PLOS ONE RESEARCH ARTICLE Cats shedding pathogenic Leptospira spp.—An underestimated zoonotic risk? Roswitha Dorsch ID1*, Javier Ojeda2, Miguel Salgado3, Gustavo Monti ID3, Bernadita Collado3, Camillo Tomckowiack4, Carlos Tejeda3, Ananda Müller ID2¤, Theo Eberhard5, Henricus L. B. M. Klaasen6, Katrin Hartmann1 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 1 Medizinische Kleintierklinik, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Munich, Munich, Germany, 2 Instituto de Ciencias Clı́nicas, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia, Chile, 3 Instituto de Medicina Preventiva Veterinaria, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia, Chile, 4 Escuela de Graduados, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia, Chile, 5 University of Applied Sciences Munich, München, Germany, 6 Department of Global Companion Animals R&D, MSD Animal Health, Boxmeer, The Netherlands ¤ Current address: Department of Biomedical Sciences, Ross University School of Veterinary Medicine, Saint Kitts and Nevis, West Indies * roswitha.dorsch@lmu.de Abstract OPEN ACCESS Citation: Dorsch R, Ojeda J, Salgado M, Monti G, Collado B, Tomckowiack C, et al. (2020) Cats shedding pathogenic Leptospira spp.—An underestimated zoonotic risk? PLoS ONE 15(10): e0239991. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0239991 Editor: Kalimuthusamy Natarajaseenivasan, Bharathidasan University, INDIA Received: May 27, 2020 Accepted: September 16, 2020 Published: October 22, 2020 Peer Review History: PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process; therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. The editorial history of this article is available here: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239991 Copyright: © 2020 Dorsch et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Shedding of DNA of pathogenic Leptospira spp. has been documented in naturally infected cats in several countries, but urinary shedding of infectious Leptospira spp. has only recently been proven. The climate in Southern Chile is temperate rainy with high annual precipitations which represents ideal preconditions for survival of Leptospira spp., especially during spring and summer. The aims of this study were to investigate shedding of pathogenic Leptospira spp. in outdoor cats in Southern Chile, to perform molecular characterization of isolates growing in culture, and to assess potential risk factors associated with shedding. Urine samples of 231 outdoor cats from rural and urban areas in southern Chile were collected. Urine samples were investigated for pathogenic Leptospira spp. by 4 techniques: qPCR targeting the lipL32 gene, immunomagnetic separation (IMS)-coupled qPCR (IMS-qPCR), direct culture and IMS-coupled culture. Positive urine cultures were additionally confirmed by PCR. Multilocus sequence typing (MLST) was used to molecularly characterize isolates obtained from positive cultures. Overall, 36 urine samples (15.6%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.4–20.9) showed positive results. Eighteen (7.8%, 95% CI 4.9–12.1), 30 (13%, 95% CI 9.2–18), 3 (1.3%, 0.3–3.9) and 4 cats (1.7%; 95% CI 0.5–4.5) were positive in qPCR, IMS-qPCR, conventional culture, and IMS-coupled culture, respectively. MLST results of 7 culture-positive cats revealed sequences that could be assigned to sequence type 17 (6 cats) and sequence type 27 (1 cat) corresponding to L. interrogans (Pathogenic Leptospira Subgroup 1). Shedding of pathogenic Leptospira spp. by cats might be an underestimated source of infection for other species including humans. The present study is the first one reporting growth of leptospires from feline urine in culture in naturally infected cats in SouthAmerica and characterisation of culture-derived isolates. So far, very few cases of successful attempts to culture leptospires from naturally infected cats are described worldwide. Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239991 October 22, 2020 1 / 17 PLOS ONE Funding: The Bavarian Academic Center for Latin America supported the study by paying for travel expenses (between Valdivia and Munich on two occasions) for planning the study. The Dirección de Investigación y Desarollo of the Universidad Austral de Chile supported the study by covering part of the costs for the material necessary for sampling and part of additional costs, e.g. transport and compensation of owners for study participation. For compensation, all included cats were vaccinated and dewormed. MSD Animal health provided the resources for sampling, clinical investigation of cats and laboratory investigations. Part of the laboratory work was funded by Proyecto FIC 15-8 (código BIP 30421496) del Gobierno Regional de Los Rı́os, Chile. Competing interests: H.L.B.M. Klaasen is an employee of a company (MSD Animal Health) developing and marketing animal vaccines and pharmaceuticals. Otherwise the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. Leptospira shedding by cats in Southern Chile Introduction Leptospirosis is a worldwide zoonotic disease affecting most mammalian species. Prevalence of Leptospira species (spp.) infection is associated with certain environmental conditions and shows a positive association with increased rainfall and temperatures [1–4]. Leptospires survive for months in water and moist soil. Contamination of the environment with pathogenic Leptospira spp. mainly occurs via urinary shedding of reservoir hosts, such as small rodents that are considered the most important reservoir species. These species usually do not show clinical signs after infection but harbor leptospires in their renal tubules and shed them for prolonged periods of time [5]. In livestock animals (cows and pigs), leptospirosis causes chronic infections affecting fertility and reproduction [6, 7]. Only few reports of clinical cases of leptospirosis in cats are published [8–10], and Leptospira spp. infection appears to be underinvestigated in cats compared to other animal species. It has, however, been demonstrated that cats can be infected and develop specific antibodies [11, 12]. Reported antibody prevalence in naturally infected cats ranges from 0.8% to 33.3%, depending on the geographic area and the cats´ lifestyle [13–16]. The highest prevalence of antibody-positive cats have been found in Greece (33.3%) [17] and in rural areas of Southern Chile (25.2%) [18]. In addition, there are reports that infection with pathogenic Leptospira spp. in cats might be, although rarely, associated with acute kidney injury or liver disease but also with the development of chronic kidney disease. A study from Canada identified a significantly higher antibody prevalence in cats with chronic kidney disease (14.9%) when compared to healthy cats (7.2%) [12]. Still there are uncertainties concerning the role of cats as carrier of Leptospira spp. and their potential zoonotic risk. Few studies demonstrated shedding of Leptospira spp. in cats, first by identification of leptospiral agglutinins in the urine [19] and later by PCR [11, 12, 14–16, 20]. Experimentally infected cats can shed leptospires via urine intermittently up to 10 weeks after infection with Leptospira interrogans serovar Canicola [19]. Prevalence of cats shedding pathogenic Leptospira spp. in naturally infected cats has also been documented using urine PCR, ranging from 0.8% in Thailand [15], 1.7% in Spain [16], 3.3% in Canada and Germany [12, 14], 4.9% in Malaysia [20], up to 67.8% in Taiwan [11]. The climate in Southern Chile is temperate rainy with an average temperature of 16.7˚C. In the Los Rios region, the reported annual precipitations exceed 2400 mm (www.wetterkontor. de). This represents ideal environmental conditions for survival of pathogenic Leptospira spp. in the environment, particularly during spring and summer. A study performed in rural communities in Southern Chile demonstrated the ubiquity of leptospires in household environments [21]. Water samples from puddles, containers, animal troughs, rivers, canals, and drinking water from 236 households were investigated for the presence of pathogenic Leptospira spp. using PCR. Pathogenic Leptospira spp. were identified in 13.5% of all samples; e.g. in 11.3% of open containers, 14.5% of animal drinking sources, 15.8% of human drinking sources, and 19.3% of puddles. This indicates that there is a considerable risk of infection for humans and mammalian animals living in this environment. Leptospirosis has emerged to become a major public health threat in Latin America. Nevertheless, little is currently known regarding its incidence [22]. In countries, such as Peru and Chile, where leptospirosis has been studied systematically in rural areas, a large proportion of the human population has antibodies indicating previous exposure to pathogenic leptospires (36,6% and 12,0% respectively) [23, 24]. In Chile, a variable human to cat ratio ranging from 9.3:1 to 1.4:1 has been reported [25] suggesting that there is a relatively large feline population that could be a potential source of Leptospira spp. infection. So far, it is not known how many cats in this geographic area actively PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239991 October 22, 2020 2 / 17 PLOS ONE Leptospira shedding by cats in Southern Chile shed pathogenic Leptospira spp., while the reported antibody prevalence in cats in rural areas (25.2%) [18] is among the highest reported worldwide. Therefore, the role of cats as a reservoir for pathogenic Leptospira spp. could be very important. Thus, to provide scientific knowledge for a better understanding of the role and relative importance of cats as a source of pathogenic Leptospira spp. infection, the aims of the study were: (1) to determine the proportion of cats shedding pathogenic Leptospira spp. in Southern Chile, (2) to determine the molecular profile of the cultured isolates, and (3) to identify possible risk factors regarding Leptospira spp. shedding. Material and methods Ethical note Procedures were approved by the Universidad Austral de Chile Animal Care Committee (No. 269/2016). Informed written owner consent was obtained for all cats included in the study. Study design The sampling size was statistically estimated by assuming an expected prevalence of urinary shedding of pathogenic Leptospira of 4% with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of the estimation with a 5% precision, indicating that at least 236 cats had to be included. Between October 2016 and March 2017, cats of rural and urban origin from the Los Rı́os and Los Lagos region in Southern Chile were included, trying to cover a geographic area in which a high antibody prevalence in cats had been reported previously [18]. Cats Included cats were patients of the small animal hospital of the Universidad Austral de Chile in Valdivia presented for health issues or for elective procedures (e.g. neutering, vaccination), client-owned cats participating in castration projects offered by the city of Valdivia or other communities, and cats presented by their owners specifically for study enrolement. Cats were offered one free vaccination and deworming as compensation for participating, if this was clinically justifiable. Cats were excluded from the study if they had received antimicrobial treatment within the last four weeks before sampling due to a decreased likelihood for detection of Leptospira spp. even if they were infected, or if they were living exclusively indoors or had only access to a balcony because of a low risk for infection. Sampling Urine samples were collected via cystocentesis using a 21 G needle attached to 5 ml syringe. Cystocentesis was performed with palpation of the urinary bladder or ultrasound-guided. At the time of sampling, a physical examination was performed in each cat. A questionnaire with information about the cat and potential risk factors was answered by the owner. It included questions about signalment, living conditions, consumption of raw meat, drinking out of puddles, contact with rodents or eating rodents, and contact with other cats, dogs, or livestock and vaccination status. Detection of pathogenic Leptospira spp. by qPCR and culture To increase the overall diagnostic sensitivity for the detection of pathogenic Leptospira spp. in urine, four diagnostic tools were used in each sample: lipL32 quantitative qPCR, immunomagnetic-separation (IMS)-coupled with lipL32 qPCR (IMS-qPCR), culture for Leptospira spp., and IMS-coupled with culture (Fig 1). PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239991 October 22, 2020 3 / 17 PLOS ONE Leptospira shedding by cats in Southern Chile Quantitative real-time lipL32 polymerase chain reaction. For each sample, at least 1 mL was centrifuged at 6,500 rpm for 15 minutes. The pellet was resuspended in 1 mL of 1X phosphate buffered saline (PBS) [137 mM NaCl, 2.7 mM KCl, 4.3 mM Na2HPO4, 1.4 mM KH2PO4 (pH 7)] and then transferred to a 1.5 mL microcentrifuge tube and re-centrifuged at 11,000 rpm for 5 minutes. Finally, the supernatant was discarded and the pellet was resuspended in 1mL of 1X PBS [26]. After this first cleaning and purification step, 100 μL were separated for a pretreatment step of immune-separation (see below) before proceeding with DNA extraction and direct qPCR. The rest of the urine was subjected to a DNA extraction-purification protocol using the High Pure PCR Template Preparation kit (Roche), following the manufacturer instructions. The DNA templates obtained were analyzed in a qPCR system (Roche LightCycler 2.0), using a TaqMan probe and targeting the lipL32 gene which is specific only for pathogenic Leptospira spp. [26]. The amplification mixture for each sample included 0.7 μM primers, 0.15 μM probe, 10 μL Master Mix TaqMan universal (Roche) and 5 μL DNA template, in a total volume of 20 μL. Samples were amplified with the following program: Initial denaturation at 95˚C for 2 min, followed by 40 cycles of denaturation for 5 s at 95˚C for 5 and annealing/elongation for 30 s at 58˚C [26, 27]. The PCR system included a negative and positive control in order to survey the proficiency of the reaction as well as DNA extraction-negative and -positive controls. The positive control for both, DNA extraction and PCR protocols, corresponded to a pure culture of pathogenic Leptospira spp. in two dilutions with a known concentration of leptospires (104/mL and 102/mL), where the two dilutions were used. Amplification efficiency (E) was calculated from the slope of the standard curve in each run using the following formula (E = 10−1/slope). Immunomagnetic-separation (IMS)-coupled lipL32 quantitative polymerase chain reaction. The urine sample aliquot was pre-treated with an IMS method published previously [28], followed by a DNA extraction purification and molecular confirmation qPCR. The IMSqPCR consisted of 4 steps (in silico peptide production; polyclonal antibody production; coating magnetic beads with polyclonal antibodies, and IMS–qPCR Leptospira spp. detection). The magnetic separation of pathogenic Leptospira spp. from urine samples and the subsequent washing steps were carried out using the automated BeadRetrieverTM System (Invitrogen Life Technologies, Grand Island, NY). Pathogenic Leptospira spp. were selectively concentrated from 0.5 mL processed samples obtained from