What is Dr. Zubair Khalid's research focus?

Dr. Zubair Khalid specializes in molecular virology, mRNA vaccine development, and computational biology, with a focus on avian pathogens like IBDV and Avian Reovirus.

Where is Dr. Zubair Khalid currently working?

Dr. Zubair Khalid is a Postdoctoral Research Associate at the University of Maryland (UMD), specifically within the Department of Animal and Avian Sciences.

Ehrlichia canis: Etiology, Pathogenesis, Diagnostics, and Molecular Epidemiology of Canine Monocytic Ehrlichiosis

Microscopy-style illustration of ehrlichia canis bacteria showing cell morphology — Illustration generated with AI for editorial purposes.

Introduction

Ehrlichia canis is a Gram-negative, obligate intracellular bacterium belonging to the order Rickettsiales and the family Anaplasmataceae [1, 2]. It is the primary etiological agent of canine monocytic ehrlichiosis (CME), a globally significant tick-borne disease affecting domestic dogs and wild canids [1, 3]. The pathogen exhibits a marked tropism for circulating monocytes and tissue macrophages, where it replicates within membrane-bound vacuoles called morulae [1, 3]. The principal biological vector for E. canis is the brown dog tick, Rhipicephalus sanguineus sensu lato (s.l.), with specific lineages such as Rhipicephalus linnaei (formerly the tropical lineage) playing a critical role in transmission in certain geographic regions [1, 4, 5]. The disease follows a characteristic three-phase progression: acute, subclinical, and chronic, with clinical manifestations ranging from mild febrile illness to severe, life-threatening pancytopenia [1, 6]. This article provides a detailed, evidence-based review of E. canis, integrating insights from molecular biology, immunology, clinical pathology, and epidemiology.

Taxonomy and Biophysical Characteristics

E. canis is a small, pleomorphic coccobacillus, typically 0.5 to 1.5 µm in diameter [1, 2]. As an obligate intracellular pathogen, it is incapable of independent survival and relies entirely on the host cell's metabolic machinery for replication [1]. The bacterium possesses a double membrane typical of Gram-negative organisms, though it lacks lipopolysaccharide (LPS) in its outer membrane, a feature that distinguishes it from many other Gram-negative bacteria and influences host immune recognition [1]. The genome of E. canis is relatively small (approximately 1.3 Mb), reflecting its reductive evolution and dependence on the host cell [4]. Comparative genomic analyses of isolates from different geographic regions, including Australia, China, and the Americas, have revealed a high degree of conservation in core metabolic and structural genes, but significant variability in immunodominant surface proteins, particularly the tandem repeat protein 36 (TRP36) [4, 7, 8].

Vector Biology and Transmission Dynamics

The primary vector, R. sanguineus s.l., is a three-host tick that completes its entire life cycle in close association with canine hosts [1]. Transmission of E. canis occurs primarily through the saliva of an infected tick during blood feeding [1]. Transstadial transmission (from larva to nymph to adult) is well documented, but transovarial transmission (from adult female to eggs) is considered inefficient or absent [1]. The tick vector acquires the pathogen by feeding on a rickettsemic dog during the acute phase of infection [1]. Once infected, the tick remains a competent vector for life [1]. The distribution of R. sanguineus s.l. is expanding due to climate change and increased animal movement, leading to the emergence of CME in previously non-endemic regions, such as northern Australia [4, 5]. In Australia, the rapid spread of E. canis was documented in remote communities, with the percentage of dogs hosting PCR-positive ticks increasing from 2.8% to 62.9% over a three-month period [5]. While R. sanguineus s.l. is the primary vector, other tick species, such as Haemaphysalis punctata and Rhipicephalus microplus, have been found to harbor E. canis DNA, suggesting a potential role in pathogen maintenance or spillover [9, 10].

