Apparent discrepancies in the review "Avian host range of Chlamydophila spp. based on isolation, antigen detection and serology" by Kaleta, E.F. & Taday, E.M.A. (2003), Avian Pathology, 32, 435-462.
{"title":"Apparent discrepancies in the review \"Avian host range of <i>Chlamydophila</i> spp. based on isolation, antigen detection and serology\" by Kaleta, E.F. & Taday, E.M.A. (2003), <i>Avian Pathology</i>, 32, 435-462.","authors":"J Christian Franson","doi":"10.1080/03079457.2023.2225978","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Citing published reports and their own diagnostic data, Kaleta and Taday (2003) (https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03079450310001593613) reported that 469 domestic and free-living bird species were determined to be chlamydia-positive, based on isolation of the organism and antigen detection or on serological detection of circulating antibodies. However, I was unable to reconcile the designation of chlamydia-positive in some of the species listed by Kaleta and Taday (2003) with the information provided in the corresponding references cited. For example, Eddie et al. (1966) tested sera from 24 species of birds in Alaska (see their Table 1) by “direct and indirect complement fixation techniques in the presence of the standard psittacosis antigen.” Eddie et al. (1966) reported that serum samples from only two species reacted, and the authors considered those titres too low to be of diagnostic significance. However, Kaleta and Taday (2003) listed 20 bird species from Eddie et al. (1966) as being positive for chlamydia. Additional apparent discrepancies are listed in Table 1 of the current article.","PeriodicalId":8788,"journal":{"name":"Avian Pathology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Avian Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03079457.2023.2225978","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Citing published reports and their own diagnostic data, Kaleta and Taday (2003) (https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03079450310001593613) reported that 469 domestic and free-living bird species were determined to be chlamydia-positive, based on isolation of the organism and antigen detection or on serological detection of circulating antibodies. However, I was unable to reconcile the designation of chlamydia-positive in some of the species listed by Kaleta and Taday (2003) with the information provided in the corresponding references cited. For example, Eddie et al. (1966) tested sera from 24 species of birds in Alaska (see their Table 1) by “direct and indirect complement fixation techniques in the presence of the standard psittacosis antigen.” Eddie et al. (1966) reported that serum samples from only two species reacted, and the authors considered those titres too low to be of diagnostic significance. However, Kaleta and Taday (2003) listed 20 bird species from Eddie et al. (1966) as being positive for chlamydia. Additional apparent discrepancies are listed in Table 1 of the current article.
期刊介绍:
Avian Pathology is the official journal of the World Veterinary Poultry Association and, since its first publication in 1972, has been a leading international journal for poultry disease scientists. It publishes material relevant to the entire field of infectious and non-infectious diseases of poultry and other birds. Accepted manuscripts will contribute novel data of interest to an international readership and will add significantly to knowledge and understanding of diseases, old or new. Subject areas include pathology, diagnosis, detection and characterisation of pathogens, infections of possible zoonotic importance, epidemiology, innate and immune responses, vaccines, gene sequences, genetics in relation to disease and physiological and biochemical changes in response to disease. First and subsequent reports of well-recognized diseases within a country are not acceptable unless they also include substantial new information about the disease or pathogen. Manuscripts on wild or pet birds should describe disease or pathogens in a significant number of birds, recognizing/suggesting serious potential impact on that species or that the disease or pathogen is of demonstrable relevance to poultry. Manuscripts on food-borne microorganisms acquired during or after processing, and those that catalogue the occurrence or properties of microorganisms, are unlikely to be considered for publication in the absence of data linking them to avian disease.