4.7 Article

A novel Rickettsia, Candidatus Rickettsia takensis, and the first record of Candidatus Rickettsia laoensis in Dermacentor from Northwestern Thailand

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-37206-w

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A study in Taksin Maharat National Park, Thailand, identified and confirmed the presence of Dermacentor laothaiensis, D. steini, and D. auratus ticks. PCR and DNA sequencing revealed that 6.10% of the ticks tested positive for spotted fever group rickettsiae (SFGRs), including a novel genotype, Candidatus Rickettsia takensis, detected in D. laothaiensis. Additionally, Candidatus Rickettsia laoensis was found at a low frequency in D. auratus, the first record in Thailand. These findings suggest potential risks of SFGR transmission near the Thailand-Myanmar border.
Three hundred and forty-four tick samples were collected from vegetation at Taksin Maharat National Park, Tak province, northwestern Thailand. They were morphologically identified and molecularly confirmed by 16S rRNA and COI genes as Dermacentor laothaiensis (n = 105), D. steini (n = 139), and D. auratus (n = 100). These ticks were examined for the spotted fever group rickettsiae (SFGRs) using PCR and DNA sequencing of six genes; 17-kDa, gltA, 16S rRNA, ompA, ompB, and sca4. Of these ticks, 6.10% (21/344) gave positive results for the presence of SFGRs. Phylogenetic analyses of the SFGRs clearly indicated that a novel genotype assigned as Candidatus Rickettsia takensis was detected in D. laothaiensis (19/105) and at lesser frequency in D. steini (1/139). Furthermore, Candidatus Rickettsia laoensis was also found at a low frequency in D. auratus (1/100), the first record in Thailand. Although, the pathogenicities of these SFGRs remain unknown, our findings suggest potential risks of SFGRs being transmitted via ticks near the border between Thailand and Myanmar, a gateway of daily migrations of local people and visitors both legal and illegal.

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

4.7
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