4.4 Article

Prevalence and burden of two rickettsial phylotypes (G021 and G022) in Ixodes pacificus from California by real-time quantitative PCR

期刊

TICKS AND TICK-BORNE DISEASES
卷 4, 期 4, 页码 280-287

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH, URBAN & FISCHER VERLAG
DOI: 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2012.12.005

关键词

Rickettsia; Ixodes pacificus; Prevalence; Burden; Microhabitat

资金

  1. National Institute of Health [1 R15 AI 82515-01]
  2. California State University Program for Education and Research in Biotechnology Faculty-Student Collaborative Research Grant
  3. Howard Hughes Medical Institute [52005127]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The western black-legged tick, Ixodes pacificus Cooley and Kohls, commonly bites humans in the far western U.S. In addition to transmitting Lyme borreliosis and anaplasmosis, it is a host of nonpathogenic bacteria as well as some of unknown pathogenicity. In this study, we report the detection, prevalence, and burden of 2 rickettsial phylotypes with unknown pathogenicity in I. pacificus ticks from 6 California counties using real-time quantitative PCR with phylotype-specific primers and probes. Prevalence of rickettsial phylotypes G021 and G022 from 247 I. pacificus ticks was 100% and 2.0%, respectively. The median burden of phylotype G021 was 7.3 per tick cell, whereas the burden of phylotype G022 was 0.8 per tick cell. The burden of phylotype G021 significantly differed between collection sites and between vegetation habitats. Ticks collected from the coastal sage scrub habitat of southern California had a lower burden of phylotype G021 when compared to central California oak woodland, northern California oak woodland, and mixed evergreen and ponderosa pine-oak habitats of northern California. No significant correlation was found between the burden of the phylotype G021 in the presence and absence of the phylotype G022 in L pacificus, suggesting that the presence of these Rickettsia species do not interfere with each other in L pacificus. (C) 2013 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