Pathogenesis and Host-Pathogen Interactions

Following inoculation by a tick bite, E. canis is phagocytosed by host monocytes and macrophages [1]. The bacterium evades intracellular killing by inhibiting phagolysosomal fusion and creating a replicative niche within a parasitophorous vacuole [1]. Within this vacuole, the bacteria multiply by binary fission, forming clusters known as morulae [1, 3]. The infection induces a complex host immune response, characterized by both humoral and cell-mediated components [1, 11]. The acute phase is marked by a systemic inflammatory response, with the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines such as IL-6, IL-8, and TNFα [12, 11]. This inflammatory cascade contributes to the clinical signs of fever, lethargy, and lymphadenomegaly [1]. A hallmark of CME is thrombocytopenia, which results from multiple mechanisms including immune-mediated platelet destruction, increased platelet consumption due to vasculitis, and bone marrow suppression [13, 6, 14]. Anemia and leukopenia are also common, particularly in the chronic phase, where aplastic pancytopenia can develop due to severe bone marrow hypoplasia [6]. The severity of disease is influenced by the infecting strain's genotype, host immune status, and the presence of co-infections with other tick-borne pathogens such as Babesia vogeli, Anaplasma platys, and Hepatozoon canis [15, 16, 17].

Clinical Phases and Manifestations

The clinical progression of CME is classically divided into three phases, though the distinction can be blurred in naturally infected dogs [1, 6].

Acute Phase: This phase occurs 1 to 3 weeks post-infection and lasts for 2 to 4 weeks [1]. Clinical signs are often non-specific and include fever, depression, anorexia, lymphadenomegaly, splenomegaly, and ocular discharge [1, 3]. Hematological abnormalities typically include mild to moderate thrombocytopenia, anemia, and leukopenia [13, 14]. Many dogs recover spontaneously from the acute phase, but they may remain persistently infected [1, 6].

Subclinical Phase: Dogs that do not clear the infection enter a subclinical phase that can last for months to years [1]. During this period, dogs appear clinically healthy, but the pathogen persists in the bone marrow and other tissues [1, 18]. Hematological parameters may be normal or show mild, fluctuating thrombocytopenia [1]. This phase is a significant diagnostic challenge, as blood PCR can be negative despite the presence of E. canis DNA in tissues such as the spleen, liver, and bone marrow [18].

Chronic Phase: The chronic phase is characterized by severe, life-threatening disease resulting from bone marrow suppression and immune dysregulation [1, 6]. Clinical signs include severe lethargy, weight loss, pale mucous membranes, petechiae and ecchymoses, epistaxis, and neurological signs [1, 3, 13]. The hallmark laboratory finding is aplastic pancytopenia (severe anemia, thrombocytopenia, and leukopenia) [6]. This phase carries a poor prognosis and is often refractory to treatment [6].

Diagnostic Approaches

Accurate diagnosis of CME requires a combination of clinical assessment, hematological analysis, and specific laboratory testing. The choice of diagnostic method depends on the phase of infection, the clinical context, and the available resources.

Hematology and Blood Smear Examination

Complete blood count (CBC) analysis is a critical initial step. Thrombocytopenia is the most consistent hematological abnormality, present in a majority of infected dogs [13, 14, 16]. Anemia and leukopenia are also frequently observed, particularly in the chronic phase [3, 13]. Examination of Giemsa-stained blood smears can reveal the presence of morulae within monocytes, but this method has very low sensitivity, especially in the subclinical and chronic phases when parasitemia is low [19, 20]. In one study, only 36.67% of PCR-positive dogs had detectable morulae on blood smear [3].

Serological Assays

Serological tests detect antibodies against E. canis and are useful for screening and epidemiological studies. The indirect immunofluorescence antibody test (IFAT) is considered a reference standard, but it requires specialized equipment and trained personnel [21, 22]. Commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) and rapid immunochromatographic tests are widely used in clinical practice due to their ease of use [21, 22]. A significant limitation of serology is its inability to differentiate between current and past infection, as antibodies can persist for months after successful treatment [18]. Furthermore, cross-reactivity with other Ehrlichia species can occur [8]. In endemic regions, seroprevalence can be very high, as demonstrated in a study from Cape Verde where 82% of dogs were seropositive for E. canis [22].

