Open Access

Molecular detection of Anaplasma phagocytophilum and Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato genospecies in red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) from Romania

  • Mirabela Oana Dumitrache1,
  • Ioana Adriana Matei1Email author,
  • Angela Monica Ionică1,
  • Zsuzsa Kalmár1,
  • Gianluca D’Amico1,
  • Sándor Sikó-Barabási2,
  • Dan Traian Ionescu3,
  • Călin Mircea Gherman1 and
  • Andrei Daniel Mihalca1
Parasites & Vectors20158:514

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-015-1130-9

Received: 1 August 2015

Accepted: 1 October 2015

Published: 8 October 2015

Abstract

Background

Red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) are one of the most widespread wild carnivores in the world, being recognized to harbor and transmit a wide range of vector-borne diseases. Anaplasma phagocytophilum and Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato are zoonotic tick-borne pathogens causing emerging diseases. Wild animals play an essential role in the transmission of diseases and pathogens maintenance in nature. Epidemiological studies regarding the prevalence of tick-borne pathogens in red foxes are of public health importance, as they may successfully act as a pathogen transmission interface between wildlife, domestic animals and humans.

Findings

This study included 14 counties from Romania. A total number of 353 red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) were examined. Heart tissue samples were collected during necropsy and stored at −20 °C. Genomic DNA extraction was performed and all samples were examined by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Specific primers for A. phagocytophilum, A. platys, E. canis and Borrelia burgdorferi s.l. were used. Sequence analysis was performed (Macrogen Europe, Amsterdam) and obtained sequences are available at GenBank™. Out of the 353 samples, 9 (2.55 %; 95 % CI: 1.25–4.96 %) were positive for A. phagocytophilum. Positive animals originated from 5 counties. In total, 5 out of 353 heart tissue samples (1.42 %; 95 % CI: 0.52–3.47 %) collected from red foxes were positive for B. burgdorferi s.l. Red foxes originated from 4 counties. None of the samples were positive for A. platys or E. canis. No co-infection with A. phagocytophilum and B. burgdorferi s.l. was found.

Conclusion

This first report of A. phagocytophilum and B. burgdorferi s.l. in red foxes from Romania suggests a limited role of foxes in the maintenance of the two related pathogens, but may represent a potential risk from a public health perspective.

Keywords

Red foxes Anaplasma phagocytophilum Borrelia burgdorferi Tick-borne pathogens Romania

Findings

Background

Red foxes are one of the most widespread wild carnivores in the world and one of the most adapted species to synanthropic ecosystems [1]. Foxes play an important role in the ecoepidemiology of several tick-borne pathogens, serving as reservoir hosts for zoonotic agents such Borrelia burgdorferi [2] or as hosts for vectors [3] and contribute to disease dissemination to humans and domestic animals. Among these, Anaplasma phagocytophilum (the agent of human granulocytic anaplasmosis, canine and equine anaplasmosis and tick-borne fever in ruminants) and Borrelia burgdorferi s.l. (the agent of Lyme borreliosis) are both posing a real threat to public health. Due to increased awareness of medical personnel and improved diagnostic techniques, co-infections with more than one tick-borne pathogen are more commonly diagnosed in humans, animals and ticks. A. phagocytophilum and B. burgdorferi s.l. association has a particular clinical importance because co-infection intensifies the pathogenic process and increases the severity of the Lyme borreliosis as shown in animals [4]. Moreover, in Europe, the main vector for both pathogens is the same tick, Ixodes ricinus [5]. This species is widely distributed and has a low host-specificity being the dominant tick species in Romania [6].

Both transmission and maintenance of these pathogens in nature are following an enzootic lifecycle that involves ticks and a broad range of reservoir hosts [5] in which wildlife is an essential component [4]. Among wild canids, foxes are playing a key role, as they may act as an interface for pathogen transmission between wildlife, domestic animals and humans [1]. Despite this, little information is available on the occurrence of A. phagocytophilum and B. burgdorferi s.l. in red foxes in Europe.

