhagiae (Icterohaemorrhagiae and Copenhageni), Canicola (Canicola), Sejroe (Hardjo, Wolffi, Sejroe, and Saxkoebing), Grippotyphosa (Grippotyphosa), Shermani (Shermani), Celledoni (Celledoni), Javanica (Javanica), Tarassovi (Tarassovi), Pyrogenes (Pyrogenes), Bataviae (Bataviae), Andamana (Andamana), Ballum (Castellonis), Pomona (Pomona), and Hebdomadis (Hebdomadis). Samples with titers ≥ 1:100 were considered positive for anti-leptospiral antibodies. MAT results were visualized by dark field microscopy, and the final titer was assigned as the serum dilution that promotes 50% of agglutination. The serovar and serogroup with the highest titer was recorded in samples that reacted with multiple serovars. If a sample reacted with more than one serovar from different serogroups with the same titers and without showing a unique highest titer, samples were labeled as “cross-reactive”. Characterized local strains are not available in Ecuador, therefore the serology is performed with non-local strains and cross-reactivity due to non-specific antibody binding even across serogroups is common and expected.

Molecular detection of Leptospira

Molecular detection of pathogenic Leptospira spp. was performed on the 19 dog urine samples. Samples were thawed on ice and centrifuged at 4500 × g for 20 min at 4°C. The supernatant was discarded, and 200 μL of the pellet material was used for DNA extraction using DNeasy Blood and Tissue kit (Qiagen, CA, USA). DNA was stored at –20°C. Two previously described TaqMan assays were used for molecular detection of Leptospira specific to the pathogenic clade: one assay targets the lipL32 gene [55] and the other, SNP 111, targets a SNP in the 16S rRNA gene of pathogenic Leptospira [18]. A sample was considered positive when at least one of the assays (lipL32 or SNP 111) detected leptospiral DNA. The redundancy of two independent assays reduces the likelihood of false negatives that, in our experience, is relatively common and due to the large genetic diversity of pathogenic Leptospira. Using 2 assays also minimizes false negatives by mitigating against the inherent stochasticity of capturing a PCR target in low quantity samples.

Amplicon sequencing for Leptospira species identification

Primers rrs2 and SecYIV, described by Ahmed et al. [56,57], were used to amplify a fragment of the 16S rRNA and SecY genes from positive samples. Amplicons were sequenced using Oxford Nanopore Technologies. PCR amplicons were obtained using the Q5 High-Fidelity Master Mix (New England, BioLabs), 0.4 μM each primer, and 2.5 μL of DNA template in a final reaction volume of 25 μL. PCR protocol consisted of an initial step at 98°C for 30 seconds, followed by 30 cycles of 10 s at 98°C, 30 s at 58°C or 54°C for rrs2 and SecYIV, respectively, and 30 s at 72°C, followed by final extension step for 2 minutes at 72°C. Amplicons were purified using AMPure XP magnetic beads (Beckman Coulter, USA) following manufacturer instructions and then quantified in a Qubit 3.0 flourometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific) using the Qubit 1X dsDNA, high sensitivity kit (Thermo Scientific, Invitrogen, USA). The quantified samples were normalized to a concentration of 3,0 ng/uL and sequenced following the Oxford Nanopore Library preparation protocol of the Ligation sequencing kit (SQK-LSK109) (Oxford Nanopore Technologies, UK). Finally, 5,72 ng of the library was loaded into a MinION flow cell (FLO-MIN 106). Most reads were obtained during the first 12 hours of the run. Reads were basecalled and demultiplexed using the Guppy software (version 3.4.5) (Oxford Nanopore Technologies, UK) [58] and Porechop (version 0.2.4) (https://github.com/rrwick/Porechop), respectively.

Sequence analysis for Leptospira species identification

Leptospira sequences were initially screened using BLASTn command line software (version 2.9.0–2) [59]. This step was implemented to filter out non-Leptospira reads obtained during sequencing. Then, sequences were aligned with minimap2 (version 2.22) [60] and visualized in Tablet (version 1.21.02.08) [61]. L. interrogans serovar Copenhageni FioCruz L1-130 chromosome 1 (NC_005823.1) was used as a reference genome for the alignment. All the reads that were mapped to the corresponding genes (16S rRNA and SecY) were filtered to a new file and aligned in MEGA-X (version 10.1.8) [62]. The consensus sequences were obtained using the EMBOSS cons online tool https://www.ebi.ac.uk/Tools/msa/emboss_cons/ [63]. Sequences from both genes were concatenated and compared with representative sequences of each species of Leptospira obtained from GenBank. A phylogenetic tree was built in MEGA-X using the Neighbor-Joining method [64], with the Maximum Composite Likelihood model [65] and 500 bootstraps. Finally, the phylogenetic tree was visualized using iTOL [66].

All raw sequence reads were deposited in the NCBI’s Sequence Read Archive (SRA) under Bioproject Number PRJNA758395, and SRA accession numbers SRX12007895 -SRX12007909.

