Skip to main content

Table 1 PCR survey results for ticks tested for rickettsiae, northeastern China, 2015. Infection rates of Rickettsia spp. in ticks were calculated following the Bias-corrected MLE method in the software Pooledinfrate, version 4.0; 95 % confidence intervals (CI) are presented in brackets

From: Characterization of rickettsiae in ticks in northeastern China

Tick species No. of ticks tested Total no. (%) ticks positive [95 % CI] Jilin Heilongjiang
Total no. of ticks tested Total no. (%) ticks positive [95 % CI] R. r. (%) [95 % CI] C. R. j. (%) [95 % CI] C. R. t. (%) [95 % CI] Total no. of ticks tested Total no. of (%) ticks positive R. r. (%) [95 % CI] R. h. (%) [95 % CI] C. R. t. (%) [95 % CI]
Dermacentor nuttalli 253 13 (7.45) [4.30–12.59] 206 8 (5.16) [2.48–10.02] 8 (5.16) [2.48–10.02] 0 0 47 5 (10.64)a 5 (10.64)a 0 0
Dermacentor silvarum 204 9 (6.07) [3.10–11.37] 175 6 (4.42) [1.86–9.44] 6 (4.42) [1.86–9.44] 0 0 29 3 (10.30)a 3 (10.30)a 0 0
Haemaphysalis concinna 412 16 (5.46) [3.28–8.80] 0 0 0 0 0 412 16 (5.46) [3.28–8.80] 0 15 (4.96) [2.93–8.09] 1 (0.24) [0.01–1.18]
Haemaphysalis longicornis 390 12 (3.91) [2.23–6.59] 244 6 (2.89) [1.30–5.99] 4 (1.58) [0.58–3.61] 2 (0.92) [0.16–3.2] 0 146 6 (5.42) [2.29–11.64] 0 6 (5.42) [2.29–11.64] 0
Ixodes persulcatus 1,669 72 (6.53) [5.16–8.22] 393 10 (3.12) [1.61–5.62] 0 0 10 (3.12) [1.61–5.62] 1,276 62 (7.95) [6.16–10.22] 0 0 62 (7.95) [6.16–10.22]
Total 2,928 122 (6.12) [5.13–7.29] 1,018 30 (3.79) [2.64–5.34] 18 (1.95) [1.22–2.99] 2 (0.20) [0.04–0.67] 10 (1.05) [0.54–1.87] 1,910 92 (7.66) [6.23–9.39] 8 (0.42) [0.20–0.80] 21 (1.16) [0.76–1.78] 63 (4.36) [3.39–5.54]
  1. Abbreviations: R. r., Rickettsia raoultii; C. R. j., “Candidatus Rickettsia jingxinensis”; C. R. t., “Candidatus Rickettsia tarasevichiae”; R. h., Rickettsia heilongjiangensis
  2. aInfection rates are calculated using the MIR method