The aim of this study was to detect the presence of A. phagocytophilum and B. burgdorferi s.l. in tissues of red foxes in Romania.

Methods

Sample collection

A total of 353 red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) from 14 Romanian counties (Fig. 1) were examined between October 2011 and May 2015. The animals were collected by the National Sanitary Veterinary Authority during the rabies monitoring program. All the animals negative for rabies were transported to our laboratory according to the current laws on dead animals transport and zoonotic risks. Heart tissue samples were collected during necropsy and stored at −20 °C until further examination.
Fig. 1

Collection sites and geographical distribution of red fox positive samples for B. burgdorferi s.s., B. afzelii and A. phagocytophilum. AB = Alba; BH = Bihor; BN = Bistriţa Năsăud; BV = Brașov; BZ = Buzău; CJ = Cluj; CL = Călărași; CT = Constanţa; CV = Covasna; HD = Hunedoara; HR = Harghita; MS = Mureș; SM = Satu Mare; TL = Tulcea

DNA extraction

Genomic DNA extraction was performed using ISOLATE II Genomic DNA Kit, Bioline, following the manufacturer’s instructions. For each extraction procedure, negative controls (reaction mixture without tissue sample) were used in order to identify possible cross-contamination. DNA from a representative number of samples was quantitatively evaluated using Nanodrop ND-1000 spectrophotometer analyser.

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)

All DNA samples were screened by PCR. The primers EHR16SD (5′-GGT ACCYACAGAAGAAGTCC-3′) and EHR16SR (5′-TAGCACTCATCGTTTACAGC-3′) were used, and the 16S rRNA gene (345-bp fragment) was amplified in order to detect Anaplasma, Ehrlichia, Neorickettsia, Wolbachia genera [7]. All positive samples were further examined using specific primers for A. phagocytophilum, A. platys and E. canis.

The presence of A. phagocytophilum was assessed by PCR using specific primers LA1/LA6 (forward primer: 5′-GAGAGATGCTTATGGTAAGAC-3′, reverse primer: 5′-CGTTCAGCCATCATTGTGAC-3′), amplifying a 444-bp fragment of ankA gene [8]. The DNA extracted from the blood of a dog naturally infected with A. phagocytophilum (provided by IDEXX Germany) was used as positive control. A. platys DNA was amplified using specific primers EPLAT5 (5′-TTTGTCGTAGCT TGCTATGAT-3′) and EPLAT3 (5′-CTTCTGTGGGTACCGTC-3′) targeting a 359-bp fragment of the 16S rRNA gene [9]. Specific E. canis amplification was performed using the following primers CANIS (5′-CAATTATTTATAGCCTCTGGCTATAGGA-3′), GA1UR (5′-GAGTTTGCCGGGACTTCT TCT-3′), targeting a 409-bp fragment of the 16S rRNA gene [10]. DNA extracted from blood samples of dogs naturally infected with A. platys and E. canis were used as positive controls (provided by Prof. Harrus). The detection of B. burgdorferi s.l. was performed targeting the region of 5S-23S rRNA (rrf-rrl) intergenic spacer (IGS) in Bio-Rad T1000 Thermal Cycler, according to a previously described protocol [11]. For each PCR reaction, positive (B. burgdorferi s.l. culture strains) were used as positive control. In all cases, a reaction mix without DNA was used as negative control.

The PCR reaction was carried out in a final volume of 25 μl using 2x Green DYE Master Mix (Rovalab GmBH). Amplicons were visualized by electrophoresis in a 1.5 % agarose gel (1 × TAE, pH 8.0) stained with SYBR® Safe DNA gel stain (Invitrogen).

Sequencing

For all A. phagocytophilum positive samples (targeting 16S rRNA gene) and For B. burgdorferi s.l. positive samples, PCR products were purified using QIAquick PCR Purification Kit (QIAGEN). Sequence analysis was performed (Macrogen Europe, Amsterdam) and the sequences were compared to those available in GenBank™ dataset by Basic Local Alignment Tool (BLAST) analysis.

