| Literature DB >> 31462211 |
Andrew Jenkins1, Cecilie Raasok2,3, Benedikte N Pedersen2, Kristine Jensen2,4, Åshild Andreassen2,5, Arnulf Soleng6, Kristin Skarsfjord Edgar6, Heidi Heggen Lindstedt6, Vivian Kjelland7,8, Snorre Stuen9, Dag Hvidsten10, Bjørn-Erik Kristiansen11.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis is an emerging tick-borne pathogen. It is widely distributed in Ixodes ricinus ticks in Europe, but knowledge of its distribution in Norway, where I. ricinus reaches its northern limit, is limited. In this study we have developed a real time PCR test for Ca. N. mikurensis and used it to investigate the distribution of Ca. N. mikurensis in Norway.Entities:
Keywords: Ixodes ricinus; Neoehrlichia mikurensis; Norway; Scandinavia; Tick-borne diseases; Ticks
Year: 2019 PMID: 31462211 PMCID: PMC6714093 DOI: 10.1186/s12866-019-1502-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Microbiol ISSN: 1471-2180 Impact factor: 3.605
Overview of tick collections
| Location | Name1 | Date (yyyy or yy-mm) | Larvae | Nymphs | Adults | Total | Source | Extraction method | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Spjærøya (ØS) | 12–09 | – | 67 | – | 67 | Flagging | 4 | [ |
| 2 | Håøya (AK) | 13–05 | – | 95 | – | 95 | Flagging | 4 | [ |
| 3 | Brønnøya (AK) | 13–06 | – | 92 | – | 92 | Flagging | 4 | [ |
| 4 | Langøya (TE) | 00–04 | 63 | – | – | Flagging | 1 | This work | |
| 00–05 | 15 | – | – | Flagging | 1 | This work | |||
| 00–06 | 25 | – | – | Flagging | 1 | This work | |||
| 00–07 | 20 | – | – | Flagging | 1 | This work | |||
| All dates | 123 | – | – | 123 | |||||
| 5 | Langøya (TE) | 00–05 | – | 47 | 25 | 72 | Flagging | 3 | This work |
| 00–06 | – | 9 | 13 | 22 | Flagging | 3 | This work | ||
| 01–05 | – | 1 | 26 | 27 | Flagging | 3 | This work, [ | ||
| 02–05 | – | 24 | 24 | 48 | Flagging | 3 | This work, [ | ||
| 03–05 | – | 25 | – | 25 | Flagging | 3 | This work, [ | ||
| All dates | 106 | 88 | 194 | ||||||
| 6 | Jomfruland (TE) | 12–09 | – | 495 | – | – | Flagging | 1 | [ |
| 7 | Lower Telemark (TE) | 2009 | – | – | 103 | 103 | Dogs and cats | 2 | [ |
| 8 | Tromøya (AA) | 12–06 | – | 95 | – | 95 | Flagging | 4 | [ |
| 9 | Hillevågen (VA) | 12–06 | – | 80 | – | 80 | Flagging | 4 | [ |
| 10 | Reme (VA) | 00–07 | – | 48 | 51 | 99 | Flagging | 3 | This work, [ |
| 11 | Vindafjord (RO) | 00–07 | – | 24 | 5 | 29 | Flagging | 3 | This work, [ |
| 12 | Stord/Borgundøy (HO) | 00–07 | – | 26 | 47 | 73 | Flagging | 3 | This work, [ |
| 13 | Northern Norway (NO, TR) | 2009 | – | – | 139 | 139 | Dogs and cats | 2 | [ |
1Two-letter code in brackets indicates the county: ØS (Østfold); AK (Akershus); TE (Telemark); AA (Aust Agder); VA (Vest Agder); RO (Rogaland); HO (Hordaland); NO (Nordland); TR (Troms)
