| Literature DB >> 26207382 |
Masako Andoh1, Akiko Sakata2, Ai Takano3, Hiroki Kawabata4, Hiromi Fujita5, Yumi Une6, Koichi Goka7, Toshio Kishimoto8, Shuji Ando2.
Abstract
One of the major routes of transmission of rickettsial and ehrlichial diseases is via ticks that infest numerous host species, including humans. Besides mammals, reptiles and amphibians also carry ticks that may harbor Rickettsia and Ehrlichia strains that are pathogenic to humans. Furthermore, reptiles and amphibians are exempt from quarantine in Japan, thus facilitating the entry of parasites and pathogens to the country through import. Accordingly, in the current study, we examined the presence of Rickettsia and Ehrlichia spp. genes in ticks associated with reptiles and amphibians originating from outside Japan. Ninety-three ticks representing nine tick species (genera Amblyomma and Hyalomma) were isolated from at least 28 animals spanning 10 species and originating from 12 countries (Ghana, Jordan, Madagascar, Panama, Russia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Tanzania, Togo, Uzbekistan, and Zambia). None of the nine tick species are indigenous in Japan. The genes encoding the common rickettsial 17-kDa antigen, citrate synthase (gltA), and outer membrane protein A (ompA) were positively detected in 45.2% (42/93), 40.9% (38/93), and 23.7% (22/93) of the ticks, respectively, by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The genes encoding ehrlichial heat shock protein (groEL) and major outer membrane protein (omp-1) were PCR-positive in 7.5% (7/93) and 2.2% (2/93) of the ticks, respectively. The p44 gene, which encodes the Anaplasma outer membrane protein, was not detected. Phylogenetic analysis showed that several of the rickettsial and ehrlichial sequences isolated in this study were highly similar to human pathogen genes, including agents not previously detected in Japan. These data demonstrate the global transportation of pathogenic Rickettsia and Ehrlichia through reptile- and amphibian-associated ticks. These imported animals have potential to transfer pathogens into human life. These results highlight the need to control the international transportation of known and potential pathogens carried by ticks in reptiles, amphibians, and other animals, in order to improve national and international public health.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26207382 PMCID: PMC4514593 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133700
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Tick population, host species, and PCR detection rates of the rickettsial genes.
| PCR-positive rate (%) (No. of positive/No. of tested) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Country of origin | Host species | Tick species | Stage |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||
| Ghana |
|
| M | 0.0 (0/3) | 0.0 (0/3) | 0.0 (0/3) | 0.0 (0/3) | 0.0 (0/3) | 0.0 (0/3) |
| F | 0.0 (0/1) | 0.0 (0/1) | 0.0 (0/1) | 0.0 (0/1) | 0.0 (0/1) | 0.0 (0/1) | |||
|
| M | 83.3 (5/6) | 50.0 (3/6) | 0.0 (0/6) | 0.0 (0/6) | 0.0 (0/6) | 0.0 (0/6) | ||
| F | 90.9 (10/11) | 90.9 (10/11) | 0.0 (0/11) | 0.0 (0/11) | 0.0 (0/11) | 0.0 (0/11) | |||
| Madagascar |
|
| M | 100.0 (1/1) | 0.0 (0/1) | 100.0 (1/1) | 0.0 (0/1) | 0.0 (0/1) | 0.0 (0/1) |
| Sudan |
|
| M | 0.0 (0/2) | 0.0 (0/2) | 0.0 (0/2) | 0.0 (0/2) | 0.0 (0/2) | 0.0 (0/2) |
| Tanzania |
|
| U | 0.0 (0/1) | 0.0 (0/1) | 0.0 (0/1) | 0.0 (0/1) | 0.0 (0/1) | 0.0 (0/1) |
| M | 0.0 (0/1) | 0.0 (0/1) | 0.0 (0/1) | 0.0 (0/1) | 0.0 (0/1) | 0.0 (0/1) | |||
| F | 0.0 (0/1) | 0.0 (0/1) | 0.0 (0/1) | 0.0 (0/1) | 100.0 (1/1) | 0.0 (0/1) | |||
| Togo |
|
| M | 0.0 (0/3) | 0.0 (0/3) | 0.0 (0/3) | 0.0 (0/3) | 0.0 (0/3) | 0.0 (0/3) |
| Zambia |
|
| M | 70.0 (7/10) | 70.0 (7/10) | 70.0 (7/10) | 0.0 (0/10) | 20.0 (2/10) | 0.0 (0/10) |
