| Literature DB >> 31253201 |
Ryanne I Jaarsma1, Hein Sprong1,2, Katsuhisa Takumi1, Maria Kazimirova3, Cornelia Silaghi4, Atle Mysterud5, Ivo Rudolf6, Relja Beck7, Gábor Földvári8,9, Laura Tomassone10, Margit Groenevelt11, Reinard R Everts11, Jolianne M Rijks12, Frauke Ecke13, Birger Hörnfeldt13, David Modrý14,15, Karolina Majerová15,16, Jan Votýpka15,16, Agustín Estrada-Peña17,18.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anaplasma phagocytophilum is currently regarded as a single species. However, molecular studies indicate that it can be subdivided into ecotypes, each with distinct but overlapping transmission cycle. Here, we evaluate the interactions between and within clusters of haplotypes of the bacterium isolated from vertebrates and ticks, using phylogenetic and network-based methods.Entities:
Keywords: Anaplasma phagocytophilum; Ixodidae; Molecular epidemiology; Network analysis; Ticks; Transmission dynamics
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31253201 PMCID: PMC6599317 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-019-3583-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
List of vertebrates, divided by taxonomic orders (columns) and countries of collection, that yielded a 530-bp groEl fragment of A. phagocytophilum. The number of haplotypes and clusters per vertebrate order is shown
| Country | Artiodactyla | Aves | Carnivora | Erinaceomorpha | Primates | Lagomorpha | Perissodactyla | Rodentia | Soricomorpha | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Albania | 1 | 3 | 4 | |||||||
| Austria | 22 | 1 | 23 | |||||||
| Belgium | 3 | 1 | 4 | |||||||
| Brazil | 12 | 12 | ||||||||
| Czech Republic | 1 | 3 | 11 | 1 | 16 | |||||
| Finland | 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| France | 27 | 3 | 30 | |||||||
| Germany | 52 | 6 | 2 | 15 | 75 | |||||
| Hungary | 1 | 54 | 55 | |||||||
| Italy | 7 | 3 | 4 | 14 | ||||||
| Netherlands | 149 | 7 | 13 | 5 | 174 | |||||
| Norway | 105 | 22 | 63 | 190 | ||||||
| Poland | 9 | 1 | 1 | 11 | ||||||
| Scotland | 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| Slovakia | 5 | 5 | 10 | |||||||
| Slovenia | 29 | 5 | 1 | 35 | ||||||
| Spain | 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| Sweden | 2 | 2 | 7 | 11 | ||||||
| Switzerland | 8 | 1 | 1 | 10 | ||||||
| Japan | 3 | 1 | 4 | |||||||
| Korea | 1 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 10 | |||||
| Russia | 11 | 1 | 12 | |||||||
| USA | 3 | 4 | 1 | 7 | 8 | 23 | ||||
| Total | 419 | 3 | 54 | 67 | 8 | 1 | 44 | 70 | 64 | 730 |
| Haplotypes | 106 | 2 | 16 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 15 | 15 | 2 | |
| Clusters | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 |
List of arthropod samples collected from the vegetation and from vertebrates that yielded a 530-bp groEl fragment of A. phagocytophilum. Included are the number of haplotypes
| Arthropod species | Sampling on | Samples ( | Haplotypes ( |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Vegetation | 1 | 1 |
|
| Vegetation | 1 | 1 |
|
|
| 2 | 1 |
|
| Vegetation | 3 | 1 |
|
| Aves | 2 | 1 |
|
| Vegetation | 1 | 1 |
|
| 22 | 1 | |
|
| 2 | 1 | |
|
| 4 | 3 | |
|
| Vegetation | 1 | 1 |
|
| 2 | 1 | |
|
| Vegetation | 2 | 2 |
|
| Vegetation | 3 | 2 |
|
| Vegetation | 26 | 7 |
|
| 1 | 1 | |