Sequences were submitted to the GenBank™ under the following accession numbers: KT351866, KT351867 and KT751324.

Statistical analysis and mapping

Statistical analysis of the results, prevalence of pathogens, its 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) and p value, were performed using the EpiInfo 2000 software (CDC, USA).

The map including collection sites and positive counties for A. phagocytophilum and B. burgdorferi genospecies was generated using QGIS software.

Ethics statement

All aspects of sample collections were carried out in the framework of the disease control activities implemented and approved by the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and adopted by regional and local administrative and veterinary and health authorities.

Results

Out of the 353 heart tissue samples collected from red foxes, 9 (2.55 %; 95 % CI: 1.25–4.96 %) were positive for DNA of Anaplasmataceae family. Specific amplification of all samples showed their positivity for A. phagocytophilum-specific DNA. All samples were negative for A. platys or E. canis. A. phagocytophilum positive animals originated from 5 counties (Alba, n = 1; Bihor, n = 2; Covasna, n = 3; Hunedoara, n = 1; Satu Mare, n = 2) (Fig. 1). No significant differences were observed between counties regarding the prevalence of A. phagocytophilum.

All sequences obtained from positive samples were identical to each other. The sequence was found to be 99 % identical to A. phagocytophilum strains.

Out of all samples, 5 (1.42 %; 95 % CI: 0.52–3.47 %) were positive for B. burgdorferi s.l. The sequenced rrf-rrs gene highlighted 98 % and 100 % similarities with B. burgdorferi sensu stricto (s.s.) and B. afzelii respectively.

Four samples (1.13 %; 95 % CI: 0.36–3.08 %) from Covasna (n = 2), Bihor (n = 1) and Călărași (n = 1) counties were infected with B. afzelii. One sample from Cluj (0.28 %; 95 % CI: 0.01–1.82 %) was infected with B. burgdorferi s.s. (Fig. 1).

No co-infections were found.

Discussion

Red foxes are among the most widespread and abundant wild carnivores. Their adaptation to urban environment and human presence, their frequent exposure to tick bites and the reservoir or maintenance host role for humans and domestic animals pathogens, highlight their importance for public health. However, no data concerning the epidemiology of tick-borne diseases in red foxes in Romania are available. To our knowledge, this is the first study investigating tick-borne pathogens in tissue samples collected from red foxes in Romania.

In Europe the information about the prevalence of A. phagocytophilum in foxes is scarce: Recorded prevalence range from 16.6 % in Italy [12], 8.2 % in Germany [13], 4 % in Czech Republic [14] to 2.7 % in Poland [15]. No positive foxes were found in studies conducted in Austria [1] or Bosnia and Herzegovina [16].

Few data regarding the prevalence of A. phagocytophilum in I. ricinus collected from foxes are available. In a recent study, Dumitrache et al. [17] found a prevalence of 4.4 % of the pathogen in I. ricinus collected from red foxes in Romania. In a similar study conducted in Hungary, the prevalence was 1.3 % [18].

Few data are available regarding the prevalence of B. burgdorferi s.l. in red foxes in Europe. In Germany, 24 % of the skin samples from foxes were PCR positive after cultivation [19]. In another study from Germany the prevalence in skin samples was 7 % following skin biopsy analysis [20]. However, a review on European reservoir hosts for B. burgdorferi s.l. suggests that red fox may be considered as a potential reservoir [2].

In Romania, foxes harbor I. ricinus, I. hexagonus, I. crenulatus and Dermacentor marginatus [21]. In Europe, I. ricinus is considered the main vector for both B. burgdorferi s.l. and A. phagocytophilum. Moreover, vectorial role of I. hexagonus for B. burgdorferi was also demonstrated [22]. Although A. phagocytophilum has been detected in engorged I. hexagonus, the vector competence of this tick species needs to be further investigated [23].

