4.5 Article

The Risk of Exposure to Ticks and Tick-Borne Pathogens in a Spa Town in Northern Poland

Journal

PATHOGENS
Volume 11, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pathogens11050542

Keywords

Ixodes ricinus; Dermacentor reticulatus; Borrelia burgdoiferi sensu lato; Anaplasma phagocytophilum; Rickettsia spp.; Babesia spp.; Poland

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to assess the potential risk of human exposure to tick-borne infections in a recreation area in a spa town located in northern Poland. The study found that various microorganisms, including spirochetes, Babesia, and Rickettsia, were detected in ticks from the area. The infection rates varied among different tick species and co-infections were observed.
The aim of this study was to determine the potential risk of human exposure to tick-borne infection in a recreation areas in a spa town located in northern Poland. Questing Ixodes ricinus and Dermacentor reticulatus ticks were collected in the spring of 2018. Tick-borne microorganisms were detected by PCR. Species were identified based on RFLP and the sequencing of DNA. In total, 38.3% of the ticks (34.6% of I. ricinus and 48.6% of D. reticulatus) were infected. The prevalence was 14.9% for Borrelia spp., 10.6% for Babesia spp. and 17.7% for Rickettsia spp. No Anaplasma phagocytophilum was detected. Spirochaetes B. afzelii, B. garinii and B. burgdorferi s.s. were detected only in I. ricinus ticks (20.2%). The differences in the infection rates of Babesia spp. between I. ricinus (7.7%) and D. reticulatus (18.9%) were not significant. DNA of B. canis and B. venatorum were identified in both tick species. B. microti were detected in D. reticulatus ticks. The prevalence of Rickettsia spp. was significantly higher in D. reticulatus (37.8%) than that in I. ricinus (10.6%). R. raoultii was identified only in D. reticulatus and R. helvetica in I. ricinus. Co-infections of at least two pathogens were recognized in 13% of positive ticks.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available