| Literature DB >> 26337627 |
Yuan-Zhi Wang1, Lu-Meng Mu1, Ke Zhang2, Mei-Hua Yang3, Lin Zhang4, Jing-Yun Du1, Zhi-Qiang Liu5,6, Yong-Xiang Li1, Wei-Hua Lu5, Chuang-Fu Chen7,8, Yan Wang1, Rong-Gui Chen9, Jun Xu10, Li Yuan1, Wan-Jiang Zhang1, Wei-Ze Zuo11, Ren-Fu Shao12.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Borreliosis is highly prevalent in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, China. However, little is known about the presence of Borrelia pathogens in tick species in this region, in addition Borrelia pathogens have not been isolated from domestic animals.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26337627 PMCID: PMC4560164 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-015-1021-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Fig. 1A map of the study area. Left: the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. Right: the 14 surveyed counties in northern Xinjiang
Fig. 2The annual precipitation and average annual temperatures in northern Xinjiang from 1962–2012. The annual precipitation and average annual temperature are shown in (a) and (b), respectively. All the data came from eight international surveillance sites (Jinghe, Qitai, Altay, Fuyun, Hefeng, Karamay, Yining, and Urumqi) in northern Xinjiang and were collected from 1962–2012. The raw data are from the China Meteorological Data Sharing Service System (http://cdc.cma.gov.cn/) and were analyzed using Sigma Plot software
The counts of each tick species from the 19 sampling sites between 2012 and 2014
| Counties | Flock NO. (year) | Hosts |
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| Chabuchaer (CBCE) | 1#(2013) | Sheep | 151 (77/74) | ||||||
| 2#(2013) | Sheep | 191 (97/94) | |||||||
| 3#(2014) | Sheep | 69 (32/37) | |||||||
| Changji (CJ) | 1#(2012) | Cattle | 180 (76/104) | ||||||
| Fuhai (FH) | 1#(2012) | Sheep | 11 (5/6) | 15 (6/9) | 148 (95/53) | ||||
| 2#(2012) | Sheep | 9 (4/5) | 8 (3/5) | 150 (90/60) | |||||
| Fukang (FK) | 1#(2012) | Cattle, sheep | 9 (6/3) | 60 (43/27) | 16 (12/4) | ||||
| 2#(2012) | Cattle, sheep | 152 (87/65) | 161 (80/81) | ||||||
| 3#(2012) | Cattle, sheep | 139 (86/53) | |||||||
| Jimusaer (JMSE) | 1#(2012) | Sheep | 76 (54/22) | ||||||
| 2#(2012) | Cattle, sheep | 195 (104/91) | 22 (8/14) | ||||||
| 3#(2012) | Camel | 74 (11/63) | |||||||
| Karamay (KLMY) | 1#(2012) | Cattle | 80 (40/40) | ||||||
| 2#(2012) | Cattle | 89 (22/67) | |||||||
| Miquan (MQ) | 1#(2012) | Cattle, sheep | 93 (36/57) | ||||||
| 2#(2012) | Cattle, sheep | 90(70/20) | 112 (48/64) | ||||||
| Mulei (ML) | 1#(2012) | Cattle, sheep | 38 (32/6) | 47 (44/3) | 1 (0/1) | ||||
| 2#(2012) | Cattle, sheep | 97 (65/32) | |||||||
| 3#(2012) | Cattle, sheep | 196 (112/84) | |||||||
| Qinghe (QH) | 1#(2012) | Sheep | 62 (41/21) | ||||||
| 2#(2014) | Sheep | 41 (18/23) | 136 (66/70) | ||||||
| Qitai (QT) | 1#(2012) | Cattle, sheep | 187 (121/66) | 219 (160/59) | |||||
| 2#(2012) | Sheep | 22 (5/17) | |||||||
| 3#(2012) | Cattle, sheep | 48 (12/36) | |||||||
| 4#(2012) | Sheep | 65 (41/24) | 29 (23/6) | ||||||
| Shawan (SW) | 1#(2012) | Sheep, horse | 100/76 | 30/19 | 47/29 | ||||
| 2#(2013) | Sheep | 112 (63/49) | 87 (57/30) | 44 (25/19) | |||||
| 3#(2013) | Sheep | 101 (62/39) | 83 (55/28) | 42 (25/17) | |||||
| Shihezi (SHZ) | 1#(2013) | Cattle, sheep | 187/150 | 40/27 | 21/14 | 57/35 | |||
| 2#(2014) | Camel, sheep | 121 (72/49) | 54 (31/23) | 83 (49/34) | |||||
| Tacheng (TC) | 1#(2013) | Sheep | 0/1 | 23/13 | |||||
| Yining (YN) | 1#(2013) | Cattle, Sheep | 48/58 | ||||||
| 2#(2014) | Cattle, Sheep | 73 (32/41) | |||||||
| Total number | 5257 | 1691 (948/743) | 1 (0/1) | 636 (392/244) | 708 (418/244) | 1719 (961/758) | 1 (0/1) | 501 (229/272) | |
| Percentage (%) | 32.17 % | 0.02 % | 12.10 % | 13.47 % | 32.70 % | 0.02 % | 9.53 % | ||
Fig. 3The phylogenic tree inferred from the 16S rDNA sequences of the representative tick specimens. The evolutionary history was inferred using the neighbor-joining method. The new sequences provided by the present study are indicated by a black dot (ticks collected in internal counties) or a black triangle (ticks collected from border counties) in front of the sequence name (containing the accession number). The phylogenic analyses were conducted using MEGA5
Fig. 4The phylogenic tree inferred from the 5S-23S rRNA intergenic spacer sequences of the 16 Borrelia burgdorferi isolates. The evolutionary history was inferred using the neighbor-joining method. The phylogenic analyses were conducted using MEGA5