Highly prevalent bartonellae and other vector-borne pathogens in small mammal species from the Czech Republic and Germany.
Anaplasma phagocytophilum
/ isolation & purification
Anaplasmataceae
/ isolation & purification
Animals
Babesia
/ isolation & purification
Bartonella
/ isolation & purification
Coxiella burnetii
/ isolation & purification
Czech Republic
/ epidemiology
Disease Reservoirs
/ microbiology
Prevalence
Rodentia
/ microbiology
Anaplasma
Apodemus
Babesia
Bartonella
Coxiella burnetii
Microtus
Myodes
Rodent
Shrew
“Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis”
Journal
Parasites & vectors
ISSN: 1756-3305
Titre abrégé: Parasit Vectors
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101462774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 Jul 2019
03 Jul 2019
Historique:
received:
07
03
2019
accepted:
19
06
2019
entrez:
5
7
2019
pubmed:
5
7
2019
medline:
14
8
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Rodents are important reservoirs for zoonotic vector-borne agents. Thus, the distribution of rodents and their vicinity to humans and companion animals may have an important impact on human and animal health. However, the reservoir potential of some rodent genera, e.g. Microtus, has not yet been precisely examined concerning tick-borne pathogens in Central Europe. Therefore, we examined small mammals from Germany and the Czech Republic for the following vector-borne pathogens: Babesia spp., Bartonella spp., Anaplasma phagocytophilum, "Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis" (CNM) and Coxiella burnetii. Spleen DNA from 321 small mammals belonging to four genera, Myodes (n = 78), Apodemus (n = 56), Microtus (n = 149), Sorex (n = 38), collected during 2014 in Germany and the Czech Republic were available for this study. DNA samples were examined for the presence of Babesia and Bartonella DNA by conventional PCR targeting the 18S rRNA gene and the 16S-23S rRNA intergenic spacer region, respectively. For the detection of CNM, A. phagocytophilum and C. burnetii real-time PCR assays were performed. Bartonella spp. DNA was detected in 216 specimens (67.3%) with 102/174 (58.6%) positive in Germany and 114/147 (77.6%) in the Czech Republic. The prevalence in each genus was 44.9% for Myodes, 63.2% for Sorex, 77.2% for Microtus and 75% for Apodemus. Four Bartonella species, i.e. Bartonella sp. N40, B. grahamii, B. taylorii and B. doshiae, as well as uncultured bartonellae, were detected. The Bartonella species diversity was higher in rodents than in shrews. In total, 27/321 (8.4%) small mammals were positive for CNM and 3/321 (0.9%) for A. phagocytophilum (S. coronatus and M. glareolus). All samples were negative for Babesia spp. and Coxiella spp. While the detected high prevalence for Bartonella in Apodemus and Myodes spp. is confirmatory with previous findings, the prevalence in Microtus spp. was unexpectedly high. This indicates that individuals belonging to this genus may be regarded as potential reservoirs. Interestingly, only Sorex spp. and M. glareolus were positive for A. phagocytophilum in the present study, suggesting a possible importance of the latter for the maintenance of certain A. phagocytophilum strains in nature.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Rodents are important reservoirs for zoonotic vector-borne agents. Thus, the distribution of rodents and their vicinity to humans and companion animals may have an important impact on human and animal health. However, the reservoir potential of some rodent genera, e.g. Microtus, has not yet been precisely examined concerning tick-borne pathogens in Central Europe. Therefore, we examined small mammals from Germany and the Czech Republic for the following vector-borne pathogens: Babesia spp., Bartonella spp., Anaplasma phagocytophilum, "Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis" (CNM) and Coxiella burnetii. Spleen DNA from 321 small mammals belonging to four genera, Myodes (n = 78), Apodemus (n = 56), Microtus (n = 149), Sorex (n = 38), collected during 2014 in Germany and the Czech Republic were available for this study. DNA samples were examined for the presence of Babesia and Bartonella DNA by conventional PCR targeting the 18S rRNA gene and the 16S-23S rRNA intergenic spacer region, respectively. For the detection of CNM, A. phagocytophilum and C. burnetii real-time PCR assays were