Open Access

Pathogens in ticks collected from dogs in Berlin/Brandenburg, Germany

  • Cécile Schreiber1, 2,
  • Jürgen Krücken1,
  • Stephanie Beck2,
  • Denny Maaz1, 6,
  • Stefan Pachnicke3,
  • Klemens Krieger4,
  • Marcus Gross5,
  • Barbara Kohn2 and
  • Georg von Samson-Himmelstjerna1Email author
Parasites & Vectors20147:535

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-014-0535-1

Received: 3 May 2014

Accepted: 11 November 2014

Published: 2 December 2014

Abstract

Background

Tick-borne diseases are a major health risk for humans and dogs. In addition to collection and analysis of questing ticks, analysis of host-associated ticks for the presence of pathogens is a valuable method to gain insight into transmission patterns of tick-borne diseases.

Methods

Ticks were collected from dogs living in the Berlin/Brandenburg area. The three tick species Ixodes ricinus, Ixodes hexagonus and Dermacentor reticulatus were examined for the presence of Babesia spp., Borrelia spp., Rickettsia spp. and Anaplasmataceae. Conventional PCR followed by sequencing was used for pathogen detection and characterization.

Results

Babesia spp. were found in 2.5% and 3% of I. ricinus and I. hexagonus, respectively. Sequencing revealed the presence of Babesia microti, Babesia capreoli and Babesia venatorum. D. reticulatus were free of Babesia canis. Rickettsia spp. were detected in 61% of I. ricinus, 44% of I. hexagonus and 39% of D. reticulatus. Specifically detected were Rickettsia raoulti in D. reticulatus and I. hexagonus, Rickettsia helvetica in I. ricinus and I. hexagonus and Rickettsia monacensis in I. hexagonus. Anaplasma phagocytophilum and Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis have been reported previously in I. ricinus (6.5% and 4.3%, respectively) and I. hexagonus (3.9% and 5.9%). Borrelia spp. were found in 11.6% of I. ricinus and 11.2% of I. hexagonus. Subsequent genospecies analysis revealed Borrelia afzelii, Borrelia garinii, Borrelia burgdorferi sensu stricto and Borrelia miyamotoi. Simultanous presence of more than one pathogen was found in 20% of I. ricinus and in 59% of I. hexagonus whereas the total frequency of any pathogen was 65% in I. ricinus, 59% in I. hexagonus and 64% in D. reticulatus. Ticks in which A. phagocytophilum was detected had a significantly increased risk of also containing Rickettsia. Ticks harbouring a pathogen had significantly higher scutal indices than ticks without presence of any pathogen.

Conclusions

Frequencies of potential human or canine pathogens in ticks were considerable and DNA of all four groups of pathogens was detected. Differences in scutal indices might suggest that pathogens are frequently taken up by ticks when feeding on dogs in Berlin/Brandenburg.

Keywords

Canine vector-borne diseases Borrelia Babesia Rickettsia Anaplasma Candidatus neoehrlichia mikurensis

Background

Vector-borne diseases represent an important threat to canine health and are also of major zoonotic relevance [1]. Many tick species are potential vectors of infectious agents that are pathogenic in dogs. In the area of Berlin/Brandenburg, the most common tick species reported to date are Ixodes ricinus, Ixodes hexagonus and Dermacentor reticulatus[2]. Important endemic tick transmitted pathogens in Germany are species of Babesia, Borrelia, Rickettsia and members of the Anaplasmataceae.

Intraerythrocytic parasites of the genus Babesia are frequently found in mammalian hosts, although the individual parasite species usually have a quite restricted host spectrum [3]. Studies in Germany have reported a prevalence of Babesia of 1–4.1% in I. ricinus, predominantly the zoonotic Babesia microti, Babesia venatorum and Babesia divergens, but also Babesia capreoli[4],[5]. In southern Germany, 2.5% of D. reticulatus ticks contained the non-zoonotic canine parasite Babesia canis[6].

Borrelia spp. belong to the gram-negative bacteria of the order Spirochaetales. The most common agents are Lyme disease pathogens belonging to the Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato complex, a group of at least 16 different genospecies, such as Borrelia burgdorferi sensu stricto, Borrelia spielmanii, Borrelia afzelii, Borrelia garinii, Borrelia valaisiana, Borrelia lusitaniae and Borrelia bavariensis[7],[8]. The relapsing-fever Borrelia, such as Borrelia miyamotoi, Borrelia hispanica and Borrelia persica are known to be endemic in Europe as well [9]. Borrelia miyamotoi was found in ticks from Germany [10] and in ticks from France [11].

Rickettsia spp. are obligate intracellular α-proteobacteria belonging to the order Rickettsiales [12]. In German ticks, prevalences of 14.2% have been reported for R. helvetica in I. ricinus and 30% for R. raoulti in D. reticulatus[13],[14]. In another study from Germany, a prevalence of 8.6% for R. monacensis was found in I. ricinus[15].

As another family in the order Rickettsiales, members of the Anaplasmataceae are frequently found throughout Europe. Important members of the Anaplasmataceae are Anaplasma phagocytophilum and Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis in central and northern areas and Ehrlichia canis and Anaplasma platys in mediterranean areas [10],[16]. Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis is considered to be an emerging pathogen, first identified in I. ricinus in the Netherlands and described as Ehrlichia- like organism [17]. Subsequently, this pathogen was found in wild rats and Ixodes ovatus ticks in Japan [18] and given its name Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis. The pathogenicity of this organism for humans was revealed in febrile patients living in Germany [19], Sweden [20] and Switzerland [21]. Dogs also appear to be affected by infections [22]. To date Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis was found in European I. ricinus and I. hexagonus ticks [23]. Besides I. ovatus from Japan [18] also Rhipicephalus spp. and Haemaphysalis spp. from Nigeria [24] and Ixodes persulcatus from Russia [25] were shown to contain DNA of this pathogen. Prevalences of 8.1% and 10.7% were reported in Germany and the Czech Republic, respectively, whereas Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis was found in only 1.7% of French ticks [10].

All above mentioned pathogen groups are known to be potentially pathogenic for dogs and humans. The successive findings of emerging infectious diseases substantiate the importance of studies of ticks. The aim of the present study was to determine the frequency of pathogens in dog-associated ticks to evaluate the current risk of infection for dogs living in Berlin and Brandenburg area.

Methods

Sample collection

In total, 1728 ticks (99.6% adults) were collected from 441 dogs at the Small Animal Clinic, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany as described in an earlier publication [26]. One of the ticks was accidentally lost. Participating owners collected ticks from their dogs during a time span of up to 13 months (1st of March 2010 to 31st of March 2011) and stored them in tubes containing 80% (v/v) ethanol. The ticks had been categorised in terms of species, stage and sex in the earlier study [26].

