# Diversity ofLeptospira spp. in Rats and Environment from Urban Areas of Sarawak, Malaysia

Authors: Chai Fung Pui; Lesley Maurice Bilung; Kasing Apun; Lela Su’ut
Journal: Journal of Tropical Medicine
 (2017)

---

## Abstract

Various prevalence studies onLeptospira in animals and humans, as well as environmental samples, had been conducted worldwide, including Malaysia. However, limited studies have been documented on the presence of pathogenic, intermediate, and saprophyticLeptospira in selected animals and environments. This study was therefore conducted to detectLeptospira spp. in rats, soil, and water from urban areas of Sarawak using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method. A total of 107 rats, 292 soil samples, and 324 water samples were collected from April 2014 to February 2015. PathogenicLeptospira was present in 5.6% (6/107) of rats, 11.6% (34/292) of soil samples, and 1.9% (6/324) of water samples. IntermediateLeptospira was present in 2.7% (8/292) of soil samples and 1.9% (6/324) of water samples. SaprophyticLeptospira was present in 10.3% (11/107) of rats, 1.4% (4/292) of soil samples, and 0.3% (1/324) of water samples. From this study, 76Leptospira spp. were isolated. Based on DNA sequencing, the dominantLeptospira spp. circulating in urban areas of Sarawak are pathogenicLeptospira noguchii, intermediateLeptospira wolffii serovar Khorat, and saprophyticLeptospira meyeri, respectively. Overall, this study provided important surveillance data on the prevalence ofLeptospira spp. from rats and the environment, with dominant local serovars in urban areas of Sarawak.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Leptospirosis is a zoonotic disease with worldwide distribution and caused by pathogenicLeptospira, which results in significant public health problem worldwide [1, 2]. The genusLeptospira consists of 20 species, with more than 300 serovars, grouped into 20 serogroups [3]. Based on the pathogenicity, they can be divided into three major clades, namely, pathogenic, saprophytic (nonpathogenic), and intermediate (unclear pathogenicity) [2]. The pathogenicity status of intermediateLeptospira remains a debate matter. For instance, hamsters inoculated with intermediateL. inadai andL. licerasiae do not cause any clinical manifestation of leptospirosis although both recovered from patients [4].Humans usually get infected through direct contact with the infected animal urine via mucous membrane and exposed skin or indirect contact by exposure to the contaminated soil, water, and food [5–7]. Normally, maintenance hosts are asymptomatic while accidental hosts like humans may suffer a wide range of clinical manifestation such as renal failure, hepatic failure, severe pulmonary haemorrhage, and even death [8]. The overall case mortality rate in humans ranges from 1 to 5% and the elderly are claimed to have higher infection risk of leptospirosis [9]. Incidence rates are often underestimated because of the relative inaccessibility, lack of rapid diagnostics, and insufficient awareness of leptospirosis [10].Similar prevalence studies onLeptospira spp. had been conducted in Malaysia in recent years.Leptospira had been isolated from urban rats of Kuala Lumpur [11] as well as soil and water from urban sites in Peninsular Malaysia [12]. The presence ofLeptospira spp. was also reported in National Service Training Centres of Peninsular Malaysia [13]. Moreover, Thayaparan et al. [14] reported the presence ofLeptospira spp. in wildlife around tourism areas in Sarawak. Our previous study highlighted the presence ofLeptospira spp. in national parks [15]. The presence ofLeptospira spp. in this area posed the risk of transmission and infection to humans. Since this study on the detection ofLeptospira spp. in rats, soil and water from urban areas is first reported in Sarawak, the data obtained is definitely important to provide an insight on the status ofLeptospira spp. in Sarawak.Current diagnostic methods forLeptospira spp. usually rely on the demonstration of serum antibodies by microscopic agglutination test (MAT). However, this method is time-consuming, requires live strain ofLeptospira in exponential culture phase, and gives subjective interpretation of result [16]. The use of PCR is therefore gaining more popularity over MAT now. PCR, as direct genome detection method, offers various key advantages such as reduced contamination, increased detection accuracy, faster detection, and elimination of the need to use many antigens [6]. Besides, the use of PCR is critical particularly at early stage of infection and acute stage of illness before antibodies are detectable. The early diagnosis of leptospirosis can reduce the complications due to leptospirosis and prevent fatality [17].Many different primer sets had been applied in the detection ofLeptospira. In this study,LipL32,rRNA, andrrs genes were targeted as reported in our previous study [15].LipL32 gene is a major outer membrane lipoprotein ofLeptospira. The lipoprotein is highly conserved among pathogenicLeptospira and considered as virulence factor where higher levels ofLipL32 are expressed inLeptospira during acute lethal infections thanLeptospira cultured in vitro [8, 18].rRNA gene is very conserved throughout the bacterial kingdom. The primer set targeting16S rRNA genes is genus-specific and useful in epidemiological study [19]. The primer set designed within therrs gene encoding16S rRNA is specific to saprophyticLeptospira [20].The objective of this study was to determine the diversity ofLeptospira spp. in rats, soil, and water samples from urban areas of Sarawak using PCR. This study also aimed to disseminate information on the dominantLeptospira serovars circulating in Sarawak so that control and preventive measures for this disease can be taken effectively.


