4.6 Article

Presence of Rickettsia Species in Ticks Collected from Companion Animals in Northeastern Georgia, United States

期刊

VETERINARY SCIENCES
卷 8, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/vetsci8030037

关键词

companion animals; Rickettsia; tick-borne diseases; tick prevention

资金

  1. Berry College Kirbo Undergraduate Scholar Grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tick-borne diseases pose a significant threat to both humans and their pets. This study in Hall County, Georgia identified various species of Rickettsia in ticks removed from companion animals, highlighting the risk of these animals contracting Rickettsia from tick bites and emphasizing the importance of further investigation and tick prevention measures.
Tick-borne diseases are a major threat to both humans and their pets; therefore, it is important to evaluate the prevalence of pathogens carried by ticks on companion animals. In this study, attached and unattached Ixodid ticks were removed from companion animals by a veterinary practice in Hall County, Georgia. DNA was extracted from unengorged adult ticks and each was screened for the presence of Rickettsia spp. by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and sequenced to determine the species present. Two hundred and four adult hard-bodied ticks were identified to species and Rickettsia spp. were found in 19.6% (n = 38) of the 194 analyzed DNA extracts. Rickettsia montanensis was found in Dermacentor variablis (14.7%; n = 25), Amblyomma maculatum (33.3%; n = 2), and Rhipicephalus sanguineus s.l. ticks (25%; n = 4). One Amblyomma americanum tick contained Rickettsia amblyommatis, while Rickettsia felis was found in one Dermacentor variablis tick, serving as the first report of Rickettsia felis in a tick in this region and within this tick vector. This study suggests that there is a risk of companion animals contracting a species of Rickettsia from a tick bite in northeastern Georgia, indicating a need for more investigation and highlighting the importance of tick prevention on pets.

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