Although no co-infections with A. phagocytophilum and B. burgdorferi were found, our results showed that both pathogens are present in red foxes from the same counties (Bihor and Covasna), creating suitable epidemiological backgrounds for co-transmission. The role of red foxes in the ecoepidemiology of Lyme disease has not been completely elucidated. Older publications suggest that red foxes may serve as reservoir hosts [19, 20]. In addition, Kahl et al. demonstrated the transmission of the pathogen from experimentally infected red foxes to I. ricinus ticks [24]. The information regarding the role of red foxes in the life cycle of A. phagocytophilum is similarly scarce [1].

Conclusions

To the best of our knowledge, A. phagocytophilum and B. burgdorferi were detected for the first time in tissues samples collected from red foxes in Romania. Our results indicate that foxes may be involved in the ecoepidemiology of these two pathogens by maintaining the infection in the synanthropic environments, posing an important risk for public health.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

MOD’s work was financed by POSDRU grant no. 159/1.5/S/136893 grant with title: “Parteneriat strategic pentru creșterea calităţii cercetării știinţifice din universităţile medicale prin acordarea de burse doctorale și postdoctorale – DocMed.Net_2.0”. The research was supported from grant IDEI PCE 236/2011. MOD, IAM, AMI, GD, CMG, ADM are members of the COST Action TD1303. We would also like to thank the Local Sanitary Veterinary and Food Safety Authority for providing the red foxes, Cristina Ilea for providing English language correction and to Miruna Oltean, Anamaria Ioana Paștiu and Raluca Gavrea for helping with animals necropsy.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 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.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Parasitology and Parasitic Diseases, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine
(2)
Department of Ecological and Biotechnological Systems, Faculty of Environmental Science Babeş – Bolyai University
(3)
Department of Game and Wildlife, Faculty of Silviculture and Forestry Engineering, Transilvania University