| Rodentia | 3 | 1 | |
|
| Vegetation | 741 | 101 |
| Aves | 6 | 1 | |
|
| 14 | 8 | |
|
| 5 | 5 | |
| Deer (unknown species) | 4 | 2 | |
|
| 7 | 1 | |
|
| 3 | 3 | |
|
| 2 | 2 | |
|
| 8 | 3 | |
|
| 1 | 1 | |
| Rodentia | 3 | 3 | |
|
| Vegetation | 4 | 4 |
| Rodentia | 6 | 3 | |
|
| Vegetation | 6 | 3 |
|
|
| 6 | 5 |
|
| 1 | 1 | |
| Total | 893 |
Fig. 1The phylogenetic tree of the clusters of A. phagocytophilum haplotypes detected in this study. Each branch of the tree includes the name of the cluster, with the number of haplotypes that belong to it, and some details of distribution or new carriers. Coloured lines labelled with the “Ecotype” refer to the original groups proposed by Jahfari et al. [31]
Fig. 2a The network of the communities of A. phagocytophilum haplotypes, as linked to carriers (ticks or vertebrates). Circles (nodes) are haplotypes from ticks or vertebrates, but the labels are included only in nodes representing haplotypes of A. phagocytophilum to improve reading (i.e. labels are not included for ticks and vertebrates). Labels are the number of the cluster obtained in the phylogenetic tree in Fig. 1. The colours represent the communities detected by an agglomerative clustering algorithm and the size of each circle is proportional to its centrality in the network. Large circles are organisms that are well represented in the network (i.e. a carrier in which several haplotypes have been detected, or a haplotype that widely circulates among different carriers). The links among nodes represent relationships among interacting organisms (a haplotype and a carrier) displaying the colour of the community. The width of the link is proportional to the number of interactions among the organisms. The complete network with labels for every node is included in Additional file 2: Figure S1. b A reduced version of the network is included to simplify interpretations. Each circle has the same colour as the set of nodes of each cluster in a. Labels identify the communities that do not necessarily match the phylogenetic clusters. Labels enclosed in rectangles are communities that are disconnected from the giant component of the network
Fig. 3Values of betweenness centrality (BNC) (a) and PageRank (PR) (b) for each of the haplotypes of A. phagocytophilum. Only the haplotypes with values higher than 0 for either BNC or PR are included in each chart. Categories correspond to the phylogenetic clusters shown in Fig. 1. Betweenness centrality represents the relative importance of a haplotype in the complete network. Betweenness centrality is related to the connectivity of a network, in so much as high betweenness vertices have the potential to disconnect graphs if removed. Therefore, a node with high BNC is a node that is very central and connected to many other nodes. PR represents the importance of the nodes to which a given link is connected. It is thus a measure of the potential spread of a node through connected nodes, according to its relative importance
Selective vector distributions between the clusters of A. phagocytophilum haplotypes (columns). Only vertebrate hosts with more than one isolate are shown. The Monte Carlo method was used to estimate the probability (P-value) that the number of most numerous clusters in a random realization from the multinomial is equal to or greater than the observed maximum among the isolates
