No molecular detection of tick-borne pathogens in the blood of patients with erythema migrans in Belgium.
Erythema migrans
Ixodes ricinus
Lyme borreliosis
Neoehrlichosis
Neoerhlichia mikurensis
Tick-borne pathogens
Journal
Parasites & vectors
ISSN: 1756-3305
Titre abrégé: Parasit Vectors
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101462774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Jan 2022
20 Jan 2022
Historique:
received:
14
09
2021
accepted:
20
12
2021
entrez:
21
1
2022
pubmed:
22
1
2022
medline:
29
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
A number of tick-borne pathogens circulate in the Belgian tick population in addition to the causative agent of Lyme borreliosis. However, so far, only a few patients with tick-borne diseases other than Lyme borreliosis have been reported in Belgium. The aim of this study was to investigate the occurrence of other human tick-borne infections in Belgium and their possible clinical manifestation. Patients with fever (> 37.5 °C) after a tick bite or those with erythema migrans (EM) were included in the study. EDTA-blood samples were screened for the presence of DNA from Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato, Borrelia miyamotoi, Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Neoehrlichia mikurensis, spotted fever group rickettsiae (genus Rickettsia), Babesia spp., Bartonella spp., Spiroplasma ixodetis and tick-borne encephalitis virus, using multiplex PCR methods. A questionnaire on, among others, demographics and clinical symptoms, was also filled in. Over a period of 3 years, 119 patients with EM and 14 patients with fever after a recent tick bite were enrolled in the study. Three samples initially tested positive for N. mikurensis by quantitative PCR (qPCR), but the results could not be confirmed by other PCR methods, and repetition of the DNA extraction procedure and qPCR test was not successful. The qPCR test results for the other tick-borne pathogens were negative. In general, only a few patients with fever after a tick bite could be identified. Although no tick-borne pathogens were detected, their occurrence cannot be excluded based on the limited number of patients and the limitations inherent to current methodologies. This study underscores the possibility of false-positive PCR results and the necessity for the development of multiple independent tools for the sensitive and specific detection of emerging tick-borne pathogens.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
A number of tick-borne pathogens circulate in the Belgian tick population in addition to the causative agent of Lyme borreliosis. However, so far, only a few patients with tick-borne diseases other than Lyme borreliosis have been reported in Belgium. The aim of this study was to investigate the occurrence of other human tick-borne infections in Belgium and their possible clinical manifestation.
METHODS
METHODS
Patients with fever (> 37.5 °C) after a tick bite or those with erythema migrans (EM) were included in the study. EDTA-blood samples were screened for the presence of DNA from Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato, Borrelia miyamotoi, Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Neoehrlichia mikurensis, spotted fever group rickettsiae (genus Rickettsia), Babesia spp., Bartonella spp., Spiroplasma ixodetis and tick-borne encephalitis virus, using multiplex PCR methods. A questionnaire on, among others, demographics and clinical symptoms, was also filled in.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Over a period of 3 years, 119 patients with EM and 14 patients with fever after a recent tick bite were enrolled in the study. Three samples initially tested positive for N. mikurensis by quantitative PCR (qPCR), but the results could not be confirmed by other PCR methods, and repetition of the DNA extraction procedure and qPCR test was not successful. The qPCR test results for the other tick-borne pathogens were negative.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In general, only a few patients with fever after a tick bite could be identified. Although no tick-borne pathogens were detected, their occurrence cannot be excluded based on the limited number of patients and the limitations inherent to current methodologies. This study underscores the possibility of false-positive PCR results and the necessity for the development of multiple independent tools for the sensitive and specific detection of emerging tick-borne pathogens.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35057826
