Skip to main content
Download PDF

Sylvatic vector-borne pathogens including Cytauxzoon europaeus in the European wildcat (Felis silvestris) from southwestern Germany

Parasites & Vectors volume 17, Article number: 361 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

European wildcats (Felis silvestris) are widely distributed in Europe and a strictly protected species in Germany. Lately, anthropogenic protective efforts lead to increasing numbers of wildcats in southwestern Germany. Moreover, in recent years the numbers of domestic cats are increasing. Thus, the contact between domestic and wildcats may lead to the spread of zoonotic pathogens in both animal species. As data on vector-borne pathogens (VBPs) in wildcats from Germany are limited to date, the objective of this study was to investigate the presence and current distribution of VBPs in wildcats from southwestern Germany.

Methods

Skin and spleen samples from 117 European wildcats, originating from a regional carcass-monitoring program in southwestern Germany, were examined by real-time and conventional polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for the presence of Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Neoehrlichia mikurensis, Rickettsia spp., Bartonella spp., and Piroplasmida.

Results

In total, 6.8% (n = 8) of the wildcats were Rickettsia-positive, specified as R. helvetica. Three wildcats were positive for A. phagocytophilum (2.6%), one for Bartonella spp., namely B. taylorii (0.8%), and 84 for Cytauxzoon spp. (71.8%). Out of these 84 samples, 23 were further sequenced revealing very high identity levels (99.84–100%) to C. europaeus, which is considered to be pathogenic for domestic cats. All wildcats were negative for the presence of N. mikurensis DNA.

Conclusions

European wildcats in southwestern Germany are hosting several VBPs. With the exception of Cytauxzoon spp., low prevalence rates of most examined pathogens suggest that wildcats are primarily incidental hosts for sylvatic pathogens associated with rodents, in contrast to domestic cats. However, the high prevalence of the cat-associated pathogen C. europaeus suggests that wildcats in southwestern Germany may serve as reservoirs for this pathogen.

Graphical Abstract

Background

The resilience of ecosystems is increasingly threatened by the diminishing separation between domestic and wild mammals [1]. This convergence poses significant risks for the transmission of diseases between wildlife and domestic carnivores, thus possibly facilitating spill over events and the emergence or re-emergence of zoonoses. The European wildcat (Felis silvestris) and the domestic cat (F. catus), being closely related to each other [2], may exemplify this concern.

The European wildcat has a broad but fragmented geographical range across Western-Central Europe, the Apennine Peninsula, the Iberian Peninsula, Eastern-Central, Eastern, and South-eastern Europe [3]. European wildcat populations in Germany significantly declined owing to human persecution until the early 20th century. During this period, wildcats were restricted to refugia in the low mountain regions, including the Palatinate Forest, Eifel, and Harz Mountains [4]. However, recent monitoring indicates a strong recovery in various regions far from these origins, including the Bavarian Forest in the southeast and the Lueneburg Heath in the north of Germany [5]. The current estimate is that there are between 7000 and 10,000 wildcats living in Germany [6]. Domestic cats have been present in Europe since their introduction by the Romans [7, 8], and their numbers continue to rise [9]. Recently, the domestic cat population in Germany has nearly doubled to over 15 million [10], outnumbering wildcats by at least 1000 to 1. The increasing populations of both species likely lead to more direct and indirect (through arthropod vectors) contact, despite domestic cats being more common near human settlements and less frequent in preferred wildcat habitats. Furthermore, habitat disturbance, such as forest fragmentation or urbanization of rural areas, may also facilitate the presence of domestic cats in wildcat habitats, thereby further enhancing the likelihood of encounters between the two species [9]. From a reservoir host perspective, the overlapping habitats of wildcats and domestic cats, represented by feral cats in sylvatic areas, may expand the ecological niche for zoonotic pathogens [11]. In Europe, domestic cats are known reservoirs for zoonotic pathogens, such as Toxoplasma gondii and Bartonella henselae [12, 13]. Furthermore, they are known to be hosts for hard ticks [14], which are vectors for zoonotic pathogens, such as Rickettsia spp., the obligate intracellular bacteria causing tick-borne rickettsiosis in humans [15]. While it is known that domestic cats are reservoirs for the cat flea (Ctenocephalides felis), which is the vector of the causative agent of R. felis, little is known about wildcats [16, 17] with a lack of evidence of reservoir function for Rickettsia spp. so far [18]. Other zoonotic, tick-borne bacteria from the order Rickettsiales, such as Anaplasma phagocytophilum and Neoehrlichia mikurensis, are found in domestic and wild mammals [19, 20]. Anaplasma phagocytophilum causes granulocytic anaplasmosis in horses, dogs, and humans. Clinical cases of anaplasmosis are described in domestic cats all over Europe, however, only in small numbers [21]. Neoehrlichia mikurensis causes unspecific symptoms mostly in immunosuppressed patients and animals [22]. The status of wildcats in the transmission cycle of both pathogens is still unclear. Bartonella spp. are vector-borne zoonotic bacteria with a broad range of hosts, vectors, and clinical symptoms. For instance, domestic cats are the main reservoirs for B. henselae, the causative agent of cat scratch disease in humans [13]. The reservoir function of wildcats remains under debate. Cytauxzoonosis, a tick-borne disease affecting domestic and wild felids, is caused by apicomplexan haemoparasites of the genus Cytauxzoon. Cytauxzoon felis, which is primarily present in North America, is the most well-known species, provoking severe, often fatal symptoms in domestic cats. In North America, the natural reservoir of C. felis is the bobcat (Lynx rufus) [23]. Recently, molecularly distinct Cytauxzoon spp. have been reported in domestic cats with symptomatic and fatal infections from various European countries, including Italy, France, and Germany [24,25,26]. Despite the significance of cytauxzoonosis in domestic cats, the disease is understudied in Europe. It has been postulated that both the Eurasian lynx (L. lynx) and the Iberian lynx (L. pardinus) may act as asymptomatic reservoirs, analogous to the bobcat in the USA [27, 28]. The European wildcat likely plays a role in Cytauxzoon spp. transmission, but data on its reservoir potential remain scarce [18]. An arthropod vector analogous to Amblyomma americanum and Dermacentor variabilis in Northern America has yet to be identified in Europe. Additional research is required to elucidate the roles of domestic cats and potential wildlife hosts in the biology, ecology, epidemiology, and clinical manifestations of feline cytauxzoonosis in Europe to formulate effective disease mitigation strategies [28]. The reciprocal ecological interactions between domestic cats (including feral and stray cats) and wildcats regarding vector-borne pathogens (VBPs) and their roles as hosts remain poorly understood. Knowledge regarding VBPs in wildcat populations is limited and fragmented, and their potential implications for domestic cat populations and vice versa are not known. Thus, the aims of the study were to (1) collect wildcat samples from a stable wildcat population to (2) detect VBPs, such as N. mikurensis, A. phagocytophilum, Rickettsia spp., Bartonella spp. and Piroplasmida, such as Cytauxzoon spp.