| Vertebrate species | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Total ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 23* | 12 | 35 | ||||||
|
| 29* | 29 | |||||||
|
| 4 | 1 | 3 | 8 | |||||
|
| 10 | 95* | 105 | ||||||
|
| 105* | 105 | |||||||
|
| 2 | 2 | |||||||
|
| 5* | 5 | |||||||
|
| 14* | 1 | 15 | ||||||
|
| 83* | 83 | |||||||
|
| 16* | 16 | |||||||
|
| 7* | 7 | |||||||
|
| 5* | 5 | |||||||
|
| 2 | 1 | 3 | ||||||
|
| 32* | 2 | 34 | ||||||
|
| 2 | 2 | 4 | ||||||
| 7* | 7 | ||||||||
|
| 3 | 3 | |||||||
|
| 2 | 2 | |||||||
|
| 7* | 7 | |||||||
|
| 2 | 2 | |||||||
|
| 8* | 8 | |||||||
|
| 59* | 59 | |||||||
|
| 44* | 44 | |||||||
|
| 7* | 1 | 8 | ||||||
|
| 1 | 24* | 25 | ||||||
| Rodentia | 1 | 15* | 16 | ||||||
|
| 5* | 5 | |||||||
|
| 2 | 2 | 4 | ||||||
|
| 3 | 1 | 4 | ||||||
|
| 2 | 2 | |||||||
|
| 3 | 3 | |||||||
|
| 2 | 2 | |||||||
|
| 30* | 30 | |||||||
|
| 33* | 33 | |||||||
| No. per cluster | 479 | 1 | 111 | 8 | 112 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 720 |
Note: A low P-value (P < 0.05) indicates a significant association between a cluster and the species of vertebrate (marked with an asterisk)
Selective vector distributions between clusters of A. phagocytophilum haplotypes (columns). The Monte Carlo method was used to estimate the probability (P-value) that the number of most numerous clusters in a random realization from the multinomial is equal to or greater than the observed maximum among the isolates
| Arthropod species | Sampling on | 1 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Total ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Vegetation | 1 | 1 | ||||||
|
| Vegetation | 1 | |||||||
|
|
| 2 | 2 | ||||||
|
| Vegetation | 3 | 3 | ||||||
|
| Aves | 2 | 2 | ||||||
|
| Vegetation | 1 | 1 | ||||||
|
| 22* | 22 | |||||||
|
| 2 | 2 | |||||||
|
| 3 | 1 | 4 | ||||||
|
| Vegetation | 1 | 1 | ||||||
|
|
| 2 | 2 | ||||||
|
| Vegetation | 2 | 2 | ||||||
|
| Vegetation | 1 | 2 | 3 | |||||
|
| Vegetation | 16* | 10 | 26 | |||||
|
| 1 | 1 | |||||||
| Rodentia | 3 | 3 | |||||||
|
| Vegetation | 601* | 139 | 1 | 741 | ||||
| Aves | 6* | 6 | |||||||
|
| 1 | 13* | 14 | ||||||
|
| 5* | 5 | |||||||
| Deer (unknown species) | 1 | 3 | 4 | ||||||
|
| 7* | 7 | |||||||
|
| 3 | 3 | |||||||
|
| 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||
|
| 7* | 1 | 8 | ||||||
|
| 1 | 1 | |||||||
| Rodentia | 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||||
|
| Vegetation | 4* | 4 | ||||||
| Rodentia | 6* | 6 | |||||||
|
| Vegetation | 1 | 5* | 6 | |||||
|
|
| 3 | 3 | 6 | |||||
|
| 1 | 1 | |||||||
| No. per cluster | 662 | 167 | 23 | 10 | 16 | 9 | 5 | 893 |
Note: A low P-value (P < 0.05) indicates a significant association between a cluster and the species of (engorging) arthropod (marked with an asterisk)
Faith’s phylogenetic diversity (PD) of the A. phagocytophilum haplotypes associated to each vertebrate species investigated. A low PD value indicates a significant association between a haplotype and a vertebrate (marked with an asterisk)
| Vertebrate order | Vertebrate species | Samples ( | Haplotypes ( | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Artiodactyla |
| 35 | 22 | 0.10 |
|
| 29 | 15 | 0.01* | |
|
| 8 | 7 | 0.36 | |
|
| 105 | 33 | 0.01* | |