the coated magnetic beads, as described above. The final product was suspended in 0.5 mL PBS for DNA extraction purification followed by qPCR for pathogenic Leptospira spp. as described above. Direct culture. Two dilutions of urine (1:10 and 1:100) with 5 ml of liquid EllinghausenMcCullough-Johnson-Harris (EMJH) medium supplemeted with 5-fluorouracil (0.2 mg/ml) were prepared immediately after urine sampling. Samples were cultured at 29˚C for 13 weeks according to previous recommendations [29]. In this liquid medium, growth was defined as turbidity that becomes apparent at an estimated bacterial density of 1x108 bacteria/mL. Each sample was observed for evidence of growth using dark-field microscopy for observation of viable, motile Leptospira spp. bacteria. DNA of positive isolations was used for molecular characterization using the above described extraction protocol. Immunomagnetic separation coupled to culture. After immunomagnetic separation as described above, 100 μL of the final product were transferred into 5 ml EMJH medium and cultured at 29˚C for 13 weeks. Each sample was observed for evidence of colony growth, as defined above. DNA of positive cultures was used for molecular characterization. Estimation of pathogenic Leptospira spp. shedding load. Pathogenic Leptospira spp. cell numbers (genome equivalents) were estimated from either of the detection methods. Estimation was based on the concentration of Leptospira spp. DNA, obtained from positive samples, PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239991 October 22, 2020 4 / 17 PLOS ONE Leptospira shedding by cats in Southern Chile Fig 1. Methods applied for identification of urinary shedding of pathogenic Leptospira spp. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239991.g001 that was measured in a Nanoquant spectrophotometer (TECAN group, Männedorf, Schweiz) adjusted for a 106 dilution. With the reference of the molecular weight of the genome of Leptospira interrogans serovar Hardjo-prajitno (GenBank accession number EU357983.1) a standard curve for estimation of pathogenic Leptospira spp. numbers in urine using a Roche 2.0 real-time PCR, according to the following equation was established [30, 28]: Genome equivalent ¼ DNA concentration ðng=mlÞ � ð6:022 � 1023 mol 1 Þ ð4:659 � 106 base pairsÞ � ð1 � 109 ng=g � 660g=molÞ ðaccesion number EU357983:1Þ ðbase massÞ Molecular characterization by multilocus sequence typing (MLST). The "Multi Locus Sequence Typing" (MLST) method was used to molecularly characterize strains obtained from positive cultures. MLST was performed according to a protocol described by Thaipadungpanit et al. (2007) with the following housekeeping genes: glmU, pntA, sucA, tpiA, pfkB, mreA, and caiB [31]. Briefly, PCR amplification was carried out using Leptospira spp. DNA obtained from positive urine cultures, where the initial denaturation step was 94˚C for 5 min, followed by 35 cycles of 94˚C for 30 sec, annealing/elongation was at 50˚C for 60 sec for all genes, extension was at 72˚C for 50 sec, and then the final extension was at 72˚C for 7 min. The PCR products were purified using the Geneaid™ "Gene/DNA Genetic Extraction" kit, and sequencing was done in both directions with primers initially used for PCR amplification. Sequencing was performed using the sequencer kit "BigDye Terminator v. 3.1 cycle sequencing kit (ABI)" and the automated DNA sequencer "ABI Prism 3130xl Genetic". The sequences were analyzed using the Chrommas and Bioedits programs, and these were derived from the international database for free use (https://pubmlst.org/leptospira/) to obtain the allelic profile and to assign the sequence type (ST). PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239991 October 22, 2020 5 / 17 PLOS ONE Leptospira shedding by cats in Southern Chile Data analysis The overall prevalence of urinary shedding (as detected by any of the 4 techniques) of pathogenic Leptospira spp. with their 95% confidence was calculated. Mann-Whitney test was used for comparison of Leptospira spp. loads between direct qPCR and IMS-qPCR. Statistical analysis to assess risk factors was performed by ordinary and mixed-logistic regression models using the location of the cat as a random slope effect to account for potential environmental heterogeneity. The strategy for building the model consisted in obtaining unconditional models for initial screening of variables. Variables associated with the outcome (P<0.25) were eligible for inclusion in the conditional model that was built using a forward approach and a P value of 0.05 was used for interpreting the outcomes. Potential interactions were tested based on their biological significance. The best model was assessed by using the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) index as a measure of goodness-of-fit. Two analysis were performed: a) one for cats positive with any of the 4 techniques, combined as “Leptospira-shedding” cats, and b) one for “viable Leptospira-shedding” cats (culture- and IMS-coupled culture-positive cats). Analysis was done with lme4 package [32] of R (R Development Core Team (2008)) [33]. A power post hoc analysis was performed using WebPower package [34] for a evaluation of variables that were statistically not significant in the model. Results Shedding of pathogenic Leptospira spp. In total, 231 cats from 11 locations at 7 municipal districts were included into the study (Fig 2). Overall, 30 cats were PCR-positive (Table 1), and 7 cats were culture-positive. All 18 cats that were positive on qPCR were also positive on IMS-qPCR (Table 2). IMSqPCR identified 12 additional cats as shedders of pathogenic Leptospira spp. Seven cats were positive in culture, 3 cats in direct culture and 4 other cats in IMS-coupled culture. None of them was positive in both culture methods. One of the cats that was positive in IMS-coupled culture was also positive in conventional qPCR and on IMS-qPCR. The other 6 culture-positive cats were PCR-negative. Individual data on signalment and health status are illustrated in Table 2. Data of geographic distribution of positive cats are combined in Table 3. Multi locus sequence typing of isolates obtained of 7 positive cultures revealed that sequences of 6 cats were identical to available sequences of L. interrogans sequence type (ST) 17, and the sequence of one cat was identical to available sequences of L. interrogans ST 27 (Table 4). Risk factor analyses For unconditional model (Table 5), health status (P<0.001), eating rodents (P = 0.08), reproductive status (P = 0.11), previous vaccination (P = 0.11), and age >1 year (P = 0.12) were variables primary associated with leptospiruria, and used for building a conditional model for cats that were PCR- and/or culture positive. Conditional logistic regression after evaluating potential interactions and confounders is illustrated in Table 6 and included four risk factors. Two of them (being sick and being vaccinated) were significantly associated with shedding of pathogenic Leptospira spp. while the other two (age >1year and eating rodents) were not. The random intercept was statistically significant and accounted for 22.9% of the extra variability due to the place where the cat lived. The power estimation for this model was 90% which is considered high enough. PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239991 October 22, 2020 6 / 17 PLOS ONE Leptospira shedding by cats in Southern Chile Fig 2. Map of Latin America and of the region Los Rios in Southern Chile. Sampled cats originated from the 7 delineated municipal districts. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239991.g002 Table 1. Percentage and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) of positive results from 231 urine samples using quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR), immunomagnetic-separation-coupled qPCR (IMS-qPCR), direct culture and IMS-coupled culture for identification of cats shedding pathogenic Leptospira spp. in urine. Assay Percentage (number) of positive samples Estimated bacterial load/mL % (n) 95% CI qPCR 7.8 (18) 4.9–12.1 32.7 17–49 IMS-qPCR 13.0 (30) 9.2–18.0 1,683,123 578,206–2,788,040 Direct culture 1.3 (3) 0.3–3.9 n. d. n. d. IMS-coupled culture 1.7 (4) 0.5–4.5 n. d. n. d. 15.6 (36) 11.4–20.9 n. d. n. d. Total Mean 95% CI CI = confidence interval; n. d. = not determined https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239991.t001 PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239991 October 22, 2020 7 / 17 PLOS ONE Leptospira shedding by cats in Southern Chile Table 2. Signalment, origin and health status of cats with positive results on qPCR, immunomagnetic-separation (IMS)-coupled PCR (IMS-qPCR), direct culture and/or IMS-coupled culture and respective bacterial concentrations in number of genomic equivalents/mL (GE/ml). Cat Sex Age (years) Location Status Health status qPCR GE/ml estimated by qPCR IMSqPCR GE/mL estimated by IMS-qPCR Culture IMS-coupled culture 2 fs 1,5 Valdivia priv. ear mites, chronically ill� neg 0 neg 0 neg pos 8 fs 5 Valdivia priv. healthy neg 0 pos 119 neg neg 10 f 1,75 Valdivia priv. healthy pos 35 pos 7,160,000 neg neg 11 f 1 Valdivia priv. healthy pos 26 pos 330,000 neg neg 12 f 0,75 Valdivia priv. healthy pos 96 pos 3,380,000 neg neg 13 f 4 Valdivia priv. healthy pos 42 pos 8,380,000 neg neg 18 f 1 Paillaco priv. chronically ill� pos 19 pos 124,800 neg neg 22 f NA Lago Ranco stray cat healthy pos 3 pos 2,680 neg neg 25 fs 2 Valdivia priv. unilateral nasal discharge pos 22 pos 9,440,000 neg neg 26 mc 3 Valdivia priv. hematuria pos 16 pos 632,000 neg pos 29 mc 2 Valdivia priv. acute renal failure pos 12 pos 6,840,000 neg neg 30 m 2 Valdivia priv. ear mites chronically ill� neg 0 pos 1,178 neg neg 34 f 1 Valdivia priv. healthy pos 124 pos 562,000 neg neg 38 f 1 Lanco priv. healthy neg 0 pos 630 neg neg 40 mc 8 Lanco priv. healthy neg 0 pos 3,020 neg neg 43 f 6 Lanco priv. healthy neg 0 pos 1,966 neg neg 45 f 1 Valdivia priv. healthy pos 62 pos 6,800,000 neg neg 47 f 0,6 Valdivia priv. stomatitis neg 0 pos 14,720 neg neg 48 m 1 Valdivia priv. stomatitis neg 0 pos 16,600 neg neg 49 f 1,5 Valdivia priv. healthy neg 0 pos 566 neg neg 50 mc 4 Valdivia priv. idiopathic cystitis, urethral stricture neg 0 pos 1,804 neg neg 56 m 8 Valdivia priv. healthy pos 14 pos 4,720,000 neg neg 65 fs 4 Valdivia priv. healthy neg 0 neg 0 neg pos 66 f 1 Valdivia priv. healthy neg 0 neg 0 pos neg 67 f 3 Valdivia priv. vomiting neg 0 neg 0 pos neg 68 mc 10 Valdivia priv. oral tumor pos 8 pos 352,000 neg neg 69 m 6 Valdivia priv. mammary tumors pos 16 pos 314,000 neg neg 71 m NA Mafil priv. healthy pos 14 pos 402,000 neg neg 76 m 1 Corral priv. healthy pos 45 pos 354,000 neg neg 90 mc 5 Valdivia priv. HCM pos 19 pos 394,000 neg neg 91 m 4 Valdivia priv. healthy neg 0 neg 0 neg pos 121 f 0,4 Valdivia priv. healthy neg 0 pos 5 neg neg 130 fs 6 Valdivia priv. healthy pos 14 pos 262,000 neg neg 181 f 1,5 Valdivia priv. healthy neg 0 pos 3,480 neg neg 182 f 1,5 Valdivia priv. healthy neg 0 pos 132 neg neg 209 m 1,5 Valdivia priv. healthy neg 0 neg 0 pos neg f = female, fs = female spayed, HCM = hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, m = male, mc = male castrated, NA = information not available, neg = negative, pos = positive, priv. = privately owned; bold = positive in the respective test; Cats had the habitus of a chronically ill animal presenting with a reduced body condition score, dull fur and lethargy; � https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239991.t002 PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239991 October 22, 2020 8 / 17 PLOS ONE Leptospira shedding by cats in Southern Chile Table 3. Description of sampling locations, number of cats sampled and number of cats positive in quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) and/or immunomagneticseparation (IMS)-coupled qPCR, as well as in direct culture and/or IMS-coupled culture. Sampling location (Municipality) All sampled cats n PCR-positive cats n (%) Culture-positive cats n (%) All positive cats n (%) Valdivia 186 23 (12.4) 7 (3.8) 29 (15.6) Corral 12 1 (8.3) 0 1 (8.3) Paillaco 10 1 (10.0) 0 0 Lanco 7 3 (42.9) 0 3 (42.9) La Unión 6 0 0 0 Mafil 5 1 (20.0) 0 1 (20.0) Lago Ranco Total 5 1 (20.0) 0 1 (20.0) 231 30 (13.0) 7 (3.0) 36 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239991.t003 In addition, another model was used to evaluate potential risk factors associated with shedding of viable pathogenic Leptospira spp. (only cats positive on direct culture or IMS-coupled culture). For the unconditional models, only 3 variables were potential candidates: age >1 year, the reproductive status of the cat, and eating rodents were significantly associated with Leptospira spp.-positive urine cultures. Although a mixed model was also assessed, comparison of the goodness-of-the-fit between both indicated that the mixed-model did not fit better. Therefore, ordinary logistic regression model results are shown. The conditional logistic regression model (Table 7) included 2 variables (age >1 year and eating rodents) that were significantly associated with shedding of viable pathogenic Leptospira spp. Discussion Overall, 15.6% of cats included in the study were identified as shedders of pathogenic Leptospira spp‥ This is considerably higher than the shedding rates from 0.8% to 4.9% in Thailand, Spain, Germany, Canada, and Malaysia [12, 14–16, 20]. One possible explanation might be the diagnostic techniques used in the present study as the application of an additional Leptospira spp. concentration technique (IMS-qPCR) increased the proportion of Leptospira spp.-shedding cats identified by PCR from 7.8% to 13.0% (12 additional cats). With direct culture and IMS-coupled culture another 6 shedding cats were identified. Other possible explanations could be related to the humid climatic conditions in the area where the study was performed with very high annual precipitations and the types of pathogenic Leptospira spp. circulating in the study area. In the present study, serovar identification was not performed, but the culturegrown leptospires could be characterized as L. interrogans ST 17 and ST 27 (pathogenic Subgroup 1) based on MLST. Other studies using whole-genome sequencing provided evidence that strains of pathogenic leptospires differ in genetic features and virulence factors for Table 4. Multi locus sequence typing of PCR products, allelic profile, and sequence types (ST) from 7 Leptospira spp.