References

  1. Duscher GG, Fuehrer HP, Kübber Heiss A. Fox on the run-molecular surveillance of fox blood and tissue for the occurrence of tick-borne pathogens in Austria. Parasit Vector. 2014;7:521.Google Scholar
  2. Gern L, Estrada Peña A, Frandsen F, Gray JS, Jaenson TGT, Jonegan F, et al. European reservoir host of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato. Zent bl Bakteriol. 1998;287:196–204.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Martínez-Carrasco C, Ruiz de Ybáñez MR, Sagarminaga JL, Garijo MM, Moreno F, Acosta I, et al. Parasites of red fox (Vulpes vulpes Linnaeus, 1758) in Murcia, Southeast Spain. Rev Med Vet. 2007;7(158):331–5.Google Scholar
  4. Baneth G. Tick-borne infections of animals and humans: a common ground. Int J Parasitol. 2014;44(9):591–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Rizzoli A, Silaghi C, Obiegala A, Rudolf I, Hubálek Z, Földvári G, et al. Ixodes ricinus and Its Transmitted Pathogens in Urban and Peri-Urban Areas in Europe: New Hazards and Relevance for Public Health. Front Public Health. 2014;2:251.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Mihalca AD, Gherman CM, Magdaş C, Dumitrache MO, Györke A, Sándor AD, et al. Ixodes ricinus is the dominant questing tick in forest habitats in Romania: the results from a countrywide dragging campaign. Exp Appl Acarol. 2012;58(2):175–82.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Parola P, Roux V, Camicas JL, Baradji I, Brouqui P, Raoult D. Detection of Ehrlichiae in African ticks by PCR. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2000;94:707–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Walls JJ, Caturegil P, Bakken JS, Asanovich KM, Dumler JS. Improved sensitivity of PCR for diagnosis of human granulocytic ehrlichiosis using epank1 genes of Ehrlichia phagocytophila group ehrlichiae. J Clin Microbiol. 2000;38:354–6.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Murphy GL, Ewing SA, Whitworth LC, Fox JC, Kocan AA. A molecular and serologic survey of Ehrlichia canis, E. chaffeensis, and E. ewingii in dogs and ticks from Oklahoma. Vet Parasitol. 1998;79:325–39.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Warner CK, Dawson JE. Genus- and species-level identification of Ehrlichia species by PCR and sequencing. In: Persing DH, editor. PCR protocols for emerging infectious diseases. Washington, DC: ASM Press; 1996. p. 100–5.Google Scholar
  11. Postic D, Assous MV, Grimont PA, Baranton G. Diversity of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato evidenced by restriction fragment length polymorphism of rrf (5S)-rrl(23S) intergenic spacer amplicons. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1994;44(4):743–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Ebani VV, Verin R, Fratini F, Poli A, Cerri D. Molecular survey of Anaplasma phagocytophilum and Ehrlichia canis in red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) from central Italy. J Wildl Dis. 2011;47(3):699–703.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Härtwig V, von Loewenich FD, Schultze C, Straubinger RK, Daugschies A, Dyachenko V. Detection of Anaplasma phagocytophilum in red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and raccoon dogs (Nyctereutes procynoides) from Brandenburg, Germany. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2014;5:277–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hulínská D, Langrová K, Pejcoch M, Pavlásek I. Detection of Anaplasma phagocytophilum in animals by real-time polymerase chain reaction. APMIS. 2004;112(4-5):239–47.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Karbowiak G, Vichova B, Majlathova V, Hapunik J, Petko B. Anaplasma phagocytophilum infection of red foxes (Vulpes vulpes). Ann Agric Environ Med. 2009;16(2):299–300.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hodžić A, Alić A, Fuehrer HP, Harl J, Wille-Piazzai W, Duscher GG. A molecular survey of vector-borne pathogens in red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Parasit Vectors. 2015;8:88.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Dumitrache MO, D’amico G, Gherman CM, Matei IA, Ionică AM, Paştiu AI, et al: Prevalence of Anaplasma phagocytophilum and Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato, in Ixodes ricinus Parasitising on Red Foxes (Vulpes vulpes) from Romania. Bull UASMV Vet Med. 2015;72(1):134-37.Google Scholar
  18. Sréter T, Sréter-Lancz Z, Széll Z, Kálmán D. Anaplasma phagocytophilum: an emerging tick-borne pathogen in Hungary and Central Eastern Europe. Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 2004;98(4):401–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Liebisch G, Dimpfl B, Finkbeiner-Weber B, Liebisch A, Frosch M. The red fox (Vulpes vulpes) a reservoir competent host for for Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato. In: Proc 2nd Int Conf Tick-Host-Pathogen Interactions. 1995. p. 238.Google Scholar
  20. Heidrich J, Schönberg A, Steuber S, Nöckler K, Schulze P, Voigt WP, et al. Investigation of skin samples from red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in eastern Brandenburg (Germany) for the detection of Borrelia burgdorferi s. l. Zentralbl Bakteriol. 1999;289(5-7):666–72.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Mihalca AD, Dumitrache MO, Magdaş C, Gherman CM, Domşa C, Mircean V, et al. Synopsis of the hard ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) of Romania with update on host associations and geographical distribution. Exp Appl Acarol. 2012;58(2):183–206.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Gern L, Toutoungi LN, Hu CM, Aeschlimann A. Ixodes (Pholeoixodes) hexagonus, an efficient vector of Borrelia burgdorferi in the laboratory. Med Vet Entomol. 1991;5(4):431–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Stuen S, Granquist EG, Silaghi C. Anaplasma phagocytophilum--a widespread multi-host pathogen with highly adaptive strategies. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2013;22(3):31.Google Scholar
  24. Kahl O, Geue L. Laboratory study on the possible role of the European fox, Vulpes vulpes as potential reservoir of Borrelia burgdorferi s.l. In: Proc 2nd Int Conf Tick-Host-Pathogen Interactions. 1995. p. 239.Google Scholar

Copyright

© Dumitrache et al. 2015

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