| Re: Ulcers on frogs - help!
Shortly after thefirst isolation of ranavirus in UK (1995) the following was stated in the summary of the paper by Cunningham et al (1996) Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 351: 1539-57
“Specifically, we hypothesize that primary iridovirus infection, with or without secondary infection with opportunistic pathogens such as A. hydrophila, may cause natural outbreaks of 'red-leg', a disease considered previously to be due to bacterial infection only.”
This has been followed up by other reports and a more recent one by a similar group of authors used controlled experimental infections to confirm the above hypothesis. These authors from ZSL and Royal Vet College describe the clinical signs of Red leg disease in frogs and summarise their experimental infection findings with, inter alia, “The re-isolation of ranavirus from experimentally affected frogs fulfilled Koch’s postulates.” (for info this means proof that the agent is responsible for the clinical signs) “Aeromonas hydrophila, previously associated with similar lesions, was not significant to disease development”
Cunningham et al (2007) Epidemiol and Infect. 135: 1200-12.
The observed beneficial therapeutic impact of antibiotics in a relatively small proportion of infected frogs is consistent with control of secondary infections (eg A hydrophila) that in a proportion of cases in many diseases, can prove to be the final cause of morbidity/mortality.
I haven't seen any publications in peer reviewed journals that dispute these findings but you may know more?
M  |