| Literature DB >> 25520947 |
Annapaola Rizzoli1, Cornelia Silaghi2, Anna Obiegala3, Ivo Rudolf4, Zdeněk Hubálek4, Gábor Földvári5, Olivier Plantard6, Muriel Vayssier-Taussat7, Sarah Bonnet7, Eva Spitalská8, Mária Kazimírová9.
Abstract
Tick-borne diseases represent major public and animal health issues worldwide. Ixodes ricinus, primarily associated with deciduous and mixed forests, is the principal vector of causative agents of viral, bacterial, and protozoan zoonotic diseases in Europe. Recently, abundant tick populations have been observed in European urban green areas, which are of public health relevance due to the exposure of humans and domesticated animals to potentially infected ticks. In urban habitats, small and medium-sized mammals, birds, companion animals (dogs and cats), and larger mammals (roe deer and wild boar) play a role in maintenance of tick populations and as reservoirs of tick-borne pathogens. Presence of ticks infected with tick-borne encephalitis virus and high prevalence of ticks infected with Borrelia burgdorferi s.l., causing Lyme borreliosis, have been reported from urbanized areas in Europe. Emerging pathogens, including bacteria of the order Rickettsiales (Anaplasma phagocytophilum, "Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis," Rickettsia helvetica, and R. monacensis), Borrelia miyamotoi, and protozoans (Babesia divergens, B. venatorum, and B. microti) have also been detected in urban tick populations. Understanding the ecology of ticks and their associations with hosts in a European urbanized environment is crucial to quantify parameters necessary for risk pre-assessment and identification of public health strategies for control and prevention of tick-borne diseases.Entities:
Keywords: Europe; Ixodes ricinus; tick-borne pathogens; ticks; urban habitats
Year: 2014 PMID: 25520947 PMCID: PMC4248671 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2014.00251
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Figure 1Complex factors of the biotic and abiotic environment influence the tick–host–pathogen interaction and consequently the occurrence of tick-borne diseases in urban and peri-urban environments.
Most important mammal hosts of .
| Order | Species | Associated | Associated pathogens | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rodentia | L, N | ( | ||
| L, N | ( | |||
| L, N | ( | |||
| L, N | ( | |||
| L, N | ( | |||
| L, N | ( | |||
| L, N | ( | |||
| L, N | ( | |||
| L, N | ( | |||
| L, N | ( | |||
| L, N | ( | |||
| L, N | ( | |||
| L, N | ( | |||
| L, N | ( | |||
| Lagomorpha | L, N, A | ( | ||
| L, N, A | ( | |||
| Soricomorpha | L, N | ( | ||
| L, N | ( | |||
| Erinaceomorpha | L, N, A | ( | ||
| L, N, A | ( | |||
| Artiodactyla | L, N, A | ( | ||
| L, N, A | ( | |||
| L, N, A | ( | |||
| Carnivora | L, N, A | ( | ||
| L, N, A | ( | |||
Mammal species that are experimentally proven reservoirs for pathogens are in .
Occurrence of .
| Country | City/region (habitat), year | No. of examined ticks | Prevalence | Method | Genomic spp. | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Czech Republic | Prague (U, S) | 2,490 N, 143 F, 184 M | 2–22% | IFA | ( | |
| Prague (U, S) 1994–1997 | 12,287 | 3.3–13.3% | IFA | ( | ||