Results

High seroprevalence among domestic dogs from Kichwa communities

Anti-leptospira antibodies were registered in 36 of the 48 dogs (75% - 95% CI [60.4–86.4]) with titers ≥1:100. Sejroe serogroup was most frequently detected (n = 8) followed by Tarassovi (n = 5), Australis (n = 3), Pyrogenes (n = 3), Canicola (n = 2), Grippotyphosa (n = 1), and Shermani (n = 1), 13 samples cross-reacted with different serogroups. Results from cross-reactive samples should be interpreted with caution as this is likely due to non-specific binding and probably not indicative of a given serogroup or serotype. MAT titers for each sample are detailed in S1 Table. Dogs from the San Roque community showed the highest positivity (92%, n = 11/12), followed by Nueva Providencia (83%, n = 10/12), Indillama (80%, n = 4/5), Sani Isla (58%, n = 7/12), and Pompeya (57%, n = 4/7) communities (Table 1).

thumbnail
Table 1. Leptospira serogroups detected in domestic dogs living in Kichwa communities.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0011671.t001

Detection of pathogenic Leptospira DNA in a high percentage of dogs

Leptospira DNA was detected in 18 of 19 dog urine samples (94.7% - 95% CI [73.9–99.8]). Some samples that were negative for lipL32 were positive for SNP111 and vice-versa (Table 2). The SNP111 assay detected Leptospira DNA in 7 samples that the lipL32 assay did not detect. Likewise, the lipL32 assay detected Leptospira DNA in 8 samples that the SNP111 assay did not detect. Only three samples were positive for both assays. Sequencing analysis confirmed the presence of pathogenic Leptospira in most samples. Interestingly, we found 2 serum samples from PCR-positive dogs that were negative for MAT (Table 2).

thumbnail
Table 2. Leptospira seropositivity, and detection and identification of pathogenic Leptospira DNA in dog urine samples.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0011671.t002

Three out of 18 samples did not yield amplicon qualities sufficient for sequencing. Three species of Leptospira were identified from 15 urine samples by sequencing 541 bp and 202 bp fragments of the 16S rRNA and SecY genes, respectively. After concatenation, a fragment of approximately 700 bp was analyzed for species identification. Leptospira noguchii (n = 7) was present in at least one sample from each community except for Nueva Providencia, Leptospira santarosai (n = 7) was detected in all communities except for Indillama, and Leptospira interrogans was detected in a single sample from Pompeya (Fig 2).

thumbnail
Fig 2. Molecular phylogenetic analysis of a 466 bp fragment obtained by concatenating a 266 bp fragment of the 16S rRNA and a 200 bp fragment of the SecY genes.

Bootstrap values (500 replicates) > 0.90 are indicated with “*”. The tree was rooted with sequences from Leptonema illini DSM 21528 (not depicted on the tree). The samples sequenced from this project are indicated by green text.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0011671.g002

Discussion

The Amazon basin would appear to be an ideal environment for the circulation of pathogenic Leptospira species due to its tropical climate, year-round rainfall, and the high diversity of wildlife that can act as reservoirs. However, very few cases of human leptospirosis are reported in the Ecuadorian Amazon basin, with approximately 38 patients annually from 2015 to 2022 [67]. These few reported cases undoubtedly underestimate prevalence; leptospirosis has been neglected in rural Ecuador for decades [18,68] and recently, the public health system has been completely focused on the COVID-19 pandemic [69]. Moreover, public health clinics are challenging to access due to long distances from communities. For communities like Sani Isla and San Roque, the nearest health centers are Añangu (20 km away) and El Eden (18.36 km away), respectively, entailing travelling long distances by foot and boat. For this reason, medical brigades rarely visit these communities. Lack of resources, government priorities, and the remoteness of this area make it difficult to accurately determine the prevalence of diseases, including leptospirosis.

Human interaction with infected animals is a significant risk factor for leptospirosis [70]. Dogs, in particular, live in the peridomestic environment and interact closely with all members of the human community. At the same time, domestic dogs interact with wildlife in the adjacent forest and environment by influencing activity patterns, reducing abundance through direct predation and harassment, and generally disturb ecosystems [7173]. Based on the 2018 census, 550 dogs lived in the five participating Kichwa communities. These dogs roam freely in search of food and water, potentially exposing them to leptospirosis and other zoonotic diseases (e.g., rabies, canine distemper, and parvovirus) circulating among wildlife [71,74,75]. Unfortunately, dog vaccinations, deworming, and sterilization in Kichwa communities is not routinely performed due to accessibility difficulties. In short, the prevalence, behavior, and lack of veterinary care of domestic dogs likely increases the risk of zoonotic disease transmission among domestic animals, wildlife, and humans.

We sampled a high percentage of the total population of dogs (>9% of the 550 individuals). Our serological results in these 51 dogs suggests that a high percentage of dogs have been exposed to pathogenic Leptospira. The serogroups Canicola and Pyrogenes were present in only two and three dogs (respectively), which was not expected because elsewhere, these are the most common serogroups in dogs [14,7679] and are suspected to be responsible for transmission between dogs and humans [14,42,47,78,80]. Additionally, several serogroups found in the dogs of our study, such as Sejroe, Tarassovi and Australis, have been associated with pigs, cows, and other small mammals [14,25,7678,8083]. The 13 (out of 36) samples that cross-reacted against our panel suggests additional, yet undefined diversity. This diversity of serogroups suggests possible exposure of dogs to pathogenic Leptospira from multiple sources. Previous studies on Amazonian wildlife have shown a high diversity of Leptospira serovars across a diverse array of hosts, however it is unclear whether this diversity is due to broad interactions between hosts or specific to individual host species [24,25]. The Leptospira literature is replete with evidence of serotype and genotype host-specificity [e.g., 84]. However, such specificity is not absolute as such serotypes and genotypes are frequently sampled from other species [18,81,85]. It is clear that pathogen associations between hosts are complex, and wildlife might be an important source of diversity which, due to the nearness to the forest, likely influences the ecoepidemiology of leptospirosis in these Kichwa communities.