Methods

Study area and sample collection

Wildcat specimens for this study were obtained between 2018 and 2020 from the federal state of Rhineland-Palatinate, southwestern Germany either as roadkill or found deceased as part of the project “Monitoring of dead wildcats in Rhineland-Palatinate (Totfundmonitoring Wildkatze in Rheinland-Pfalz)” of the Rhineland-Palatinate chapter of Friends of the Earth Germany (Bund fuer Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland (BUND), Landesverband Rheinland-Pfalz)[29]. All individuals were investigated as part of a federal carcass-monitoring program, thus obviating the need for ethical approval. Carcasses were frozen at −20 °C and investigated at the Clinic for Birds, Reptiles, Amphibians, and Fish at Justus Liebig University (Giessen, Germany). During necropsies, species (European wildcat, domestic cat or suspected hybrid), sex and age class (juvenile, subadult, adult) of each cat were identified by morphological examination according to standardized protocols [30]. Data on the morphometric species determination and on a confirmatory genetic species analysis has been conducted and published before [29, 31, 32]. For this study, spleen and skin samples were collected from individuals belonging to F. silvestris (wildcat), only, and preserved at −20 °C until further processing.

Sample preparation, DNA extraction for pathogen analysis

Spleen samples with an average size of 1 cm3 were taken and individually stored in tubes with 0.6 g of sterile ceramic beads (diameter 1.4 mm, Bertin Technologies, Montigny-le-Bretonneux, France) to which 600 µL phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) were added. The skin samples were likewise individually processed, however, with 0.6 g of sterile steel beads (diameter 2.8 mm, Bertin Technologies, Montigny-le-Bretonneux, France) instead of ceramic beads. Thereafter, all samples were homogenized in the Precellys®24 tissue homogenizer (Bertin Technologies, Montigny-le-Bretonneux, France) at 5000 rpm for 2 × 30 s with a 15 s break in between for all samples. A second homogenization step under the same conditions was repeated for skin samples only. DNA from all samples was extracted individually using the QIAamp DNA Mini Kit® (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) following the manufacturer’s instructions. To exclude contamination during each DNA extraction run, a DNA isolation control was added with PBS instead of sample material. DNA quality and quantity were determined with a spectrophotometer (NanoDrop® 2000c, Peqlab Biotechnologie, Erlangen, Germany) for each sample. All DNA samples were stored at −20 °C until further examination.

PCR methods for the detection of vector-borne pathogens

For conventional PCR regarding Rickettsia spp. and Bartonella spp. samples with higher DNA amounts were diluted to have a final DNA amount of 20–100 ng/µl per sample. Skin samples were tested for Rickettsia spp. and spleen samples were screened for A. phagocytophilum, N. mikurensis, Bartonella spp., and Piroplasmida. Real-time PCRs (qPCR) were performed in the Mx3000P Real-Time Cycler (Stratagene, Agilent Technologies Deutschland GmbH, Waldbronn, Germany). The following protocols were used, for A. phagocytophilum, the msp2 gene with a product size of 77 bp [33], for N. mikurensis, the partial groEL gene (99 bp) [34], and for Rickettsia spp., the gltA gene (70 bp) [35]. Samples positive for Rickettsia spp. in qPCR yielding a CT value ≤ 37 were further examined to obtain the Rickettsia species level via sequencing (as described below) by conventional PCR targeting the ompB gene (811 bp) [36].

The presence of Bartonella spp. was analyzed by conventional PCR targeting the NADH dehydrogenase subunit (nuoG) with an amplicon size of 346 bp. Additionally, all samples were further analyzed in two PCRs targeting the gltA gene (378 bp) and a fragment of the 16S-23S rRNA ITS region (453–780 bp) [37,38,39,40].

The PCR analyses were adjusted as described in previously published PCR protocols by our group [41]. Further, spleen DNA was screened for Piroplasmida by the use of a conventional PCR targeting the 18S rRNA gene (411–452 bp) [42]. The PCR method was carried out as mentioned before [43]. Positive samples were further analyzed for the larger fragment of 18S rRNA gene [44, 45] (1335 bp) targeting Cytauxzoon spp. and additionally for the mitochondrial cytochrome b (cytB) gene using nested PCR assays as previously published (1333 bp) [46].

