Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 13, Number 6—June 2007
Letter

Bartonella DNA in Loggerhead Sea Turtles

On This Page
Tables
Article Metrics
24
citations of this article
EID Journal Metrics on Scopus

Cite This Article

To the Editor: Bartonella are fastidious, aerobic, gram-negative, facultative, intracellular bacteria that infect erythrocytes, erythroblasts, endothelial cells, monocytes, and dendritic cells, and are transmitted by arthropod vectors or by animal scratches or bites (16). Currently, 20 species or subspecies of Bartonella have been characterized, of which 8 are known zoonotic pathogens (7). B. henselae has been recently identified from canine blood (8) and from harbor porpoises (9). Pathogenic bacteria are an important threat in terrestrial and marine environments, and in the case of B. henselae, reservoir hosts may be more diverse than currently recognized.

The purpose of this study was to determine whether sea turtles are infected with Bartonella spp. Blood samples were obtained from 29 free-ranging and 8 captive, rehabilitating loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) from North Carolina coastal waters. Reptilian erythrocytes are nucleated, and commercial lysis methods clogged filtration columns because of the high DNA content of whole blood. Consequently, DNA was extracted from frozen whole blood by using a modified alkaline lysis method adapted from an avian cell culture DNA extraction method (10). PCR screening for Bartonella was performed by using primers for the 16S-23S internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region (Table). Bartonella ITS–positive samples were further screened by using primers for a consensus sequence of the phage-associated gene Pap31 (9). Primers for the 28S rRNA were used as a housekeeping gene. The PCR-positive control contained 0.002 pg/µL of B. henselae H1. Water was the negative PCR control. Amplicons of the expected sizes were consistently obtained from housekeeping gene and positive control reactions, while amplicons were never obtained from negative controls. ITS amplicons were obtained from 16 (43%) of 37 sea turtle blood samples tested, including samples from 13 free-ranging and 3 rehabilitated turtles. Pap31 PCR was performed for Bartonella ITS-PCR–positive samples. Pap31 amplicons were obtained from 5 samples of which 3 were successfully sequenced. Amplification and sequencing of the 16S-23S ITS region detected 2 Bartonella species: a B. henselae–like organisms and 1 more similar to B. vinsonii subsp. berkhoffii. The 3 Pap31 amplicons successfully sequenced confirmed B. henselae infection. Sequences obtained from 1 sample matched B. henselae strains H1-like, the B. henselae SA2-like strain, and B. vinsonii subsp. berkhoffii genotypes II and IV, which suggests that this turtle was co-infected with multiple Bartonella spp. and strains. Three other samples yielded amplicons 99%–100% identical with B. henselae strain SA2, and 3 yielded sequences most similar to B. vinsonii subspecies berkhoffii genotypes II and IV. Two samples contained an ITS region sequence most similar to B. henselae SA2, but with a 15-bp deletion beginning 617 bases downstream from the 16S rRNA gene. Whether these ITS sequence differences represent distinct strains or nonrandom translocation events is uncertain.

Four sea turtle blood samples contained partial ITS sequences most similar to B. vinsonii subsp. berkhoffii. However these amplicons were much shorter than expected for B. vinsonii subspecies berkhoffii genotype II and genotype IV sequences in GenBank. Because Pap31 gene amplification was unsuccessful for these samples, it is unclear whether small amplicons represent a species related to B. vinsonii subsp. berkhoffii or a new Bartonella sp.

To our knowledge, detection of Bartonella spp. DNA in sea turtle blood represents the first molecular evidence of Bartonella infection in nonmammalian vertebrates. B. henselae infection, now reported in porpoises and sea turtles, may represent an emerging infection of marine animals. According to previous studies, immune status appears to affect disease severity, variation in clinical manifestations, the pattern of histopathologic features, and the relative ease of diagnostic detection of the organism (4,7). Although healthy at the time of sample collection, the captive rehabilitated sea turtles were known to have been sick or injured before sampling, potentially reflecting immunocompromise. Whether detection of Bartonella spp. in blood of sea turtles is a function of prior immunosuppression induced by stressors is not known. Such stressors could include mechanical injury, malnutrition, environmental toxins, parasites, or concurrent bacterial or viral infections. Alternatively, sea turtles may be a natural marine reservoir for B. henselae or for a Bartonella sp. genetically related to B. vinsonii subsp. berkhoffii.

