| Literature DB >> 26728197 |
Zuzana Hamšíková Svitálková1, Danka Haruštiaková2, Lenka Mahríková3, Michala Mojšová4, Lenka Berthová5, Mirko Slovák6, Elena Kocianová7, Muriel Vayssier-Taussat8, Mária Kazimírová9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis (CNM) is an emerging tick-borne pathogen causing severe disease in immunocompromised patients. In Europe, Ixodes ricinus is the primary vector and rodents act as reservoir hosts. New data on the prevalence of CNM in ticks and rodents contribute to the knowledge on the distribution of endemic areas and circulation of the bacterium in natural foci.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26728197 PMCID: PMC4700745 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-015-1287-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Prevalence of CNM in questing Ixodes ricinus per site in 2011–2013
| 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | Fisher’s | Total | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Site | % (pos/ex) | 95 % CI | % (pos/ex) | 95 % CI | % (pos/ex) | 95 % CI | exact test | % (pos/ex) | 95 % CI | |
| Bratislava | Nymphs | 0.9 (6/664) | 0.3–1.7 | 1.0 (2/195) | 0.0–2.6 | 0.7 (3/455) | 0.0–1.5 | 0.845 | 0.8 (11/1314) | 0.4–1.4 |
| Females | 2.0 (4/196) | 0.5–4.1 | 2.0 (1/49) | 0.0–6.1 | 2.0 (2/102) | 0.0–4.9 | 1.000 | 2.0 (7/347) | 0.6–3.5 | |
| Males | 1.0 (2/207) | 0.0–2.4 | 1.5 (1/68) | 0.0–4.4 | 0.0 (0/98) | 0.587 | 0.8 (3/373) | 0.0–1.9 | ||
| Adults total | 1.5 (6/403) | 0.5–2.7 | 1.7 (2/117) | 0.0–4.3 | 1.0 (2/200) | 0.0–2.5 | 0.909 | 1.4 (10/720) | 0.6–2.4 | |
| Total | 1.1 (12/1067) | 0.6–1.8 | 1.3 (4/312) | 0.3–2.6 | 0.8 (5/655) | 0.2–1.5 | 0.655 | 1.0 (21/2034) | 0.6–1.5 | |
| Fúgelka | Nymphs | 2.4 (21/867) | 1.5–3.5 | 0.7 (2/270) | 0.0–1.9 | 3.8 (10/263) | 1.5–6.5 | 0.060 | 2.4 (33/1400) | 1.6–3.2 |
| Females | 4.7 (4/85) | 1.2–9.4 | 1.9 (1/52) | 0.0–5.8 | 1.6 (1/61) | 0.0–4.9 | 0.578 | 3.0 (6/198) | 1.0–5.6 | |
| Males | 1.0 (1/102) | 0.0–2.9 | 0.0 (0/66) | 2.7 (2/74) | 0.0–6.8 | 0.477 | 1.2 (3/242) | 0.0–2.9 | ||
| Adults total | 2.7 (5/187) | 0.5–5.3 | 0.8 (1/118) | 0.0–2.5 | 2.2 (3/135) | 0.0–4.4 | 0.630 | 2.0 (9/440) | 0.9–3.4 | |
| Total | 2.5 (26/1054) | 1.6–3.4 | 0.8 (3/388) | 0.0–1.8 | 3.3 (13/398) | 1.8–5.3 | 0.037 | 2.3 (42/1840) | 1.6–3.0 | |
(pos/ex) number of positive/number of examined, 95 % CI confidence interval
Fig. 1Total prevalence of CNM in questing ticks and rodents in Bratislava and Fúgelka. Legend: Error bars indicate 95 % confidence intervals; ** indicates significant difference between habitats for infection rates in ticks (Fisher’s exact test, P = 0.002); *** indicates significant difference between habitats for infection rates in rodents (Fisher’s exact test, P = 0.001)
Overall prevalence of CNM in Ixodes ricinus and rodents per transect in Bratislava and Fúgelka
| % (pos/ex) | 95 % CI | % (pos/ex) | 95 % CI | % (pos/ex) | 95 % CI | Fisher’s exact test | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bratislava/transecta | B1 | B2 | B3 | ||||
|
| 0.1 (1/766) | 0.0–0.4 | 1.7 (7/404) | 0.7–3.0 | 1.5 (10/658) | 0.8–2.4 | 0.002 |
| Rodents | 0.0 (0/2) | 2.6 (4/153) | 0.7–5.2 | 4.2 (6/144) | 1.4–7.6 | 0.562 | |
| Fúgelka/transect | F1 | F2 | F3 | ||||
|
| 3.6 (11/303) | 1.7–5.9 | 2.0 (17/868) | 1.2–2.9 | 2.1 (14/669) | 1.0–3.3 | 0.229 |
| Rodents | 10.2 (17/167) | 6.0–15.0 | 9.9 (7/71) | 4.2–16.9 | 10.3 (7/68) | 4.4–17.6 | 1.000 |
(pos/ex) number of positive/number of examined, 95 % CI confidence interval
aonly transects B1-B3 where rodent trapping was carried out were included in the analysis
Fig. 2Seasonal differences in prevalence of CNM in questing ticks and rodents in Bratislava and Fúgelka. Legend: Error bars indicate 95 % confidence intervals; ** indicates significant difference between habitats; Bratislava, ticks total (Fisher’s exact test, P = 0.556); Fúgelka, ticks total (Fisher’s exact test, P = 1.000); Bratislava, rodents total (Fisher’s exact test, P = 0.003); Fúgelka, rodents total (Fisher’s exact test, P = 0.079)
Overall prevalence of CNM in rodents per species, sex and site