DNA extraction

Tick DNA was extracted using two methods. Initially, the NucleoSpin® 96 Blood Kit (Macherey & Nagel) was used according to instructions provided by the manufacturer and DNA was collected in 50 μl elution buffer. Subsequently, the majority of ticks were extracted with the Maxwell® 16 LEV Blood Kit in the Maxwell® 16 instrument (Promega). Ticks were crushed in 400 μl lysis buffer and 30 μl Proteinase K were added. Tubes were then incubated at 65°C for 10 min before another 200 μl lysis buffer were added. Samples were then placed in the Maxwell® 16 instrument and the protocol for isolation of DNA from blood was started. DNA was collected in 50 μl elution buffer. After isolation, DNA concentration was measured by determining the optical density of samples using a Take 3 plate in a Synergy 4 plate reader (Biotek). DNA samples were stored at −80°C until further use. The standard DNA amount used for PCR was 50–140 ng in 1 μl. Samples with higher DNA concentration were diluted, for samples with a lower DNA concentration up to 5 μl were used as template. The minimum amount of DNA used in PCR was 50 ng in 5 μl.

Determination of scutal index

All ticks were subjected to scutal index measurements, except 33 ticks that were not intact anymore. Pictures of every tick were taken with a Leica DFC360FX camera [26]. On those pictures body length, starting at the basis capituli, and scutum width at the scutums widest point were measured. The scutal index as the quotient of body length and scutum width was calculated [27].

PCR assays and sequencing

The target region for the Babesia PCR was the 18S rRNA gene [28] (Additional file 1: Table S1). DNAs of 497 ticks collected from 131 dogs were subjected to PCR. Reactions contained 2.5 mM MgCl2, 0.2 mM dNTPs, 0.3 μM of each primer, 0.04 U/μl Maxima® Hot Start Taq DNA Polymerase (Thermo Scientific) and template DNA in 25 μl 1× Hot Start PCR buffer. Initial denaturation at 94°C for 4 min was followed by 40 cycles of 94°C for 15 s, 63°C for 30 s and 72°C for 40 s. Finally, samples were incubated at 72°C for 10 min. As positive controls, PCRs containing 25 copies of plasmid with the Babesia gibsoni target region as well as no-template controls were routinely run in parallel. Negative controls without template DNA were conducted in all PCR runs. The limit of detection as determined during setting up the PCR was ≤10 copies. All positive samples were purified from agarose gels and sent in for sequencing by GATC Biotech.

The PCR for detection of Borrelia spp. in 938 ticks collected from 211 dogs targeted the hbb gene [29] (for primer sequences see Additional file 1: Table S1). In this PCR, a 153 bp DNA fragment was amplified, with a detection limit of ≤5 copies. PCRs contained 0.2 mM dNTPs, 0.5 μM of each primer, 0.2 μl Phusion® Hot Start II High-Fidelity DNA Polymerase (Thermo Scientific) and template DNA in 20 μl 1× Phusion® HF Buffer. After initial denaturation at 98°C for 30 s, 40 cycles of 98°C for 5 s, 57°C for 30 s and 72°C for 10 s were perfomed, followed by a terminal elongation at 72°C for 5 min. As positive controls, PCRs containing 50 copies of plasmid with the B. afzelii target region were run in parallel. Of all positive samples, 67 I. ricinus samples and 13 I. hexagonus were sent in for sequencing.

In addition, a nested PCR targeting the 16S rRNA gene was used for two samples which could not be unequivocally identified using the hbb gene [11]. Reactions contained 0.16 mM dNTPs, 0.3 μM of each primer, 0.25 μl Phusion® Hot Start II High-Fidelity DNA Polymerase and template DNA in 25 μl 1× Phusion® HF Buffer. After initial denaturation at 94°C for 1 min, 50 cycles of 94°C for 20 s, 63°C for 20 s and 72°C for 40 s were followed by a final extension at 72°C for 2 min. For nested PCR, 1 μl of the PCR product of the first PCR was used as template and the annealing temperature was set to 56°C.

Two different PCRs were used for detection of Rickettsia spp. (for primer sequences see Additional file 1: Table S1) targeting 203 bp (to determine the frequency of Rickettsia in the ticks) and 676 bp (to identify the genospecies by sequencing) of the gltA gene. The first PCR (203 bp amplicon) was conducted on DNAs of 628 ticks collected from 147 dogs. This PCR contained 0.2 mM dNTPs, 0.5 μM of each primer, 0.25 μl Phusion® Hot Start II High-Fidelity DNA Polymerase (Thermo Scientific) and template DNA in 25 μl 1× Phusion® HF Buffer. After initial denaturation at 98°C for 30 s, 50 cycles with 98°C for 30 s, 52°C for 30 s and 72°C for 15 s were performed, followed by a final elongation at 72°C for 5 min. The detection limit was ≤5 copies. Positive samples were re-analysed in a second PCR containing 1.5 mM MgCl2, 0.5 μM of each primer (Rmasglta1065lo and CS409d), 0.2 mM dNTPs, 0.04 U/μl Maxima® Hot Start Taq DNA Polymerase and template DNA in 25 μl 1× Hot Start PCR Buffer. The detection limit was ≤10 copies. The template in positive controls contained 40 and 50 copies of a plasmid with the R. raoulti target sequence (for analysis of Ixodes samples) or the R. helvetica sequence (for D. reticulatus samples) in the first and second Rickettsia PCRs, respectively. Sixteen postive samples of I. ricinus, 19 positive samples of I. hexagonus and 12 positive samples of D. reticulatus were sent in for sequencing.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using the R software and the R package “Epidemiological tools” [30]. Coinfection rates between two pathogens were calculated via Mid-P Exact, Chi square or Fisher-Exact test. Correlation between the infections of ticks with three pathogens was analysed via Chi square test and Fisher-Exact test. The correlation between tick species and probability of an infection was tested by Mid-P Exact test. Results of scutal index measurements as a tool to estimate the duration of the bloodmeal from each tick were published in a previous study [26] and were compared here between non-infected and infected female ticks using the Student’s t test and illustrated in a graph.

Phylogenetic analysis

For the phylogenetic analysis of Borrelia spp., hbb nucleotide sequences were initially aligned using Clustal X2 default parameters [31]. The optimum nucleotide substitution model was identified with jModelTest 0.1 [32] with eight substitution rate categories. The phylogenetic tree was calculated by PhyML 3.01 [33] assuming the TPM3uf model. Substitution rates used were calculated in jModelTest and set to A- > C = C- > G = 42.62375, A- > G = C- > T = 409.92731 and A- > T = G- > T = 409.92731. The Γ shape parameter for distribution of the eight substitution rate categories, the number of invariable positions and the nucleotide frequencies were calculated and optimised using PhyML. The calculation of the optimium tree was started with five random trees and one neighbour joining tree. The statistical support for the branches was obtained from the Shimodaira-Hasegawa modification and a Bayesian transformation of the approximate likelihood ratio test.

Results

Frequencies of individual pathogens in dog associated ticks

The data for individual ticks including the hosts from which they were collected are provided in Additional file 2: Table S2. Moreover, (Additional file 3: Table S3) summarises the data of those ticks that were analysed for the presence of all pathogens.