Negative controls with nuclease-free distilled water, in the absence of template DNA, as well as positive controls were included for each PCR reaction. Positive controls derived from R. raoultii, B. henselae, and A. phagocytophilum directly from culture and from a field strain of N. mikurensis from a positive bank vole in Germany and Babesia caballi from a positive horse.

Sequencing of PCR products for Rickettsia spp., Cytauxzoon spp. and Bartonella spp. was performed commercially by Eurofins Genomics Germany GmbH (Ebersberg, Germany) with the corresponding forward and reverse primers of each gene used for PCR amplification. The sequences were analyzed to species level with BioNumerics Software Ver. 7.6.3 (AppliedMaths NV, Sint-Martens-Latem, Belgium). Subsequently, a comparison was conducted to sequences present in GenBank on the Basic Local Alignment Tool (BLAST; https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi, accessed on 29 May 2024). Obtained sequences for C. europaeus were uploaded to GenBank under following accession numbers: PP882682-PP882704 [for 18S ribosomal RNA (rRNA)] and PP919607-PP919629 (for cytB).

Statistical analysis

The 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) of prevalence rates for each pathogen in examined cats were determined by means of the Clopper–Pearson method, using the Graph Pad Software (Graph Pad Software Inc., San Diego, CA, USA). The chi-square test was used to compare Cytauxzoon spp. prevalence between age groups. Fisher’s exact test was used with a type I error α of 0.05 to test the independence of compared prevalence rates.

Results

Cat sample collection

In total, samples from 117 European wildcats were included to this study (Fig. 1). The majority of European wildcats were males (n = 62; 53%), with females comprising 42.7% (n = 50). Most of the animals were adults (n = 75; 64.1%), followed by subadults (n = 26; 22.2%) and juveniles (n = 14; 12%). Due to insufficient carcass conditions, sex determination was not possible for five individuals (4.3%), and age determination for two individuals (1.7%) (Table 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Study sites. a Overview of the studied area (yellow) in Germany, Rhineland-Palatinate state (https://d-maps.com/carte.php?num_car=4692 with own modifications); b collection points of European wildcat carcasses (blue pins) (Google Earth with own modifications)

Full size image
Table 1 Number of European wildcats (Felis silvestris) per age and sex collected in Rhineland-Palatinate, southwest Germany
Full size table

Prevalence and sequence analyses of vector-borne pathogens

The overall prevalence for at least one vector-borne pathogen was 75.2% in European wildcats (n = 117) (n = 88; 95% CI 66.38–82.73). The most prevalent genus found was Cytauxzoon with 71.8% (n = 84; 95% CI 62.73–79.72), followed by Rickettsia (n = 8; 6.8%; 95% CI 3–13.03), A. phagocytophilum (n = 3; 2.6%; 95% CI 0.53–7.31), and Bartonella (n = 1; 0.8%; 95% CI 0.02–4.67) (Table 2). None of the individuals tested positive for N. mikurensis.

Table 2 Prevalence of pathogens detected in 117 European wildcat (Felis silvestris) individuals collected in Rhineland-Palatinate, southwest Germany
Full size table

Overall, eight wildcat individuals were coinfected with two pathogens (Table 3). The most prevalent coinfection was Rickettsia spp. & Cytauxzoon spp. (n = 4) and A. phagocytophilum & Cytauxzoon spp. (n = 2).

Table 3 Number of detected coinfections in tested European wildcats (Felis silvestris)
Full size table

Comparing female and male wildcats, there was no statistical difference in the prevalence of Cytauxzoon spp. (P = 1). Likewise, there was no statistical difference in the Cytauxzoon spp. prevalence between wildcat age groups (\(\chi\) 2 = 1.982; P = 0.371; df = 2) (Table 4).

Table 4 Prevalence of Cytauxzoon spp. in 117 European wildcats (Felis silvestris) per sex and age collected in Rhineland-Palatinate, southwest Germany
Full size table

Regarding sequence analyses of pathogens detected in wildcats, three out of eight samples positive for Rickettsia spp. qPCR were further processed through conventional PCR for sequencing (ompB), which revealed R. helvetica. The samples were 99.88% similar to those detected in Ixodes ricinus (GenBank Acc. No. MF163037) and I. persulcatus from Novosibirsk in Russia (GenBank Acc. No. Ku310591). Sequencing (nuoG and ITS) of the Bartonella-positive sample uncovered the presence of B. taylorii, which was 100% identical with a sample from Microtus sp. from France (GenBank Acc. No. CP083444) and an isolate from Apodemus sylvaticus from the UK (GenBank Acc. No. CP083693). Out of 84 samples positive for Cytauxzoon spp., 23 were randomly chosen for sequence analysis. Our 18S rRNA samples revealed sequences (GenBank Acc. No. PP882682-PP882704) of C. europaeus. All samples showed very high identity levels (99.84–100%) to C. europaeus from other F. silvestris samples from Germany—Saxony-Anhalt (GenBank Acc. No. ON380477) and Thuringia (GenBank Acc. No. ON380472)—as well as to C. europaeus haplogroup “major EU1” from European wildcats from Luxembourg (GenBank Acc. No. MT904044), Germany (GenBank Acc. No. MT904041), Italy (GenBank Acc. No. MT904034), Bosnia and Herzegovina (GenBank Acc. No. MT904025), and L. lynx from Romania (GenBank Acc. No.MT904027). Regarding the cytochrome B gene, all 23 sequenced samples (GenBank Acc. No. PP919607-PP919629) unveiled high identity levels (99.43–99.75%) likewise to C. europaeus samples from European wildcats from Germany, Hesse (GenBank Acc. No. ON856002), Thuringia (GenBank Acc. No. ON855999), and Lower Saxony (GenBank Acc. No. ON856004). All other samples were considered “Cytauxzoon spp.-positive” and not processed further.