## 2. Materials and Methods

### 2.1. Study Sites

This study focused on urban areas in Sarawak which are usually characterized by high density of humans population. According to Population and Housing Census 2010 by Department of Statistics Malaysia (2015), urban area is defined as gazetted areas with their adjoining built-up areas, which had a combined population of 10,000 or more at the time of the Census 2010 or the special development area that can be identified, which at least had a population of 10,000 with at least 60 % of population (aged 15 years and above) being involved in nonagricultural activities.The study sites (Figure1) included public university, villages, residential areas, commercial centres, hawker centres, and markets. The selection of study sites was based on the recent reports of leptospirosis outbreak, environmental exposure due to humans activities, the suitability of the habitat for the rats breeding, and its likelihood of transmitting the disease. A total of 107 rats, 292 soil samples and 324 water samples were collected from April 2014 to February 2015.Figure 1
Location of all the urban areas (UA) examined in this study (MapCustomizer, 2016). UA1, UA2, UA3, and UA7 are densely populated villages; UA4 is a famous market near villages; UA5 is a densely populated residential area with prominent hawker centres; UA6 and UA9 are small villages; UA8 is a public university; and UA10 is a residential area.In brief, the cage traps were set randomly near the garbage disposal areas, landfills, surrounding of housing areas, and store room. Soil samples were collected from the surrounding of housing areas, landfills, open field, and surrounding of lake. Water samples were collected from drain effluent, river, lake, and puddle.


### 2.2. Rat Trapping and Species Identification

The rats were caught alive using rectangular wire cage traps measuring 15 × 12.5 × 29 cm. Each trapping session took at least three consecutive days where the cage traps with baits were set up on the first day before checking for the capturing yield on the consecutive days. All the trapped rats under the family Muridae were euthanized humanely by placing them into a cloth bag containing cotton wool soaked with chloroform. They were further identified based on phenotypic characteristics such as fur colour (ventral and dorsal) and morphological measurements such as ear length, hind foot, tail length, and head body length [21].


### 2.3. Rat Samples Collection

Selected organs such as kidney and liver were removed from euthanized rats using sterile blade. A small piece of tissue was inoculated into modified semisolid Ellinghausen-McCullough-Johnson-Harris (EMJH) media with 100μg/mL 5-fluorouracil. All the enriched cultures were incubated aerobically at room temperature for 3 months. They were examined for the presence ofLeptospira using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) every month [7, 11].


### 2.4. Soil and Water Samples Collection

Approximately 20 g soil and 50 mL water samples were collected. Soil samples were mixed vigorously using sterile distilled water and allowed to settle for 15 minutes prior to filtration using sterile 0.2μm pore size membrane filter (Sartorius AG, Germany). Water samples were filtered directly using the same type of membrane filter. About 1 mL of the samples was inoculated into modified semisolid EMJH media with 100 μg/mL 5-fluorouracil. They were incubated aerobically at room temperature for 1 month [12, 13].