The frequency of Babesia spp. was 2.5% in I. ricinus, 3% in I. hexagonus and 0% in D. reticulatus (Table 1). The five PCR-positive samples of I. ricinus were further analysed and three B. microti, one B. venatorum and one B. capreoli were identified. Sequencing results for I. hexagonus samples revealed exclusively B. venatorum (n = 3).
Table 1

Detection frequencies of analysed tick species

Tick species

Babesiaspp. (95% CIa)

A. phago-cytophilum(95% CI)

CandidatusNeo-ehrlichia mikurensis (95% CI)

Rickettsiaspp. (95% CI)

Borreliaspp. (95% CI)

I. ricinus

2.5 (0.92-5.54) n = 200

6.5 (4.9-8.4) n = 774

4.3 (3.0-5.9) n = 774

61.0 (54.2-67.5) n = 205

11.6 (9.5-14.0) n = 768

I. hexagonus

3 (0.77-7.95) n = 100

3.9 (1.6-8.0) n = 152

5.9 (2.9-10.6) n = 152

44.4 (36.6-52.4) n = 151

11.2 (6.9-17.0) n = 152

D. reticulatus

0 (0.00-1.51) n = 197

n. d.b

n. d.

39.3 (33.7-45.2) n = 272

n. d.

a95% confidence interval.

bnot determined.

For Borrelia spp., PCR detected DNA of these pathogens in 11.6% for I. ricinus and 11.2% for I. hexagonus (Table 1). Sequencing of the hbb amplicon was performed for 67 I. ricinus and 13 I. hexagonus samples. Thirteen I. ricinus Borrelia spp. PCR-positive samples were assigned to B. afzelii, 19 to B. garinii and 24 to B. burgdorferi s.s. Borrelia spp. positive samples of I. hexagonus were identified as two B. garinii, three B. afzelii and five B. burgdorferi s.s. Eleven samples of I. ricinus and three samples of I. hexagonus had the closest relationship to Borrelia turicatae based on the hbb sequence (88% identity with 100% coverage). Since identity to B. turicatae was much lower than 100%, B. turicatae has not been described to be present in Europe and no sequences of the closely related B. miyamotoi were available for the hbb gene, another PCR was conducted for two of the 14 identical B. turicatae-like samples. Using a nested PCR detecting the 16S rDNA of Borrelia spp. followed by sequencing and BLASTn analysis, B. miyamotoi was identified in these samples. All 14 samples were thus considered to be B. miyamotoi. The sequence of B. miyamotoi for the hbb gene was deposited in the database of the European Bioinformatics Institute (www.ebi.ac.uk) with the accession number HE993870. The result of the phylogenetic analysis is shown in Additional file 4: Figure S1.

The DNA of Rickettsia spp. was found in 61% for I. ricinus, 44.4% for I. hexagonus and 39.3% for D. reticulatus (Table 1). Sequencing of 16 PCR-positive samples of I. ricinus confirmed R. helvetica in all samples. In 19 positive samples of I. hexagonus, one R. raoulti, two R. monacensis and 16 R. helvetica were detected. All 12 DNA samples of D. reticulatus that were subjected to sequencing revealed R. raoulti.

Analysis of simultaneous presence of multiple pathogens in ticks and overall frequency of pathogens

For analysis of simultaneous presence of multiple pathogens in single ticks, also previously published results analysing all Ixodes spp. ticks collected in this study (926 ticks from 210 dogs of the study) for Anaplasmataceae were included; that is PCR detected Anaplasmataceae in 10.7% of I. ricinus and 9.9% of I. hexagonus[23]. Herein, pathogen detection was performed either by conventional PCR followed by Sanger sequencing or by PCR with high-resolution melting curve analysis. Of all examined I. ricinus (n = 774) and I. hexagonus (n = 152) samples 6.5% and 3.9% were positive for A. phagocytophilum, respectively. Frequencies for Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis were 4.3% in I. ricinus and 5.9% in I. hexagonus.

Simultanous presence of two or more pathogens was detected in 20.2% of I. ricinus (CI: 14.5-26.5%, n = 170, Figure 1). Overall, at least one pathogen was detected in 65.0% (CI: 57.9-72.2%) of the 170 I. ricinus examined for presence of all pathogens. More than one pathogen was detected in 15.0% (CI: 9.0-23.0%) of 100 I. hexagonus that were examined for all pathogens (Figure 1). The overall presence of pathogens for these ticks was 59.0% (CI: 49.2-68.3%). In 140 D. reticulatus examined for Rickettsia spp. and Babesia spp. both pathogens were detected in 0% (CI: 0.0-2,1%, Figure 1), since the only pathogens that were found in this tick species were Rickettsia spp. Therefore, the overall frequency of pathogens was identical to the presence of Rickettsia spp. in D. reticulatus being as high as 63.6% (CI: 55.4-71.2).
Figure 1

Frequencies of pathogen detection in Ixodes ricinus (n = 170) (A), Ixodes hexagonus (n = 100) (B) and Dermacentor reticulatus (n = 140) (C) examined for all pathogens. n. d., not determined. Below the pie charts mean frequencies (95% confidence intervals) are given.

There was a significant difference between tick species in their likelihood to be positive for pathogens. Ixodes hexagonus was more likely to contain pathogens than D. reticulatus (p = 1.8 × 10−11; odds ratio 0.13) or I. ricinus (p < 0.002; odds ratio 0.39).

The examination of correlations between the presence of two pathogens in I. ricinus and I. hexagonus was conducted using the Mid-P Exact test. There was a significant correlation between the infections with A. phagocytophilum and Rickettsia spp. (p < 0.05; odds ratio >7.771) in I. ricinus. All other combinations of pathogens were tested for both tick species but showed no significant correlations.

Effects of the feeding-time on the probability to detect pathogens

Infected ticks had a higher mean SI than non-infected ticks (data from all three species together). The median SI of non-infected ticks was 2.2, the mean was at 3.0. The median and mean SIs for infected ticks were 3.6 and 3.9, respectively. This difference was statistically significant according to t-test results (p = 2.2 × 10−7). For the individual tick species the difference in SI means between ticks being tested positive and ticks being tested negative for pathogens was only significant for D. reticulatus (mean SI 2.7 vs. 3.7, p < 0.0005). Two separate graphs, showing density plots for ticks tested negative for pathogens (Figure 2A) and ticks tested positive for pathogens (Figure 2B), were drawn to illustrate the percentage of ticks (y-axis) featuring a certain SI (x-axis). The curve for ticks containing no pathogens (Figure 2A) has a maximum at an SI of approximately 2, which corresponds to a blood meal duration of approximately one day [34]. The curve for ticks containing at least one pathogen (Figure 2B) has a plateau at an SI range of 2–5 corresponding to blood meal durations of 1–5 days [34].
Figure 2

Density curve of scutal index (SI) for female non infected (A) and pathogen-positive (B) ticks. X-axis shows SI values and y-axis fraction of ticks.

