4.6 Article

Characterization of a Monanema nematode in Ixodes scapularis

期刊

PARASITES & VECTORS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13071-020-04228-6

关键词

Ixodes scapularis; Nematode; Filaria; Monanema; Lyme disease

资金

  1. Steven & Alexandra Cohen Foundation [CF CU18-2692, SACF CU15-4008]
  2. Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, National Institutes of Health [1ZIAAI000695]
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES [ZIAAI000695] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundMetagenomic studies have revealed the presence of a filarial nematode in Ixodes scapularis. The phylogeny of this agent, and its potential for human infection, are unknown.MethodsWe used existing metagenomic data from I. scapularis to determine the phylogeny of this tick-associated nematode and employed quantitative PCR to determine if the presence of this agent had an effect on the burden of Borrelia burgdorferi. We also developed a Luciferase Immunoprecipitation System assay using the Av33 antigen as a target to investigate the presence of antibodies against this nematode in 128 serum specimens from patients with Lyme disease and babesiosis. To demonstrate assay utility, we used 15 sera from patients with onchocerciasis as controls.ResultsWe show that this agent is a new species in the genus Monanema and its presence in vector ticks does not impact the burden of B. burgdorferi. We did not detect IgG antibodies to this agent in 127 of 128 sera from patients with Lyme disease or babesiosis. One sample had reactivity above the threshold, but at the low-level equivalent to the least reactive onchocerciasis sera. This low positive signal could be a result of cross-reacting antibodies, antibodies from a previous infection with a filarial nematode, or, less likely, a exposure to the Ixodes scapularis-associated nematode.ConclusionsWe found no evidence that this nematode contributes to the spectrum of human tick-borne infections.

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

4.6
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