Molecular Diagnostics

Molecular methods, particularly polymerase chain reaction (PCR), offer high sensitivity and specificity for detecting E. canis DNA [19, 23, 20]. Conventional PCR (cPCR) targeting the 16S rRNA gene or the dsb gene is widely used [3, 24]. Real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) using TaqMan probes provides quantification of bacterial load and has a high diagnostic sensitivity (90%) and specificity (92%) [23]. More advanced techniques, such as droplet digital PCR (ddPCR), offer absolute quantification without the need for standard curves and have demonstrated a limit of detection as low as 1.6 copies per reaction, which is 78 times more sensitive than cPCR [19]. Isothermal amplification methods, such as recombinase polymerase amplification (RPA) coupled with CRISPR-Cas12a, have been developed for point-of-care applications, providing rapid and sensitive detection without the need for thermal cyclers [25]. A summary of diagnostic methods is provided in Table 1.

Table 1: Comparison of Diagnostic Methods for Ehrlichia canis

Diagnostic Decision Workflow

The following Mermaid diagram illustrates a typical diagnostic workflow for a dog with suspected CME.

flowchart TD
    A[Clinical Suspicion: Fever, Thrombocytopenia, Tick Exposure], > B{Perform CBC & Blood Smear}
    B, > C[Thrombocytopenia +/ Morulae Detected]
    B, > D[No Thrombocytopenia, No Morulae]
    C, > E[High Probability of CME]
    E, > F[Confirm with PCR or Serology]
    D, > G[Low Probability, but cannot rule out]
    G, > H{Subclinical or Early Acute?}
    H, > I[Perform PCR on Blood]
    I, > J[PCR Positive]
    I, > K[PCR Negative]
    J, > L[Confirmed CME]
    K, > M[Consider Tissue Biopsy PCR or Serology]
    M, > N[Serology Positive or Tissue PCR Positive]
    M, > O[All Tests Negative]
    N, > L
    O, > P[Consider Alternative Diagnosis]
    F, > L
    L, > Q[Initiate Doxycycline Treatment]

Treatment and Management

The antimicrobial of choice for CME is doxycycline, administered at a dose of 5 to 10 mg/kg orally every 12 to 24 hours for a minimum of 28 days [15, 6]. Doxycycline is highly effective in achieving clinical remission and reducing bacterial load [15, 6]. In experimental infections, doxycycline treatment led to the absence of detectable E. canis DNA in blood [15]. Rifampicin has been evaluated as an alternative, but it only reduced bacterial copy numbers and did not achieve clearance [15]. Supportive care, including fluid therapy, blood transfusions for severe anemia, and treatment of secondary infections, is critical for dogs with chronic aplastic pancytopenia [6]. Despite successful treatment, dogs can be re-infected, as antibodies do not confer sterile immunity [15]. Therefore, rigorous tick control is an essential component of long-term management [1].

Genetic Diversity and Molecular Epidemiology

The genetic diversity of E. canis is primarily assessed through sequence analysis of the trp36 gene, which encodes the major immunoreactive TRP36 protein [7, 26, 8]. Based on the tandem repeat region of this gene, five major genogroups have been identified: United States (US), Taiwan (TWN), Brazil (BR), Costa Rica (CR), and Cuba (CUB) [7, 8]. The US genogroup is the most widely distributed, having been identified in North America, South America, Europe, and Asia [26, 8]. The Taiwan genogroup is prevalent in Asia and has also been found in Australia, suggesting a potential Asian origin for the Australian outbreak [4, 26]. The Cuba genogroup was recently described and is associated with increased virulence and frequent hemorrhagic lesions [7]. Co-infections with multiple genogroups have been documented, indicating that dogs can be exposed to and infected with different strains over time [8]. This genetic diversity has implications for vaccine development, as a vaccine based on one genogroup may not provide cross-protection against others [27].

Prevention and Control

Prevention of CME relies on effective tick control measures, including the use of acaricidal collars, spot-on formulations, and oral medications [1]. Environmental management to reduce tick habitats is also important [1]. There is currently no commercially available vaccine for E. canis [27]. Research efforts are focused on developing multi-epitope vaccines using bioinformatics and immunoinformatics tools to elicit robust humoral and cellular immune responses [27]. The One Health concept is central to controlling CME, as the distribution of the tick vector is influenced by environmental and climatic factors, and the pathogen has zoonotic potential [1, 21, 9].

