METHODS: We conducted a thorough literature search using PubMed without restrictions on publication date as well as Google Scholar to manually search for other relevant articles. Abstracts were included if they described data pertaining to Leptospira spp. in rats (Rattus spp.) from any geographic region around the world, including reviews. The data extracted from the articles selected included the author(s), year of publication, geographic location, method(s) of detection used, species of rat(s), sample size, prevalence of Leptospira spp. (overall and within each rat species), and information on species, serogroups, and/or serovars of Leptospira spp. detected.
FINDINGS: A thorough search on PubMed retrieved 303 titles. After screening the articles for duplicates and inclusion/exclusion criteria, as well as manual inclusion of relevant articles, 145 articles were included in this review. Leptospira prevalence in rats varied considerably based on geographic location, with some reporting zero prevalence in countries such as Madagascar, Tanzania, and the Faroe Islands, and others reporting as high as >80% prevalence in studies done in Brazil, India, and the Philippines. The top five countries that were reported based on number of articles include India (n = 13), Malaysia (n = 9), Brazil (n = 8), Thailand (n = 7), and France (n = 6). Methods of detecting or isolating Leptospira spp. also varied among studies. Studies among different Rattus species reported a higher Leptospira prevalence in R. norvegicus. The serovar Icterohaemorrhagiae was the most prevalent serovar reported in Rattus spp. worldwide. Additionally, this literature review provided evidence for Leptospira infection in laboratory rodent colonies within controlled environments, implicating the zoonotic potential to laboratory animal caretakers.
CONCLUSIONS: Reports on global distribution of Leptospira infection in rats varies widely, with considerably high prevalence reported in many countries. This literature review emphasizes the need for enhanced surveillance programs using standardized methods for assessing Leptospira exposure or infection in rats. This review also demonstrated several weaknesses to the current methods of reporting the prevalence of Leptospira spp. in rats worldwide. As such, this necessitates a call for standardized protocols for the testing and reporting of such studies, especially pertaining to the diagnostic methods used. A deeper understanding of the ecology and epidemiology of Leptospira spp. in rats in urban environments is warranted. It is also pertinent for rat control programs to be proposed in conjunction with increased efforts for public awareness and education regarding leptospirosis transmission and prevention.
METHOD: A total of 140 urine samples were collected from trapped rats. These samples were cultured in EMJH enriched media and 18 of these samples (12.9%) were found to be positive when observed under x40 by dark field microscope. Genomic DNA was extracted from all the 18 native isolates for PCR.
RESULT: All the 18 isolates generated the expected 786 base pair band when the set of primers known to amplify LipL32 gene were utilized. These results showed that the primers were suitable to be used for the identification of pathogenic leptospira from the 18 rat samples.
CONCLUSION: The sequencing of the PCR products and BLAST analysis performed on each representative isolates confirmed the pathogenic status of all these native isolates as the LipL32 gene was detected in all the Leptospira isolates. This indicates that the rats are carriers of the pathogenic leptospira in the study area, and therefore are of public health importance.