4.2 Article

Questing Ticks in Suburban Forest Are Infected by at Least Six Tick-Borne Pathogens

期刊

VECTOR-BORNE AND ZOONOTIC DISEASES
卷 11, 期 7, 页码 907-916

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/vbz.2010.0103

关键词

Babesia; Bartonella; Borrelia; Ixodes; Rickettsia; Anaplasma; Francisella

资金

  1. INRA institute
  2. CIRAD institute
  3. Region Ile de France

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The role of Ixodes ricinus ticks in the transmission of pathogens of public health importance such as Borrelia burgdorferi s.l. is widely recognized and is suspected in several emerging vector-borne pathogens in Europe. Here, we assess prevalence rates of several endemic and emerging zoonotic pathogens in tick populations in an area of high human population density in France, to contribute to a risk assessment for potential transmission to humans. Pathogen prevalence rates were evaluated by polymerase chain reaction detection and sequencing in questing ticks, individually for adults and in pools of 10 for nymphs. In addition to finding micro-organisms corresponding to symbionts, we found high prevalence rates of B. burgdorferi s.l. (32% of adult females and 10% of nymphs) and low to moderate ones of Anaplasma phagocytophilum (similar to 1%), spotted fever group Rickettsia spp. (similar to 6%), Babesia sp. EU1 (similar to 1%), Bartonella birtlesii (0.1%), and Francisella tularensis (similar to 1%). Our findings extend the knowledge of the geographical distribution of these endemic and emergent pathogens and support the conclusion that ticks are important vectors of pathogenic micro-organisms in suburban forests. Moreover, tick coinfection with multiple pathogens was found to occur frequently, which poses a serious challenge for diagnosis and appropriate treatment. The incrimination of these pathogens in potentially severe pathologies requires widespread surveillance to assess the risk of infection, thereby facilitating diagnosis and treatment, as well as raising local awareness of tick-borne diseases.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据