BTV\3, \19 and \22 serotypes identified in this study had already been reported in 2016 in an ecological reserve in the State of Paran, infecting pygmy brocket deers ( em Mazama nana /em ) with clinical signs followed by death

BTV\3, \19 and \22 serotypes identified in this study had already been reported in 2016 in an ecological reserve in the State of Paran, infecting pygmy brocket deers ( em Mazama nana /em ) with clinical signs followed by death. [4.62C15.56]), BTV\21 (30.66%, [25.00C36.00]), BTV\22 (12.14%, [5.91C18.55]), BTV\26 (57.00%, [51.41C63.59]). Table?1 shows the percentage of reactive and non\reactive animals and the respective neutralizing antibody titres for BTV serotypes (BTV\1, \2, \3, \4, \9, \12, \17, \19, \21, \22 and \26) in the seven regions of the State of S?o Paulo Cladribine in 2011. Table 1 Neutralizing antibody titers in bovine sera from the State of S?o Paulo, Brazil (2011) against BTV serotypes thead valign=”top” th align=”left” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ Antibody Titer /th th align=”left” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ BTV1 /th th align=”left” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ BTV2 /th th align=”remaining” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ BTV3 /th th align=”remaining” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ BTV4 /th th align=”remaining” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ BTV9 /th th align=”remaining” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ BTV12 /th th align=”remaining” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ BTV17 /th th align=”remaining” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ BTV19 /th th align=”remaining” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ BTV21 /th th align=”remaining” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ BTV22 /th th align=”remaining” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ BTV26 /th /thead 1:10(75.5) 1207(67.2) 1074(80.2) 1282(74.1) 1184(91.5) 1462(91.5) 1462(75.1) 1201(87.7) 1403(67.2) 1074(86.1) 1376(40.6) 6501:10(14.5) 233(20.3) 324(14.5) 231(16.1) 258(4.7) 75(6.4) 102(16.7) 267(7.5) 120(23.0) 368(7.1) 114(37.6) 6021:20(5.2) 83(8.4) 134(3.2) 52(6.0) 96(1.4) 23(0.9) 11(5.2) 84(2.0) 33(6.1) 98(2.7) 44(14.8) 2381:40(2.1) 33(1.9) 30(1.2) 19(2.2) 34(0.6) 9(0.4) 6(1.7) 28(0.4) 7(1.1) 18(1.9) 31(3.5) 561:80(0.2) 4(0.6) 10(0.06) 1(0.2) 4(0.1) 2(0.06) 1(0.06) 1(0.1) 3(0.3) 1(0.3) 2(0.9) 91:160(0.06) 100(0.2) 400(0.1) 2000(0.2) 41:32000000000(0.2) 4001:640000000000(0.1) 3(0.1) 21:128000(0.06) 120000(0.3) 100Toxic(1.3) 20(0.7) 10(0.4) 7(0.3) 4(0.6) 10(0.6) 9(0.4) 7(0.6) 11(1.1) 19(0.7) 12(0.8) 14Insufficient(1.1) 17(1.0) 16(0.3) 5(0.7) 12(1.1) 17(0.4) 7(0.5) 8(1.3) 21(0.9) 15(1.0) 16(1.4) 23Total1598 (100%) Open in a separate window Figures in brackets are percentages. Results of the univariate analysis (Table?2) and the final logistic regression model (Table?3) indicated new cattle entering herd [2183 (odds percentage), 1619C2945 (95% confidence interval)] like a risk element. Table 2 Univariate (chi\square) analysis of cattle herds reactive and non\reactive to BTV in the State of S?o Paulo, Brazil, in 2011, considering non\statistically significant variables ( em P /em ? ?0.20) thead valign=”top” th align=”left” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ Variable /th th align=”center” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ Cladribine colspan=”1″ % (BTV reactive) /th th Cladribine align=”center” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ % (non\BTV reactive) /th th align=”center” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ Total /th th