### 2.5. Molecular Detection ofLeptospira spp.

DNA extraction was carried out using Wizard™ Genomic DNA Purification Kit (Promega Corporation, USA) following the manufacturer’s instructions prior to specific PCR amplification. Three sets of primers were used to targetLipL32,16S rRNA, andrrs genes in pathogenic, intermediate, and saprophyticLeptospira, respectively [15]. PathogenicLeptospira noguchii strain LT796, intermediateLeptospira wolffii serovar Khorat strain Khorat-H2, and saprophyticLeptospira meyeri strain Sant-1 were used as positive controls.The 25µL reaction mixtures included 5 µL of 5x PCR buffer, 2.0 mM MgCl2, 0.4 μM of each primer pair, 0.2 mM of dNTP mix, 1.25 U ofTaq DNA polymerase (Promega Corporation, USA), and 5 μL of DNA template. The cycling conditions included initial denaturation at 95°C for 2 min, 35 cycles of each of denaturation at 95°C for 1 min, primer annealing at 55°C for 30 sec, and extension at 72°C for 1 min, further extension at 72°C for 5 min, and indefinite holding period at 4°C. Electrophoresis was then carried out using 2% agarose gel in 1x TBE buffer.


### 2.6. Identification ofLeptospira spp.

At least one positive sample from each study site was chosen for DNA sequencing, depending on the availability of the sample sources. The amplicons from representative positive samples were subjected to commercial facility for sequencing (First BASE Laboratories Sdn Bhd, Malaysia). The sequencing data were compared with the GenBank database using nucleotide BLAST from National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI).


## 2.1. Study Sites

This study focused on urban areas in Sarawak which are usually characterized by high density of humans population. According to Population and Housing Census 2010 by Department of Statistics Malaysia (2015), urban area is defined as gazetted areas with their adjoining built-up areas, which had a combined population of 10,000 or more at the time of the Census 2010 or the special development area that can be identified, which at least had a population of 10,000 with at least 60 % of population (aged 15 years and above) being involved in nonagricultural activities.The study sites (Figure1) included public university, villages, residential areas, commercial centres, hawker centres, and markets. The selection of study sites was based on the recent reports of leptospirosis outbreak, environmental exposure due to humans activities, the suitability of the habitat for the rats breeding, and its likelihood of transmitting the disease. A total of 107 rats, 292 soil samples and 324 water samples were collected from April 2014 to February 2015.Figure 1
Location of all the urban areas (UA) examined in this study (MapCustomizer, 2016). UA1, UA2, UA3, and UA7 are densely populated villages; UA4 is a famous market near villages; UA5 is a densely populated residential area with prominent hawker centres; UA6 and UA9 are small villages; UA8 is a public university; and UA10 is a residential area.In brief, the cage traps were set randomly near the garbage disposal areas, landfills, surrounding of housing areas, and store room. Soil samples were collected from the surrounding of housing areas, landfills, open field, and surrounding of lake. Water samples were collected from drain effluent, river, lake, and puddle.


## 2.2. Rat Trapping and Species Identification

The rats were caught alive using rectangular wire cage traps measuring 15 × 12.5 × 29 cm. Each trapping session took at least three consecutive days where the cage traps with baits were set up on the first day before checking for the capturing yield on the consecutive days. All the trapped rats under the family Muridae were euthanized humanely by placing them into a cloth bag containing cotton wool soaked with chloroform. They were further identified based on phenotypic characteristics such as fur colour (ventral and dorsal) and morphological measurements such as ear length, hind foot, tail length, and head body length [21].


## 2.3. Rat Samples Collection

Selected organs such as kidney and liver were removed from euthanized rats using sterile blade. A small piece of tissue was inoculated into modified semisolid Ellinghausen-McCullough-Johnson-Harris (EMJH) media with 100μg/mL 5-fluorouracil. All the enriched cultures were incubated aerobically at room temperature for 3 months. They were examined for the presence ofLeptospira using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) every month [7, 11].


## 2.4. Soil and Water Samples Collection

Approximately 20 g soil and 50 mL water samples were collected. Soil samples were mixed vigorously using sterile distilled water and allowed to settle for 15 minutes prior to filtration using sterile 0.2μm pore size membrane filter (Sartorius AG, Germany). Water samples were filtered directly using the same type of membrane filter. About 1 mL of the samples was inoculated into modified semisolid EMJH media with 100 μg/mL 5-fluorouracil. They were incubated aerobically at room temperature for 1 month [12, 13].


