Diferentes pruebas diagnósticas para detectar Ehrlichia Canis.
| dc.contributor.advisor | Filian Hurtado, Willian Adolfo | |
| dc.contributor.author | Arroba Vera, Carolina Lisbeth | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-05-02T17:14:48Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-05-02T17:14:48Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2022 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://dspace.utb.edu.ec/handle/49000/11415 | |
| dc.description | This research has been carried out in order to collect information on diagnostic tests that allow Ehrlichia canis to be detected. Ehrlichia canis is the main etiological agent of canine monocytic Ehrlichiosis (CME). This agent is transmitted to dogs by the brown tick (Rhipicephalus sanguineus), which serves as a vector for this disease. As the symptomatology is varied, it is necessary to carry out diagnostic tests that allow Ehrlichia canis to be detected. There are various methods or diagnostic tests. We can classify these tests as direct or indirect diagnostic tests. Direct tests consist of directly observing the etiologic agent in animal samples suspected of having an Ehrlichia canis infection. Of these we have microscopic observation, cultivation and molecular methods. On the other hand, indirect tests aim to determine the presence of the infectious agent by assessing the immune response developed by the host. Among them we have indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) such as Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) or immunoblot. The different tests applied to the diagnosis of this disease will be analyzed, as well as the advantages and disadvantages that these tests present. | es_ES |
| dc.description | This research has been carried out in order to collect information on diagnostic tests that allow Ehrlichia canis to be detected. Ehrlichia canis is the main etiological agent of canine monocytic Ehrlichiosis (CME). This agent is transmitted to dogs by the brown tick (Rhipicephalus sanguineus), which serves as a vector for this disease. As the symptomatology is varied, it is necessary to carry out diagnostic tests that allow Ehrlichia canis to be detected. There are various methods or diagnostic tests. We can classify these tests as direct or indirect diagnostic tests. Direct tests consist of directly observing the etiologic agent in animal samples suspected of having an Ehrlichia canis infection. Of these we have microscopic observation, cultivation and molecular methods. On the other hand, indirect tests aim to determine the presence of the infectious agent by assessing the immune response developed by the host. Among them we have indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) such as Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) or immunoblot. The different tests applied to the diagnosis of this disease will be analyzed, as well as the advantages and disadvantages that these tests present. | es_ES |
| dc.description.abstract | Se ha realizado esta investigación con la finalidad de recolectar información sobre las pruebas diagnóstica que permitan detectar la Ehrlichia canis. La Ehrlichia canis es el principal agente etiológico de la enfermedad Ehrlichiosis monocítica canina (EMC) dicho agente es transmitido a los perros mediante la garrapata marrón (Rhipicephalus sanguineus) que sirve como vector para esta enfermedad. Como la sintomatología es variada es necesario realizar pruebas diagnósticas que permitan detectar la Ehrlichia canis. Existen diversos métodos o pruebas diagnósticas. Podemos clasificar a dichas pruebas como pruebas diagnósticas directas o indirecta. Las pruebas directas consisten en observar directamente el agente etiológico de muestras de animales que se sospecha que exista una infección por Ehrlichia canis. De ellas tenemos la observación microscópica, el cultivo y los métodos moleculares. Por otro lado, las pruebas indirectas pretenden determinar la presencia del agente infeccioso mediante la valoración de la respuesta inmunitaria desarrollada por el hospedador. Entre ellas tenemos la inmunofluorescencia indirecta (IFI) como el Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) o el immunoblot. Se analizarán las diferentes pruebas aplicadas al diagnóstico de esta enfermedad, así como las ventajas y desventajas que estas pruebas presentan. | es_ES |
| dc.format.extent | 18 p. | es_ES |
| dc.language.iso | es | es_ES |
| dc.publisher | BABAHOYO: UTB, 2022 | es_ES |
| dc.rights | Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 Ecuador | * |
| dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ec/ | * |
| dc.subject | Ehrlichia canis | es_ES |
| dc.subject | Ehrlichiosis monocítica canina (EMC) | es_ES |
| dc.subject | Agente etiológico | es_ES |
| dc.subject | Rhipicephalus sanguineus | es_ES |
| dc.subject | Pruebas diagnósticas | es_ES |
| dc.subject | Garrapatas | es_ES |
| dc.title | Diferentes pruebas diagnósticas para detectar Ehrlichia Canis. | es_ES |
| dc.type | bachelorThesis | es_ES |
Files in this item
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 Ecuador