Acta Parasitologica

, Volume 64, Issue 4, pp 700–709 | Cite as

Molecular Assessment of Anaplasma marginale in Bovine and Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus Tick of Endemic Tribal Belt of Coastal South Gujarat, India

  • Niranjan KumarEmail author
  • Jayesh B. Solanki
  • Anju Varghese
  • Mehul M. Jadav
  • Bhupamani Das
  • Manish D. Patel
  • Dharmesh C. Patel
Original Paper


Background and methods

This study described the detection, prevalence and phylogeny of Anaplasma marginale in the bovine (cattle and buffaloes) and Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus tick belonged to the tribal area of coastal South Gujarat, India, by amplifying 576 bp of major surface protein (msp) 5 gene using custom designed primers in the polymerase chain reaction (PCR).


The PCR detection limit was up to 20 parasites/µl of blood in sensitivity experiment, and observed 100% specificity against Trypanosoma evansi, Babesia bigemina and Theileria annulata. Prevalence rate of the A. marginale in the bovine (n = 211)) was 18.48% and 6.64% (p < 0.05) as per the PCR and Giemsa stained blood smear, respectively. Febrile animals (35%) observed significantly (p < 0.05) higher incidence rate than the non-febrile (14.62%). The amplified msp5 had single cut site for the EcoR1 enzyme, upon digestion yielded two fragments of 365 and 211 bp on 1.0% agarose gel. The current sequence (KC811329) showed 100% homology and 1064 total score with the published nucleotide sequences of msp5 of A. marginale in the NCBI-BLAST study. Monophyletic relationship was observed with high bootstrap proportion (> 76% in Neighbor-Joining/ Maximum Likelihood) between the current and published nucleotide sequences in the phylogeny. Twenty out of 39 A. marginale infected bovine recorded R. (B.) microplus on their body surface, out of which 18 had detected the infection. The rickettsia was in 55%, 65% and 25% of anterior half, posterior half and egg of tick, respectively.


The test detected A. marginale in a carrier, pre-symptomatic and symptomatic vertebrate hosts (cattle and buffalo) and different body parts of the starved R. (B.) microplus including its egg. The current genotype could be an explanation for the frequent outbreaks of bovine anaplasmosis in the targeted areas.


Molecular assessment Anaplasma marginale Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus Bovine 



We are thankful to the Vice-chancellor, Director of Research and Principal, College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari for providing necessary facilities and fund to complete the research work.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors had declared that they have no competing interests.