Potential aggregation effects

Since the number of collected ticks was of course much higher than the number of dogs in the study and due to the increased probability to detect pathogens in ticks with high SI, it is possible that data were biased by many ticks containing pathogen DNA that originated from the same infected dog. Therefore, results regarding ticks from those four dogs, for which the highest numbers of ticks were sent in, are reported in the following. However, no statistical analysis was conducted since the number of ticks from these four dogs was too small compared to the number of ticks from the remaining dogs. Furthermore, the latter also contained data of ticks collected from individual dogs. From the first dog, 24 ticks (all Ixodes sp.) were collected and pathogens were detected in 15 (62.5%) of these, including 10 Rickettsia spp. (41.7%), three with Anaplasmataceae (12.5%), and five with Borrelia spp. (20.8%). The latter represents a remarkably high infection rate compared with the approximately 11% frequency of Borrelia spp. found in all Ixodes ticks. Of the 35 ticks sent in from the second dog, 17 were Ixodes spp. and 18 were D. reticulatus. Six out of 15 analysed D. reticulatus (40%) were positive for Rickettsia spp. Rickettsia spp. were also detected in 7 of 13 Ixodes spp. (54%) while in three out of 16 analysed Ixodes spp. (19%) Anaplasmataceae were found which is approximately twice as high as in the overall Ixodes ticks in the present study. From a third dog, 22 Ixodes spp. ticks were sent in and 10 of these (45%) were positive for Borrelia spp. which is again unusually high. In addition, in 6 out of 11 tested ticks Rickettsia DNA was detected (54%). Finally, from a fourth dog 27 Ixodes and 28 Dermacentor were obtained. Within the Ixodes group, 8 of 27 (29.6%) and 2 of 25 (8%) were positive for Anaplasmataceae and Borrelia sp., respectively. Among 16 tested D. reticulatus, Rickettsia spp. DNA was detected in 2 (12.5%). In this case, the number of Anaplasmataceae-positive Ixodes ticks was unexpectedly high.

Discussion

The salient feature of this study is the examination of host-associated ticks. Most previous studies used questing ticks obtained by flagging, a technique that can sample only small areas and is not suitable to obtain data on a larger geographic scale. Dogs have recently been proposed as sentinels for human tick exposure, however this study did not sample ticks from dogs or analyse ticks for the presence of pathogens [35]. The ticks analysed in the present study were sampled directly from dogs in the Berlin/Brandenburg area and were a mixture of unattached and partially or nearly fully engorched specimen [26]. Although they did not cover the Berlin city area in a representative manner, they definitely exhibit a broader distribution than those obtainable by flagging of individual small habitats.

Dogs were used as sentinels to estimate the risk of human Lyme borreliosis in serological surveys in the USA [36],[37] and the UK [38]. In a very special setting with Ixodes scapularis carrying B. burgdorferi s.l. invading an area, which was previously free of this vector, Hamer et al. [39] compared serological assays using canine serum with PCR assays to detect presence of pathogens in dog-associated ticks and found that analysis of ticks was superior. In general, however, it cannot be expected that frequency of pathogens in partially or fully engorged ticks will be the same as in questing ticks in the same area. Indeed, Leschnik et al. [40] found different tick communities and pathogen patterns when comparing dog-associated and questing ticks from the same area. Reasons for such differences can be uptake of parasites during feeding from an infected host or by co-feeding with an infected tick as well as aggregation of ticks on a few individual hosts that differ significantly in their infection status from the overall dog population in the study. Moreover, it must be kept in mind that detection of a pathogen in a feeding tick does not necessarily mean that the tick is or becomes truly infected since pathogens taken up via the bloodmeal but not able to replicate in the particular tick species will also be detected. The number of studies analysing host associated ticks for the presence of pathogens is rather limited today and ticks in these studies were either collected from deer [34], from a wide range of different domestic animals [41] or from dogs [39],[40],[42].

Several previously published studies in Europe have reported prevalence rates for the tick transmitted pathogens investigated here. Since no dog-specific Babesia spp. were detected in the present study and infection by co-feeding is probably not possible for Babesia, since ticks cannot be infected with sporozoites, the data for Babesia are probably relatively representative for those in questing ticks. Pathogen frequencies of 2.5% and 3% for Babesia spp. in I. ricinus and I. hexagonus in Berlin were similar to prevalences reported in other studies in Europe analysing questing ticks. In Europe, the prevalence of these pathogens ranged between 0.9% (Norway) and 7.4% (Slowenia) [4],[43]–[46]. In Berlin, the Babesia species detected by sequencing were B. microti (1.5%) and B. venatorum (0.5%) as well as B. capreoli (0.5%) in I. ricinus, whereas in I. hexagonus all positive samples revealed to be B. venatorum (3%). These findings are in accordance with those reported from questing ticks in Leipzig, where the predominant species were identical. In a study analysing I. ricinus collected from domestic animals in the Netherlands, frequencies of 1.2% for B. venatorum and of 0.4% for B. divergens and B. microti were determined [41]. In this study all five Babesia positive ticks were obtained from dogs. In the same study, no Babesia spp. were detected in I. hexagonus[41]. The vector competence of this tick species could not be confirmed [47]. However, vector competence appears to be dependent on the Babesia strain [48]. Since Babesia spp. were found in I. hexagonus, it can currently not be excluded that I. hexagonus is a vector for Babesia spp. Babesia microti as well as B. venatorum and the closely related B. divergens (not found in Berlin in the present study) are known to be zoonotic pathogens [49],[50] but they most likely do not impose any health risk to dogs. However, very closely related pathogens, called B. microti-like or Theileria annae, have been reported in sick dogs [51]. Babesia capreoli is not considered to be a health risk pathogen for either humans or dogs. Since no B. canis were detected in D. reticulatus this important canine pathogen has apparently not been introduced in the tick population in Berlin/Brandenburg yet.

Similar to Babesia spp., the frequency of Borrelia spp. in the dog-associated ticks in the present study is in the range found within previous European studies. Here, Borrelia spp. were found in 11.2% and 11.6% of I. hexagonus and I. ricinus, respectively. The prevalences in questing ticks in other European studies differ dramatically ranging from 7.6% to 40% [10],[52],[53]. In ticks collected from domestic animals in the Netherlands, B. burgdorferi s.l. were detected in 7.2% of all samples, which were predominantly derived from dogs. In the samples from Berlin analysed here, B. afzelii, B. garinii and B. burgdorferi s.s. were detected, all of them belonging to the Lyme Borreliosis group which are pathogens for both, dogs and humans. Borrelia miyamotoi is not known to cause disease in dogs but is pathogenic to humans [54]. Knowledge regarding the occurrence of this pathogen is rather new for Germany as it was only found two times in I. ricinus[10],[11]. To the authors knowledge this is the first time that B. miyamotoi has been detected in I. hexagonus.

