4.7 Article

Raccoons (Procyon lotor), but not rodents, are natural and experimental hosts for an ehrlichial organism related to Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis

期刊

VETERINARY MICROBIOLOGY
卷 131, 期 3-4, 页码 301-308

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2008.04.004

关键词

Raccoon; Neoehrlichia; Rodents; Candidatus; Amblyomma; Ixodex; Dermacentor

资金

  1. Southeast Center for Emerging Biologic Threats
  2. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  3. Merck-Merial Georgia Veterinary Scholars Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis has been reported from a variety of rodent and Ixodes tick species in Europe and Asia. Recently, an ehrlichial organism closely related to Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis was cultured from a raccoon (Procyon lotor) from Georgia, USA. To determine prevalence and distribution, we conducted a molecular survey of free-ranging raccoons (n = 197) from 10 populations in 3 States and found that infections were common in tick-infested populations (50-94%). In an effort to determine the host range of this organism, 10 species of rodents (n = 137) trapped in 3 areas where positive raccoons had been detected were tested. all were negative. In addition, captive bred raccoons and several common laboratory animals (mice, rats, and rabbits) were inoculated with the raccoon ehrlichial isolate (strain RAC413). Raccoons became infected with the culture isolate but all other hosts were refractory to infection. The 16S rRNA gene sequence (1379bp) of the RAC413 isolate was most similar (98.4-98.8%) to members of the Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis group and phylogenetic analysis confirmed this organism was related to, but distinct from, Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis. Based on the molecular and natural history uniqueness of this organism from raccoons, we propose that this represents a novel species in the Candidatus Neoehrlichia group of ehrlichial organisms. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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