Discussion

In this study, a representative sample of European wildcats, collected from a restricted geographical area over a limited period of time, were examined for VBPs. The sampling region is known for its stable wildcat population.

Cytauxzoonosis, a vector-borne disease in domestic cats, remains debated as an emerging concern in Europe. While C. felis involves the bobcat as the primary sylvatic reservoir and ticks (A. americanum and D.variabilis) as the main vectors in the USA [47, 48], the biological life cycle of C. europaeus in Europe is not well understood. Eurasian lynx and Iberian lynx are considered primary reservoirs for C. europaeus [44]; however, domestic cats, both those surviving infection and subclinically infected individuals, may also act as reservoirs [49, 50]. In addition, C. europeus has been detected in wildcats from Italy, Germany, Romania, Czech Republic, Luxembourg, and Switzerland with varying prevalence rates between 19 and 69% (Table 5), suggesting wildcats as ideal reservoirs for this pathogen [18, 25, 27, 46, 51, 52]. Our study corroborates this hypothesis by reporting the highest prevalence of C. europaeus in wildcats from Europe so far. Owing to the absence of a known vector in Europe, horizontal and vertical transmission in wildcats cannot be ruled out, which was suggested in a past study on domestic kittens from one litter that tested positive [51, 53, 54]. However, it is important to note that the kittens were also tick-infested. The wildcats from our study were infested by roughly 80% with ticks of the species I. ricinus, which has been suggested as a vector [46], and more rarely with I. canisuga and I. hexagonus (Bisterfeld et al., submitted). However, neither I. ricinus nor any other tick species from Central Europe has tested positive for Cytauxzoon spp. to date [55, 56]. The prevalence was similarly high across all wildcat age classes, supporting the hypothesis that C. europaeus might be vertically transmitted in wildcat populations [51]. Future research should aim to fully understand the life cycle of C. europaeus, including testing ticks from wildcats for this piroplasm, which is planned for upcoming studies.

Table 5 Prevalence rates of Cytauxzoon spp. in European wildcats detected in this study and other European countries
Full size table

Besides the high prevalence of C. europaeus in European wildcats, this species exhibits a broader distribution and higher population density compared with other suspected wildlife hosts, such as L. lynx and L. pardinus. In addition, wildcats have a significantly higher likelihood of direct contact with infected and non-infected domestic cats, making them more impactful in the transmission of Cytauxzoon spp. than other wild felids. This study reports the first detection of Rickettsia spp., specifically R. helvetica, in wildcats in Central Europe. Previously, R. helvetica, R. massiliae, and R. monacensis were identified in ticks associated with the Iberian lynx in Europe [59], and an earlier study indicated an absence of Rickettsia spp. in wildcats in Germany [18]. Rickettsia helvetica, part of the spotted fever group, is the most commonly found Rickettsia species in Germany and is known to cause fever, rash, and myalgia. Domestic cats are not typically considered reservoirs. Furthermore, this pathogen is more often associated with sylvatic rather than urban settings. Potential reservoir hosts include roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) and wild boar (Sus scrofa), but rodents, such as voles and mice (e.g., Clethrionomys glareolus, Microtus arvalis, Apodemus flavicollis), are the most commonly considered reservoirs [60,61,62]. In our study, eight wildcats tested positive for Rickettsia spp. This suggests that wildcats possibly serve as suitable hosts or may contract the pathogen temporarily through predation on infected rodents or tick bites. Further investigations into the infection routes in wildcats are needed to determine a potential reservoir function.

Similarly, one rodent-associated Bartonella species, B. taylorii, was detected in one wildcat in the present study. A previous study on wildcats in Germany reported that 3% of wildcats were positive for Bartonella spp., all of which were also rodent-associated [18]. Although domestic cats are the primary reservoirs for B. henselae, this species has not been found in wildcats [13]. These findings suggest that wildcats might be accidental hosts for rodent-associated Bartonella spp., possibly owing to predation [63] rather than being involved in the urban life cycle of zoonotic B. henselae. The detected B. taylorii is of unknown zoonotic potential, usually associated with shrews [64,65,66], being a common prey for wildcats in Germany [67].

Anaplasma phagocytophilum can cause severe clinical signs in humans and domestic animals. On the basis of genetic differences in the groEL gene, four ecotypes of A. phagocytophilum have been proposed [68]. Ecotype 1, primarily associated with clinical cases in humans and domestic animals, has been found in many host species, including humans and livestock. Ecotypes 2, 3, and 4 are mainly found in roe deer, rodents, and birds, respectively, and are less relevant for zoonotic pathogenicity [68]. The presence of A. phagocytophilum has been reported in symptomatic domestic cats in Europe [21] and in wild felids from Hungary and Romania [69, 70]. To date, wildcats from Central Europe have not been found to be positive [18]. In our study, three wildcats tested positive, but ecotyping was not conducted. However, previous research has demonstrated the presence of the highly pathogenic and zoonotic ecotype 1 in wildcats from Hungary [69].

