4.4 Article

Rickettsiosis in Denmark: A nation-wide survey

期刊

TICKS AND TICK-BORNE DISEASES
卷 14, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2023.102236

关键词

Rickettsia helvetica; Rickettsia monacensis; Rickettsiosis; Tick-borne infection; Lyme Borreliosis; Co-infection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rickettsia helvetica infection rate in ticks in Denmark is 4.9%, with higher rates in adult ticks. The prevalence of anti-R. helvetica antibodies in roe deer is 2.8% and 6% in Lyme neuroborreliosis patients.
Rickettsia helvetica has been reported at varying prevalences in Danish and other European Ixodes ricinus populations. Though apparently widespread and with reported cases of human infection, the significance of the bacteria as a threat to public health remains unclear. We present a nation-wide survey of rickettsia in ticks, roe deer and humans in Denmark.Ticks were collected by flagging and screened for presence of rickettsial DNA by polymerase chain reaction. Sera from roe deer, hunters, neuroborreliosis patients and blood donors were analyzed for presence of antiR. helvetica and Rickettsia felis antibodies by immunofluorescence microscopy.The Rickettsia minimum infection rate in ticks was 4.9 % (367/973 pools positive, 7510 ticks in total), with 3.9 % in nymphs and 9.3 % in adults. Rickettsia helvetica accounted for 4.17 % and Rickettsia monacensis for 0.03 %, 0.6 % comprised non-differentiable rickettsial DNA. The prevalence of antibodies against R. helvetica was 2.8 % (9/319) in roe deer, while no hunters (n = 536) or blood donors (n = 181) were positive. The prevalence of antiR. helvetica antibodies among Lyme neuroborreliosis patients was 6 % (3/47), where it co-occurred with Anaplasma phagocytophilum.Based on our study autochthonous rickettsiosis is of limited concern to the public health in Denmark, but our finding of R. monacensis for the first time in Denmark illustrates the dynamic nature of tick-borne pathogens, emphasizing that continuous surveillance is necessary.

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