It is important to note that none of the dogs in our study were vaccinated against leptospirosis, and the high diversity of serogroups encountered suggests that even vaccination, as routinely performed in Ecuador and other Latin American countries, would have little effect in preventing canine infection or carriage, although it may reduce the prevalence of certain serovars. In Ecuador, the health authority, AGROCALIDAD, has registered and approved multiple vaccines for canine leptospirosis [86]. Most of them are bivalent and include serovars Canicola and Icterohaemorrhagiae belonging to the serogroups Canicola and Icterohaemorrhagiae respectively, but there are also two approved multivalent vaccines that might have higher coverage (one contains serovars Canicola, Icterohaemorrhagiae, Pomona, and Grippotyphosa, and the other contains Canicola, Icterohaemorrhagiae, Grippotyphosa, Pomona, Tarassovi, and Wolffi). Importantly, we found that a high percentage of samples cross-reacted with multiple leptospira serovars (36.1%). This has been commonly reported in samples from dogs in the acute phase of the disease and may also be due to common leptospiral antigens in other serovars [54,87]. Common antigens across serovars can also result in attribution of a sample to the wrong serovar or serogroup. In such cases of non-specific binding, titers will be lower, leading to falsely indicating previous, rather than current infection (as our PCR results suggest). This problem can be overcome by using local isolates that have been previously characterized and whose cross-reactivity is known [54]. However, few efforts have been made in Ecuador to obtain, culture, maintain, and test local Leptospira isolates.

Dogs infected with the pathogen will begin to excrete bacteria in their urine 7 to 10 days post-infection, and this excretion can continue for several weeks or even years [41,88]. Additionally, shedding in the absence of signs of disease has been found in 0.2 to 48.8% of dogs worldwide [89,90], but such studies are rare and much is unknown about how frequently this occurs. Our sampling methodology restricted our urine sampling to male dogs, and while other methods such as cystocentesis can be used to collect urine from female dogs, there is no indication that sex differences influence infection in dogs. Surprisingly, our results show that 94.7% (n = 19–95% CI [73.9–99.8]) of the dogs without signs of disease were excreting Leptospira. We were not able to quantify the amount of Leptospira in each sample, but our results provide important information on the presence of the pathogen in dogs, and the high percentage that we report is unparalleled. Three pathogenic Leptospira species were identified in dog urine, L. santarosai, L. noguchii, and L. interrogans. These species have been previously identified in South America [9193]; L. santarosai and L. noguchii have been reported in wildlife and dogs without signs of disease, and all three have caused severe disease in humans [25,32,37,90,94101]. L. interrogans is the most common and widely distributed pathogenic species and known to also infect rodents and small mammals [102104]. In our study, L. interrogans was found only in a community close to the small town of Pompeya, although the presence of this species in more remote communities cannot be excluded due to the small number of samples collected. L. noguchii and L. santarosai were found in remote communities. The relatively high genotype diversity is consistent with the high serotype diversity and given the close interaction of dogs with the environment and wildlife, is suggestive of varied sources such as might be encountered in the adjacent forest.

The methods used to preserve and transport samples, coupled with detection and sequencing methods, reduced the likelihood of false positives. Recovering Leptospira DNA from urine is complicated due to pH and degradation of leptospiral DNA at ambient temperatures or after freezing and thawing as might occur during transit [105]. In the Amazon basin, consistent cold storage of samples is not possible. We therefore used RNA/DNA shield (Zymo) to preserve DNA integrity. We were able to increase the sensitivity of Leptospira DNA detection by combining the results of two highly sensitive TaqMan assays capable of detecting 1×101 copies/μL [18,55]. By using both assays, we reduced the likelihood of false negatives and doubled the number of positive samples.

Researching leptospirosis within the framework of the One Health concept [106] by considering the particularities of the disease in different settings is essential. In rural areas, we expect complex transmission and cycling networks because of high genetic heterogeneity of Leptospira and interactions with diverse host species [2,18,33,107]. In the Amazon region of Brazil, Peru, and Bolivia, wild animals like mouse opossums, coati, nine-banded armadillos, opossums, porcupines, rodents, primates, bats, and wolves are exposed to the disease or excrete leptospires in their urine [2428,108]. While this was a cross-sectional study, longitudinal monitoring of both the pathogen prevalence and genotypes would provide important insights into the persistence, longevity, and cycling of Leptospira. Indeed, details about the pathogen and host diversity, density of animal reservoirs, abiotic factors, and interactions among all these elements will ultimately guide the design and implementation of effective prevention and control plans. Our results add important information to existing general knowledge by suggesting that dogs might not only be an important risk factor for human leptospirosis, but also might contribute to the sylvatic transmission cycle. Certainly, much remains to be learned about the epidemiology of leptospirosis in a megadiverse place like the Amazon basin. Undoubtedly, a major challenge to understanding disease cycling in one of the world’s most diverse ecosystems will entail the logistical and methodological hurdles of sampling wild animals.