align=”center” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ em P /em /th /thead Farm typeMeat13.0% (83)87.0% (555)6380.95Dairy13.5% (76)86.5% (486)562Mixed88.7% (353)11.3% (45)398Type of operationExtensive12.8% (175)87.2% (1195)13700.48Semi\extensive12.6% (27)87.4% (187)214Confined14.3% (2)85.7% (12)14Type of milkingMechanical12.6% (79)87.4% (546)6250.51Manual5.0% (1)95.0% (19)20Manual and mechanical16.3% (15)83.7% (77)9213.6% (109)86.4% (695)804Artificial insemination (AI)Does not use AI12.9% (192)87.1% (1300)14920.91Uses AI and bulls88.7% (63)11.3% (8)71Only uses AI11.4% (4)88.6% (31)35Presence of sheep and goatsYes11.3% (33)88.7% (261)2940.40No13.1% (171)86.9% (1133)1304Presence of wild animalsYes11.0% (75)89.0% (607)6820.13No14.1% (129)85.9% (787)916Presence of deerYes10.0% (22)90.0% (199)2210.51No13.2% (182)86.8% (1195)1377Abortions within the last 12?monthsNo13.0% (176)86.9% (1177)13530.35Yes9.2% (14)90.8% (139)153Not known15.4% (14)84.6% (77)91Entry of new cattle into herdNo8.9% (85)91.1% (871)9560.00Ysera81.4% (522)18.6% (119)641Purchase of breeding stockNo11.2% (129)88.8% (1032)11610.016Ysera17.2% (75)82.8% (361)436Sale of breeding stockNo12.7% (177)87.3% (1219)13960.81Ysera13.4% (27)86.6% (175)202Slaughter of adultsNo11.9% (133)88.1% (989)11220.19Ysera14.9% (71)85.1% (405)476Pasture rentalNo12.6% (167)87.4% (1161)13280.84Ysera13.7% (37)86.3% (233)270Common grazingNo12.6% (173)87.4% (1201)13740.42Ysera13.8% (31)86.2% (193)224Sharing rights of way with other farmsNo13.0% (173)87.0% (1167)13400.31Ysera12.0% (31)88.0% (227)258Flooded areasNo12.7% (140)87.3% (967)11070.85Ysera13.1% (64)86.9% (426)490Concentrated cattleNo12.7% (187)87.3% (1294)14810.37Ysera14.5% (17)85.5% (100)117Calving pensNo13.5% (169)86.5% (1087)12560.61Ysera12.3% (35)87.7% (250)285Veterinary careNo11.4% (122)88.6% (954)10760.11Ysera15.7% (82)84.3% (440)522Watering locations shared with other farmsNo12.4% (164)87.6% (1162)13260.22Ysera14.7% (40)85.3% (232)272Farm typeRural12.7% (179)87.3% (1232)14110.86With some settlements14.8% (13)85.2% (75)88Urban periphery12.1% (12)87.9% (87)99 Open in a separate window Table 3 Final model of multivariate logistic regression of risk factors (Odds Ratio) for BTV in bovines of the State of S?o Paulo, Brazil, in the year of 2011 thead valign=”top” th align=”remaining” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ Variables /th th align=”center” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ OR /th th align=”center” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ CI (95%) /th th align=”center” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ em P /em /th /thead Access of new cattle into herd2183[1619C2945]0.00 Open in a separate window Discussion Since the beginning of the 1980s, with the first report of the Cladribine presence of BTV in Brazil, many seroprevalence studies have been carried out in the State of S?o Paulo, with reports of high prevalence of BTV\reactive cattle and sheep, proving the disease is ARPC1B endemic and Cladribine is widely distributed throughout the State of S?o Paulo (Groocock & Campbell 1982; Cunha 1990; Arita em et?al /em . 1992; Nogueira em et?al /em . 2009, 2016). In the present study, a high seroprevalence of BTV\reactive bovines was recognized, with the recognition of antibodies specific for 11 serotypes (BTV\1, \2, \3, \4, \9, \12, \17, \19, \21, \22 and \26), indicating the blood circulation of several serotypes in the seven cattle\generating regions (Table?1). Inside a seroprevalence study carried out in the State of S?o Paulo, 100% of reactive bovines were recognized by ELISA and 86% of bovines reactive to BTV\4 by means of VN. Although they recognized only BTV\4, the authors suggested.