In contrast to the frequency of Babesia spp. and Borrelia spp., the frequency of Rickettsia spp. in ticks collected from dogs in this study was higher than in most previous reports for this pathogen group. In 39% of D. reticulatus, Rickettsia spp. were detected, whereas I. ricinus and I. hexagonus were positive in 61% and 44%, respectively. Previously published reports of Rickettsia spp. in questing D. reticulatus in Germany described prevalences as high as 23% or 30% in ticks collected from deer [13],[34]. The published prevalence of Rickettsia spp. in I. ricinus from Germany was 14.2% [14]. Ixodes hexagonus from the Netherlands collected from companion animals were infected at a rate of only 0.8% [41]. In the present study, R. helvetica and R. raoulti were the only genospecies detected in I. ricinus and D. reticulatus, respectively. In contrast, I. hexagonus were positive for R. helvetica, R. monacensis and R. raoulti. This distribution confirms previously published studies reporting that R. raoulti and R. helvetica are the main species found in deer-associated D. reticulatus and questing I. ricinus, respectively [15],[34]. Rickettsia monacensis was also previously found in I. ricinus[55],[56]. The unexpectedly high frequency of Rickettsia spp. in ticks from Berlin is particularly important, because of their potential pathogenicity in humans, as described in previous studies [11],[57]–[59]. To date no clinical illness in dogs has been related to those Rickettsia species detected in Germany, but systematic approaches to address pathogenicity of these infectious agents in animals are lacking.

Anaplasmataceae, as pathogens for dogs and humans, were detected with a rate of 10.7% in I. ricinus and 9.9% in I. hexagonus from this study [23]. They were assigned to two species, namely A. phagocytophilum and Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis. A. phagocytophilum was found at a prevalence of 6.5% in I. ricinus and 3.9% in I. hexagonus. These frequencies of A. phagocytophilum matches with other previously published reports from questing Ixodes ricinus in Germany with 2.2 and 6.5% [41],[60],[61]. In the Netherlands, A. phagocytophilum was detected in 5.9% of I. hexagonus (all positive ticks collected from three hedgehogs and in 1.6% of I. ricinus (positive ticks collected from one cat and three dogs) [41]. The same applies to the prevalence for Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis in Berlin, which was found in 4.3% and 5.9% of I. ricinus and I. hexagonus, respectively. Recently, this emerging pathogen has been found in 8.1% of German I. ricinus[10] and it may cause diseases in humans [19] and in dogs [22]. In the study from the Netherlands Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis was found in 2.4% of all animal-associated I. ricinus (six ticks collected from one cat and five dogs).

Dermacentor reticulatus specimen were not tested for Anaplasmataceae and Borrelia spp. since a parallel study (M. Kohn, J. Demeler, J. Krücken, G. von Samson-Himmelstjerna et al., unpublished data) revealed a prevalence below 0.5% in questing D. reticulatus. This was also supported by a recent study failing to detect either Borrelia spp. or Anaplasmataceae in D. reticulatus from Berlin [62].

The overall frequency of pathogens in I. hexagonus was significantly higher than that in I. ricinus or D. reticulatus. This might be explained by the biology of I. hexagonus, which is a tick that lives in the mold of its host [63]. Female and male ticks live very closely together, and a homogenic distribution of infection rates is likely, since a lot of ticks share a small group of hosts living in the same mold.

Two or more pathogens were simultaneously present in as many as 20% of I. ricinus and 15% of I. hexagonus. Altough this does not necessarily mean that these ticks are truly co-infected, since some of the ticks might just have taken up the pathogens with their current blood meal, the very high number of ticks containing two pathogens suggests that simultaneous transmission of more than one pathogen by ticks is not a rare event. This is further corroborated by the fact that the vast majority of pathogens identified by sequencing to the species level, was obtained from ticks that are known vectors of these pathogens. Concurrent infections with more than one pathogen are of particular importance since they increase the risk of atypical forms of clinical disease [64]. A significantly increased frequency of Rickettsia spp. in I. ricinus infected with A. phagocytophilum than in I. ricinus not infected with A. phagocytophilum was found in this study. A possible explanation might be that an infection with Rickettsia spp. increases the susceptibility for A. phagocytophilum in ticks. Another explanation might be that both pathogens share the same reservoir hosts and that coinfection in reservoir hosts is also frequent [65]. Ixodes ricinus as a tick parasitizing on three different hosts during its life cycle can obtain more than one pathogen species from one or several hosts [66], and coinfections with A. phagocytophilum and Rickettsia spp. have been frequently described in ticks [65]–[70].

The SI provides a rough estimation of the feeding time from ticks on their hosts. Starting at a feeding time of 24 h, SIs are significantly different from one another when the time span between measurements is set to 24 h [34]. Particularly for ticks infected with pathogens that need at least 24 h feeding time for transmission to a new host, the SI is an important means to assess the infection risk of a host. Transmission times for pathogens detected are approximately 16 h for Borrelia burgdorferi s.l., 48 h for Babesia spp. and 24 h for Anaplasmataceae [71]–[73]. The shortest transmission times have been described for Rickettsia ricketsii with 10 h of feeding of Dermacentor andersoni in guinea pigs resulting in frequent transmission but even less than 2 h have been reported to be at least sometimes sufficient [74].

Comparison of the SI for ticks carrying a pathogen versus non-infected ticks revealed a statistically significant difference (p = 2.2 × 10−7) between both groups (Figure 2A and B); this was observed particularly for D. reticulatus harbouring Rickettsia spp. Ticks that have a long contact time with the host blood have a higher SI and a significantly higher probability harbouring an infectious agent. The fact that the SI was significantly higher in ticks infected with a pathogen strongly suggests that a considerable number of pathogen harboring ticks had obtained the pathogens from their current host. This information suggests that the prevalence of tick-borne pathogens in dogs in Berlin is high. The proposal is that a relatively high number of dogs harbour such pathogens at subclinical levels, which are not detectable by classical diagnostic methods, but are, nevertheless, sufficient for transmission to the vector. Alternatively, also pathogen reproduction within the tick during the feeding process might occur and lead to increased detection rates. Indirect serological methods are required to assess exposure of dogs to tick-transmitted pathogens, but such methods are currently only available for Borrelia spp. and A. phagocytophilum[75]. Due to their extremely high prevalence in ticks, Rickettsia spp. are presumably the most important tick-transmitted pathogens. However, concerning the Rickettsia species found in German ticks no data regarding the clinical importance in dogs are available yet.

Conclusions

The results of this study are not only important in relation to dogs living in Berlin, but also for human health. In particular I. ricinus and I. hexagonus harbour a broad spectrum of pathogens and I. ricinus frequently attaches to humans as well [76]. The high pathogen frequency in ticks collected from dogs in Berlin/Brandenburg combined with the finding of emerging infectious disease agents, such as Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis and B. miyamotoi, demonstrate the importance of continuous monitoring of tick populations for infectious pathogens. The development of inexpensive and effective diagnostic tools, such as PCR with high resolution melting curve analysis and identification of new gene markers that can be used for diagnostic purposes, should help to keep future studies cost- and time-efficient [23]. That the probability of ticks to harbour tick-borne pathogens increases with their feeding status (SI) calls for systematic screening of dogs for key tick-borne pathogens by both PCR and serology and for rigorous tick prophylaxis. The question as to whether Rickettsia spp. positive dogs are competent hosts for these zoonotic agents needs to be addressed experimentally.