Conclusions

A high level of seropositivity and prevalence pathogenic Leptospira DNA in dogs from five indigenous Kichwa communities provides strong evidence that infection and carriage of leptospirosis is very common among dogs in the Ecuadorian Amazon basin. The high serotype and genetic diversity of samples, coupled with the lack of a single dominant type suggest that there may not be any serotype of genotype that is specifically adapted to dogs, and sources of transmission to these dogs are likely to be varied. The domestic dogs in these communities are free-roaming and often hunt wildlife and interact with the ecosystem of the adjacent forest, providing frequent opportunities for the transmission of Leptospira to and from wild animals. Importantly, frequent interactions with humans and presence in the peridomestic space are likely to result in transmission between humans and dogs, and the high prevalence in dogs suggests that human leptospirosis in this region is likely greatly underestimated. To more completely understand the cycling and transmission of Leptospira in this environment, high-resolution genotyping of longitudinal samples collected from dogs, humans, wildlife, soil, and water would be ideal. This work however establishes that domestic dogs are likely to play an important role in leptospirosis epidemiology in this region, with implications in other regions of the world where peridomestic animals interact with surrounding environments and wildlife.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Serological analysis of 48 dogs by MAT.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0011671.s001

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the five Kichwa communities in northern Yasuní National Park, Centro de Bioinformática–Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Cristopher Pineda, and Andrea Guayasamin.

