4.4 Article

Coxiella symbiont in the tick Ornithodoros rostratus (Acari: Argasidae)

期刊

TICKS AND TICK-BORNE DISEASES
卷 3, 期 4, 页码 203-206

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH, URBAN & FISCHER VERLAG
DOI: 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2012.02.003

关键词

Soft ticks; Coxiella; Ornithodoros rostratus; Symbiont; Brazil

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP)
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the present study, the presence of tick-associated bacteria and protozoa in Ornithodoros rostratus ticks (adults, nymphs, and eggs) from the Pantanal region of Brazil were determined by molecular detection. In these ticks, DNA from protozoa in the genera Babesia and Hepatozoon, and bacteria from the genera Rickettsia, Borrelia, Anaplasma, and Ehrlichia were not detected. Conversely, all tested ticks (100%) yielded PCR products for 3 Coxiella genes (16S rRNA, pyrG, cap). PCR and phylogenetic analysis of 3 amplified genes (16S rRNA, pyrG, cap) demonstrated that the agent infecting O. rostratus ticks was a member of the genus Coxiella. This organism grouped with Coxiella symbionts of other soft tick species (Argasidae), having different isolates of C. burnetii as a sister group, and these 2 groups formed a clade that grouped with another clade containing Coxiella symbionts of hard tick species (Ixodidae). Analysis of tick mitochondrial 16S rRNA gene database composed mostly of tick species previously shown to harbor Coxiella symbionts suggests a phylogenetic congruence of ticks and their Coxiella symbionts. Furthermore, these results suggest a very long period of coevolution between ticks and Coxiella symbionts and indicates that the original infection may have occurred in an ancestor common to the 2 main tick families, Argasidae (soft ticks) and Ixodidae (hard ticks). However, this evolutionary relationship must be confirmed by more extensive testing of additional tick species and expanded populations. (c) 2012 Elsevier GmbH. 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

4.4
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