| Prague 1995–1997 | 462 N, 173 A | 1.9% N, 12.7% A | PCR | Bg 18, Ba 13 | ( | |
| Brno – outskirts 1988 | 1,005 | 3.8% N, 16.4% F, 12.7% M | IFA | ( | ||
| Brno (U parks) 1992 | 34 N, 64 F, 65 M | 14.7% N, 29.7% F, 30.8% M | DFM | ( | ||
| Brno-Pisárky (S) 1996–1998 | 643 N, 123 F, 107 M | 10.0% N, 13.8% F, 18.7% M | DFM (and PCR) | ( | ||
| Brno-Pisárky (S) 2002 | 243 N, 19 F, 22 M | 15.8% N + F + M | DFM (PCR) | Bg 15, Ba 14, Bb 2, Bv 2 | ( | |
| Finland | Helsinki (U, S) | 303 N, 189 F, 234 M | 32.2% N + F + M | DFM, PCR, BSK | Ba 70%, Bg 25% | ( |
| France | Paris (U, S) | 360 N, 69 F, 129 M | 32% F, 10% N, 20% M | PCR | Ba/Bv 36%, Bg/Bl 60%, Bm 4% | ( |
| Germany | Berlin – West (U, S) | 1,414 N, 132 F, 165 M | 2.4% N, 9.1% F, 6.1% M (MIR) | BSK | ( | |
| Bonn (U, S) 2003 | 865 N, 241 F, 288 M | 17.3% N, 26.6% F, 12.5% M | PCR | Ba 39%, Bg 28%, Bb 16%, Bv 9% | ( | |
| Hungary | Budapest (parks, forests, and cemeteries) 2013 | 240 F | 40.8% | PCR | ( | |
| Italy | Imola (U parks) 2006 | 10.4% N + A | PCR | ( | ||
| Lithuania | Vilnius (city park) 2005 | 39 A | 25% | DFM, PCR | Ba, Bg, Ba + Bg | ( |
| The Netherlands | Bijlmerweide (city park) 2000–2002 | 384 N + F + M | 6.8% | PCR | Ba 10, Bb 1, Bv 1 | ( |
| Poland | Gdansk, Sopot, Gdynia (U, S) | 701 N + F + M (164 F, 139 M) | 12.4%, 11.6% F, 10.1% M | PCR | ( | |
| Szczecin (U, S) | 193 N, 22 A | 17.7% | DFM | ( | ||
| Warsaw (U, S), 1996 | 19.2–31.0% | IFA (PCR) | Bg, Ba, Bv | ( | ||
| Warsaw (city parks) | 6.1% | PCR | ( | |||
| Serbia | Belgrade (U, S) 1996–2005 | 10,158 N + A | 21.9% N + A | DFM (BSK, PCR) | Ba 75%, Bb 22%, Bg 3% | ( |
| Slovakia | Bratislava (U, S) 1986–1988 | 77 | 7.8% | DFM | ( | |
| Košice (U, S) 1991–1995 | 660 N, 2,904 A | 9.2% N, 14.8% A | DFM and IFA | ( | ||
| Košice, Bardejov (U, S) 2008–2010 | 670 | 10.1% | PCR | Ba, Bg, Bv, Bb | ( | |
| Switzerland | Basel (U, S) 2003 | 172 N, 35 A | 16.4% N + A | PCR | ( | |
| United Kingdom | London (U parks) | 65 F | 7.7% F | PCR | ( |
U, urban; S, suburban; .
.
* No sufficient discrimination between Bg and Bl and between Ba and Bv.
Occurrence of .
| Country | City/region (habitat) | No. of ticks posit./examined | Prevalence | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Austria | Graz (RA) | 5/518 | 1 | ( |
| Czech Republic | Dvur Kralove (U forest) | 8/138 | 5.8 | ( |
| Ostrava (U park) | 276 (tested in pools) | 9.4 | ( | |
| France | Paris (S forests) | 2/558 | 0.7 | ( |
| Germany | Hamburg (U RA) | 51/1,400 | 3.6 | ( |
| Hannover (U RA) | 94/2,100 | 4.5 | ( | |
| Bavaria (U parks) | 500/5,569 | 9.0 | ( | |
| Bavaria (U parks) | 103/2,862 | 2.9 | ( | |
| Bavaria (U parks) | 172/2,800 | 6.1 | ( | |
| Leipzig (U, S RA) | 47/539 | 8.7 | ( | |
| Hannover (U RA) | 52/1,646 | 3.2 | ( | |
| Hungary | Budapest (30 sites: U parks, forests, and cemeteries) | 21/240 | 8.8 | ( |
| Poland | S forests | 18/124; 6/46 | 14.5; 13.0 | ( |
| Slovakia | Bratislava (U, S forests) | 10/248 | 4 | ( |
| Malacky (U park) | 4/101 | 4 | ( | |
| Košice (U forest) | 10/224 | 4.5 | ( | |
| Bardejov Poštárka (S forest) | 2/75 | 2.7 | ( | |
| Košice Adlerova (S forest) | 10/261 | 3.8 | ( | |
| Jazero (U forest) | 5/91 | 5.5 | ( | |
| Košice (S forests) | 1,075 | 1.4–5.5 | ( |
U, urban; S, suburban; RA, recreational area.
,
.