Neoehrlichia mikurensis is mainly transmitted by I. ricinus ticks in Europe [19]. It is known to cause unspecific symptoms, such as fever and myalgia, mainly in immunosuppressed humans but also in dogs [19] and has been identified in several wildlife species, including carnivores, such as badgers (Meles meles) and brown bears (Ursus arctos), in Central Europe [57]. While the primary wildlife reservoir is still under debate, several rodent species are suspected to be the main reservoir [58]. Neoehrlichia spp. were investigated in wildcats, however, without a positive outcome. To the authors’ knowledge, there have been no prior investigations in wildcats, specifically focusing on N. mikurensis, which was absent in our study.

Apart from Cytauxzoon spp., the overall prevalence rate of VBPs in the examined wildcats was relatively low. The detected pathogen composition in wildcats from our study is naturally more prevalent in sylvatic mammals, which indicates a predominantly distinct wildcat population without an intermix with urban domestic cats.

Conclusions

The low prevalence of pathogens analyzed, with the exception of C. europaeus, suggests that wildcats are more likely to act as incidental hosts than primary reservoirs for most VBPs. The absence of N. mikurensis suggests that the reservoir function of wildcats is limited for this pathogen. The lack of B. henselae and R. felis also suggests minimal interaction with domestic cats, supporting a sylvatic pathogen life cycle in wildcats. This is further evidenced by the presence of sylvatic and rodent-associated B. taylorii and R. helvetica in wildcats from our study. Although A. phagocytophilum was detected in wildcats, and a sylvatic ecotype of this pathogen appears plausible, further ecotyping is required to allocate the origin of the strains. The high prevalence of C. europaeus indicates that wildcats may serve as reservoir hosts for this piroplasm in Germany and adds to the understanding of the ecology of this understudied parasite. The results may support the assumption that the main transmission may occur through vertical transmission rather than vector-borne. The composition of the VBPs found may serve as indicators of the distinct coexistence of domestic and wildcats, as evidenced by the rather strict separation of pathogens harbored by each host population.

Availability of data and materials

The data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.

References

  1. Kareiva P, Watts S, McDonald R, Boucher T. Domesticated nature: shaping landscapes and ecosystems for human welfare. Science. 2007;316:1866–9. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1140170.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Beugin M-P, Salvador O, Leblanc G, Queney G, Natoli E, Pontier D. Hybridization between Felis silvestris silvestris and Felis silvestris catus in two contrasted environments in France. Ecol Evol. 2020;10:263–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5892.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Velli E, Caniglia R, Mattucci F. Phylogenetic history and phylogeographic patterns of the European wildcat (Felis silvestris) populations. Animals. 2023;13:953. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13050953.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Eckert I, Suchentrunk F, Markov G, Hartl GB. Genetic diversity and integrity of German wildcat (Felis silvestris) populations as revealed by microsatellites, allozymes, and mitochondrial DNA sequences. Mamm Biol. 2010;75:160–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2009.07.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Mueller SA, Reiners TE, Steyer K, von Thaden A, Tiesmeyer A, Nowak C. Revealing the origin of wildcat reappearance after presumed long-term absence. Eur J Wildl Res. 2020;66:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-020-01433-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ellwanger G, Raths U, Benz A, Runge S, Ackermann W, Sachteleben J, editors. Der nationale Bericht 2019 zur FFH-Richtlinie. Ergebnisse und Bewertung der Erhaltungszustände. Teil 2 – Die Arten der Anhänge II, IV und V. 584th ed.: Bundesamt für Naturschutz; 2021.

  7. Faure E, Kitchener AC. An archaeological and historical review of the relationships between felids and people. Anthrozoös. 2009;22:221–38. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303709X457577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Krajcarz M, Krajcarz MT, Baca M, Baumann C, van Neer W, Popović D, et al. Ancestors of domestic cats in Neolithic Central Europe: isotopic evidence of a synanthropic diet. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2020;117:17710–9. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1918884117.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Nussberger B, Barbosa S, Beaumont M, Currat M, Devillard S, Heurich M, et al. A common statement on anthropogenic hybridization of the European wildcat (Felis silvestris). Front Ecol Evol. 2023;11:1156387. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2023.1156387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. ZZF. Anzahl der Haustiere in deutschen Haushalten nach Tierarten in den Jahren 2000 bis 2023 (in Millionen). 2024.

  11. Otranto D, Cantacessi C, Pfeffer M, Dantas-Torres F, Brianti E, Deplazes P, et al. The role of wild canids and felids in spreading parasites to dogs and cats in Europe: part I: protozoa and tick-borne agents. Vet Parasitol. 2015;1–2:12–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dabritz HA, Conrad PA. Cats and toxoplasma: implications for public health. Zoonoses Public Health. 2010;57:34–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1863-2378.2009.01273.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Breitschwerdt EB, Kordick DL. Bartonella infection in animals: carriership, reservoir potential, pathogenicity, and zoonotic potential for human infection. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2000;13:428–38. https://doi.org/10.1128/cmr.13.3.428.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. 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. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2014.00251.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Parola P, Davoust B, Raoult D. Tick- and flea-borne rickettsial emerging zoonoses. Vet Res. 2005;36:469–92. https://doi.org/10.1051/vetres:2005004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Reif KE, Macaluso KR. Ecology of Rickettsia felis: a review. J Med Entomol. 2009;46:723–36. https://doi.org/10.1603/033.046.0402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Piechocki R. Die Wildkatze Felis silvestris-Die Neue Brehm Bücherei A. 232; 1990.