performed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Bartonella spp. DNA was detected in 216 specimens (67.3%) with 102/174 (58.6%) positive in Germany and 114/147 (77.6%) in the Czech Republic. The prevalence in each genus was 44.9% for Myodes, 63.2% for Sorex, 77.2% for Microtus and 75% for Apodemus. Four Bartonella species, i.e. Bartonella sp. N40, B. grahamii, B. taylorii and B. doshiae, as well as uncultured bartonellae, were detected. The Bartonella species diversity was higher in rodents than in shrews. In total, 27/321 (8.4%) small mammals were positive for CNM and 3/321 (0.9%) for A. phagocytophilum (S. coronatus and M. glareolus). All samples were negative for Babesia spp. and Coxiella spp.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
While the detected high prevalence for Bartonella in Apodemus and Myodes spp. is confirmatory with previous findings, the prevalence in Microtus spp. was unexpectedly high. This indicates that individuals belonging to this genus may be regarded as potential reservoirs. Interestingly, only Sorex spp. and M. glareolus were positive for A. phagocytophilum in the present study, suggesting a possible importance of the latter for the maintenance of certain A. phagocytophilum strains in nature.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31269975
doi: 10.1186/s13071-019-3576-7
pii: 10.1186/s13071-019-3576-7
pmc: PMC6610854
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
332Références
J Clin Microbiol. 2000 Mar;38(3):1002-7
pubmed: 10698987
Parasitology. 2001 Oct;123(Pt 4):365-71
pubmed: 11676368
J Clin Microbiol. 2002 Apr;40(4):1259-63
pubmed: 11923342
Parasitology. 2002 Jul;125(Pt 1):21-34
pubmed: 12166517
Epidemiol Infect. 2003 Feb;130(1):149-57
pubmed: 12613756
J Clin Microbiol. 2004 Jul;42(7):3164-8
pubmed: 15243077
Folia Parasitol (Praha). 2005 Sep;52(3):274-6
pubmed: 16270809
BMC Microbiol. 2006 Jan 19;6:2
pubmed: 16423303
Emerg Infect Dis. 2005 Dec;11(12):1828-34
pubmed: 16485466
Int J Med Microbiol. 2006 May;296 Suppl 40:137-43
pubmed: 16524774
Emerg Infect Dis. 2006 Mar;12(3):389-94
pubmed: 16704774
Ann Agric Environ Med. 2006;13(1):65-70
pubmed: 16841874
Parasitology. 2007 Jun;134(Pt 6):819-26
pubmed: 17288633
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2007 Aug;26(8):595-601
pubmed: 17587072
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007 Oct;73(19):6166-71
pubmed: 17693556
Emerg Infect Dis. 2009 Dec;15(12):1948-54
pubmed: 19961674
Parasitology. 2010 Jun;137(7):1069-77
pubmed: 20388232
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2010 Jun;82(6):1140-5
pubmed: 20519614
Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2011 Jul;11(7):939-44
pubmed: 21417929
Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2011 Jul;11(7):947-53
pubmed: 21453011
Prev Vet Med. 2011 Aug 1;101(1-2):124-30
pubmed: 21640416
Parasit Vectors. 2011 Jul 15;4:135
pubmed: 21762494
Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2010 Sep;1(3):145-7
pubmed: 21771522
Emerg Infect Dis. 2011 Sep;17(9):1716-8
pubmed: 21888802
Infect Genet Evol. 2011 Dec;11(8):1842-61
pubmed: 21983560
Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2011 Dec;2(4):204-8
pubmed: 22108013
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2012 Jan;25(1):42-78
pubmed: 22232371
Parasitology. 2012 Jun;139(7):881-93
pubmed: 22336264
Parasit Vectors. 2012 Apr 19;5:74
pubmed: 22515314
Parasit Vectors. 2012 Sep 05;5:191
pubmed: 22950642
Emerg Infect Dis. 2012 Dec;18(12):2063-5
pubmed: 23171720
Lancet. 2012 Dec 1;380(9857):1936-45
pubmed: 23200502
Infect Genet Evol. 2014 Mar;22:265-72
pubmed: 23770268
Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2014 Jul;14(7):467-75
pubmed: 24915446
ILAR J. 2014;55(1):46-58
pubmed: 24936029
Parasit Vectors. 2014 Dec 04;7:563
pubmed: 25465390
Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2015 Jan;15(1):27-39
pubmed: 25629778
Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2015 Jun;6(4):445-9
pubmed: 25922232
Parasit Vectors. 2016 Jan 04;9:2
pubmed: 26728197
Microb Ecol. 2016 Nov;72(4):965-974
pubmed: 27220973
Parasitology. 2018 Apr;145(5):543-562
pubmed: 28764816
Parasit Vectors. 2018 Mar 20;11(1):193
pubmed: 29558990
Parasit Vectors. 2018 Aug 30;11(1):491
pubmed: 30165879
Parasitology. 2019 Mar;146(3):389-398
pubmed: 30246665
Transbound Emerg Dis. 2019 Mar;66(2):1029-1032
pubmed: 30447176
Pest Manag Sci. 2019 Jun;75(6):1556-1563
pubmed: 30624020