| N | 37.5 (3/8) | 37.5 (3/8) | 25.0 (2/8) | 25.0 (2/8) | 25.0 (2/8) | 0.0 (0/8) | |||
|
| |||||||||
| Panama |
|
| F | 100.0 (2/2) | 100.0 (2/2) | 0.0 (0/2) | 0.0 (0/2) | 0.0 (0/2) | 0.0 (0/2) |
| Suriname |
|
| F | 0.0 (0/3) | 0.0 (0/3) | 0.0 (0/3) | 0.0 (0/3) | 0.0 (0/3) | 0.0 (0/3) |
|
| |||||||||
| Jordan |
|
| M | 0.0 (0/2) | 0.0 (0/2) | 0.0 (0/2) | 0.0 (0/2) | 0.0 (0/2) | 0.0 (0/2) |
| N | 100.0 (1/1) | 100.0 (1/1) | 100.0 (1/1) | 0.0 (0/1) | 0.0 (0/1) | 0.0 (0/1) | |||
|
|
| M | 0.0 (0/1) | 0.0 (0/1) | 0.0 (0/1) | 0.0 (0/1) | 0.0 (0/1) | 0.0 (0/1) | |
| F | 50.0 (1/2) | 50.0 1/2) | 50.0 (1/2) | 0.0 (0/2) | 50.0 (1/2) | 0.0 (0/2) | |||
| N | 0.0 (0/9) | 0.0 (0/9) | 0.0 (0/9) | 0.0 (0/9) | 11.1 (1/9) | 0.0 (0/9) | |||
|
| |||||||||
| Russia |
|
| F | 100.0 (2/2) | 0.0 (0/2) | 0.0 (0/2) | 0.0 (0/2) | 0.0 (0/2) | 0.0 (0/2) |
| Uzbekistan |
|
| M | 100.0 (1/1) | 100.0 (1/1) | 100.0 (1/1) | 0.0 (0/1) | 0.0 (0/1) | 0.0 (0/1) |
| F | 100.0 (1/1) | 100.0 (1/1) | 100.0 (1/1) | 0.0 (0/1) | 0.0 (0/1) | 0.0 (0/1) | |||
|
| |||||||||
| Sri Lanka |
|
| M | 0.0 (0/5) | 0.0 (0/5) | 0.0 (0/5) | 0.0 (0/5) | 0.0 (0/5) | 0.0 (0/5) |
| F | 57.1 (8/14) | 57.1 (8/14) | 57.1 (8/14) | 0.0 (0/14) | 0.0 (0/14) | 0.0 (0/14) | |||
| N | 0.0 (0/2) | 0.0 (0/2) | 0.0 (0/2) | 0.0 (0/2) | 0.0 (0/2) | 0.0 (0/2) | |||
| Total | 45.2 (42/93) | 40.9 (38/93) | 23.7 (22/93) | 2.2 (2/93) | 7.5 (7/93) | 0.0 (0/93) | |||
*Number of animal in parenthesis, U: unknown.
**M: male, F: female, N: nymph, U: unknown.
Primers used in PCR and sequencing.
| Target | Primer | Primer sequence | Reference | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tick | mt- | mt-rrs(1) | CTGCTCAATGATTTTTTAAATTGCTGTGG | [ |
| mt-rrs(2) | CCGGTCTGAACTCAGATCAAGTA | |||
|
| T1B | AAACTAGGATTAGATACCCT | [ | |
| T2A | AATGAGAGCGACGGGCGATGT | |||
|
| 17-kDa antigen | R1 | TCAATTCACAACTTGCCATT | [ |
| R2 | TTTACAAAATTCTAAAAACC | |||
|
| RpCs877p | GGGGGCCTGCTCACGGCGG | [ | |
| RpCs1258n | ATTGCAAAAAGTACAGTGAAC | |||
|
| Rr190.70p | ATGGCGAATATTTCTCCAAAA | [ | |
| Rr190.602n | AGTGCAGCATTCGCTCCCCCT | |||
|
|
| gro607F | GAAGATGCWGTWGGWTGTACKGC | [ |
| gro1294R | AGMGCTTCWCCTTCWACRTCYTC | |||
| gro677F | ATTACTCAGAGTGCTTCTCARTG | |||
| gro1121R | TGCATACCRTCAGTYTTTTCAAC | |||
|
| conP28-F1 | ATYAGTGSAAARTAYRTRCCAA | [ | |
| conP28-R1 | TTARAARGYAAAYCTKCCTCC | |||
| conP28-F2 | CAATGGRWGGYCCMAGARTAG | |||
| conP28-R2 | TTCCYTGRTARGMAAKTTTAGG | |||
|
|
| p3726 | GCTAAGGAATTAGCTTATGA | [ |
| p4257 | AGAAGATCATAACAAGCATTG | |||
| p3761 | CTGCTCKGCCAARACCTC | |||
| p4183 | CAATAGTYTTAGCTAGTAACC |
*: M = A,C; W = A,T; K = G,T; R = A,G; S = C,G; Y = C,T.
a: 1st PCR.
b: nested PCR.
Fig 1Phylogenetic relationships between the Rickettsia spp. genes based on sequence comparison of the 17-kDa antigen gene 394-bp fragment.
The phylogenetic branches showed support of >70% by bootstrap analysis. Identified sequences are in bold type. The bar indicates the percentage of sequence divergence.
Fig 2Phylogenetic relationships between the Rickettsia spp. genes based on sequence comparison of the gltA gene 341-bp fragment.
The phylogenetic branches showed support of >70% by bootstrap analysis. Identified sequences are in bold type. The bar indicates the percentage of sequence divergence.
Fig 3Phylogenetic relationships between the Rickettsia spp. genes based on sequence comparison of the ompA gene 488-bp fragment.
The phylogenetic branches showed supported of >70% by bootstrap analysis. Identified sequences are in bold type. The bar indicates the percentage of sequence divergence.
Fig 4Phylogenetic relationships between the Ehrlichia spp. genes based on sequence comparison of the groEL gene 319-bp fragment.
The phylogenetic branches showed supported of >70% by bootstrap analysis. Identified sequences are in bold type. The bar indicates the percentage of sequence divergence.