  18. Unterköfler MS, Harl J, Barogh BS, Spergser J, Hrazdilová K, Müller F, et al. Molecular analysis of blood-associated pathogens in European wildcats (Felis silvestris silvestris) from Germany. Int J Parasitol. 2022;19:128–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijppaw.2022.08.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Obiegala A, Silaghi C. Candidatus Neoehrlichia Mikurensis—recent insights and future perspectives on clinical cases, vectors, and reservoirs in Europe. Curr Clin Micro Rpt. 2018;5:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40588-018-0085-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Stuen S, Granquist EG, Silaghi C. Anaplasma phagocytophilum–a widespread multi-host pathogen with highly adaptive strategies. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2013;3:31. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2013.00031.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Schäfer I, Kohn B. Anaplasma phagocytophilum infection in cats: a literature review to raise clinical awareness. J Feline Med Surg. 2020;22:428–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098612X20917600.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Andréasson K, Jönsson G, Lindell P, Gülfe A, Ingvarsson R, Lindqvist E, et al. Recurrent fever caused by Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis in a rheumatoid arthritis patient treated with rituximab. Rheumatology. 2015;54:369–71. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keu441.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Shock BC, Murphy SM, Patton LL, Shock PM, Olfenbuttel C, Beringer J, et al. Distribution and prevalence of Cytauxzoon felis in bobcats (Lynx rufus), the natural reservoir, and other wild felids in thirteen states. Vet Parasitol. 2011;175:325–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2010.10.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Legroux J-P, Halos L, René-Martellet M, Servonnet M, Pingret J-L, Bourseau G, et al. First clinical case report of Cytauxzoon sp. infection in a domestic cat in France. BMC Vet Res. 2017;13:81. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-017-1009-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Grillini M, Simonato G, Tessarin C, Dotto G, Traversa D, Cassini R, et al. Cytauxzoon sp. and Hepatozoon spp. in domestic cats: a preliminary study in North-Eastern Italy. Pathogens. 2021;10:1214. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens10091214.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Panait LC, Stock G, Globokar M, Balzer J, Groth B, Mihalca AD, et al. First report of Cytauxzoon sp. infection in Germany: organism description and molecular confirmation in a domestic cat. Parasitol Res. 2020;119:3005–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-020-06811-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Willi B, Meli ML, Cafarelli C, Gilli UO, Kipar A, Hubbuch A, et al. Cytauxzoon europaeus infections in domestic cats in Switzerland and in European wildcats in France: a tale that started more than two decades ago. Parasites Vectors. 2022;15:19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-021-05111-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Díaz-Sánchez AA, Cabezas-Cruz A. Can domestic cats act as reservoirs of Cytauxzoon felis? Pathogens. 2023;12:266. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12020266.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Bisterfeld K, Raulf M-K, Waindok P, Springer A, Lang J, Lierz M, et al. Cardio-pulmonary parasites of the European wildcat (Felis silvestris) in Germany. Parasites Vectors. 2022;15:452. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-022-05578-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Eskens U, Fischer M, Krüger M, Lang J, Müller F, Simon O, et al. Empfehlungen für die Aufarbeitung von Wildkatzen-Totfunden. Schriften des Arbeitskreises Wildbiologie an der Justus-Liebig-Universität Giessen e.V.Tagesband des Felis Symposium;. 2015:1–26.

  31. Leonhardt I, Stockmann M, Bisterfeld K, Bächlein C, Cocchiararo B, Famira-Parcsetich EM, et al. Wildkatzen-Totfundmonitoring in Rheinland-Pfalz 2018–2020—Sachbericht des Projektes des BUND Rheinland-Pfalz gefördert durch das Ministerium für Umwelt, Energie, Ernährung und Forsten Rheinland-Pfalz (MUEEF) mit den Mitteln aus der AKTION GRÜN. 2021.

  32. Famira-Parcsetich E, Westhoff K, Schanzer S, Nemitz S, Müller C, Schenke D, et al., Editors. Die Toten lügen nicht – Totfundanalysen als Beitrag zum Wildtiermonitoring am Beispiel der Europäischen Wildkatze und des Gartenschläfers. In: Wildbiologische Forschungsberichte 2022.: Kessel Verlag; 2022.

  33. Courtney JW, Kostelnik LM, Zeidner NS, Massung RF. Multiplex real-time PCR for detection of Anaplasma phagocytophilum and Borrelia burgdorferi. J Clin Microbiol. 2004;42:3164–8. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.42.7.3164-3168.2004.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Jahfari S, Fonville M, Hengeveld P, Reusken C, Scholte E-J, Takken W, et al. Prevalence of Neoehrlichia mikurensis in ticks and rodents from North-west Europe. Parasites Vectors. 2012;5:74. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-5-74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Wölfel R, Essbauer S, Dobler G. Diagnostics of tick-borne rickettsioses in Germany: a modern concept for a neglected disease. Int J Med Microbiol. 2008;298:368–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmm.2007.11.009.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Roux V, Raoult D. Phylogenetic analysis of members of the genus Rickettsia using the gene encoding the outer-membrane protein rOmpB (ompB). Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2000;50:1449–55. https://doi.org/10.1099/00207713-50-4-1449.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kosoy MY, Regnery RL, Tzianabos T, Marston EL, Jones DC, Green D, et al. Distribution, diversity, and host specificity of Bartonella in rodents from the Southeastern United States. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1997;57:578–88. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.1997.57.578.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Maggi RG, Chomel B, Hegarty BC, Henn J, Breitschwerdt EB. A Bartonella vinsonii berkhoffii typing scheme based upon 16S–23S ITS and Pap31 sequences from dog, coyote, gray fox, and human isolates. Mol Cell Probes. 2006;20:128–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcp.2005.11.002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Norman AF, Regnery R, Jameson P, Greene C, Krause DC. Differentiation of Bartonella-like isolates at the species level by PCR-restriction fragment length polymorphism in the citrate synthase gene. J Clin Microbiol. 1995;33:1797–803. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.33.7.1797-1803.1995.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Colborn JM, Kosoy MY, Motin VL, Telepnev MV, Valbuena G, Myint KS, et al. Improved detection of Bartonella DNA in mammalian hosts and arthropod vectors by real-time PCR using the NADH dehydrogenase gamma subunit (nuoG). J Clin Microbiol. 2010;48:4630–3. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00470-10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Böge I, Pfeffer M, Htwe NM, Maw PP, Sarathchandra SR, Sluydts V, et al. First detection of Bartonella spp. in small mammals from rice storage and processing facilities in Myanmar and Sri Lanka. Microorganisms. 2021;9:658. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9030658.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. 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;13:65.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Schorn S, Pfister K, Reulen H, Mahling M, Silaghi C. Occurrence of Babesia spp., Rickettsia spp. and Bartonella spp. in Ixodes ricinus in Bavarian public parks, Germany. Parasites Vectors. 2011;4:135. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-4-135.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Millán J, Naranjo V, Rodríguez A, La Lastra JP de, Mangold AJ, La Fuente J de. Prevalence of infection and 18S rRNA gene sequences of Cytauxzoon species in Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus) in Spain. Parasitology. 2007;134: 995