  1. 1.
    Al-Adhami B, Scandrett WB, Lobanov VA, Gajadhar AA (2011) Serological cross-recativity between Anaplasma maginale and an Ehrlichia species in naturally and experimentally infected cattle. J Vet Diagn Investig 23:1181–1188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ashuma SA, Singla LD, Kaur P, Bal MS, Batth BK, Juyal PD (2013) Prevalence and haemato-biochemical profile of Anaplasma marginale infection in dairy animals of Punjab (India). Asian Pac J Trop Med 6(2):139–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aubry P, Geale DW (2011) A review of bovine anaplasmosis. Transbound Emerg Dis 58(1):1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bacanelli GM, Ramos CAN, Araujo FR (2014) Molecular diagnosis of Anaplasma marginale in cattle: Quantitative evaluation of a real-time PCR (polymerase chain reaction) based on msp5 gene. Pesquisa Vet Bras 34:29–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carelli G, Decaro N, Lorusso A, Elia G, Lorusso E, Mari V, Ceci L, Buonavoglia C (2007) Detection and quantification of A. marginale DNA in blood samples of cattle by real-time PCR. Vet Microbiol 124:107–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    da Silva AM, de Alencar MM, de Almeida Regitano LC, de Sena Oliveira MC, Barioni W (2007) Artificial infestation of Boophilus microplus in beef cattle heifers of four genetic groups. Genet Mol Biol 30:1150–1155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    da Silva JB, da Fonseca AH, Barbosa JD (2015) Molecular characterization of Anaplasma marginale in ticks naturally feeding on buffaloes. Infect Genet Evol 35:38–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    de la Fuente J, Lew A, Lutz H, Meli ML, Hofmann-Lehmann R, Shkap V, Molad T, Mangold AJ, Almaza´n C, Naranjo V, Gorta´zar C, Torina A, Caracappa S, Garcı´a-Pe´rez AL, Barral M, Oporto B, Ceci L, Carelli G, Blouin EF, Kocan KM (2005) Genetic diversity of Anaplasma species major surface proteins and implications for anaplasmosis serodiagnosis and vaccine development. Animal Health Research Reviews 6:75–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Decaro N, Carelli G, Lorusso E, Lucente MS, Greco G, Lorusso A, Radogna A, Ceci L, Buonavoglia C (2008) Duplex real-time polymerase chain reaction for simultaneous detection and quantification of A. marginale and A. centrale. J Vet Diagn Investig 20:606–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Felsenstein J (1985) Confidence limits on phylogenies: An approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39:783–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fosgate GT, Urdaz-Rodríguez JH, Dunbar MD, Rae DO, Donovan GA, Melendez P, Dobek GL, Alleman AR (2010) Diagnostic accuracy of methods for detecting Anaplasma marginale infection in lactating dairy cattle of Puerto Rico. J Vet Diagn Investig 22(2):192–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gale KR, Dimmock CM, Gartside M, Leatch G (1996) Anaplasma marginale detection of carrier cattle by PCR-ELISA. Int J Parasitol 26:1103–1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    George N, Bhandari V, Sharma P (2017) Phylogenetic relationship and genotypic variability in Anaplasma marginale strains causing anaplasmosis in India. Infect Genet Evol 48:71–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ghosh S, Azhahianambia P, Yadav MP (2007) Upcoming and future strategies of tick control: a review. J Vect Borne Dis 44:79–89Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hussain MF, Qamar M, Malik MI, Hussain M, Saeed Z, Shaikh RS, Iqbal F (2017) Molecular detection of Anaplasma in apparently healthy Cholistan breed of cattle from the Bahawalpur district, Pakista. Trop Biomed 34(1):37–44Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jaimes-Dueñez J, Triana-Chávez O, Mejía-Jaramillo AM (2017) Parasitological and molecular surveys reveal high rates of infection with vector-borne pathogens and clinical anemia signs associated with infection in cattle from two important livestock areas in Colombia. Ticks and Tick-borne Dis 8(2):290–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jaswal H, Bal MS, Singla LD, Sharma A, Kaur P, Mukhopadhyay CS, Juyal PD (2014) Application of msp1β PCR and 16S rRNA semi nested PCR-RFLP for detection of persistent anaplasmosis in tick infested cattle. Int J Adv Res 2(8):188–196Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jonsson NN, Bock RE, Jorgensen WK (2008) Productivity and health effects of anaplasmosis and babesiosis on Bos indicus cattle and their crosses, and the effects of differing intensity of tick control in Australia. Vet Parasitol 155:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kocan KM, de la Fuente J, Blouin EF, Coetzee JF, Ewing SA (2010) The natural history of Anaplasma marginale. Vet Parasitol 167:95–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Machado RZ, Teixeira MMG, Rodrigues AC, André MR, Gonçalves LR, da Silva JB, Pereira CL (2016) Molecular diagnosis and genetic diversity of tick-borne Anaplasmataceae agents infecting the African buffalo Syncerus caffer from Marromeu Reserve in Mozambique. Parasit Vect 9:454. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McIntyre KM, Setzkorn C, Hepworth PJ, Morand S, Morse AP, Baylis M (2017) Systematic assessment of the climate sensitivity of important human and domestic animals pathogens in Europe. Sci Rep 7(1):7134. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Molad T, Mazuz ML, Fleiderovitz L, Fish L, Savitsky I, Krigel Y, Leibovitz B, Molloy J, Jongejan F, Shkap V (2006) Molecular and serological detection of A. centrale and A. marginale infected cattle grazing within an endemic area. Vet Microbiol 113:55–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Morgulis A, Coulouris G, Raytselis Y, Madden TL, Agarwala R, Schäffer AA (2008) Database indexing for production MegaBLAST searches. Bioinformatics 24:1757–1764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nair AS, Ravindran R, Lakshmanan B, Sreekumar C, Kumar SS, Raju R, Tresamol PV, Vimalkumar MB, Saseendranath MR (2013) Bovine carriers of Anaplasma marginale and Anaplasma bovis in South India. Trop Biomed 30(1):105–112PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Palmer GH, Rurangirwa FR, Kocan KM, Brown WC (1999) Molecular basis for vaccine development against the ehrlichial pathogen Anaplasma marginale. Parasitol Today 15:281–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Petney TN, Keirans JE (1996) Ticks of the genera Boophilus, Dermacentor, Nosomma and Rhipicephalus (Acari: Ixodidae) in Southeast Asia. Trop Biomed 13:73–84Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rajput ZI, Song-hua HU, Arijo AG, Habib M, Khalid M (2005) Comparative study of Anaplasma parasites in tick carrying buffaloes and cattle. J Zhejiang Univ Sci 6B(11):1057–1062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ristic M (1981) Anaplasmosis. In: Ristic M, McIntyre I (eds) Diseases of cattle in the tropics. Martinus Nijhoff, Boston, pp 443–468Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Saitou N, Nei M (1987) The neighbor-joining method: A new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol 4:406–425Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sharma A, Singla LD, Kaur P, Bal MS (2015) PCR and ELISA vis-à-vis microscopy for detection of bovine anaplasmosis: a study on associated risk of an upcoming problem in north India. Sci World J 25:8. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sharma A, Singla LD, Tuli A, Kaur P, Bal MS (2015) Detection and assessment of risk factors associated with natural concurrent infection of Trypanosoma evansi and Anaplasma marginale in dairy animals by duplex PCR in eastern Punjab. Trop Anim Health Prod 47(1):251–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shimada MK, Yamamura MH, Kawasaki PM, Tamekuni K, Igarashi M, Vidotto O, Vidotto MC (2004) Detection of Anaplasma marginale DNA in larvae of Boophilus microplus ticks by polymerase chain reaction. Ann NY Acad Sci 1026:95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Singh H, Jyoti, Haque M, Singh NK, Rath SS (2012) Molecular detection of Anaplasma marginale infection in carrier cattle. Ticks Tick-borne Dis 3(1):55–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tamura K, Nei M (1993) Estimation of the number of nucleotide substitutions in the control region of mitochondrial DNA in humans and chimpanzees. Mol Biol Evol 10:512–526PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tamura K, Nei M, Kumar S (2004) Prospects for inferring very large phylogenies by using the neighbor-joining method. Proc Natl Acad Sci (USA) 101:11030–11035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tamura K, Stecher G, Peterson D, Filipski A, Kumar S (2013) MEGA6: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 6.0. Mol Biol Evol 30:2725–2729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Theiler A (1910) Anaplasma marginale (gen. and spec. nov). In: Theiler A (ed) The marginal points in the blood of cattle suffering from a specific disease. Report of the Government on Veterinary Bacteriology in Transvaal. Department of Agriculture, South Africa, 1908–1909, pp 7–64Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tick Cost Version 1.0 (1990) Economic impact of ticks and associated diseases on cattle: Summary of economic survey conducted by International Livestock Research Institute and Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Part 3, pp 1-7Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Vahora SP, Patel JV, Patel BB, Patel SB, Umale RH (2012) Seasonal incidence of haemoprotozoal diseases in crossbred cattle and buffalo in Kaira and Anand districts of Gujarat, India. Vet World 5(3):223–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Walker AR, Bouattour A, Camicas JL, Estrada-Pena A, Horak IG, Latif AA, Pegram RG, Preston PM (2003) Ticks of domestic animals in Africa: a guide to identification of species. Bioscience Reports, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, p 221Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ybañez AP, Sivakumar T, Ybañez RHD, Ratilla JC, Perez ZO, Gabotero SR, Hakimi H, Kawazu S, Matsumoto K, Yokoyama N, Inokuma H (2013) First molecular characterization of Anaplasma marginale in cattle and Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus Ticks in Cebu, Philippines. J Vet Med Sci 75(1):27–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zhang Z, Schwartz S, Wagner L, Miller W (2000) A greedy algorithm for aligning DNA sequences. J Comput Biol 7(1–2):203–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Witold Stefański Institute of Parasitology, Polish Academy of Sciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Veterinary Parasitology, College of Veterinary Science and Animal HusbandryNavsari Agricultural UniversityNavsariIndia
  2. 2.Department of Veterinary Medicine, College of Veterinary Science and Animal HusbandryNavsari Agricultural UniversityNavsariIndia

Personalised recommendations