4.2 Article

Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato in Siberian chipmunks (Tamias sibiricus) introduced in suburban forests in France

期刊

VECTOR-BORNE AND ZOONOTIC DISEASES
卷 7, 期 4, 页码 637-641

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT INC
DOI: 10.1089/vbz.2007.0111

关键词

Tamias sibiricus; reservoir hosts; Borrelia; Lyme disease; Ixodes; Tick(s)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Numerous vertebrate reservoirs have been described for Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato (sl), which includes the etiological agents of Lyme Borreliosis (LB). The Siberian chipmunk (Tamias sibiricus) is a rodent originating from Asia, where it is suspected to be a B. burgdorferi reservoir. It has been intentionally released into the wild in Europe since the 1970s, but has not yet been subject to any study regarding its association with the LB agent. In this paper we studied Siberian chipmunk infestation with the LB vector (Ixodes ricinus) and infection prevalence by LB spirochetes in a suburban introduced population. We compared these findings with known competent reservoir hosts, the bank vole (Myodes [clethrionomys] glareolus) and wood mouse (Apodemus sylvaticus). All Siberian chipmunks were infested with larvae and larval abundance was higher in this species (mean number of larvae [95% Confidence Interval]: 73.5 [46.0,117.2]) than in the two other rodent species (bank voles: 4.4 [3.0, 6.3] and wood mice: 10.2 [4.9, 21.2]). Significant factors affecting abundance of larvae were host species and sampling season. Nymphs were most prevalent on chipmunks (86.2%, mean: 5.1 [3.3, 8.0]), one vole carried only two nymphs, and none of the mice had any nymphs. Nymph abundance in chipmunks was affected by sampling season and sex. Furthermore, the infection prevalence of B. burgdorferi sl in the Siberian chipmunk was the highest (33.3%) and predominantly of B. afzelii. The infection prevalence was 14.1% in bank voles, but no wood mouse was found to be infected. Our results suggest that the Siberian chipmunk may be an important reservoir host for LB.

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

4.2
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