  45. Gallusová M, Jirsová D, Mihalca AD, Gherman CM, D’Amico G, Qablan MA, et al. Cytauxzoon infections in wild felids from Carpathian-Danubian-Pontic space: further evidence for a different Cytauxzoon species in European felids. J Parasitol. 2016;102:377–80. https://doi.org/10.1645/15-881.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Panait LC, Mihalca AD, Modrý D, Juránková J, Ionică AM, Deak G, et al. Three new species of Cytauxzoon in European wild felids. Vet Parasitol. 2021;290:109344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2021.109344.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Reichard MV, Meinkoth JH, Edwards AC, Snider TA, Kocan KM, Blouin EF, et al. Transmission of Cytauxzoon felis to a domestic cat by Amblyomma americanum. Vet Parasitol. 2009;161:110–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2008.12.016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Blouin EF, Kocan AA, Glenn BL, Kocan KM, Hair JA. Transmission of Cytauxzoon felis Kier, 1979 from bobcats, Felis rufus (Schreber), to domestic cats by Dermacentor variabilis (Say). J Wildl Dis. 1984;20:241–2. https://doi.org/10.7589/0090-3558-20.3.241.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Deplazes P, van Knapen F, Schweiger A, Overgaauw PA. Role of pet dogs and cats in the transmission of helminthic zoonoses in Europe, with a focus on echinococcosis and toxocarosis. Vet Parasitol. 2011;182:41–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2011.07.014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Wang J-L, Li T-T, Liu G-H, Zhu X-Q, Yao C. Two tales of Cytauxzoon felis infections in domestic cats. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2017;30:861–85. https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.00010-17.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Veronesi F, Ravagnan S, Cerquetella M, Carli E, Olivieri E, Santoro A, et al. First detection of Cytauxzoon spp infection in European wildcats (Felis silvestris silvestris) of Italy. Ticks Tick-borne Dis. 2016;7:853–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ttbdis.2016.04.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Grillini M, Beraldo P, Di Frangipane RA, Dotto G, Tessarin C, Franzo G, et al. Molecular survey of Cytauxzoon spp. and Hepatozoon spp. in felids using a novel real-time PCR approach. Front Vet Sci. 2023;10:1113681. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2023.1113681.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Nentwig A, Meli ML, Schrack J, Reichler IM, Riond B, Gloor C, et al. First report of Cytauxzoon sp. infection in domestic cats in Switzerland: natural and transfusion-transmitted infections. Parasites Vectors. 2018;11:292. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-018-2728-5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Carli E, Solano-Gallego L, de Arcangeli S, Ventura L, Ligorio E, Furlanello T. Clinicopathological findings and risk factors associated with Cytauxzoon spp. infection in cats: a case-control study (2008–2021). Front Vet Sci. 2022;9:976173. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.976173.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Santos-Silva MM, Melo P, Santos N, Antunes S, Duarte LR, Ferrolho J, et al. PCR screening of tick-borne agents in sensitive conservation areas, Southeast Portugal. Mol Cell Probes. 2017;31:42–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcp.2016.11.005.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Arz C, Król N, Imholt C, Jeske K, Rentería-Solís Z, Ulrich RG, et al. Spotted fever group rickettsiae in ticks and small mammals from grassland and forest habitats in Central Germany. Pathogens. 2023;12:933. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12070933.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Beck R, Čurik V, Ivana R, Nikica Š, Anja V. Identification of ‘Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis’ and Anaplasma species in wildlife from Croatia. Parasites Vectors. 2014;7:O28. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-7-S1-O28.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Wennerås C. Infections with the tick-borne bacterium Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2015;21:621–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2015.02.030.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Márquez FJ, Millán J. Rickettsiae in ticks from wild and domestic carnivores of Doñana National Park (Spain) and surrounding area. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2009;15:224–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-0691.2008.02147.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Grassi L, Menandro ML, Cassini R, Mondin A, Pasotto D, Grillini M, et al. High prevalence of tick-borne zoonotic Rickettsia slovaca in ticks from wild boars, Northeastern Italy. Animals. 2022;12:967. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12080967.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Stefanidesova K, Kocianova E, Boldis V, Kostanova Z, Kanka P, Nemethova D, et al. Evidence of Anaplasma phagocytophilum and Rickettsia helvetica infection in free-ranging ungulates in central Slovakia. Eur J Wildl Res. 2008;54:519–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-007-0161-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Obiegala A, Oltersdorf C, Silaghi C, Kiefer D, Kiefer M, Woll D, et al. Rickettsia spp. in small mammals and their parasitizing ectoparasites from Saxony, Germany. Vet Parasitol. 2016;5:19–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vprsr.2016.08.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Krügel M, Król N, Kempf VAJ, Pfeffer M, Obiegala A. Emerging rodent-associated Bartonella: a threat for human health? Parasites Vectors. 2022;15:113. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-022-05162-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Holmberg M, Mills JN, McGill S, Benjamin G, Ellis BA. Bartonella infection in sylvatic small mammals of central Sweden. Epidemiol Infect. 2003;130:149–57. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0950268802008075.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Obiegala A, Jeske K, Augustin M, Król N, Fischer S, Mertens-Scholz K, et al. Highly prevalent bartonellae and other vector-borne pathogens in small mammal species from the Czech Republic and Germany. Parasites Vectors. 2019;12:332. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-019-3576-7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Bown KJ, Bennet M, Begon M. Flea-borne Bartonella grahamii and Bartonella taylorii in bank voles. Emerg Infect Dis. 2004;10:684–7. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1004.030455.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Lang J, editor. Die Katze lässt das Mausen nicht− Aktuelle Ergebnisse einer Nahrungsanalyse an Europäischen Wildkatzen aus dem Zentrum ihrer Verbreitung; 2016.