References

  1. 1. Vijayachari P, Sugunan A, Shriram A. Leptospirosis: an emerging global public health problem. J Biosci. 2008;33: 557–569. pmid:19208981
  2. 2. Muñoz-Zanzi C, Mason M, Encina C, Gonzalez M, Berg S. Household Characteristics Associated with Rodent Presence and Leptospira Infection in Rural and Urban Communities from Southern Chile. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2014;90: 497. pmid:24445209
  3. 3. Bonner PC, Schmidt WP, Belmain SR, Oshin B, Baglole D, Borchert M. Poor housing quality increases risk of rodent infestation and lassa fever in refugee camps of sierra leone. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2007;77: 169–175. pmid:17620650
  4. 4. Ko AI, Reis MG, Dourado CMR, Johnson WD, Riley LW. Urban epidemic of severe leptospirosis in Brazil. Lancet. 1999;354: 820–825. pmid:10485724
  5. 5. Maciel EAP, Carvalho ALF de, Nascimento SF, Matos RB de, Gouveia EL, Reis MG, et al. Household Transmission of Leptospira Infection in Urban Slum Communities. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2008;2. pmid:18357340
  6. 6. Ganoza CA, Matthias MA, Collins-Richards D, Brouwer KC, Cunningham CB, Segura ER, et al. Determining Risk for Severe Leptospirosis by Molecular Analysis of Environmental Surface Waters for Pathogenic Leptospira. PLoS Med. 2006;3: 1329–1340. pmid:16933963
  7. 7. Haake DA, Levett PN. Leptospirosis in humans. In: Adler B, editor. Leptospira and Leptospirosis Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Verlag; 2015. pp. 65–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45059-8_5 pmid:25388133
  8. 8. Johnson MAS, Smith H, Joseph P, Gilman RH, Bautista CT, Campos KJ, et al. Environmental Exposure and Leptospirosis, Peru. Emerg Infect Dis. 2004;10: 1016. pmid:15207052
  9. 9. Senvanpan N, Phimolsarnnousith V, Rattanavong S, Mayxay M, Reinharz D, Fine AE, et al. Longitudinal comparison of bacterial pathogen seropositivity among wet market vendors in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. One Heal. 2023;17: 100618. pmid:37811399
  10. 10. Togal T, Sener A, Yucel N, Demirbilek S, Akgun FS, Aydogan M, et al. Intensive Care of a Weil’s Disease With Multiorgan Failure. J Clin Med Res. 2010;2: 145. pmid:21629529
  11. 11. Costa F, Hagan JE, Calcagno J, Kane M, Torgerson P, Martinez-Silveira MS, et al. Global Morbidity and Mortality of Leptospirosis: A Systematic Review. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9. pmid:26379143
  12. 12. Smith A, Hammond J. Leptospirosis in man and animals. J Am Med Assoc. 1952;150: 1406–1407. pmid:12990441
  13. 13. Levett P, Branch S, Edwards C. Detection of dengue infection in patients investigated for leptospirosis in Barbados. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2000;62: 112–114. pmid:10761734
  14. 14. Ellis WA. Animal Leptospirosis. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2015;387: 99–137. pmid:25388134
  15. 15. Levett PN. Leptospirosis. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2001;14: 296–326.
  16. 16. Diaz EA, Luna L, Burgos-Mayorga A, Donoso G, Guzman DA, Baquero MI, et al. First detection of Leptospira santarosai in the reproductive track of a boar: A potential threat to swine production and public health. PLoS One. 2022;17: e0274362. pmid:36129918
  17. 17. Barragan V, Nieto N, Keim P, Pearson T. Meta-analysis to estimate the load of Leptospira excreted in urine: Beyond rats as important sources of transmission in low-income rural communities. BMC Res Notes. 2017;10: 1–7.
  18. 18. Barragan V, Chiriboga J, Miller E, Olivas S, Birdsell D, Hepp C, et al. High Leptospira Diversity in Animals and Humans Complicates the Search for Common Reservoirs of Human Disease in Rural Ecuador. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10. pmid:27622673
  19. 19. Faria MT de Calderwood MS, Athanazio DA McBride AJA, Hartskeerl RA Pereira MM, et al. Carriage of Leptospira interrogans among domestic rats from an urban setting highly endemic for leptospirosis in Brazil. Acta Trop. 2008;108: 1–5. pmid:18721789
  20. 20. Martins G, Lilenbaum W. The panorama of animal leptospirosis in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, regarding the seroepidemiology of the infection in tropical regions. BMC Vet Res. 2013;9. pmid:24289165
  21. 21. Matthias MA, Ricaldi JN, Cespedes M, Diaz MM, Galloway RL, Saito M, et al. Human Leptospirosis Caused by a New, Antigenically Unique Leptospira Associated with a Rattus Species Reservoir in the Peruvian Amazon. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2008;2: e213. pmid:18382606
  22. 22. Boey K, Shiokawa K, Rajeev S. Leptospira infection in rats: A literature review of global prevalence and distribution. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019;13. pmid:31398190
  23. 23. Gizamba JM, Mugisha L. Leptospirosis in humans and selected animals in Sub-Saharan Africa, 2014–2022: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Infect Dis. 2023;23: 1–13. pmid:37784071
  24. 24. Lins ZC, Lopes ML. Isolation of Leptospira from wild forest animals in Amazonian Brazil. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1984;78: 124–126. pmid:6710564
  25. 25. Medeiros L dos S, Braga Domingos SC, Azevedo MIN Di, Peruquetti RC, de Albuquerque NF, D’Andrea PS, et al. Small Mammals as Carriers/Hosts of Leptospira spp. in the Western Amazon Forest. Front Vet Sci. 2020;7. pmid:33344523
  26. 26. Mesquita GS de S, Rocha K de S, Monteiro TRM, do Rosário MKS, Baia IWM, Pereira H de S, et al. Detection of antibodies against Leptospira spp in free-living marsupials caught in the Eastern Amazon. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2018;51: 368–371. pmid:29972571
  27. 27. Deem SL, Emmons LH. Exposure of free-ranging maned wolves (Chrysocyon brachyurus) to infectious and parasitic disease agents in the Noël Kempff Mercado National Park, Bolivia. 2005;36: 192–197. pmid:17323558