-positive urine cultures. Cat # caiB glmU mreA pfkB pntA sucA tpiA ST 2 8 11 4 10 1 21 2 17 Product L. interrogans Icterohaemorrhagiae Copenhageni 26 8 11 4 10 2 21 65 17 L. interrogans Icterohaemorrhagiae Copenhageni 65 8 4 4 10 2 21 2 17 L. interrogans Icterohaemorrhagiae Copenhageni 66 19 11 4 10 1 21 65 17 L. interrogans Icterohaemorrhagiae Copenhageni 67 8 4 4 10 2 21 2 17 L. interrogans Icterohaemorrhagiae Copenhageni 91 8 4 4 10 1 21 2 17 L. interrogans Icterohaemorrhagiae Copenhageni 209 19 11 13 10 12 3 3 27 L. interrogans Autumnalis Autumnalis https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239991.t004 PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239991 October 22, 2020 9 / 17 PLOS ONE Leptospira shedding by cats in Southern Chile Table 5. Unconditional logistic regression model results for pathogenic Leptospira spp. shedding cats (PCR- and/or culture-positive cats). Variable Age Gender Reproductive status Origin Ownership Category n Leptospira spp. shedding Positive Negative Odds ratio n (%) n (%) �1 year 98 11 (11.22) 87 (88.78) Ref. >1 year 112 23 (20.54) 89 (79.46) 1.8� Female 138 22 (15.94) 116 (84.06) Ref. Male 89 14 (15.73) 75 (84.27) 0.98 Neutered 52 12 (23.07) 40 (76.92) Ref. Intact 175 24 (13.71) 151(86.29) 0.53� Rural 81 15 (18.51) 66 (81.48) Ref. Urban 144 20 (13.89) 124 (86.11) 0.70 Feral 11 2 (18.18) 9 (81.82) Ref. Privatly owned 213 33 (15.49) 180 (84.51) 0.83 Weight >3kg 99 14 (14.14) 85 (85.86) Ref. �3 kg 96 11 (11.46) 85 (88.54) 1.22 Health status Healthy 208 23(11.06) 185 (88.94) Ref. Sick 23 13 (56.52) 10 (43.48) 4.12� No 159 25 (15.72) 134 (84.28) Ref. Yes 66 10 (15.15) 56 (84.85) 0.97 No 103 14 (13.59) 89 (84.41) Ref. Drinking out of puddles Contact with rodents Eating rodents Consumption of raw meat Contact with other cats Contact with dogs Yes 122 21 (17.21) 101 (82.79) 1.35 No 170 22 (12.94) 148 (87.06) Ref. Yes 43 10 (23.26) 33 (76.74) 2.08� No 163 28 (17.18) 135 (82.82) Ref. Yes 53 6 (11.32) 47 (88.68) 0.64 No 12 2 (16.67) 10 (83.33) Ref. Yes 211 33 (15.64) 178 (84.36) 1.07 No 49 8 (16.33) 41 (83.67) Ref. Yes 173 27 (15.61) 146 (84.39) 0.96 Contact with livestock No 172 29 (16.86) 143 (83.12) Ref. Yes 52 6 (11.54) 46 (88.46) 0.643 Previous vaccinations# No 121 13 (10.7) 108 (89.3) Ref. Yes 44 9 (20.4) 35 (79.6) 2.13� � # 95% CI 0.86–3.90 0.46–2.02 0.25–1.15 0.34–1.47 0.20–5.63 0.79–1.86 1.81–9.23 0.42–2.10 0.65–2.86 0.87–4.75 0.24–1.58 0.38–2.67 0.14–3.78 0.25–1.65 0.82–5.39 P<0.25; CI = Confidence interval, Ref. = Reference category vaccinations against panleukopenia, feline herpesvirus and calicivirus and rabies in variable combinations and intervals https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239991.t005 persistence outside the host, during entry into the host, as well as for colonization and persistence within the host organism [35, 36], suggesting that not all pathogenic Leptospira spp. are equally virulent [37]. Therefore, it cannot be excluded that the identified strains in the present study might have a higher virulence or be better adapted to invade the species cat than strains in other geographic regions. There is only one study with a much higher proportion (68%) of shedding cats in Taiwan [11]. However, this study was performed after a typhoon with an associated outbreak of leptospirosis in humans [38] and included a high proportion of stray cats (68%), whereas in the present study most of the cats were privately owned well-fed cats, and only 31% of them had been observed by their owners eating rodents. In addition, in the study from Taiwan, a PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239991 October 22, 2020 10 / 17 PLOS ONE Leptospira shedding by cats in Southern Chile Table 6. Conditional logistic regression model results for pathogenic Leptospira spp. shedding cats (PCR- and/or culture-positive cats). Variable Category Odds ratio 90% CI Age >1 year 1.36 0.54–3.42 �1 year Ref. Health status Eating rodents Previous vaccinations# Healthy Ref. Sick 3.04� No Ref. Yes 1.20 No Ref. Yes 2.93� 1.10–8.39 0.40–3.55 1.18–7.24 � P<0.05; Bayesian information criterion index = 144.9 CI = confidence interval, Ref. = Reference category # vaccinations against panleukopenia, feline herpesvirus and calicivirus and rabies in variable combinations and intervals https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239991.t006 different PCR technique (not a quantitative PCR) was applied and not all primers used in that study were specific for pathogenic Leptospira spp. While PCR can detect DNA of viable and killed bacteria, culture is only positive when a sufficient number of viable Leptospira spp. is present. Recently, a study from Malaysia demonstrated cultivation of pathogenic Leptospira spp. from renal tissue in 3/82 clinically healthy shelter cats and from both, renal tissue and urine, in 1/82 of these cats [20]. In addition to that study, there is one case report of a cat with a positive Leptospira spp. culture originating from the same geographic area as the present study [10]. The present study also yielded positive Leptospira spp. culture results from feline urine. Feline urine with its higher osmolality compared to dogs and humans [39] is a hostile environment for bacterial growth and therefore could prohibit the shedding of viable Leptospira spp. in many cats. This might explain the low proportion of culture-positive cats in the present study. Low pH is another physicochemical property of the urine contributing to the defense system against bacteria [40] and Leptospira spp. do not survive well in acidic urine but remain viable in alkaline urine [41]. However, in the present study, the mean urine pH was identical in culture-positive and in culture-negative cats. Usage of magnetic separation enhances the analytical specificity and sensitivity of the subsequent detection method, given that it helps to remove the presence of many inhibitory substances or other organisms [42]. Still, only 7 cats (3.0%) were culture-positive (3 direct culture, 4 IMS-coupled culture) compared to 30 (13.0%) PCR-positive cats. However, detection of positive cultures nevertheless demonstrates that feline urine can be a source of possible Table 7. Conditional logistic regression model results for cats with positive urine cultures (direct culture and/or IMS-coupled culture) for Leptospira spp. Variable Category Odds ratio 90% CI Age >1 year 6.61 1.08–40.40 �1 year Ref. No Ref. Yes 3.87 Eating rodents 1.03–14.49 CI = confidence interval, Ref. = Reference category https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239991.t007 PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239991 October 22, 2020 11 / 17 PLOS ONE Leptospira shedding by cats in Southern Chile contamination of the environment with viable Leptospira spp. One possible explanation for the discrepancy in the results of direct and IMS-coupled cultures is the hypothesis that antibodies used in IMS could have a neutralizing effect for the growth of Leptospira spp. in culture. In the present study, only 1 of the 7 culture-positive cats was also PCR-positive (qPCR and IMS-qPCR). One possible reason for the negative PCR in the culture-positive cats could be the presence of PCR inhibitors. In biologic fluids, such as urine, presence of PCR inhibitors has been reported to cause false negative PCR results [43]. However, positive controls in the present study showed hardly or no inhibition. Interestingly, a similar discrepancy was seen in the only other study in cats reporting the isolation of Leptospira spp. from feline kidneys and urine [20]. In that study, all 4 culture-positive cats had negative urine PCR results. This indicates that there might be substances/chemicals present in the PCR processing but not in the samples that are cultured that could be inhibitory for certain steps in the PCR. Other reasons might also be the level of detection on qPCR and possibly the selection of primers that do not bind to all DNA targets of Leptospira spp. However, molecular characterization of isolates later on revealed sequence types that should have been recognized by PCR. In the present study, serovar identification was not performed. Nevertheless, it was possible to molecularly characterize isolates via MLST, and identified sequences were assigned to ST 17 and ST 27, which corresponds to L. interrogans (Pathogenic Leptospira Subgroup 1) [44]. Although the Taxonomic Subcommittee does not yet accept MLST for serovar identification, the information reported from