## 2.5. Molecular Detection ofLeptospira spp.

DNA extraction was carried out using Wizard™ Genomic DNA Purification Kit (Promega Corporation, USA) following the manufacturer’s instructions prior to specific PCR amplification. Three sets of primers were used to targetLipL32,16S rRNA, andrrs genes in pathogenic, intermediate, and saprophyticLeptospira, respectively [15]. PathogenicLeptospira noguchii strain LT796, intermediateLeptospira wolffii serovar Khorat strain Khorat-H2, and saprophyticLeptospira meyeri strain Sant-1 were used as positive controls.The 25µL reaction mixtures included 5 µL of 5x PCR buffer, 2.0 mM MgCl2, 0.4 μM of each primer pair, 0.2 mM of dNTP mix, 1.25 U ofTaq DNA polymerase (Promega Corporation, USA), and 5 μL of DNA template. The cycling conditions included initial denaturation at 95°C for 2 min, 35 cycles of each of denaturation at 95°C for 1 min, primer annealing at 55°C for 30 sec, and extension at 72°C for 1 min, further extension at 72°C for 5 min, and indefinite holding period at 4°C. Electrophoresis was then carried out using 2% agarose gel in 1x TBE buffer.


## 2.6. Identification ofLeptospira spp.

At least one positive sample from each study site was chosen for DNA sequencing, depending on the availability of the sample sources. The amplicons from representative positive samples were subjected to commercial facility for sequencing (First BASE Laboratories Sdn Bhd, Malaysia). The sequencing data were compared with the GenBank database using nucleotide BLAST from National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI).