doi: 10.1186/s13071-021-05139-w
pii: 10.1186/s13071-021-05139-w
pmc: PMC8772185
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
27Subventions
Organisme : Sciensano
ID : 1180-101
Organisme : European Interreg North Sea Region program
ID : NorthTick project
Organisme : ZonMw
ID : 522003007
Pays : Netherlands
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Int J Parasitol. 2019 Feb;49(2):165-174
pubmed: 30690090
Infect Genet Evol. 2020 Jan;77:104060
pubmed: 31678240
Emerg Infect Dis. 2018 May;24(5):860-867
pubmed: 29664394
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2013 Oct;26(4):657-702
pubmed: 24092850
Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2016 Jul;7(5):763-767
pubmed: 26997137
Acta Clin Belg. 2019 Aug;74(4):280-285
pubmed: 30029581
FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2018 May 1;42(3):233-258
pubmed: 29893904
Emerg Infect Dis. 2021 Apr;27(4):
pubmed: 33755546
Arch Public Health. 2017 Aug 7;75:42
pubmed: 28794875
Emerg Infect Dis. 2010 Mar;16(3):379-84
pubmed: 20202410
Emerg Infect Dis. 2015 Aug;21(8):1462-5
pubmed: 26197035
Parasit Vectors. 2016 May 10;9(1):261
pubmed: 27161111
Environ Microbiol. 2016 Mar;18(3):988-96
pubmed: 26627444
Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2017 Aug;8(5):715-720
pubmed: 28539197
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2011 Jan;17(1):69-79
pubmed: 20132258
JAMA. 1996 Jun 5;275(21):1657-60
pubmed: 8637139
Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2016 Mar;7(2):371-7
pubmed: 26739030
Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2020 Jan;11(1):101303
pubmed: 31631052
J Clin Microbiol. 2004 Jul;42(7):3164-8
pubmed: 15243077
Parasit Vectors. 2012 Aug 04;5:156
pubmed: 22862883
Trends Parasitol. 2015 Jun;31(6):260-9
pubmed: 25892254
Clin Infect Dis. 2006 Nov 1;43(9):1089-134
pubmed: 17029130
Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Oct 5;73(7):e2372-e2378
pubmed: 32818961
Front Public Health. 2014 Jul 07;2:73
pubmed: 25072045
Acta Neurol Belg. 2021 Apr;121(2):597-598
pubmed: 33582895
J Clin Microbiol. 2014 Aug;52(8):3072-4
pubmed: 24899023
New Microbes New Infect. 2018 Jan 06;22:30-36
pubmed: 29556406
Front Med (Lausanne). 2020 Sep 02;7:474
pubmed: 32984369
Parasit Vectors. 2018 Sep 3;11(1):495
pubmed: 30176908
Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2012 Dec;3(5-6):406-10
pubmed: 23182274
Parasit Vectors. 2019 Nov 21;12(1):550
pubmed: 31752967
Exp Appl Acarol. 2016 Mar;68(3):279-97
pubmed: 26081117
Euro Surveill. 2019 May;24(18):
pubmed: 31064634
Environ Microbiol. 2014 Sep;16(9):2859-68
pubmed: 24118930
Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2014 Jul 29;4:103
pubmed: 25120960
Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2002 Jul 31;114(13-14):493-7
pubmed: 12422589
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2020 Jan 2;33(2):
pubmed: 31896541
Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2010 Jan;8(1):33-50
pubmed: 20014900
Parasit Vectors. 2014 Aug 15;7:365
pubmed: 25127547
Parasit Vectors. 2012 Apr 19;5:74
pubmed: 22515314
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016 Oct 5;10(10):e0005042
pubmed: 27706159
BMC Microbiol. 2019 Aug 28;19(1):199
pubmed: 31462211
Pathogens. 2020 Feb 24;9(2):
pubmed: 32102367
Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Feb;26(2):340-344
pubmed: 31793858
Travel Med Infect Dis. 2019 Nov 7;:101514
pubmed: 31707110
Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Oct 5;73(7):e2364-e2371
pubmed: 32662513
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2006 Oct;19(4):708-27
pubmed: 17041141
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2005 Dec;73(6):1083-5
pubmed: 16354816
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2018 Sep;37(9):1673-1678
pubmed: 29948363
Lancet. 2013 Aug 17;382(9892):658
pubmed: 23953389
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2015 Jan;21(1):96.e1-7
pubmed: 25636942
Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2014 Feb;5(1):21-8
pubmed: 24275477
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2002 May;240(5):348-53
pubmed: 12073057
Emerg Microbes Infect. 2019;8(1):413-425
pubmed: 30898074
Parasit Vectors. 2020 Jan 20;13(1):34
pubmed: 31959217