the MLST database used in the analysis of the isolated strain in this study, reports the ST 17 as Leptospira interrogans serogroup Icterohaemorrhagiae serovar Copenhageni, and the ST 27 as L. interrogans serogroup Autumnalis serovar Autumnalis. Previously characterized Leptospira spp. isolates from cats´ kidney or urine had high similarity to Leptospira interrogans serovar Pomona (1 cat from this area of Chile) [10] or to Leptospira interrogans serovar Bataviae (4 cats from Malaysia) [20]. Whereas, Leptospira interrogans Bataviae is reported to be the most common isolated serovar in humans, dogs and rats in Malaysia [45–47], L. interrogans serovar Autumnalis is among the most commonly reported serovars in dogs and cats in Chile [18, 48, 49], and antibodies against L. interrogans Icterohaemorrhagiae have previously been reported in rodents in this area [50]. Four factors (age (�1 year/>1year), health status, eating rodents, and vaccination status) were present in the final conditional model for all Leptospira spp. shedding cats (cats positive in any of the 4 techniques), and 2 factors (age (�1 year/>1year), eating rodents) for the “viable Leptospira spp. shedding” cats (culture- or IMS-coupled culture-positive cats). Adult stage (>1 year) was significantly associated with leptospiruria (odds ratio 6.8, CI 90% 1.08–40,4). Previous studies already reported older age as a risk factor for Leptospira spp. infection [15, 51]. A study in Thailand identified age >4 years as the only risk factor for infection (urine qPCR-positive status and/or serum antibodies in MAT) in a multivariate analysis [15]. A possible explanation for this is longer exposure to infectious environmental sources and therefore a higher risk of being infected. It is not known how long cats remain carriers after infection or if and under which circumstances they can eliminate the infection. Risk factors for Leptospira spp. infection have been investigated in several studies. Contact of cats with livestock animals was significantly associated with presence of Leptospira spp. antibodies in a study performed in Chile [18] but such an association between shedding and contact with livestock animals was not identified in the present study. The proportion of sick cats was significantly higher in Leptospira spp. shedding cats (36,1%) than in non-shedding cats (5,1%). Clinical cases of leptospirosis in cats are rarely described. In one case series with 3 cats and 2 further reports of single cases, cats presented with acute onset of polydipsia and polyuria, lethargy, anorexia, and hematuria, and had various degrees of kidney disease or increased liver enzymes [8–10]. In a more recent case report, a cat PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239991 October 22, 2020 12 / 17 PLOS ONE Leptospira shedding by cats in Southern Chile presented with a 2-months history of hematuria, had no abnormalities in serum chemistry but a marked leukocytosis [10]. One leptospiruric cat (positive in qPCR and IMS-qPCR) of the present study also suffered from acute renal failure (history of acute lethargy and anorexia, severe renal azotemia), and 2 presented with hematuria (1 cat positive in qPCR, IMS-qPCR and IMS-coupled culture, 1 cat positive in IMS-qPCR). These clinical signs could indeed be associated with leptospirosis and represent acute infection. In the other 10 sick cats with different organs affected, a causal relationship of infection with Leptospira spp. is not likely. However, the higher proportion of sick cats shedding pathogenic Leptospira spp. in the present study suggests that Leptospira spp. could be one of the etiological factors in the development of these clinical problems, and that diagnostic testing Leptospira spp. infection should also be considered in cats with relevant clinical signs. Alternatively, it could be discussed that sick cats might be immunosuppressed and that an impaired immune status increases the risk of leptospiral infection and subsequent shedding. This, however, has not been reported so far. On the other hand, sick cats shedding pathogenic Leptospira spp. could represent chronically infected individuals. It would have been interesting to further monitor these cats to see if they remained chronic shedders. Eating rodents was found to be associated with an increased risk of shedding viable pathogenic leptospires. In general, rodents are a natural reservoir pathogenic Leptospira spp., and rats are reservoir hosts of the Icterohaemorrhagiae and Copenhageni serovars [52]. Therefore, prey–predator transmission between cats and rodents is possible by hunting and is believed to be the main source of infection in cats [12, 53]. In the contrary, a negative association between cat ownership and the presence of Leptospira antibodies in people in an urban population in North America was demonstrated, and cats appear to have a protective role by decreasing contact of people with rodents that act as reservoir hosts [54]. An unforeseen result was the statistically significant association of an increased risk of shedding pathogenic Leptospira spp. and previous vaccination against feline panleukopenia, feline herpes- and calicivirus infection and/or rabies. The reason for this association is unknown. Immunological host-pathogen processes that could affect shedding of leptospires by cats in any direction are conceivable but specific information is missing. Weather there is an interference in susceptibility of vaccinated cats to act as shedders of Leptospira spp. is an interesting aspect that should be further investigated. Results of the present study show that cats can shed viable pathogenic Leptospira spp. and, therefore, could act as transmitters to humans and livestock. Results of PCR and culture with and without separation and concentration, taken together, showed that: i) the bacterial load in feline urine is relatively low; ii) in 90% of feline shedders it was not possible to culture the organism suggesting that viability of the bacteria in feline urine is negatively affected by the hostile environment, e.g. the relatively high osmolality of feline urine; and iii) separation and concentration followed by qPCR significantly increases the sensitivity of detection of leptospiral DNA in feline urine. Apart from the possible negative effect on bacterial viability of the hostile environment that is provided by feline urine and the stage of disease, there is another potential cause of negative culture result. There is a known difficulty to isolate Leptospira spp. from infected hosts and get them growing in vitro. Despite the presence of viable leptospires in clinical samples of an infected host, it is in many cases very difficult to isolate the bacteria in media due to the in vivo phenotype of the host-derived bacteria and their lack of capacity to adapt to in vitro conditions. Based on this general problem with cultural isolation of Leptospira spp. from infected humans and animals, it can be concluded that, despite this difficulty, viable Leptospira spp. were detected in the urine of 7 cats, which demonstrates the zoonotic potential of this infection in cats. PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239991 October 22, 2020 13 / 17 PLOS ONE Leptospira shedding by cats in Southern Chile Conclusion In this region of Southern Chile, 15.6% of cats were leptospiruric and 3.0% of cats were Leptospira spp. culture-positive. The present study is one of the first reporting growth of Leptospira spp. from feline urine in culture and describing genetic characteristics of culture-derived isolates. Even though feline urine appears to be a hostile environment for leptospires, shedding