In summary, documentation of B. henselae and an organism genetically similar to B. vinsonii subsp. berkhoffii in the blood of loggerhead sea turtles provides evidence that this genus is not ecologically limited to terrestrial reservoirs. The geographic distribution, prevalence of infection, carrier potential, mode of transmission, and pathogenicity of bloodborne Bartonella spp. in sea turtles await additional studies.

Top

Acknowledgments

We thank Jean Beasley, Matthew Godfrey, Larisa Avens, April Goodman, Lisa Goshe, Nicole Mihnovets, and Leonard Goodwin for facilitating this study.

This research was supported by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the North Carolina State College of Veterinary Medicine, Merck-Merial Summer Veterinary Scholars Program, and the state of North Carolina.

Top

K. Hope Valentine*, Craig A. Harms*†, Maria B. Cadenas*, Adam J. Birkenheuer*, Henry S. Marr*, Joanne Braun-McNeill‡, Ricardo G. Maggi*, and Edward B. Breitschwerdt*Comments to Author 
Author affiliations: *North Carolina State University College of Veterinary Medicine, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA; †Center for Marine Sciences and Technology, Morehead City, North Carolina, USA; ‡National Marine Fisheries Service, Beaufort, North Carolina, USA;

Top

References

  1. Mandle  T, Einsele  H, Schaller  M, Neumann  D, Vogel  W, Autenrieth  IB, Infection of human CD34+ progenitor cells with Bartonella henselae results in intraerythrocytic presence of B. henselae. Blood. 2005;106:121522. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Dehio  C. Bartonella interactions with endothelial cells and erythrocytes. Trends Microbiol. 2001;9:27985. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Vermi  W, Facchetti  F, Riboldi  E, Heine  H, Scutera  S, Stornello  S, Role of dendritic cell-derived CXCL13 in the pathogenesis of Bartonella henselae B-rich granuloma. Blood. 2006;107:45462. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Breitschwerdt  EB, Kordick  DL. Bartonella infection in animals: carriership, reservoir potential, pathogenicity, and zoonotic potential for human infection. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2000;13:42838. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Chomel  BB, Boulouis  HJ, Breitschwerdt  EB. Cat scratch disease and other zoonotic Bartonella infections. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2004;224:12709. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Boulouis  HJ, Chang  CC, Henn  JB, Kasten  RW, Chomel  BB. Factors associated with the rapid emergence of zoonotic Bartonella infections. Vet Res. 2005;36:383410. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Chomel  BB, Boulouis  HJ, Maruyama  S, Breitschwerdt  EB. Bartonella spp. in pets and effect on human health. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12:38994.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Mexas  AM, Hancock  SI, Breitschwerdt  EB. Bartonella henselae and Bartonella elizabethae as potential canine pathogens. J Clin Microbiol. 2002;40:46704. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Maggi  RG, Harms  CA, Hohn  AA, Pabst  DA, McLellan  WA, Walton  WJ, Bartonella henselae in porpoise blood. Emerg Infect Dis. 2005;11:18948.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. De Medici  D, Croci  L, Delibato  E, Di Pasquale  S, Filetici  E, Toti  L. Evaluation of DNA extraction methods for use in combination with SYBR green I real-time PCR to detect Salmonella enterica serotype enteritidis in poultry. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003;69:345661. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar

Top

Table

Top

Cite This Article

DOI: 10.3201/eid1306.061551

Related Links

Top

Table of Contents – Volume 13, Number 6—June 2007

Comments

Please use the form below to submit correspondence to the authors or contact them at the following address:

Edward B. Breitschwerdt, Department of Clinical Sciences, 4700 Hillsborough St, Raleigh, NC 27606, USA;

Send To

10000 character(s) remaining.

Top

Page created: July 01, 2010
Page updated: July 01, 2010
Page reviewed: July 01, 2010
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
file_external