4.4 Article

Monitoring of pathogenic Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato in the Almaty oblast, Kazakhstan

期刊

TICKS AND TICK-BORNE DISEASES
卷 12, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2021.101725

关键词

Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato; Almaty oblast; Kazakhstan; Seroprevalence; Ixodid ticks

资金

  1. Committee of Science, Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan [AP09259105, AP05132856, AP05135904]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lyme borreliosis is common in Kazakhstan, especially in the Almaty oblast, with evidence of active circulation of Borrelia burgdorferi s.l. The study found a 24% prevalence rate of B. burgdorferi s.l. in Ixodes persulcatus ticks that attacked humans, as well as a 5.8% seroprevalence rate of antibodies against B. burgdorferi s.l. in the local population. These results highlight the importance of LB preventive measures in the region.
Lyme borreliosis (LB) is one of the most common vector-borne diseases transmitted by ticks. It is caused by the Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato (s.l.) genospecies. The Almaty oblast of Kazakhstan is considered endemic for LB. Nevertheless, there are significant gaps in the tick surveillance for LB agents in the region. We evaluated B. burgdorferi s.l. prevalence in 413 ixodid ticks collected from bitten people and the seroprevalence of antibodies to B. burgdorferi s.l. in 589 residents of the Almaty oblast, Kazakhstan. All samples were collected between 2018 and 2020. Borrelia burgdorferi s.l. DNA was detected in 24 % (9/38) of I. persulcatus ticks that attacked humans in the city of Almaty and the Talgar and Karasay districts. Multilocus sequence typing identified two novel B. afzelii sequence types in I. persulcatus. The seroprevalence of IgG antibodies against B. burgdorferi s.l. in the analyzed population was detected to be 5.8 %. The obtained results confirm active circulation of B. burgdorferi s.l. in the Almaty oblast of Kazakhstan and raise concern regarding LB preventive measures in the region.

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