Additional files

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We thank Mareen Kohn from the Institute for Parasitology and Tropical Veterinary Medicine at the Freie Universität Berlin for providing protocols for the detection and characterization of Babesia spp. and Anaplasmataceae. We are grateful to Robin Beat Gasser for editing and critical review of the manuscript.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Institute for Parasitology and Tropical Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin
(2)
Small Animal Clinic, Freie Universität Berlin
(3)
Bayer Vital GmbH
(4)
Bayer Animal Health GmbH
(5)
Institute for Statistics and Economy, Freie Universität Berlin
(6)
Institute of Immunology, Freie Universität Berlin

References

  1. Otranto D, Dantas-Torres F, Breitschwerdt EB: Managing canine vector-borne diseases of zoonotic concern: part two. Trends Parasitol. 2009, 25 (5): 228-235. 10.1016/j.pt.2009.02.005.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Beck S, Schein E, Baldermann C, Von Samson-Himmelstjerna G, Kohn B: Tick infestation and tick prophylaxis in dogs in the area of Berlin/Brandenburg-results of a questionnaire study. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 2013, 126 (1–2): 69-76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Schnittger L, Rodriguez AE, Florin-Christensen M, Morrison DA: Babesia: a world emerging. Infect Genet Evol. 2012, 12 (8): 1788-1809. 10.1016/j.meegid.2012.07.004.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Silaghi C, Woll D, Hamel D, Pfister K, Mahling M, Pfeffer M:Babesia spp. and anaplasma phagocytophilum in questing ticks, ticks parasitizing rodents and the parasitized rodents - analyzing the host-pathogen-vector interface in a metropolitan area. Parasit Vect. 2012, 5 (1): 1-14. 10.1186/1756-3305-5-1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Hartelt K, Pluta S, Oehme R, Kimmig P: Spread of ticks and tick-borne diseases in Germany due to global warming. Parasitol Res. 2008, 103 (Suppl 1): S109-S116. 10.1007/s00436-008-1059-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Beelitz P, Schumacher S, Marholdt F, Pfister K, Silaghi C: The prevalence of Babesia canis canis in marsh ticks (Dermacentor reticulatus) in the Saarland. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 2012, 125 (3–4): 168-171.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Brisson D, Drecktrah D, Eggers CH, Samuels DS: Genetics of Borrelia burgdorferi. Annu Rev Genet. 2012, 46: 513-534. 10.1146/annurev-genet-011112-112140.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Stanek G, Wormser GP, Gray J, Strle F: Lyme borreliosis. Lancet. 2012, 379 (9814): 461-473. 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60103-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Rebaudet S, Parola P: Epidemiology of relapsing fever borreliosis in Europe. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2006, 48 (1): 11-15. 10.1111/j.1574-695X.2006.00104.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Richter D, Matuschka FR: Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis, Anaplasma phagocytophilum and Lyme disease spirochetes in questing European vector ticks and in feeding ticks removed from people. J Clin Microbiol. 2012, 50: 943-947. 10.1128/JCM.05802-11.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Richter D, Schlee DB, Matuschka FR: Relapsing fever-like spirochetes infecting European vector tick of Lyme disease agent. Emerg Infect Dis. 2003, 9 (6): 697-701. 10.3201/eid0906.020459.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Botelho-Nevers E, Raoult D: Host, pathogen and treatment-related prognostic factors in rickettsioses. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2011, 30 (10): 1139-1150. 10.1007/s10096-011-1208-z.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Pluta S, Hartelt K, Oehme R, Mackenstedt U, Kimmig P: Prevalence of Coxiella burnetii and Rickettsia spp. in ticks and rodents in southern Germany. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2010, 1 (3): 145-147. 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2010.04.001.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Pichon B, Kahl O, Hammer B, Gray JS: Pathogens and host DNA in Ixodes ricinus nymphal ticks from a German forest. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2006, 6 (4): 382-387. 10.1089/vbz.2006.6.382.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Silaghi C, Gilles J, Hohle M, Pradel I, Just FT, Fingerle V, Kuchenhoff H, Pfister K: Prevalence of spotted fever group rickettsiae in Ixodes ricinus (Acari: Ixodidae) in southern Germany. J Med Entomol. 2008, 45 (5): 948-955. 10.1603/0022-2585(2008)45[948:POSFGR]2.0.CO;2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Cardoso L, Tuna J, Vieira L, Yisaschar-Mekuzas Y, Baneth G: Molecular detection of Anaplasma platys and Ehrlichia canis in dogs from the North of Portugal. Vet J. 2010, 183 (2): 232-233. 10.1016/j.tvjl.2008.10.009.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Schouls LM, Van De Pol I, Rijpkema SG, Schot CS: Detection and identification of Ehrlichia, Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato, and Bartonella species in Dutch Ixodes ricinus ticks. J Clin Microbiol. 1999, 37 (7): 2215-2222.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kawahara M, Rikihisa Y, Isogai E, Takahashi M, Misumi H, Suto C, Shibata S, Zhang C, Tsuji M: Ultrastructure and phylogenetic analysis of ‘Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis’ in the family Anaplasmataceae, isolated from wild rats and found in Ixodes ovatus ticks. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2004, 54 (Pt 5): 1837-1843. 10.1099/ijs.0.63260-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Von Loewenich FD, Geissdorfer W, Disque C, Matten J, Schett G, Sakka SG, Bogdan C: Detection of “Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis” in two patients with severe febrile illnesses: evidence for a European sequence variant. J Clin Microbiol. 2010, 48 (7): 2630-2635. 10.1128/JCM.00588-10.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Welinder-Olsson C, Kjellin E, Vaht K, Jacobsson S, Wenneras C: First case of human “Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis” infection in a febrile patient with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. J Clin Microbiol. 2010, 48 (5): 1956-1959. 10.1128/JCM.02423-09.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Fehr JS, Bloemberg GV, Ritter C, Hombach M, Luscher TF, Weber R, Keller PM: Septicemia caused by tick-borne bacterial pathogen Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis. Emerg Infect Dis. 2010, 16 (7): 1127-1129. 10.3201/eid1607.091907.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Diniz PP, Schulz BS, Hartmann K, Breitschwerdt EB:“ Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis” infection in a dog from Germany. J Clin Microbiol. 2011, 49 (5): 2059-2062. 10.1128/JCM.02327-10.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Krücken J, Schreiber C, Maaz D, Kohn M, Demeler J, Beck S, Schein E, Olias P, Richter D, Matuschka FR, Pachnicke S, Krieger K, Kohn B, von Samson-Himmelstjerna G: A novel high-resolution melt PCR assay discriminates anaplasma phagocytophilum and “Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis”. J Clin Microbiol. 2013, 51 (6): 1958-1961. 10.1128/JCM.00284-13.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kamani J, Baneth G, Mumcuoglu KY, Waziri NE, Eyal O, Guthmann Y, Harrus S: Molecular detection and characterization of tick-borne pathogens in dogs and ticks from Nigeria. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013, 7 (3): e2108-10.1371/journal.pntd.0002108.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Rar VA, Epikhina TI, Livanova NN, Panov VV, Doroshenko EK, Pukhovskaia NM, Vysochina NP, Ivanov LI: Study of the heterogeneity of 16 s rRNA gene and groESL operone in the dna samples of Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Ehrlichia muris, and “Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis” determined in the Ixodes persulcatus ticks in the area of Urals, Siberia, and far east of Russia. Mol Gen Mikrobiol Virusol. 2011, 2: 17-23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Beck S, Schreiber C, Schein E, Krücken J, Baldermann C, Pachnicke S, Von Samson-Himmelstjerna G, Kohn B: Tick infestation and prophylaxis of dogs in northeastern Germany: a prospective study. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2014, 5 (3): 336-342. 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2013.12.009.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Falco RC, Fish D, Piesman J: Duration of tick bites in a Lyme disease-endemic area. Am J Epidemiol. 1996, 143 (2): 187-192. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a008728.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Matjila PT, Penzhorn BL, Bekker CP, Nijhof AM, Jongejan F: Confirmation of occurrence of Babesia canis vogeli in domestic dogs in South Africa. Vet Parasitol. 2004, 122 (2): 119-125. 10.1016/j.vetpar.2004.03.019.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Portnoi D, Sertour N, Ferquel E, Garnier M, Baranton G, Postic D: A single-run, real-time PCR for detection and identification of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato species, based on the hbb gene sequence. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2006, 259 (1): 35-40. 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2006.00249.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Fay MP, Feuer EJ: Confidence intervals for directly standardized rates: a method based on the gamma distribution. Stat Med. 1997, 16 (7): 791-801. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19970415)16:7<791::AID-SIM500>3.0.CO;2-#.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Larkin MA, Blackshields G, Brown NP, Chenna R, McGettigan PA, McWilliam H, Valentin F, Wallace IM, Wilm A, Lopez R, Thompson JD, Gibson TJ, Higgins DG: Clustal W and Clustal X version 2.0. Bioinformatics. 2007, 23 (21): 2947-2948. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btm404.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Posada D: jModelTest: phylogenetic model averaging. Mol Biol Evol. 2008, 25 (7): 1253-1256. 10.1093/molbev/msn083.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Guindon S, Gascuel O: A simple, fast, and accurate algorithm to estimate large phylogenies by maximum likelihood. Syst Biol. 2003, 52 (5): 696-704. 10.1080/10635150390235520.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Dautel H, Dippel C, Oehme R, Hartelt K, Schettler E:Evidence for an increased geographical distribution of Dermacentor reticulatus in Germany and detection of Rickettsia sp. RpA4. Int J Med Microbiol. 2006, 296 (Suppl 40): 149-156. 10.1016/j.ijmm.2006.01.013.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Jennett AL, Smith FD, Wall R: Tick infestation risk for dogs in a peri-urban park. Parasit Vect. 2013, 6: 358-10.1186/1756-3305-6-358.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Lindenmayer JM, Marshall D, Onderdonk AB: Dogs as sentinels for Lyme disease in Massachusetts. Am J Public Health. 1991, 81 (11): 1448-1455. 10.2105/AJPH.81.11.1448.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Falco RC, Smith HA, Fish D, Mojica BA, Bellinger MA, Harris HL, Hechemy KE: The distribution of canine exposure to Borrelia burgdorferi in a Lyme-disease endemic area. Am J Public Health. 1993, 83 (9): 1305-1310. 10.2105/AJPH.83.9.1305.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Olson PE, Kallen AJ, Bjorneby JM, Creek JG: Canines as sentinels for Lyme disease in San Diego County, California. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2000, 12 (2): 126-129. 10.1177/104063870001200204.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Hamer SA, Tsao JI, Walker ED, Mansfield LS, Foster ES, Hickling GJ: Use of tick surveys and serosurveys to evaluate pet dogs as a sentinel species for emerging Lyme disease. Am J Vet Res. 2009, 70 (1): 49-56. 10.2460/ajvr.70.1.49.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Leschnik MW, Khanakah G, Duscher G, Wille-Piazzai W, Horweg C, Joachim A, Stanek G: Species, developmental stage and infection with microbial pathogens of engorged ticks removed from dogs and questing ticks. Med Vet Entomol. 2012, 26 (4): 440-446. 10.1111/j.1365-2915.2012.01036.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Nijhof AM, Bodaan C, Postigo M, Nieuwenhuijs H, Opsteegh M, Franssen L, Jebbink F, Jongejan F: Ticks and associated pathogens collected from domestic animals in the Netherlands. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2007, 7 (4): 585-595. 10.1089/vbz.2007.0130.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith FD, Ballantyne R, Morgan ER, Wall R: Prevalence, distribution and risk associated with tick infestation of dogs in Great Britain. Med Vet Entomol. 2011, 25 (4): 377-384. 10.1111/j.1365-2915.2011.00954.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Casati S, Sager H, Gern L, Piffaretti JC: Presence of potentially pathogenic Babesia sp. for human in Ixodes ricinus in Switzerland. Ann Agric Environ Med. 2006, 13 (1): 65-70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Duh D, Petrovec M, Avsic-Zupanc T: Diversity of Babesia Infecting European sheep ticks (Ixodes ricinus). J Clin Microbiol. 2001, 39 (9): 3395-3397. 10.1128/JCM.39.9.3395-3397.2001.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Oines O, Radzijevskaja J, Paulauskas A, Rosef O: Prevalence and diversity of Babesia spp. in questing Ixodes ricinus ticks from Norway. Parasit Vect. 2012, 5 (1): 1-8. 10.1186/1756-3305-5-156.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Welc-Faleciak R, Bajer A, Paziewska-Harris A, Baumann-Popczyk A, Sinski E: Diversity of Babesia in Ixodes ricinus ticks in Poland. Adv Med Sci. 2012, 57: 1-6. 10.2478/v10039-012-0023-9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Walter G: Transmission of Babesia microti by nymphs of Dermacentor marginatus, D. reticulatus, Haemaphysalis punctata, Rhipicephalus sanguineus and Ixodes hexagonus. Z Parasitenkd. 1982, 66 (3): 353-354. 10.1007/BF00925352.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Walter G, Liebisch A: Studies of the ecology of some blood protozoa of wild small mammals in North Germany. Acta tropica. 1980, 37 (1): 31-40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Hildebrandt A, Hunfeld KP, Baier M, Krumbholz A, Sachse S, Lorenzen T, Kiehntopf M, Fricke HJ, Straube E: First confirmed autochthonous case of human Babesia microti infection in Europe. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2007, 26 (8): 595-601. 10.1007/s10096-007-0333-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Becker CA, Bouju-Albert A, Jouglin M, Chauvin A, Malandrin L: Natural transmission of Zoonotic Babesia spp. by Ixodes ricinus ticks. Emerg Infect Dis. 2009, 15 (2): 320-322. 10.3201/eid1502.081247.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Beck R, Vojta L, Mrljak V, Marinculic A, Beck A, Zivicnjak T, Caccio SM: Diversity of Babesia and Theileria species in symptomatic and asymptomatic dogs in Croatia. Int J Parasitol. 2009, 39 (7): 843-848. 10.1016/j.ijpara.2008.12.005.