Occurrence of .
| Country | No. of sites, habitat | No. of ticks examined | Prevalence | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Austria | U, S, 2002–2003 | 518 | 4.2% | ( |
| Czech Republic | U, 2010 | 69 | 0.4% | ( |
| Denmark | Three sites, S, sylvatic, 2011(+tick DNA from archive) | 79 | 3.8% | ( |
| France | Two sites, sylvatic | 60 | 1.7% | ( |
| Germany | Ten sites, U, S | 542 | 8.1% | ( |
| U, S, 2008–2009 | 782 | 24.2–26.6% | ( | |
| Hungary | Nine sites, 2007 | 2,004 | n.a. 9 of 35 sites positive | ( |
| Italy | U, S, 2006–2008 | 138 | 10.5% | ( |
| The Netherlands | Three sites, sylvatic | 180 | 8.6% | ( |
| Twenty-one sites, U, S, sylvatic, 2006–2010 | 5,343 | 5.6% | ( | |
| The Netherlands/Belgium | n. a., 2006–2010 | 2,375 | 7% | ( |
| Russia | S, sylvatic, 1997–1998 | 295 | 7.1% | ( |
| Slovakia | S, sylvatic, 2006 | 68 | 2.9% | ( |
| Ten sites, U, S, sylvatic, 2008, 2010 | 670 | 2.4% | ( | |
| U, S | 1.1–4.5% | ( | ||
| Spain | S, 2013 | 100 | 2% | ( |
| Sweden | Four sites, sylvatic, 2010–2011 | 949 | 4.5–11% | ( |
| Switzerland | Eleven sites, U, S, 2009–2010 | 818 | 6.4% | ( |
| Four sites, U, S, 2009 | 1,916 | 3.5–8% | ( |
U, urban; S, suburban.
.
Occurrence of .
| Country | City/region (habitat) | No. examined ticks | Prevalence of | Identified species ( | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Czech Republic | Ostrava (U park), 2010 | 180 N | 2.2% (MIR) | 14 | ( |
| 96 A | 4.2% (MIR) | ||||
| Proskovice (mixed forest), 2010 | 1,114 N | 3.5% (MIR) | |||
| 83 A | 2.5% (MIR) | ||||
| France | Paris (S) | 360 N, 69 F, 129 M | 5.8% | ( | |
| Germany | Munich, 2006 | 961 N | 1.0% | 138 | ( |
| 1,900 A | 7.3% | ||||
| Saarland (RA), 2008–2009 | 36 N | 16.7–47.2% | 8 | ( | |
| Bavaria/Munich (natural alluvial forest), 2008–2009 | 79 A | 21.5% | |||
| Leipzig/Saxony (coal surface-mining area), 2008–2009 | 28 N | 21.4% | |||
| 100 A | 19.0% | ||||
| 98 N | 8.2–27.6% | ||||
| 431 A | 9.7% | ||||
| Munich, Regensburg, Ingolstadt, Augsburg, Berg (U parks), 2009–2010 | 774 L | 2.1–9.8% | 15 | ( | |
| 1,190 N | 6.8% | ||||
| 2,495 A | 7.5% | 77 | |||
| 244 L | – | ||||
| 742 N | – | 180 | |||
| 1,142 A | – | ||||
| Munich, Regensburg, Lake Starnberg (U, S) | 24 L | 2.2–7.5% | 29 | ( | |
| Lake Starnberg and Lake Ammersee, pastures | 500 N | 5.0% | |||
| Augsburg, forest, 2011 | 889 A | 8.7% | |||
| 140 N | 15.7% | 9 | |||
| 225A | 13.3% | ||||
| 139 L | 2.2–10.1% | ||||
| 120 N | 17.5% | 9 | |||
| 79 A | 13.9% | ||||
| Hanover (U park), 2010 | 31 L | 16.0% | 268 | ( | |
| 1,697 N | 25.5% | ||||
| 372 A | 30.4% | ||||
| Poland | Warsaw, national parks and natural areas, 2011 | 1,147 N 442 A | 3.7% (MIR) | 38 | ( |
| 5.9% (MIR) | |||||
| Portugal | Alentejo (safari park), 2006–2009 | 35 A | 82.9% | 14 | ( |
| Serbia | Four natural sites, 2 sites (RA), 2007, 2009 | 26 | 23.1% | 2 | ( |
| Slovakia | Bratislava (S forest, cemeteries), 2006–2011 | 445 N | 8.3% | 61 | ( |
| 471 A | 10.2% | ||||
| Malacky (U park), 2006–2011 | 59 N | 6.8% | 10 | ||
| 62 A | 14.5% | ||||
| Martin (U park), 2006–2011 | 3 N | 0 | |||
| 12 A | 16.7% | ||||
| Martinské hole Mts (mountain forest), 2006–2011 | 276 N | 5.4% | 6 | ||
| 482 A | 10.0% | ||||
| Vojka nad Dunajom (RA), 2011–2012 | 2 N | 0 | 30 | ( | |
| 280 A | 11.7% |
U, urban; S, suburban; RA, recreational area; .