## 3. Results

The agarose gel image for representative PCR amplicons in this study is shown in Figure2. The prevalence ofLeptospira spp. in rats, soil, and water samples is tabulated in Table 1. One hundred and seven rats comprising seven species were successfully collected. These rats consisted of 54.2% males and 75.7% adults. It was noticed that 87.9% of the total rats wereRattus rattus.Table 1
Prevalence ofLeptospira spp. by PCR in rats, soil, and water samples collected in this study.
Sample Pathogenic  Intermediate  Saprophytic Number.a % b  Number.a % b  Number.a % b Rat 6/107 5.6  0/107 0.0  11/107 10.3 Soil 34/292 11.6  8/292 2.7  4/292 1.4 Water 6/324 1.9  6/324 1.9  1/324 0.3 Note:naumber of positive samples/number of samples collected; pbrevalence (in %) of positive samples among the samples collected.Figure 2
Representative gel image of PCR amplification. Lanes L, 100 bp DNA ladder; lanes 1, 7, and 13, positive controls; lanes 2, 8, and 14, negative controls; lanes 3 to 5, positive PCR amplicons specific to saprophyticLeptospira at 240 bp; lanes 9 to 11, positive PCR amplicons specific to intermediateLeptospira at 331 bp; lanes 15 to 17, positive PCR amplicons specific to pathogenicLeptospira at 423 bp; lanes 6, 12, and 18, negative PCR amplicons.In this study, eleven female and twelve adult rats wereLeptospira positive. PathogenicLeptospira was present in sixRattus rattus, thirty-four soil samples, and six water samples. Eight soil samples and six water samples were detected with intermediateLeptospira. SaprophyticLeptospira was present in eleven rats, four soil samples, and one water sample.Using PCR amplification, a total of 6.4% (46/723) pathogenic, 1.9% (14/723) intermediate, and 2.2% (16/723) saprophyticLeptospira were detected in rats, soil, and water samples from urban areas of Sarawak. The representative positive samples were made up of sixteen pathogenicLeptospira (four rats, eight soil samples, and four water samples), four intermediateLeptospira (one soil sample and three water samples), and ninesaprophyticLeptospira (six rats, two soil samples, and one water sample).The nucleotide BLAST results for the representative positive samples were tabulated in Table2. The degree of homology for pathogenicLeptospira varied from 75% to 91%. Based on phylogeny,Leptospira interrogans serovar Icterohaemorrhagiae andLeptospira noguchii are present dominantly in the rats. The dominant pathogenicLeptospira found in soil and water samples areLeptospira noguchii andLeptospira interrogans serovar Hardjo, respectively.Table 2
Nucleotide BLAST results showing similarity withLipL32 gene of pathogenic Leptospira, 16S rRNA gene of intermediate Leptospira,and rrs gene of saprophytic Leptospira from GenBank.
Sample ID Sample Accession number Description Maximum score Total score Query coverage Maximum identity Pathogenic CFP4 Rat KC800993.1 Leptospira interrogansserovar Icterohaemorrhagiae strain RTCC 2812 outer membrane protein (lipL32) gene, partial cds 525 525 99% 89% CFP5 Rat KC800993.1 Leptospira interrogansserovar Icterohaemorrhagiae strain RTCC 2812 outer membrane protein (lipL32) gene, partial cds 486 486 99% 87% CFP39 Rat AY461920.1 Leptospira noguchiistrain LT796 LipL32 (lipL32) gene, partial cds 512 512 97% 88% CFP40 Rat AY461920.1 Leptospira noguchiistrain LT796 LipL32 (lipL32) gene, partial cds 486 486 94% 90% CFP24 Soil KF297610.1 Leptospira weiliiclone lipL32-122069 LipL32 gene, partial cds 462 462 