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Christova I, Van De Pol J, Yazar S, Velo E, Schouls L: Identification of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato, Anaplasma and Ehrlichia species, and spotted fever group Rickettsiae in ticks from Southeastern Europe. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2003, 22 (9): 535-542. 10.1007/s10096-003-0988-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Wielinga PR, Gaasenbeek C, Fonville M, De Boer A, De Vries A, Dimmers W, Akkerhuis Op Jagers G, Schouls LM, Borgsteede F, van der Giessen JW:Longitudinal analysis of tick densities and Borrelia , Anaplasma , and Ehrlichia infections of Ixodes ricinus ticks in different habitat areas in the Netherlands. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006, 72 (12): 7594-7601. 10.1128/AEM.01851-06.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Platonov AE, Karan LS, Kolyasnikova NM, Makhneva NA, Toporkova MG, Maleev VV, Fish D, Krause PJ: Humans infected with relapsing fever spirochete Borrelia miyamotoi. Russia. Emerg Infect Dis. 2011, 17 (10): 1816-1823. 10.3201/eid1710.101474.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Dobler G, Essbauer S, Wölfel R: Isolation and preliminary characterisation of ‘Rickettsia monacensis’ in south-eastern Germany. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2009, 15 (Suppl 2): 263-264. 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2008.02227.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Silaghi C: Prevalence and genetic analysis of Anaplasma phagocytophilum and spotted fever group rickettsiae in the tick Ixodes ricinus in urban and periurban sites in Southern Germany. 2008, Ludwig Maximilians-Universität, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  57. Nilsson K, Elfving K, Pahlson C:Rickettsia helvetica in patient with meningitis, Sweden, 2006. Emerg Infect Dis. 2010, 16 (3): 490-492. 10.3201/eid1603.090184.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Parola P, Rovery C, Rolain JM, Brouqui P, Davoust B, Raoult D: Rickettsia slovaca and R. raoultii in tick-borne Rickettsioses. Emerg Infect Dis. 2009, 15 (7): 1105-1108. 10.3201/eid1507.081449.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Rieg S, Schmoldt S, Theilacker C, De With K, Wolfel S, Kern WV, Dobler G: Tick-borne lymphadenopathy (TIBOLA) acquired in Southwestern Germany. BMC Infect Dis. 2011, 11: 1-4. 10.1186/1471-2334-11-167.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  60. Baumgarten BU, Röllinghoff M, Bogdan C: Prevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi and granulocytic and monocytic ehrlichiae in Ixodes ricinus ticks from southern Germany. J Clin Microbiol. 1999, 37 (11): 3448-3451.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Hildebrandt A, Schmidt KH, Fingerle V, Wilske B, Straube E: Prevalence of granulocytic Ehrlichiae in Ixodes ricinus ticks in middle Germany (Thuringia) detected by PCR and sequencing of a 16S ribosomal DNA fragment. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2002, 211 (2): 225-230. 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2002.tb11229.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Richter D, Kohn C, Matuschka FR: Absence of Borrelia spp., Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis, and Anaplasma phagocytophilum in questing adult Dermacentor reticulatus ticks. Parasitol Res. 2013, 112 (1): 107-111. 10.1007/s00436-012-3110-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Liebisch A, Walter G: Untersuchungen von zecken bei haus- und wildtieren in Deutschland: zum vorkommen und zur biologie der Igelzecke (Ixodes hexagonus) und der fuchszecke (Ixodes canisuga). Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 1986, 93: 447-450.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Breitschwerdt EB, Hegarty BC, Hancock SI: Sequential evaluation of dogs naturally infected with Ehrlichia canis, Ehrlichia chaffeensis, Ehrlichia equi, Ehrlichia ewingii, or Bartonella vinsonii. J Clin Microbiol. 1998, 36 (9): 2645-2651.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Reye AL, Hubschen JM, Sausy A, Muller CP: Prevalence and seasonality of tick-borne pathogens in questing Ixodes ricinus ticks from Luxembourg. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2010, 76 (9): 2923-2931. 10.1128/AEM.03061-09.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Severinsson K, Jaenson TG, Pettersson J, Falk K, Nilsson K: Detection and prevalence of Anaplasma phagocytophilum and Rickettsia helvetica in Ixodes ricinus ticks in seven study areas in Sweden. Parasit Vect. 2010, 3: 66-10.1186/1756-3305-3-66.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  67. Schorn S, Pfister K, Reulen H, Mahling M, Manitz J, Thiel C, Silaghi C: Prevalence of Anaplasma phagocytophilum in Ixodes ricinus in Bavarian public parks, Germany. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2011, 2 (4): 196-203. 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2011.09.009.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Hartelt K, Oehme R, Frank H, Brockmann SO, Hassler D, Kimmig P:Pathogens and symbionts in ticks: prevalence of Anaplasma phagocytophilum ( Ehrlichia sp.), Wolbachia sp., Rickettsia sp., and Babesia sp. in Southern Germany. Int J Med Microbiol. 2004, 293 (Suppl 37): 86-92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Movila A, Rolain JM, Podavalenko A, Toderas I, Tkachenco L, Naglov V, Raoult D: Detection of spotted fever group rickettsiae and family Anaplasmataceae in Ixodes ricinus ticks from Republic of Moldova and Eastern Ukraine. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2009, 15 (Suppl 2): 32-33. 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2008.02152.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Hildebrandt A, Kramer A, Sachse S, Straube E:Detection of Rickettsia spp. and Anaplasma phagocytophilum in Ixodes ricinus ticks in a region of Middle Germany (Thuringia). Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2010, 1 (1): 52-56. 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2009.11.005.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Kahl O, Janetzki-Mittmann C, Gray JS, Jonas R, Stein J, De Boer R: Risk of infection with Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato for a host in relation to the duration of nymphal Ixodes ricinus feeding and the method of tick removal. Zentralbl Bakteriol. 1998, 287 (1/2): 41-52. 10.1016/S0934-8840(98)80142-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Des Vignes F, Piesman J, Heffernan R, Schulze T, Stafford K, Fish D:Effect of tick removal on transmission of Borrelia burgdorferi and Ehrlichia phagocytophila by Ixodes scapularis nymphs. J Infect Dis. 2001, 183 (5): 773-778. 10.1086/318818.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Heile C, Hoffman-Köhler P, Wieman A, Schein E: Übertragungszeiten von durch zecken übertragenen erregern beim hund: borrelien, anaplasmen/ehrlichien und babesien. Prakt Tierarzt. 2007, 88 (8): 584-590.Google Scholar
  74. Ricketts HT: Some aspects of Rocky Mountain spotted fever as shown by recent investigations. Med Rec. 1909, 76: 843-855.Google Scholar
  75. Kohn B, Silaghi C, Galke D, Arndt G, Pfister K: Infections with Anaplasma phagocytophilum in dogs in Germany. Res Vet Sci. 2011, 91 (1): 71-76. 10.1016/j.rvsc.2010.08.008.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Kiewra D, Lonc E: Epidemiological consequences of host specificity of ticks (Ixodida). Ann Parasitol. 2012, 58 (4): 181-187.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Schreiber et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Advertisement