Zoonotic Potential

While E. canis is primarily a canine pathogen, it has been documented to cause human infections, particularly in immunocompromised individuals [1, 9]. Human cases are considered rare but are likely underdiagnosed [9]. In 2023, a confirmed case of human ehrlichiosis in Italy was linked to E. canis from a Haemaphysalis punctata tick, with identical gene sequences found in both the patient and the tick [9]. Serological evidence of E. canis exposure has also been found in human blood donors in Costa Rica [28]. These findings underscore the importance of a One Health approach to surveillance and prevention [21].

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the primary vector for Ehrlichia canis?

The primary vector is the brown dog tick, Rhipicephalus sanguineus sensu lato, with specific lineages such as R. linnaei acting as vectors in different regions [1, 4, 5].

What are the three clinical phases of canine monocytic ehrlichiosis?

The three phases are acute, subclinical, and chronic, each with distinct clinical and hematological features [1, 6].

What is the most consistent hematological abnormality in dogs with CME?

Thrombocytopenia is the most consistent and common hematological abnormality [13, 14, 16].

What is the treatment of choice for E. canis infection?

Doxycycline, administered for a minimum of 28 days, is the treatment of choice [15, 6].

Can a dog be re-infected with E. canis after successful treatment?

Yes, dogs can be re-infected, as antibodies from a prior infection do not confer sterile immunity [15].

What is the TRP36 gene and why is it important?

The trp36 gene encodes the major immunoreactive protein TRP36 and is used to classify E. canis into distinct genogroups (e.g., US, Taiwan, Brazil), which is important for epidemiological tracking and vaccine development [7, 26, 8].

Is Ehrlichia canis a zoonotic pathogen?

Yes, E. canis has zoonotic potential and can cause human ehrlichiosis, though human cases are considered rare [1, 9, 28].

What is the most sensitive diagnostic method for detecting E. canis in the subclinical phase?

Droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) or real-time PCR on blood samples is highly sensitive, but tissue biopsy PCR (e.g., from spleen or bone marrow) may be necessary if blood PCR is negative [19, 18].

References

[1] Ferrolho, J., Antunes, S., Vilhena, H., et al. The Complexities of Canine Monocytic Ehrlichiosis: Insights into Ehrlichia canis and Its Vector Rhipicephalus sanguineus. Microbiology Research, 2025. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7f6c5dcd28383ee45894467b9b253fdecb208b63

[2] Ehrlichia canis. CABI Compendium, 2022. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2449754a99d503dff064c236dafa557a03cf5581

[3] Mobarak, D. A., Elbaz, E., Atwa, S., et al. Molecular, epidemiological, and hematological evaluation in Ehrlichia canis infected dogs from an endemic region in Egypt. Open Veterinary Journal, 2024. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e972746955ac751cf00eab07a7fbf3c3806e8085

[4] Neave, M. J., Mileto, P., Joseph, A., et al. Comparative genomic analysis of the first Ehrlichia canis detections in Australia. Ticks and Tick-borne Diseases, 2022. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/262941c878775d036ea04c9193199b1cd10ade64

[5] Chaber, A., Easther, R., Cumming, B., et al. Ehrlichia canis rapid spread and possible enzooty in northern South Australia and distribution of its vector Rhipicephalus linnaei. Australian Veterinary Journal, 2022. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6b4612128210d45b821c4f38ca3c066cf864430a

[6] Mylonakis, M., Harrus, S., Breitschwerdt, E. An update on the treatment of canine monocytic ehrlichiosis (Ehrlichia canis). The Veterinary Journal, 2019. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/19e8fa9c6cec5648cf4ad9f067f6ebb436862ce2

[7] González Navarrete, M., Hodžić, A., Corona-González, B., et al. Novel Ehrlichia canis genogroup in dogs with canine ehrlichiosis in Cuba. Parasites & Vectors, 2022. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/56996368df40947dffa01160c53f438a93e0e6e2

[8] Arroyave, E., Rodas-González, J. D., Zhang, X., et al. Ehrlichia canis TRP36 diversity in naturally infected-dogs from an urban area of Colombia. Ticks and Tick-borne Diseases, 2020. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/99da2ae7dd36ed15cd6a7cb88d331106d8516d32

[9] Sgroi, G., D'Alessio, N., Veneziano, V., et al. Ehrlichia canis in Human and Tick, Italy, 2023. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 2024. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f66af66f0840d64f375d47225adae81d137495b4