72% 91% CFP25 Soil AY461920.1 Leptospira noguchiistrain LT796 LipL32 (lipL32) gene, partial cds 510 510 94% 88% CFP29 Soil AY461924.1 Leptospira noguchiistrain LT796 LipL32 (lipL32) gene, partial cds 286 286 99% 75% CFP32 Soil AY461920.1 Leptospira noguchiistrain LT796 LipL32 (lipL32) gene, partial cds 521 521 97% 89% CFP37 Soil AY461920.1 Leptospira noguchiistrain LT796 LipL32 (lipL32) gene, partial cds 542 542 94% 90% CFP34 Soil AY609333.1 Leptospira borgpeterseniiserovar Mini major outer membrane protein (lipl32) gene, complete cds 508 508 93% 88% CFP35 Soil AY609333.1 Leptospira borgpeterseniiserovar Mini major outer membrane protein (lipl32) gene, complete cds 518 518 98% 89% CFP36 Soil AY461920.1 Leptospira noguchiistrain LT796 LipL32 (lipL32) gene, partial cds 514 514 97% 88% CFP7 Water AY609333.1 Leptospira borgpeterseniiserovar Mini major outer membrane protein (lipl32) gene, complete cds 510 510 99% 88% CFP9 Water JN886739.1 Leptospira interrogansserovar Hardjo strain RTCC2821 Lipl32 (lipl32) gene, partial cds 494 494 99% 88% CFP28 Water JN886739.1 Leptospira interrogansserovar Hardjo strain RTCC2821 Lipl32 (lipl32) gene, partial cds 336 336 99% 77% CFP31 Water CP006723.1 Leptospira interrogansserovar Linhai str. 56609 chromosome 1, complete sequence 525 525 93% 89%  Intermediate CFG16 Soil NR_044042.1 Leptospira wolffiiserovar Khorat strain Khorat-H2 16S ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence 562 562 99% 97% CFG7 Water NR_044042.1 Leptospira wolffiiserovar Khorat strain Khorat-H2 16S ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence 592 592 97% 99% CFG17 Water AY631891.1 Leptospira inadaiserovar Aguaruna strain MW 4 16S ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence 545 545 97% 96% CFG19 Water NR_044042.1 Leptospira wolffiiserovar Khorat strain Khorat-H2 16S ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence 584 584 98% 99%  Saprophytic CFS15 Rat KP739778.1 Leptospira meyeristrain 19CAP 16S ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence 431 431 98% 98% CFS16 Rat KP739778.1 Leptospira meyeristrain 19CAP 16S ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence 425 425 98% 98% CFS17 Rat KP739778.1 Leptospira meyeristrain 19CAP 16S ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence 388 388 96% 95% CFS18 Rat KP739778.1 Leptospira meyeristrain 19CAP 16S ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence 353 353 91% 99% CFS19 Rat KP739778.1 Leptospira meyeristrain 19CAP 16S ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence 446 446 99% 99% CFS36 Rat KP739778.1 Leptospira meyeristrain 19CAP 16S ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence 416 416 98% 97% CFS4 Soil JQ988852.1 Leptospira meyeristrain Semaranga_DB49 16S ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence 433 433 98% 98% CFS21 Soil KP739778.1 Leptospira meyeristrain 19CAP 16S ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence 418 418 98% 97% CFS20 Water KP739778.1 Leptospira meyeristrain 19CAP 16S ribosomal RNA gene, partial sequence 412 412 98% 96%Positive samples showed 96% to 99% identity with reported sequences in intermediateLeptospira.Leptospira wolffii serovar Khorat is the dominant intermediateLeptospira in soil and water samples from urban areas. Apart from that, a high homology ranging from 95% to 99% was obtained for positive samples of saprophyticLeptospira.Leptospira meyeri is present in all the rats, soil, and water samples.


