Pitfalls in Tick and Tick-Borne Pathogens Research, Some Recommendations and a Call for Data Sharing

An understanding of the relationships of ticks and tick-borne pathogens can only be achieved by integrating data from multiple studies. The publication of raw material is a necessary step for wide-area meta-analyses and study design, data collection and reporting require harmonization. This is an opinion paper, not a consensus position, and is open to debate. This work reflects our view about how data should be communicated in mainstream journals. We indicate rules that should be observed in recording weather data, to avoid serendipitous correlations between the density of ticks and climate variables and recommend the inclusion of raw data in reports. We stress the need for standardized methods to collect ticks that cannot be obtained by standard flagging. The reporting of infection rates of pathogens in ticks should avoid conclusions based on pure molecular findings in feeding ticks. Studies demonstrating the vectorial capacity of ticks should not be supported only by molecular surveys of feeding ticks. Vacuous conclusions about vectorial or reservoir status based solely on the finding of genomic material of a pathogen should be discouraged. We stress that phylogenetic studies based on random selection of sequences from GenBank are unsuitable. We firmly support the development of a dedicated server of curated sequences of ticks and pathogens as a standard for future studies.

Automated summary

Understanding the relationships between ticks and tick-borne pathogens requires integrating data from multiple studies, and ensuring harmonization in data collection, study design, and reporting. Rules should be followed to avoid serendipitous correlations, and raw data should be included in reports. Standardized methods for tick collection should be used, and conclusions based solely on molecular findings should be avoided.