cats present a potential risk for zoonotic transmission. Supporting information S1 Questionnaire. (DOCX) S2 Questionnaire. (DOCX) Acknowledgments We thank all cat owners and cats for participation in the study. Author Contributions Conceptualization: Roswitha Dorsch, Miguel Salgado, Ananda Müller, Katrin Hartmann. Data curation: Roswitha Dorsch, Javier Ojeda, Theo Eberhard. Formal analysis: Roswitha Dorsch, Javier Ojeda, Gustavo Monti, Theo Eberhard. Funding acquisition: Roswitha Dorsch, Gustavo Monti, Ananda Müller, Katrin Hartmann. Investigation: Roswitha Dorsch, Javier Ojeda, Miguel Salgado, Bernadita Collado, Camillo Tomckowiack, Carlos Tejeda, Theo Eberhard. Methodology: Miguel Salgado, Bernadita Collado, Camillo Tomckowiack, Carlos Tejeda, Ananda Müller. Project administration: Roswitha Dorsch, Gustavo Monti. Resources: Roswitha Dorsch, Javier Ojeda, Miguel Salgado. Software: Roswitha Dorsch, Gustavo Monti. Supervision: Roswitha Dorsch, Miguel Salgado. Validation: Miguel Salgado, Gustavo Monti, Henricus L. B. M. Klaasen. Visualization: Roswitha Dorsch, Theo Eberhard. Writing – original draft: Roswitha Dorsch, Miguel Salgado, Gustavo Monti, Katrin Hartmann. Writing – review & editing: Roswitha Dorsch, Javier Ojeda, Miguel Salgado, Gustavo Monti, Ananda Müller, Theo Eberhard, Henricus L. B. M. Klaasen, Katrin Hartmann. References 1. Miyazato KE, Fonseca A, Caputto LZ, Rocha KC, Azzalis LA, Junqueira V, et al. Incidence of Leptospirosis infection in the East Zone of Sao Paulo City, Brazil. Int Arch Med. 2013; 6(1):23. https://doi.org/10. 1186/1755-7682-6-23 PMID: 23672682 2. Diaz JH. Recognition and management of rodent-borne infectious disease outbreaks after heavy rainfall and flooding. J La State Med Soc. 2014; 166(5):186–92. PMID: 25369218. PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239991 October 22, 2020 14 / 17 PLOS ONE Leptospira shedding by cats in Southern Chile 3. Major A, Schweighauser A, Francey T. Increasing incidence of canine leptospirosis in Switzerland. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014; 11(7):7242–60. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph110707242 PMID: 25032740 4. Benacer D, Thong KL, Min NC, Verasahib KB, Galloway RL, Hartskeerl RA, et al. Epidemiology of human leptospirosis in Malaysia, 2004–2012. Acta Trop. 2016; 157:162–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. actatropica.2016.01.031 PMID: 26844370 5. Boey K, Shiokawa K, Rajeev S. Leptospira infection in rats: A literature review of global prevalence and distribution. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019; 13(8):e0007499. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0007499 PMID: 31398190 6. Lilenbaum W, Martins G. Leptospirosis in cattle: a challenging scenario for the understanding of the epidemiology. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2014; 61 Suppl 1:63–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.12233 PMID: 25135465 7. Petrakovsky J, Bianchi A, Fisun H, Najera-Aguilar P, Pereira MM. Animal leptospirosis in Latin America and the Caribbean countries: reported outbreaks and literature review (2002–2014). Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014; 11(10):10770–89. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph111010770 PMID: 25325360 8. Bryson DG, Ellis WA. Leptospirosis in a British domestic cat. J Small Anim Pract. 1976; 17(7):459–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5827.1976.tb06986.x PMID: 957622 9. Arbour J, Blais MC, Carioto L, Sylvestre D. Clinical leptospirosis in three cats (2001–2009). J Am Anim Hosp Assoc. 2012; 48(4):256–60. https://doi.org/10.5326/JAAHA-MS-5748 PMID: 22611217 10. Ojeda J, Salgado M, Encina C, Santamaria C, Monti G. Evidence of interspecies transmission of pathogenic Leptospira between livestock and a domestic cat dwelling in a dairy cattle farm. J Vet Med Sci. 2018; 80(8):13058. https://doi.org/10.1292/jvms.16-0361 PMID: 29962394 11. Chan KW, Hsu YH, Hu WL, Pan MJ, Lai JM, Huang KC, et al. Serological and PCR detection of feline leptospira in southern Taiwan. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2014; 14(2):118–23. https://doi.org/10.1089/ vbz.2013.1324 PMID: 24359421 12. Rodriguez J, Blais MC, Lapointe C, Arsenault J, Carioto L, Harel J. Serologic and urinary PCR survey of leptospirosis in healthy cats and in cats with kidney disease. J Vet Intern Med. 2014; 28(2):284–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvim.12287 PMID: 24417764 13. Markovich JE, Ross L, McCobb E. The prevalence of leptospiral antibodies in free roaming cats in Worcester County, Massachusetts. J Vet Intern Med. 2012; 26(3):688–689. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1939-1676.2012.00900.x PMID: 22390370 14. Weis S, Rettinger A, Bergmann M, Llewellyn JR, Pantchev N, Straubinger RK, et al. Detection of Leptospira DNA in urine and presence of specific antibodies in outdoor cats in Germany. J Feline Med Surg. 2017; 19(4):470–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098612X16634389 PMID: 26927819 15. Sprissler F, Jongwattanapisan P, Luengyosluechakul S, Pusoonthornthum R, Prapasarakul N, Kurilung A, et al. Leptospira infection and shedding in cats in Thailand. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2019; 66 (2):948–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.13110 PMID: 30580489 16. Murillo A, Cuenca R, Serrano E, Marga G, Ahmed A, Cervantes S, et al. Leptospira Detection in Cats in Spain by Serology and Molecular Techniques. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17(5). https://doi. org/10.3390/ijerph17051600 PMID: 32121670 17. Mylonakis ME, Bourtzi-Hatzopoulou E, Koutinas AF, Petridou E, Saridomichelakis MN, Leontides L, et al. Leptospiral seroepidemiology in a feline hospital population in Greece. Vet Rec. 2005; 156 (19):615–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.156.19.615 PMID: 15879545 18. Azocar-Aedo L, Monti G, Jara R. Leptospira spp. in Domestic Cats from Different Environments: Prevalence of Antibodies and Risk Factors Associated with the Seropositivity. Animals (Basel). 2014; 4 (4):612–26. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani4040612 PMID: 26479003 19. Larsson CE, Santa Rosa CA, Larsson MH, Birgel EH, Fernandes WR, Paim GV. Laboratory and clinical features of experimental feline leptospirosis. International journal of zoonoses. 1985; 12(2):111–9. PMID: 4077410 20. Alashraf AR, Lau SF, Khairani-Bejo S, Khor KH, Ajat M, Radzi R, et al. First report of pathogenic Leptospira spp. isolated from urine and kidneys of naturally infected cats. PLoS One. 2020; 15(3):e0230048. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230048 PMID: 32155209 21. Munoz-Zanzi C, Mason MR, Encina C, Astroza A, Romero A. Leptospira contamination in household and environmental water in rural communities in southern Chile. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014; 11(7):6666–80. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph110706666 PMID: 24972030 22. World Health Organization. Human leptospirosis: guidance for diagnosis, surveillance and control. 2003. World Health Organization 2003. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/42667 PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239991 October 22, 2020 15 / 17 PLOS ONE Leptospira shedding by cats in Southern Chile 23. Silva-Dı́az H, Llatas-Cancino DN, Campos-Sánchez MJ, Aguilar FR, Mera-Villasis KM, Valderrama Y. Leptospirosis frequency and socio-demographic characteristics associated in febrile patients from northern Perú. Rev Chilena Infectol. 2015; 32(5): 530–5. 