## 4. Discussion

In this study,Rattus rattus is the dominant rat species found in urban areas of Sarawak. This rat species is commonly known as black rat which adapts very well to the climatic and environmental conditions. In a study where 90 rodents were trapped in Cotonou, West Africa,Rattus rattus is the rat species with the greatest distribution as it spreads inland and is present in small towns and villages [7].Rattus rattus was also reported to be one of the principal domestic rats found in urban areas, open fields, and residential areas of Malaysia. Previous study on the distribution of urban rodents in Kuala Lumpur indicated that 91.8% (89/97) rodents trapped wereRattus rattus [22].From the total 17Leptospira positive rats, a greater number of female (64.7%) and adult (70.6%) rats were detected. This is contrary with the finding by Mosallanejad et al. [23] who studied the seroprevalence ofLeptospira in 120 wild rats in Iran. They reported that positiveLeptospira was found in 2.5% male and 0.83% female rats. Nonetheless, our finding is in agreement with previous study by Benacer et al. [11] who stated that adult rats (7.2%) were infected more frequently than juvenile rats (5.4%). This is because adult rats are more aggressive during fighting which facilitates the transmission ofLeptospira among them.PathogenicLeptospira was found in three rats captured and four water samples from UA8, a public university. Two water samples and one soil sample were contaminated by intermediate and saprophyticLeptospira, respectively. The presence ofLeptospira in public university suggested that the occurrence ofLeptospira may be related to humans settlement due to generation of significant amount of waste [24]. Indiscriminate disposal of food waste can lead to breeding of rats and other domestic animals.In UA9, one of the small villages, saprophyticLeptospira was present in four rats captured whereas two soil samples and one water sample were contaminated by pathogenicLeptospira. These two contaminated soil samples were collected from surrounding of houses whereas contaminated water sample was collected from the river in this village. Many domesticated animals such as dogs, cats, and chickens can be found here. Since only environmental samples but no rats were detected with pathogenicLeptospira, it implied the possibility of domestic animals as the reservoir forLeptospira. This can result in the transmission ofLeptospira through indirect contact with urine-contaminated environment [16]. Our finding is supported by Issazadeh et al. [25] who studied the distribution ofLeptospira in surface waters among different region in Guilan Province, China. They reported a higher frequency ofLeptospira in a region with more domestic animals such as cow, sheep, and horse. These animals are excellent reservoirs forLeptospira.Sampling at a few densely populated villages (UA1, UA2, UA3, and UA7) and residential area (UA10) showed that three rats were positive towards pathogenicLeptospira and five rats were positive towards saprophyticLeptospira. Low prevalence ofLeptospira spp. in residential area is consistent with the finding by Khairani-Bejo et al. [17] who reported that only 3.1% (1/32) rat captured in residential area of Serdang, Selangor was infected withLeptospira. Six soil samples collected from the surrounding of houses were contaminated by pathogenicLeptospira. One water sample contaminated with pathogenicLeptospira was collected from an artificial pond in residential area. From the observation during sampling, this artificial pond contains stagnant water which favours the survival ofLeptospira. Higher concentration ofLeptospira was found in stagnant river water than in rainwater or underground water [26].Only eight soil samples and four water samples from a small village, UA6, were positive for intermediateLeptospira. These soil samples were collected from forest area whereas the water samples were collected from a small river in the village. There were nine soil samples with positive pathogenicLeptospira collected from landfills and surrounding of lake in commercial centres. Landfills with garbage containers have abundance of food resources which attract a lot of rats to forage. Rubbish can be found at the surrounding of lake. It was stipulated that the hygiene at this area is very poor. Improper waste management strongly encouraged the proliferation ofLeptospira [12].Five soil samples collected from UA5, a densely populated residential area with prominent hawker centres, were contaminated by pathogenicLeptospira. In another famous market, UA4, which comprised wet and dry markets, cafeteria, and food court, two rats captured carried saprophyticLeptospira. A total of 40.0% (12/30) soil samples were contaminated by pathogenicLeptospira. Besides, saprophyticLeptospira was present in three soil samples and one water sample in this market. Soil samples were mainly collected from open field in this large market whereas the water sample was collected from the river. The accumulation of garbage and food waste is a common scenario in market. This attracts rodents and domestic animals to populate and become potential reservoirs forLeptospira. From the observation during sampling, it was proven that the garbage and rubbish were disposed everywhere by public. Although the rats captured here did not carry pathogenicLeptospira, there is still a risk of infection to humans as the environment is highly contaminated with pathogenicLeptospira.The presence of pathogenicLeptospira in rats was not surprised as the isolation of this spirochete from rats was first reported in 1917 [27]. The presence ofLeptospira especially pathogenic strains in environmental soil and water is an index of leptospirosis in rats or domestic animals which have access to these sources [28]. Besides rats, other domestic animals may serve as reservoirs forLeptospira spp. and contaminate the environment in these study sites. The finding from previous researcher indicated that higher prevalence ofLeptospira was detected in other animals such as cattle (53.8%), horse (27.9%), buffalo (58.7%), and donkey (40.0%) than in rats (3.3%) in Ahvaz, Iran. This is because those animals which live in groups near water may have additional access to the contaminated environment and stagnant water than rats [23].The dominant pathogenicLeptospira serovar circulating in the urban areas isLeptospira noguchii.L. noguchii has been isolated from multiple animal species in Argentina, Barbados, and Nicaragua as well as from humans in the United States of America and neighbouring Panama and Peru [29]. Previous study by Silva et al. [30] also reported the isolation of threeLeptospira noguchii strains from Brazil, of which two humans were infected by leptospirosis after contact with dogs and rats and one fatal leptospirosis case involving a dog. Nonetheless,Leptospira Icterohaemorrhagiae was the main serovar detected in the serum samples of rats captured in national service training centres in Kelantan and Terengganu [31]. This serovar is often associated with rodents especially rats worldwide [17]. Alexander et al. [32] also stated that serovar Icterohaemorrhagiae is the most common pathogenic strain found in Malaysian water.Our result indicated thatLeptospira wolffii serovar Khorat is the dominant intermediateLeptospira circulating in urban areas. It was previously isolated from wildlife and humans from Iran, India, Thailand, and Sabah [33]. Benacer et al. [12] isolatedLeptospira wolffii from University Malaya Lake in Peninsular Malaysia. The presence of intermediate species such asLeptospira wolffii in clinical humans samples and animals indicated the circulation of this strain which may play a role in the transmission cycle within animal reservoir and humans [2]. On the other hand,Leptospira meyeri is found to be dominant among saprophyticLeptospira in urban areas. The same strain had been isolated from the soil at Pantai Dalam, Kuala Lumpur [12].DifferentLeptospira serovars may circulate in different reservoirs or environment in a particular geographical region [2]. The knowledge of locally circulating serovars and their reservoirs is important to the epidemiological understanding of this disease in a region [34]. Dominant serovars can be changed in a region from time to time. This is because old and well-established serovars may adapt themselves into new hosts, which subsequently create risk of infection [35, 36].As a whole, this study provided an insight on the diversity ofLeptospira spp. in urban areas of Sarawak, Malaysia. Various precaution measures such as rodent control campaign should be taken to reduce the risk of leptospirosis to humans.



---

*Source: 3760674-2017-02-28.xml*