[10] Lu, M., Tian, J., Pan, X., et al. Identification of Rickettsia spp., Anaplasma spp., and an Ehrlichia canis-like agent in Rhipicephalus microplus from Southwest and South-Central China. Ticks and Tick-borne Diseases, 2021. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/75060e143fed116dbe2e107f7c9ad5c0c8fd7363

[11] Garcia-Rosales, L., Escárcega-Ávila, A., Ramirez-Lopez, M., et al. Immune Monitoring of Paediatric Patients Infected with Rickettsia rickettsii, Ehrlichia canis and Coinfected. Pathogens, 2022. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5116d6e8b400bcf6657097ded4135b15db7937ef

[12] Asawapattanakul, T., Pintapagung, T., Piratae, S., et al. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, and interleukin-6 as inflammatory biomarkers in dogs naturally infected with Ehrlichia canis. Veterinary World, 2021. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/81bdc084d5718cb23c8b6ff9844e3a32b44bdc87

[13] Espino-Solís, G. P., Flores-Lira, E. A., Barreras-Serrano, A., et al. Clinical and pathological factors associated with Ehrlichia canis in companion dogs. Journal of Infection in Developing Countries, 2023. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/09cc054690bde4f36bad03cbc83099caaced1f68

[14] Mitpasa, T., Sarker, B. R., Macotpet, A., et al. First report on molecular characteristics and risk factor analysis of Ehrlichia canis in dogs in Khon Kaen, Thailand. Veterinary World, 2022. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d4c27fe352e1f39b7738e8c920257e1c6212a41a

[15] Zhang, J., Wang, J., Kelly, P., et al. Experimental infection and co-infection with Chinese strains of Ehrlichia canis and Babesia vogeli in intact and splenectomized dogs: Insights on clinical, hematologic and treatment responses. Veterinary Parasitology, 2023. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/58a5bdad7ef8bacecd775233b278c0d6182d28ef

[16] Piratae, S., Senawong, P., Chalermchat, P., et al. Molecular evidence of Ehrlichia canis and Anaplasma platys and the association of infections with hematological responses in naturally infected dogs in Kalasin, Thailand. Veterinary World, 2019. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9f61d2c4fd5b58eae1ed76e021381cafcca5e312

[17] Rawangchue, T., Sungpradit, S. Clinicopathological and molecular profiles of Babesia vogeli infection and Ehrlichia canis coinfection. Veterinary World, 2020. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/acbe22938d39e48bb0d9789ef377b1e86f722c98

[18] Rodríguez-Alarcón, C., Beristain-Ruíz, D. M., Olivares-Muñoz, A., et al. Demonstrating the presence of Ehrlichia canis DNA from different tissues of dogs with suspected subclinical ehrlichiosis. Parasites & Vectors, 2020. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/77bd54bd9443efba73f587467b440f2d9eb3c27d

[19] Wichianchot, S., Hongsrichan, N., Maneeruttanarungroj, C., et al. A newly developed droplet digital PCR for Ehrlichia canis detection: comparisons to conventional PCR and blood smear techniques. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science, 2022. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3604413802b39e46292ceba59056a89152c18dec

[20] Rucksaken, R., Maneeruttanarungroj, C., Maswanna, T., et al. Comparison of conventional polymerase chain reaction and routine blood smear for the detection of Babesia canis, Hepatozoon canis, Ehrlichia canis, and Anaplasma platys in Buriram Province, Thailand. Veterinary World, 2019. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ace4f42c29796d7e0a1548bd4b57d291b0e370a8

[21] Afonso, P., Lopes, A. P., Quintas, H., et al. Ehrlichia canis and Rickettsia conorii Infections in Shelter Dogs: Seropositivity and Implications for Public Health. Pathogens, 2024. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9bb1b0928559f585f3c7923ff04cebf4b23fc5e9

[22] Checa, R., Peteiro, L., Pérez-Hernando, B., et al. High serological and molecular prevalence of Ehrlichia canis and other vector-borne pathogens in dogs from Boa Vista Island, Cape Verde. Parasites & Vectors, 2024. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8ae78cf8c0d57b5fa04e37c4b26eda47a1044f21