24. Terrazas S, Olea A; Riedemann S, Torres M., Marisa. Prevalence of leptospirosis in adults in Chile, 2003. Rev Chil Infectol. 2012; 29, 641–647. 25. Morales MA, Ibarra L, Varas C. Caracterización de la población de gatos en viviendas de la ciudad de Viña del Mar, Chile. Avances en Ciencias Veterinarias 2006; 21:27–32. 26. Stoddard RA, Gee JE, Wilkins PP, McCaustland K, Hoffmaster AR. Detection of pathogenic Leptospira spp. through TaqMan polymerase chain reaction targeting the LipL32 gene. Diagn Microb Inf Dis. 2009; 64(3):247–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2009.03.014 PMID: 19395218 27. Salgado M, Otto B, Moroni M, Sandoval E, Reinhardt G, Boqvist S, et al. Isolation of Leptospira interrogans serovar Hardjoprajitno from a calf with clinical leptospirosis in Chile. BMC Vet Res. 2015; 11:66. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-015-0369-x PMID: 25888965 28. Tomckowiack C, Henriquez C, Ramirez-Reveco A, Muñoz P, Collado B, Herzberg D, et al. Analytical evaluation of an immunomagnetic separation-PCR assay to detect pathogenic Leptospira in cattle urine samples obtained under field conditions. J Vet Diagn Investig. 2020 (accepted for publication) 29. Faine S, Adler B, Bolin CA, Perolat P. Leptospira and Leptospirosis 2nd ed. Melbourne, MediSci Press 1999. 30. Dzieciol M, Volgger P, Khol J, Baumgartner W, Wagner M, Hein I. A novel real-time PCR assay for specific detection and quantification of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis in milk with the inherent possibility of differentiation between viable and dead cells. BMC research notes. 2010; 3:251. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-3-251 PMID: 20925922 31. Thaipadungpanit J, Wuthiekanun V, Chierakul W, Smythe LD, Petkanchanapong W, Limpaiboon R, et al. A dominant clone of Leptospira interrogans associated with an outbreak of human leptospirosis in Thailand. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2007; 1(1):e56. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0000056 PMID: 17989782 32. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015). “Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4.” Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 33. R Development Core Team (2008). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org. 34. Zhang Z, Yuan KH. Practical statistical Power analysis using Webpower and R. ISDSA Press; 2018. 35. Jorge S, Kremer FS, Oliveira NR, Navarro G, Guimaraes AM, Sanchez CD, et al. Whole-genome sequencing of Leptospira interrogans from southern Brazil: genetic features of a highly virulent strain. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2018; 113(2):80–6. https://doi.org/10.1590/0074-02760170130 PMID: 29236923 36. Evangelista KV, Coburn J. Leptospira as an emerging pathogen: a review of its biology, pathogenesis and host immune responses. Future Microbiol. 2010; 5(9):1413–25. https://doi.org/10.2217/fmb.10.102 PMID: 20860485 37. Picardeau M. Virulence of the zoonotic agent of leptospirosis: still terra incognita? Nat Rev Microbiol. 2017; 15(5):297–307. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro.2017.5 PMID: 28260786 38. Su HP, Chan TC, Chang CC. Typhoon-related leptospirosis and melioidosis, Taiwan, 2009. Emerg Infect Dis. 2011; 17(7):1322–24. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1707.101050 PMID: 21762606 39. Rubini ME, Wolf AV. Refractometric determination of total solids and water of serum and urine. J Biol Chem. 1957; 225(2):869–76. PMID: 13416289 40. Smee N, Loyd K, Grauer G. UTIs in small animal patients: Part 1: Etiology and pathogenesis. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2013; 49:1–7. https://doi.org/10.5326/jaaha-ms-5943 PMID: 23148133 41. Levett PN. Leptospirosis. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2001, 14(2):296. https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.14.2.296326.2001 PMID: 11292640 42. Fernandes CP, Seixas FK, Coutinho ML, Vasconcellos FA, Moreira AN, Conceicao FR, et al. An immunomagnetic separation-PCR method for detection of pathogenic Leptospira in biological fluids. Hybridoma (Larchmt). 2008; 27(5):381–386. https://doi.org/10.1089/hyb.2008.0029 PMID: 18803506 43. Lantz PG, Abu al-Soud W, Knutsson R, Hahn-Hagerdal B, Radstrom P. Biotechnical use of polymerase chain reaction for microbiological analysis of biological samples. Biotechnol Annu Rev. 2000; 5:87–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1387-2656(00)05033-x PMID: 10874998 44. Xu Y, Zhu Y, Wang Y, Chang YF, Zhang Y, Jiang X, et al. Whole genome sequencing revealed host adaptation-focused genomic plasticity of pathogenic Leptospira. Sci Rep. 2016; 6:20020. https://doi. org/10.1038/srep20020 PMID: 26833181 PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239991 October 22, 2020 16 / 17 PLOS ONE Leptospira shedding by cats in Southern Chile 45. Shafei MN, Sulong MR, Yaacob NA, Hassan H, Wan Mohamad WMZ, Daud A, et al. Seroprevalence of Leptospirosis among Town Service Workers in Northeastern State of Malaysia. Int J Collab Res Intern Med Public Health. 2012; 4(4):395–403. 46. Khor KH, Tan WX, Lau SF, Mohd AR, Rozanaliza R, Siti KB, et al. Seroprevalence and molecular detection of leptospirosis from a dog shelter. Trop Biomed. 2016; 33(2):276–84. 47. Benacer D, Mohd Zain SN, Sim SZ, Mohd Khalid MK, Galloway RL, Souris M, et al. Determination of Leptospira borgpetersenii serovar Javanica and Leptospira interrogans serovar Bataviae as the persistent Leptospira serovars circulating in the urban rat populations in Peninsular Malaysia. Parasit Vectors. 2016; 9(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-016-1400-1 PMID: 26927873 48. Lelu M, Muñoz-Zanzi C, Higgins B, Galloway R. Seroepidemiology of leptospirosis in dogs from rural and slum communities of Los Rios Region, Chile. BMC Vet Res. 2015; 11:31. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s12917-015-0341-9 PMID: 25880871 49. Azocar-Aedo L, Monti G. Meta-Analyses of Factors Associated with Leptospirosis in Domestic Dogs. Zoonoses and public health. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1111/zph.12236 PMID: 26515048 50. Perret PC, Abarca VK, Dabanch PJ, Solari GV, Garcı́a CP, Carrasco LS, et al. Prevalencia y presencia de factores de riesgo de leptospirosis en una población de riesgo de la Región Metropolitana. Rev Méd Chile. 2005; 133:426–31. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0034-98872005000400005 PMID: 15953949 51. Larsson CE, Santa Rosa CA, Hagiwara MK, Paim GV, Guerra JL. Prevalence of feline leptospirosis: serologic survey and attempts of isolation and demonstration of the agent. Int J Zoonoses. 1984; 11 (2):161–9. PMID: 6534902 52. Miraglia F, de Morais ZM, Dellagostin OA, Seixas FK, Freitas JC, Zacarias FG, et al. Molecular and serological characterization of Leptospira interrogans serovar Canicola isolated from dogs, swine, and bovine in Brazil. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2013; 45(1):117–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-0120181-6 PMID: 22610538 53. Hartmann K, Egberink H, Pennisi MG, Lloret A, Addie D, Belak S, et al. Leptospira species infection in cats: ABCD guidelines on prevention and management. J Feline Med Surg. 2013; 15(7):576–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098612X13489217 PMID: 23813819 54. Childs JE, Schwartz BS, Ksiazek TG, Graham RR, LeDuc JW, Glass GE. Risk factors associated with antibodies to leptospires in inner-city residents of Baltimore: a protective role for cats. Am J Public Health. 1992; 82(4):597–99. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.82.4.597 PMID: 1546785 PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239991 October 22, 2020 17 / 17