4.1 Article

Coxiella burnetii in wildlife and ticks in an endemic area

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/trstmh/tru134

Keywords

Coxiella burnetii; Birds; Cyprus; Ticks; Wildlife

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Ticks are considered to be a natural reservoir of Coxiella burnetii and are responsible for the spread of infection in wild animals and for the transmission to domestic animals. More than 40 tick species are naturally infected with C. burnetii. In Cyprus, few studies have been carried out on the distribution and incidence of C. burnetii infection in wildlife and the threat that infected wild animals pose to humans and domestic animals remains uncertain. Methods: During 3 studies in Cyprus, lasting 7 years (2000-2006), ticks were collected from rats (98 Rattus norvegicus and 38 R. rattus), 74 mouflons (Ovis orientalis ophion), 32 foxes (Vulpes vulpes indutus), 247 hares (Lepus europaeus), 557 birds (endemic and migratory) and 10 different tick species. All samples were tested for the presence of Coxiella burnetii using molecular assays. Results: In total, 31% (23/74) of mouflons, 28% (9/32) of foxes, 48% (15/31) of hares and 31% (41/131) of birds were positive for C. burnetii. We tested 1315 ticks (195 pools) and C. burnetii was detected in 28.9% (56/195) of them. Forty percent (24/60) of ticks collected from hares and 25.2% (27/107) of tick pools collected from mouflons were positive for C. burnetii. However, C. burnetii was detected in only one tick from foxes and one from birds. Positive samples were prevalent all over the island and did not show a specific geographic distribution pattern. Conclusions: Several animal and tick species collected from wildlife are potential sources of C. burnetii in Cyprus. These species are abundant in the area and may represent a risk for domestic livestock that share grazing environments.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available