  28. 28. Mathews PD, Da Silva VMF, Rosas FCW, D’Affonseca Neto JA, Lazzarini SM, Ribeiro DC, et al. Occurrence of Antibodies to Toxoplasma gondii and Lepstospira spp. in Manatees (Trichechus inunguis) of the Brazilian Amazon. 2012;43: 85–88. pmid:22448513
  29. 29. Arzamani K, Abdollahpour G, Azimian A, van Belkum A, Ghasemzadeh-Moghaddam H. High-level seroprevalence against Leptospira interrogans serovars among wild foxes, jackals and stray dogs in the North Khorasan Province, Iran. Vet Med Sci. 2022;8: 1915–1921. pmid:35840123
  30. 30. Cilia G, Bertelloni F, Angelini M, Cerri D, Fratini F. Leptospira Survey in Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) Hunted in Tuscany, Central Italy. Pathogens. 2020;9. pmid:32423022
  31. 31. Rajeev S, Bolfa P, Shiokawa K, Beierschmitt A, Palmour R. Leptospira Infection in African Green Monkeys in an Endemic Area: An Opportunity for Comparative Studies in a Natural Environment. Pathogens. 2020;9: 1–9. pmid:32560055
  32. 32. Miotto BA, Guilloux AGA, Tozzi BF, Moreno LZ, Hora AS da, Dias RA, et al. Prospective study of canine leptospirosis in shelter and stray dog populations: Identification of chronic carriers and different Leptospira species infecting dogs. PLoS One. 2018;13: e0200384. pmid:29995963
  33. 33. Kurilung A, Chanchaithong P, Lugsomya K, Niyomtham W, Wuthiekanun V, Prapasarakul N. Molecular detection and isolation of pathogenic Leptospira from asymptomatic humans, domestic animals and water sources in Nan province, a rural area of Thailand. Res Vet Sci. 2017;115: 146–154. pmid:28384550
  34. 34. Lelu M, Muñoz-Zanzi C, Higgins B, Galloway R. Seroepidemiology of leptospirosis in dogs from rural and slum communities of Los Rios Region, Chile. BMC Vet Res. 2015;11: 1–9.
  35. 35. Major A, Schweighauser A, Francey T. Increasing Incidence of Canine Leptospirosis in Switzerland. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11: 7242. pmid:25032740
  36. 36. Schuller S, Francey T, Hartmann K, Hugonnard M, Kohn B, Nally JE, et al. European consensus statement on leptospirosis in dogs and cats. J Small Anim Pract. 2015;56: 159–179. pmid:25754092
  37. 37. Mackintosh CG, Blackmore DK, Marshall RB. Isolation of Leptospira interrogans serovars tarassovi and pomona from dogs. 2011;28: 100–100. pmid:6933370
  38. 38. Zaidi S, Bouam A, Bessas A, Hezil D, Ghaoui H, Ait-Oudhia K, et al. Urinary shedding of pathogenic Leptospira in stray dogs and cats, Algiers: A prospective study. PLoS One. 2018;13: e0197068. pmid:29768448
  39. 39. Aslantaş Ö, Özdemir V, Kiliç S, Babür C. Seroepidemiology of leptospirosis, toxoplasmosis, and leishmaniosis among dogs in Ankara, Turkey. Vet Parasitol. 2005;129: 187–191. pmid:15845273
  40. 40. Weekes CC, Everard COR, Levett PN. Seroepidemiology of canine leptospirosis on the island of Barbados. Vet Microbiol. 1997;57: 215–222. pmid:9355256
  41. 41. Bal AE, Gravekamp C, Hartskeerl RA, De Meza-Brewster J, Korver H, Terpstra WJ. Detection of leptospires in urine by PCR for early diagnosis of leptospirosis. J Clin Microbiol. 1994;32: 1894–8. pmid:7989538
  42. 42. Martins G, Penna B, Lilenbaum W. The dog in the transmission of human leptospirosis under tropical conditions: victim or villain? Epidemiol Infect. 2012;140: 208–209. pmid:21396149
  43. 43. Gay N, Soupé-Gilbert M-E, Goarant C. Though not Reservoirs, Dogs might Transmit Leptospira in New Caledonia. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11: 4316. pmid:24747539
  44. 44. Altheimer K, Jongwattanapisan P, Luengyosluechakul S, Pusoonthornthum R, Prapasarakul N, Kurilung A, et al. Leptospira infection and shedding in dogs in Thailand. BMC Vet Res. 2020;16. pmid:32178664
  45. 45. Benitez A, Rodrigues GG, Gonçalves DD, Burke JC, Alves LA, Muller EE, et al. Leptospirose em cães errantes encontrados em campus universitário: avaliação sorológica e exame direto da urina. Semin Ciências Agrárias. 2010;31: 191.
  46. 46. Brod C, Aleixo J, Jouglard S, Fernandes C, Teixeira J, Dellagostin O. Evidence of dog as a reservoir for human leptospirosis: a serovar isolation, molecular characterization and its use in a serological survey. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2005;38: 294–300. pmid:16082474
  47. 47. Benitez A, Monica TC, Miura AC, Romanelli MS, Giordano LGP, Freire RL, et al. Spatial and Simultaneous Seroprevalence of Anti-Leptospira Antibodies in Owners and Their Domiciled Dogs in a Major City of Southern Brazil. Front Vet Sci. 2021;7: 580400. pmid:33490126
  48. 48. Mittermeier RA, Myers N, Tliomsen JB, Olivieri S. Biodiversity Hotspots and Major Tropical Wilderness Areas: Approaches to Setting Conservation Priorities. Conserv Biol. 1998;12: 516–520.
  49. 49. Pitman NCA, Terborgh JW, Silman MR, V. PN, Neill DA, Ceron CE, et al. Dominance and Distribution of Tree Species in Upper Amazonian Terra Firme Forests. Ecology. 2001;82: 2101.
  50. 50. Valencia R, Foster RB, Villa G, Condit R, Svenning JC, Hernández C, et al. Tree species distributions and local habitat variation in the Amazon: large forest plot in eastern Ecuador. J Ecol. 2004;92: 214–229.
  51. 51. Sierra R. Propuesta Preliminar de un Sistema de Clasificación de Vegetación para el Ecuador Continental.Proyecto INEFAN/GEF-BIRG Ecociencia. 1999; 194.
  52. 52. Zapata-ríos G, Suárez R. E, Utreras B. V, Vargas O. J, Zapata Ríos G, Vargas J. Evaluation of anthropogenic threats in Yasuní National Park and its implications for wild mammal conservation. Lyonia. 2006;10: 47–57. Available: http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/20083006856.html;jsessionid=45003AA5018E5BA796FC0D536B9D5EB8
  53. 53. Salinas Castro V, Rodríguez Wong L. Poblaciones indígenas amazónicas del Ecuador, su situación, cambios y diferencias reflejadas en su fecundidad. http://journals.openedition.org/bifea. 2019; 257–281.