[23] Nkosi, N. F., Oosthuizen, M., Quan, M. Development and validation of a TaqMan® probe- based real-time PCR assay for detection of Ehrlichia canis. Ticks and Tick-borne Diseases, 2022. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3d3cd24e88e4eed6ae726241e2a1ae099703e774

[24] Alhassan, A., Hove, P., Sharma, B. K., et al. Molecular detection and characterization of Anaplasma platys and Ehrlichia canis in dogs from the Caribbean. Ticks and Tick-borne Diseases, 2021. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b135194da4899e5ed1faaebaa6b76eb73b054ea1

[25] Paenkaew, S., Jaito, N., Pradit, W., et al. RPA/CRISPR-cas12a as a specific, sensitive and rapid method for diagnosing Ehrlichia canis and Anaplasma platys in dogs in Thailand. Veterinary Research Communications, 2023. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0dfbe6824dd8125be7aa1c8c68a24b85253a1229

[26] Bezerra-Santos, M., Nguyen, V., Iatta, R., et al. Genetic variability of Ehrlichia canis TRP36 in ticks, dogs, and red foxes from Eurasia. Veterinary Microbiology, 2021. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e3a73321601e2918048663c5cf53735884d055b8

[27] Alves-Ribeiro, B. S., Duarte, R. B., Assis-Silva, Z. M., et al. Ehrlichia canis Vaccine Development: Challenges and Advances. Veterinary Sciences, 2024. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/95a89f83e6dcdc1d732b194f74ca0797caabda67

[28] Bouza-Mora, L., Dolz, G., Solórzano-Morales, A., et al. Novel genotype of Ehrlichia canis detected in samples of human blood bank donors in Costa Rica. Ticks and Tick-borne Diseases, 2017. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a89bababd4fd5c70f18422c1e3f75c4957fe297f

[29] Sukara, R., Andrić, N., Francuski Andrić, J., et al. Autochthonous infection with Ehrlichia Canis and Hepatozoon Canis in dogs from Serbia. Veterinary Medicine and Science, 2022. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8b6b69162009d764054f0b0cce3c057593227903

[30] Younan, M., Ouso, D. O., Bodha, B., et al. Ehrlichia spp. close to Ehrlichia ruminantium, Ehrlichia canis, and "Candidatus Ehrlichia regneryi" linked to heartwater-like disease in Kenyan camels (Camelus dromedarius). Tropical Animal Health and Production, 2021. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ce861fd7296aced10c167ed355b20727687f0721

[31] Bittencourt, J., Hiura, E., Alves Sobral, S., et al. OCORRÊNCIA DE Babesia sp., Ehrlichia canis E Hepatozoon canis EM CÃES DOMICILIADOS, EM DOIS MUNICÍPIOS DO ESTADO DO ESPÍRITO SANTO – BRASIL. Veterinária e Zootecnia, 2022. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f2536898c0154c8b1ab0d85c815e47d1c93f1f6e

[32] Selim, A. Prevalence and First Molecular Characterization of Ehrlichia canis in Egyptian dogs. Pakistan Veterinary Journal, 2020. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6b66ab839ad155a045ee8b62d76807ea8f02bf90

[33] Hmoon, M. M., Htun, L. L., Thu, M. J., et al. Molecular Prevalence and Identification of Ehrlichia canis and Anaplasma platys from Dogs in Nay Pyi Taw Area, Myanmar. Veterinary Medicine International, 2021. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/027d9a1ca859bb8d49c7d2ab3ee624fd215ab814

[34] Ciftci, G., Pekmezci, D., Güzel, M., et al. Determination of Serum Oxidative Stress, Antioxidant Capacity and Protein Profiles in Dogs Naturally Infected with Ehrlichia canis. Acta Parasitologica, 2021. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b474d632f1cc824d598c331c6cfe49ebfd36474a

[35] Merino-Charrez, O., Badillo-Moreno, V., Loredo-Osti, J., et al. Molecular detection of Ehrlichia canis and Anaplasma phagocytophilum and hematological changes of infected dogs. 2021. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d8246bc23c2de3fb13e41650e316eb439c0ee3af *** Disclaimer: This article is for educational and informational purposes only. It is not intended to substitute for professional veterinary advice, diagnosis, treatment, or regulatory guidance. Always consult a licensed veterinarian or qualified specialist regarding animal health, disease diagnosis, and therapeutic decisions.