| Males | Females | Fisher’s | Total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Site | Species | % (pos/ex) | 95 % CI | % (pos/ex) | 95 % CI | exact test | % (pos/ex) | 95 % CI |
| Bratislava |
| 3.1 (3/96) | 0.0–7.3 | 2.4 (2/84) | 0.0–6.0 | 1.000 | 2.8 (5/180) | 0.6–5.6 |
|
| 6.2 (4/65) | 1.5–12.3 | 1.9 (1/54) | 0.0–5.6 | 0.375 | 4.2 (5/119) | 0.8–8.4 | |
| Total | 4.3 (7/161) | 1.2–7.5 | 2.2 (3/138) | 0.0–5.1 | 0.350 | 3.3 (10/299) | 1.3–5.4 | |
| Fúgelka |
| 11.2 (11/98) | 5.1–18.4 | 7.5 (6/80) | 2.5–13.8 | 0.452 | 9.6 (17/178) | 5.1–14.0 |
|
| 9.4 (5/53) | 1.9–18.9 | 5.5 (3/55) | 0.0–12.7 | 0.485 | 7.4 (8/108) | 2.8–12.0 | |
|
| 12.5 (1/8) | 0.0–37.5 | 41.7 (5/12) | 16.7–66.7 | 0.325 | 30.0 (6/20) | 10.0–50.0 | |
| Total | 10.7 (17/159) | 6.3–15.1 | 9.5 (14/147) | 5.4–14.9 | 0.850 | 10.1 (31/306) | 6.5–13.7 | |
| Total | 7.5 (24/320) | 4.7–10.6 | 6.0 (17/285) | 3.5–9.1 | 0.518 | 6.8 (41/605) | 5.0–8.8 | |
(pos/ex) number of positive/number of examined, 95 % CI confidence interval
a Apodemus spp. comprise A. flavicollis and A. sylvaticus (one female from Bratislava, one male from Fúgelka) and one Micromys minutus male from Fúgelka
b Microtus spp. comprise Microtus arvalis and one Microtus subterraneus male
Overall prevalence of CNM in rodents per site in 2012–2014
| 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | Fisher’s exact | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Site | % (pos/ex) | 95 % CI | % (pos/ex) | 95 % CI | % (pos/ex) | 95 % CI | Testa |
| Bratislava | 4.3 (8/184) | 1.6–7.6 | 16.7 (1/6) | 0.0–50.0 | 0.9 (1/109) | 0.0–2.8 | 0.161 |
| Fúgelka | 9.9 (22/222) | 6.3–14.0 | 50.0 (1/2) | 0.0–100.0 | 9.8 (8/82) | 3.7–17.1 | 1.000 |
| Total | 7.4 (30/406) | 4.9–10.1 | 25.0 (2/8) | 0.0–62.5 | 4.7 (9/191) | 2.1–7.9 | 0.287 |
(pos/ex) number of positive/number of examined, 95 % CI confidence interval
aonly years 2012 and 2014 were compared
Weight and significance of variables remaining in the best selected model for CNM prevalence in rodents
| Variable | B | S.E. | Wald | df |
| Exp(B) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Habitat (1) | −0.696 | 0.395 | 3.101 | 1 | 0.078 | 0.499 |
| Season (1) | −1.313 | 0.406 | 10.438 | 1 | 0.001 | 0.269 |
| Genus | 9.057 | 2 | 0.011 | |||
| Genus (1) | −1.447 | 0.566 | 6.534 | 1 | 0.011 | 0.235 |
| Genus (2) | −1.792 | 0.598 | 8.979 | 1 | 0.003 | 0.167 |
| Constant | −0.410 | 0.517 | 0.628 | 1 | 0.428 | 0.664 |
Categorical variables codings: Habitat (1), urban/suburban habitat = Bratislava; Season (1), Spring; Genus (1), Apodemus, Genus (2), Myodes; variables removed by backward method were sex; B, parameter estimate; Wald, Wald statistic = test of significance of the regression coefficient; P, significance level
Detection of CNM DNA in organs of rodents with positive spleens
| Species | Spleen | Lungs | Liver | Kidney | Blood | Skin |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pos | pos/ex | pos/ex | pos/ex | pos/ex | pos/ex | |
|
| 21 | 21/21 | 10/18 | 17/21 | 13/20 | 12/21 |
|
| 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 | 0/1 | 0/1 | 0/1 |
|
| 13 | 12/12 | 6/12 | 13/13 | 8/12 | 8/12 |
|
| 6 | 6/6 | 0/6 | 2/6 | 2/3 | 3/6 |
| Total | 41 | 40/40 a | 17/37 a | 32/41 | 23/36 a | 23/40 a |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pos number of positive, pos/ex number of positive/number of examined
athe numbers of screened organs are lower than the number of spleens as not all organs were available
Prevalence of CNM in rodent-attached Ixodes ricinus per site and year
| Site | Year |
| Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Larvae | Nymphs | Adults | % (pos/ex) | ||
| Bratislava | 2012 | 1/213 | 0.5 (1/213) | ||
| 2013 | 2/30 | 1/21 | 5.9 (3/51) | ||
| 2014 | 0/262 | 0.0 (0/262) | |||
| Total | 3/505 | 1/21 | 0.8 (4/526) | ||
| Fúgelka | 2012 | 3/169 | 0/1 | 0/1 | 1.8 (3/171) |
| 2013 | 0/5 | 0.0 (0/5) | |||
| 2014 | 5/226 | 0/5 | 2.2 (5/231) | ||
| Total | 8/400 | 0/6 | 0/1 | 2.0 (8/407) | |
| Total | 11/905 | 1/27 | 0/1 | 1.3 (12/933) | |
pos/ex number of positive/number of examined
Dissemination of CNM in rodents infested with CNM-positive and CNM-negative ticks