|
| 105 | 29 | 0.01* | |
|
| 7 | 7 | 0.41 | |
|
| 15 | 8 | 0.12 | |
|
| 4 | 4 | 0.54 | |
|
| 83 | 19 | 0.01* | |
|
| 16 | 11 | 0.02* | |
|
| 7 | 7 | 0.02* | |
|
| 5 | 3 | 0.01* | |
| Aves |
| 3 | 2 | 0.94 |
| Carnivora |
| 34 | 13 | 0.05* |
|
| 2 | 2 | 0.05* | |
| 7 | 3 | 0.01* | ||
|
| 2 | 2 | 0.32 | |
|
| 7 | 2 | 0.02* | |
| Erinaceomorpha |
| 8 | 2 | 0.01* |
|
| 59 | 2 | 0.04* | |
| Perissodactyla |
| 44 | 15 | 0.01* |
| Primates |
| 8 | 4 | 0.46 |
| Rodentia |
| 5 | 3 | 0.01* |
|
| 25 | 3 | 0.38 | |
|
| 4 | 3 | 0.01* | |
|
| 4 | 2 | 0.05* | |
| Soricomorpha |
| 30 | 2 | 0.01* |
Faith’s phylogenetic diversity (PD) of the A. phagocytophilum haplotypes associated with the investigated arthropods species. A low PD value indicates a significant association between a haplotype and an arthropod species (marked with an asterisk)
| Arthropod (species) | Samples ( | Haplotypes ( | PD |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 2 | 2 | 0.01* |
|
| 3 | 2 | 0.81 |
|
| 26 | 7 | 0.13 |
|
| 741 | 101 | 0.01* |
|
| 4 | 4 | 0.01* |
|
| 6 | 3 | 0.46 |
|
| 6 | 5 | 0.20 |
Notes: The I. ricinus isolates were first separated according to the 17 countries of collection. Four countries (Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Slovakia) represent 83% of the I. ricinus isolates. Results for I. ricinus are the average of each sample/country calculated separately
The mean pairwise distance (MPD) of A. phagocytophilum haplotypes found in different vertebrate species. MPD-C is the comparison of MPD against null communities
| Species | No. of haplotypes | MPD | MPD-C | MPD ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 22 | 1.19 | − 1.20 | 0.12 |
|
| 15 | 0.62 | − 5.71 | 0.01* |
|
| 7 | 1.35 | 0.03 | 0.49 |
|
| 33 | 0.91 | − 7.44 | 0.01* |
|
| 29 | 0.96 | − 5.59 | 0.01* |
|
| 7 | 1.32 | − 0.04 | 0.45 |
|
| 8 | 1.03 | − 1.64 | 0.08 |
|
| 19 | 0.77 | − 5.50 | 0.01* |
|
| 11 | 0.72 | − 4.39 | 0.01* |
|
| 7 | 0.79 | − 2.69 | 0.02* |
|
| 3 | 0.32 | − 3.11 | 0.01* |
|
| 2 | 1.96 | 1.00 | 0.83 |
|
| 13 | 1.08 | − 2.42 | 0.03* |
|
| 4 | 1.43 | 0.24 | 0.59 |
|
| 2 | 0.11 | − 2.02 | 0.04* |
|
| 2 | 1.01 | − 0.52 | 0.22 |
|
| 2 | 0.11 | − 1.92 | 0.05* |
|
| 2 | 0.07 | − 2.38 | 0.03* |
|
| 2 | 0.07 | − 2.21 | 0.03* |
|
| 15 | 0.92 | − 3.47 | 0.02* |
|
| 4 | 1.40 | 0.25 | 0.52 |
|
| 3 | 0.02 | − 3.87 | 0.01* |
|
| 3 | 1.32 | − 0.13 | 0.33 |
|
| 3 | 0.06 | − 3.12 | 0.01* |
|
| 2 | 0.09 | − 2.07 | 0.04* |
| 3 | 0.09 | − 3.31 | 0.01* | |
|
| 2 | 0.04 | − 2.24 | 0.01* |
Notes: Negative values of MPD-C together with low P-values mean significant associations of the haplotypes to the species of vertebrate (marked with an asterisk)
The mean pairwise distance (MPD) of A. phagocytophilum haplotypes found in different arthropod species. MPD-C is the comparison of MPD against null communities
| Arthropod (species) | Haplotypes ( | MPD | MPD-C | MPD ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 2 | 0.11 | − 2.12 | 0.04* |
|
| 2 | 1.96 | 0.89 | 0.82 |
|
| 7 | 1.13 | − 1.26 | 0.11 |
|
| 101 | 1.15 | − 5.66 | 0.01* |
|
| 4 | 0.05 | − 4.31 | 0.01* |
|
| 3 | 1.31 | − 0.20 | 0.37 |
|
| 5 | 1.21 | − 0.59 | 0.23 |
Notes: Negative values of MPD-C together with low P-values mean significant associations of the haplotypes to the species of arthropod (marked with an asterisk)