4.4 Article

Bacterial and protozoan agents found in Hyalomma aegyptium (L., 1758) (Ixodida: Ixodidae) collected from Testudo graeca L., 1758 (Reptilia: Testudines) in Corum Province of Turkey

期刊

TICKS AND TICK-BORNE DISEASES
卷 11, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2020.101458

关键词

Hyalomma aegyptium; Testudo graeca; Hemolivia mauritanica; Rickettsia aeschlimannii; Bartonella bovis; EhrRlichia spp.; Turkey

资金

  1. Turkey Republic Hitit University Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit [ALACA19003.16.001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hyalomma aegyptium (L., 1758) (Ixodida: Ixodidae) is a hard tick and the main host for adults are Palearctic tortoises of the genus Testudo, while larvae and nymphs are less host-specific and nymphs also attach to humans. In the present study, a total of 261 H. aegyptium ticks were removed from 26 Testudo graeca L., 1758 in Corum Province of Turkey. The most prevalent pathogens identified molecularly in the ticks were Hemolivia mauritanica (51.9 %), followed by Rickettsia aeschlimannii (32.6 %), Ehrlichia spp. (30.2 %), and Bartonella bovis (0.8 %). All samples were negative for Coxiella burnetii, Francisella tularensis, Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Babesia spp., Hepatozoon spp. and Theileria spp. Overall, 97.4 % of the examined adult ticks and 26.3 % of nymphs were infected with at least one pathogen, while 40.9 % of all ticks were infected with only one pathogen, 27.4 % with two pathogens, and 9.9 % with three pathogens, concomitantly. Overall, 80.8 % of the examined blood smears of tortoises were H. mauritanica-positive, and the mean intensity of parasitemia was 4.8 % (1-21). As a conclusion, since the examined tortoises were sampled in gardens and vineyards close to human habitation, and as a rela-tively large percentage of them were infested with ticks carrying pathogenic agents affecting also humans, the importance of tortoises, their ticks and pathogens in terms of the public health should be farther examined.

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