  54. 54. World Health Organization. Human Leptospirosis: Guidance for diagnosis, surveillance and control. Malta: World Health Organization; 2003.
  55. 55. Stoddard RA, Gee JE, Wilkins PP, McCaustland K, Hoffmaster AR. Detection of pathogenic Leptospira spp. through TaqMan polymerase chain reaction targeting the LipL32 gene. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2009;64: 247–255. pmid:19395218
  56. 56. Ahmed N, Devi SM, Valverde M de los Á, Vijayachari P, Machang’u RS, Ellis WA, et al. Multilocus sequence typing method for identification and genotypic classification of pathogenic Leptospira species. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2006;5: 28. pmid:17121682
  57. 57. Ahmed A, Engelberts MFM, Boer KR, Ahmed N, Hartskeerl RA. Development and Validation of a Real-Time PCR for Detection of Pathogenic Leptospira Species in Clinical Materials. PLoS One. 2009;4. pmid:19763264
  58. 58. De Coster W , D’Hert S, Schultz DT, Cruts M, Van Broeckhoven C. NanoPack: visualizing and processing long-read sequencing data. Bioinformatics. 2018;34: 2666–2669. pmid:29547981
  59. 59. Bethesda (MD): National Center for Biotechnology Information (US). BLAST Command Line Applications User Manual. 2008.
  60. 60. Li H. Minimap2: pairwise alignment for nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics. 2018;34: 3094. pmid:29750242
  61. 61. Milne I, Bayer M, Stephen G, Cardle L, Marshall D. Tablet: Visualizing next-generation sequence assemblies and mappings. Methods Mol Biol. 2016;1374: 253–268. pmid:26519411
  62. 62. Kumar S, Stecher G, Li M, Knyaz C, Tamura K. MEGA X: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis across Computing Platforms. Mol Biol Evol. 2018;35: 1547. pmid:29722887
  63. 63. Madeira F, Park YM, Lee J, Buso N, Gur T, Madhusoodanan N, et al. The EMBL-EBI search and sequence analysis tools APIs in 2019. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47: W636–W641. pmid:30976793
  64. 64. Saitou N, Nei M. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol. 1987;4: 406–425. pmid:3447015
  65. 65. Tamura K, Nei M, Kumar S. Prospects for inferring very large phylogenies by using the neighbor-joining method. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2004;101: 11030–11035. pmid:15258291
  66. 66. Letunic I, Bork P. Interactive Tree Of Life (iTOL) v5: an online tool for phylogenetic tree display and annotation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021;49: W293–W296. pmid:33885785
  67. 67. Ministerio de Salud Pública. Dirección Nacional de Vigilancia Epidemiológica, Gaceta Epidemiológica. In: Ministerio de Salud Pública [Internet]. 2021 [cited 21 Jun 2023]. Available: https://www.salud.gob.ec/enfermedades-zoonoticas/
  68. 68. Chiriboga J, Barragan V, Arroyo G, Sosa A, Birdsell DN, España K, et al. High Prevalence of Intermediate Leptospira spp. DNA in Febrile Humans from Urban and Rural Ecuador. Emerg Infect Dis. 2015;21: 2141. pmid:26583534
  69. 69. Ellwanger JH, Kulmann-Leal B, Kaminski VL, Valverde-Villegas JM, DA VEIGA ABG, Spilki FR, et al. Beyond diversity loss and climate change: Impacts of Amazon deforestation on infectious diseases and public health. An Acad Bras Cienc. 2020;92: 20191375. pmid:32321030
  70. 70. Soo ZMP, Khan NA, Siddiqui R. Leptospirosis: Increasing importance in developing countries. Acta Trop. 2020;201: 105183. pmid:31542372
  71. 71. Zapata-Ríos G, Branch LC. Altered activity patterns and reduced abundance of native mammals in sites with feral dogs in the high Andes. Biol Conserv. 2016;193: 9–16.
  72. 72. Lenth BE, Knight RL, Brennan ME. The Effects of Dogs on Wildlife Communities. 2008;28: 218–227.
  73. 73. Zapata-Ríos G, Branch LC. Mammalian carnivore occupancy is inversely related to presence of domestic dogs in the high Andes of Ecuador. PLoS One. 2018;13. pmid:29489855
  74. 74. Young JK, Olson KA, Reading RP, Amgalanbaatar S, Berger J. Is Wildlife Going to the Dogs? Impacts of Feral and Free-roaming Dogs on Wildlife Populations. Bioscience. 2011;61: 125–132.
  75. 75. Vanak AT, Gompper ME. Dogs Canis familiaris as carnivores: their role and function in intraguild competition. Mamm Rev. 2009;39: 265–283.
  76. 76. Flores BJ, Pérez-Sánchez T, Fuertes H, Sheleby-Elías J, Múzquiz JL, Jirón W, et al. A cross-sectional epidemiological study of domestic animals related to human leptospirosis cases in Nicaragua. Acta Trop. 2017;170: 79–84. pmid:28254582
  77. 77. Rubel D, Seijo A, Cernigoi B, Viale A, Wisnivesky-Colli C. Leptospira interrogans en una población canina del Gran Buenos Aires: variables asociadas con la seropositividad. Rev Panam Salud Pública. 1997;2: 102–106.
  78. 78. Fonzar UJV, Langoni H. Geographic analysis on the occurrence of human and canine leptospirosis in the city of Maringá, state of Paraná, Brazil. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2012;45: 100–105. pmid:22370837
  79. 79. Pratt N, Conan A, Rajeev S. Leptospira Seroprevalence in Domestic Dogs and Cats on the Caribbean Island of Saint Kitts. Vet Med Int. 2017;2017. pmid:29279785
  80. 80. Suepaul SM, Carrington CVF, Campbell M, Borde G, Adesiyun AA. Serovars of Leptospira isolated from dogs and rodents. Epidemiol Infect. 2010;138: 1059–1070. pmid:19811697
  81. 81. Calderón A, Rodríguez V, Máttar S, Arrieta G. Leptospirosis in pigs, dogs, rodents, humans, and water in an area of the Colombian tropics. Trop Anim Heal Prod 2013 462. 2013;46: 427–432. pmid:24254419
  82. 82. de Castro JR, Salaberry SRS, de Souza MA, Lima-Ribeiro AMC. Sorovares de Leptospira spp. predominantes em exames sorológicos de caninos e humanos no município de Uberlândia, Estado de Minas Gerais. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2011;44: 217–222. pmid:21468478