  68. Jahfari S, Coipan EC, Fonville M, van Leeuwen AD, Hengeveld P, Heylen D, et al. Circulation of four Anaplasma phagocytophilum ecotypes in Europe. Parasites Vectors. 2014;7:365. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-7-365.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Hornok S, Boldogh SA, Takács N, Sándor AD, Tuska-Szalay B. Zoonotic ecotype-I of Anaplasma phagocytophilum in sympatric wildcat, pine marten and red squirrel—short communication. Acta Vet Hung. 2022;70:215–9. https://doi.org/10.1556/004.2022.00021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Matei IA, Ivan T, Ionică AM, D’Amico G, Deak G, Nadas GC, et al. Anaplasma phagocytophilum in multiple tissue samples of wild carnivores in Romania. J Wildl Dis. 2021;57:949–53. https://doi.org/10.7589/JWD-D-20-00158.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper has been sponsored by Elanco Animal Health in the framework of the CVBD® World Forum Symposium. The authors would like to thank Dana Rüster for her excellent help during technical assistance and lab work. The graphical abstract was created with BioRender.com.

Funding

This work was financially supported by the Rhineland-Palatinate Ministry of Environment, Energy, Food, and Forestry [Ministerium für Umwelt, Energie, Ernährung und Forsten Rheinland-Pfalz (MUEEF)]; executed by the Rhineland-Palatinate chapter of Friends of the Earth Germany [Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland (BUND), Landesverband Rheinland-Pfalz] as project management organization. The publication fee of this paper has been sponsored by Elanco Animal Health in the framework of the 18th CVBD® World Forum Symposium.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Animal Hygiene and Veterinary Public Health, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

    Anna Obiegala, Sara Weilage, Nina Król & Martin Pfeffer

  2. Wildlife Research Institute, State Agency for Nature, Environment and Consumer Protection North Rhine-Westphalia, Bonn, Germany

    Luisa Fischer

  3. Working Group for Wildlife Biology at Justus, Liebig University Giessen E.V., Giessen, Germany

    Luisa Fischer, Katharina M. Westhoff, Michael Lierz & Johannes Lang

  4. Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Denmark

    Nina Król

  5. Clinical Center for Emerging and Vector-Borne Infections, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark

    Nina Król

  6. Clinic for Birds, Reptiles, Amphibians and Fish, Working Group for Wildlife Research, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany

    Katharina M. Westhoff, Saskia Nemitz, Michael Lierz & Johannes Lang

  7. Institute of Parasitology, Centre for Infection Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

    Zaida Renteria-Solís

Authors
  1. Anna Obiegala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luisa Fischer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sara Weilage
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nina Król
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Katharina M. Westhoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Saskia Nemitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Michael Lierz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Johannes Lang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Martin Pfeffer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Zaida Renteria-Solís
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

L.F., Z.R.-S., M.P., and A.O. conceptualized the study; N.K., L.F., Z.R.-S., S.W., and A.O. carried out the methodology; L.F., K.M.W., and S.N. performed sample collection; A.O., and Z.R.-S. carried out verification; S.W., N.K., and A.O. carried out formal analysis; L.F., K.M.W., S.N., S.W., N.K., Z.R.-S., and A.O. performed the investigations; S.W., N.K., L.F., and A.O. carried out data curation; A.O. carried out writing—original draft preparation; N.K., M.P., S.W., Z. R.-S., L.F., and J.L. carried out writing—review and editing; S.W. and N.K. performed visualization; M.P., M.L., J.L., and Z. R.-S. supervised the study; L.F., M.P., and A.O. carried out project administration; L.F., A.O., M.P., M.L., and J.L. carried out funding acquisition. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Pfeffer.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The animals examined were found dead and analyzed within a federal carcass-monitoring program, thus no permission or ethical approval was needed.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Obiegala, A., Fischer, L., Weilage, S. et al. Sylvatic vector-borne pathogens including Cytauxzoon europaeus in the European wildcat (Felis silvestris) from southwestern Germany. Parasites Vectors 17, 361 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-024-06428-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-024-06428-w

Keywords

Parasites & Vectors

ISSN: 1756-3305

Contact us