  83. 83. Abreu JAP de, Krawczak F da S, Guedes IB, Souza-Filho AF de, Souza GO de, Binder L de C, et al. Frequency of anti-Leptospira spp. antibodies in dogs and wild small mammals from rural properties and conservation units in southern Brazil. One Heal. 2019;8: 100104. pmid:31649994
  84. 84. Cordonin C, Turpin M, Bringart M, Bascands JL, Flores O, Dellagi K, et al. Pathogenic Leptospira and their animal reservoirs: testing host specificity through experimental infection. Sci Rep. 2020;10: 1–9. pmid:32350316
  85. 85. Mai LTP, Dung LP, Than PD, Dinh T Van, Quyet NT, Hai H, et al. Leptospira infection among human-close-contact animals in different geographical areas in Vietnam. Sci Prog. 2021;104: 1–12. pmid:34261382
  86. 86. AGROCALIDAD. Dirección de Registro de Insumos Pecuarios—AGROCALIDAD. 2023 [cited 8 Jul 2023]. Available: https://www.agrocalidad.gob.ec/?page_id=39122
  87. 87. Adler B, Faine S. The antibodies involved in the human immune response to leptospiral infection. J Med Microbiol. 1978;11: 387–400. pmid:722781
  88. 88. Greenlee JJ, Alt DP, Bolin CA, Zuerner RL, Andreasen CB. Experimental canine leptospirosis caused by Leptospira interrogans serovars pomona and bratislava. 2005;66: 1816–1822. pmid:16273916
  89. 89. Delaude A, Rodriguez-Campos S, Dreyfus A, Counotte MJ, Francey T, Schweighauser A, et al. Canine leptospirosis in Switzerland—A prospective cross-sectional study examining seroprevalence, risk factors and urinary shedding of pathogenic leptospires. Prev Vet Med. 2017;141: 48–60. pmid:28532993
  90. 90. Da Costa RS, Di Azevedo MIN, Borges ALDSB, Carvalho-Costa F, Martins G, Lilenbaum W. Persistent High Leptospiral Shedding by Asymptomatic Dogs in Endemic Areas Triggers a Serious Public Health Concern. Anim an Open Access J from MDPI. 2021;11: 937. pmid:33810226
  91. 91. Nalam K, Ahmed A, Devi SM, Francalacci P, Baig M, Sechi LA, et al. Genetic Affinities within a Large Global Collection of Pathogenic Leptospira: Implications for Strain Identification and Molecular Epidemiology. PLoS One. 2010;5: e12637. pmid:20805987
  92. 92. Jorge S, Monte LG, De Oliveira NR, Collares TF, Roloff BC, Gomes CK, et al. Phenotypic and molecular characterization of leptospira interrogans isolated from canis familiaris in Southern Brazil. Curr Microbiol. 2015;71: 496–500. pmid:26100241
  93. 93. de Souza Rocha K, da Rocha Albuquerque M, da Silva Brito J, Pimenta GC, dos Reis TA, Xavier DA, et al. Detection of Leptospira in a forest fragmentation area in eastern Amazon: A unique health approach. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 2022;82. pmid:35158090
  94. 94. Naotunna C, Agampodi SB, Agampodi TC. Etiological agents causing leptospirosis in Sri Lanka: A review. Asian Pac J Trop Med. 2016;9: 390–394. pmid:27086159
  95. 95. Valverde M de los A, Goris MGA, González V, Anchia ME, Díaz P, Ahmed A, et al. New serovars of Leptospira isolated from patients in Costa Rica: implications for public health. J Med Microbiol. 2013;62: 1263–1271. pmid:23788592
  96. 96. Yang CW. Leptospirosis in Taiwan—An underestimated infectious disease. Chang Gung Med J. 2007;30: 109–115. pmid:17595998
  97. 97. Yang C, Wu M, Pan M. Leptospirosis renal disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2001;16: 73–77. pmid:11509689
  98. 98. Chou L-F, Chen T-W, Ko Y-C, Pan M-J, Tian Y-C, Chiu C-H, et al. Potential impact on kidney infection: a whole-genome analysis of Leptospira santarosai serovar Shermani. 2019;3: e82. pmid:26038504
  99. 99. Silva ÉF, Cerqueira GM, Seyffert N, Seixas FK, Hartwig DD, Athanazio DA, et al. Leptospira noguchii and Human and Animal Leptospirosis, Southern Brazil. Emerg Infect Dis. 2009;15: 621. pmid:19331754
  100. 100. Zacarias FGDS Vasconcellos SA, Anzai EK, Giraldi N, De Freitas JC, Hartskeerl R. Isolation of Leptospira serovars Canicola and Copenhageni from cattle urine in the State of Paraná, Brazil. Brazilian J Microbiol. 2008;39: 744–748.
  101. 101. Miotto BA, Moreno LZ, Guilloux AGA, Sousa GO de, Loureiro AP, Moreno AM, et al. Molecular and serological characterization of the first Leptospira santarosai strain isolated from a dog. Acta Trop. 2016;162: 1–4. pmid:27282095
  102. 102. Azhari NN, Ramli SNA, Joseph N, Philip N, Mustapha NF, Ishak SN, et al. Molecular characterization of pathogenic Leptospira sp. in small mammals captured from the human leptospirosis suspected areas of Selangor state, Malaysia. Acta Trop. 2018;188: 68–77. pmid:30145261
  103. 103. Guernier V, Richard V, Nhan T, Rouault E, Tessier A, Musso D. Leptospira diversity in animals and humans in Tahiti, French Polynesia. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11: 1–16. pmid:28658269
  104. 104. Zubach O, Semenyshyn O, Hatsji L, Demchyshyn M, Zinchuk A. Leptospira interrogans in mammals in Lviv Oblast, Ukraine, 2001–2015. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019;13. pmid:31790399
  105. 105. Branger C, Blanchard B, Fillonneau C, Suard I, Aviat F, Chevallier B, et al. Polymerase chain reaction assay specific for pathogenic Leptospira based on the gene hap1 encoding the hemolysis-associated protein-1. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2005;243: 437–445. pmid:15686847
  106. 106. Degeling C, Rock M. Qualitative Research for One Health: From Methodological Principles to Impactful Applications. Front Vet Sci. 2020;7: 70. pmid:32133378
  107. 107. Leal-Castellanos CB, Garci´a R, Garci´a-Sua´rez G, Sua´rez S, G O Nz E, Lez-Figueroa A´, et al. Risk factors and the prevalence of leptospirosis infection in a rural community of Chiapas, Mexico. Epidemiol Infect. 2003;131: 1149. pmid:14959783
  108. 108. Matthias MA, Díaz MM, Campos KJ, Calderon M, Willig MR, Pacheco V, et al. Diversity of bat-associated Leptospira in the Peruvian Amazon inferred by Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of 16s Ribosomal DNA sequences. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2005;73: 964. pmid:16282313