Fig. 1Multiple sequence alignment of the PCR target regions of groEL in Ca. N. mikurensis (CNM), Ca. N. lotori and selected Ehrlichia species. Dots indicate identity to the reference sequence, AB084583; letters indicate differences; hyphens indicate gaps or no sequence. The target regions for the primers and probe are highlighted in yellow and green respectively. Mismatches within the primer/probe target regions that give stable G:T basepairs are highlighted in blue. Destabilising mismatches (variants resulting in A:C, purine:purine or pyrimidine:pyrimidine) are highlighted in red. For reasons of space, sequence accession numbers for Ca. N. lotoris, Ehrlichia ewingii, Candidatus E. shimanensis, two sequence variants of E. ruminantium and E. chafeensis have been omitted from the figure; these are: EF633745, AF195273, AB074462, AB625796, DQ647005 and JQ085941 respectively
Fig. 2Comparison of TaqMan MGB Probe and SYBR green PCR. Amplification of a dilution series of an I. ricinus sample positive for Ca. N. mikurensis. Dilutions are 1:4, 1:20, 1:100, 1:500 and 1:2500 respectively. Green curves are for SYBR-green, red curves are for TaqMan MGB probe. The signals to the lower right of the amplification curves below the yellow-green threshold line are background noise from the 1:2500 dilutions
Fig. 3a Amplification curves for a 10x dilution series of pNeo containing from 1.6 × 109 copies (leftmost curves) to 1.6 × 100 copies (rightmost curves). b Standard curve of Cq values (CT) derived from (a) plotted against number of copies of the groEL gene (quantity; logarithmic scale)
Comparison of the reverse line-blot (RLB) and groEL SYBR-green real time PCR methods for detection of Ca. N. mikurensis
| Real time PCR | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Pos | Neg | ||
| RLB | Pos | 12 | 0 |
| Neg | 4 | 22 | |
Proportions of ticks positive for Ca. N. mikurensis
| Collection | Location | Larvae | Nymphs | Males | Females | Total | % (CI)a |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Spjærøy | – | 7/67 | – | – | 7/67 | 10 (5–21) |
| 2 | Håøya | – | 5/95 | – | – | 5/95 | 5 () |
| 3 | Brønnøya | – | 11/92 | – | – | 11/92 | 12 (6–21) |
| 4 | Langøya | 0/123 | – | – | – | 0/123 | 0 (0–2.4) |
| 5 | Langøya | – | 23/106 | – | – | – | 22 (15–31) |
| – | – | 7/48 | – | – | 15 (7–28) | ||
| – | – | – | 2/40 | – | 5 () | ||
| 32/194 | 16 (12–23) | ||||||
| 6 | Jomfruland | – | 23/495 | – | – | 23/495 | 5 (3–7) |
| 7 | Lower Telemark | – | – | – | 5/103 | 5/103 | 5 () |
| 8 | Tromøya | – | 9/95 | – | – | 9/95 | 9 (5–18) |
| 9 | Hillevåg | – | 13/80 | – | – | 13/80 | 16 (9–27) |
| 10 | Reme | – | 0/48 | 0/25 | 0/26 | 0/101 | 0 (0–2.9) |
| 11 | Vindafjord | – | 0/24 | 0/4 | 0/1 | 0/29 | 0 (0–10) |
| 12 | Stord | – | 0/25 | 0/22 | 0/26 | 0/73 | 0 (0–4) |
| 13 | Nordland | – | – | – | 9/139 | 9/139 | 6 (3–12) |
| All nymphs | 79/1127 | – | – | – | 7 (6–9) | ||
| All males | 7/99 | 7 (3–15) | |||||
| All females | 16/335 | 5 (3–8) | |||||
| All adults | 23/434 | 5 (3–8) | |||||
| All ticksb | 102/1561 | 6.5 (5.2-7.8) |
a95% confidence interval in brackets. Where confidence intervals could not be calculated, this is indicated by empty brackets. bExcluding larvae
Fig. 4Map of Norway showing collection locations and the proportion of adult and nymphal ticks positive for Ca. N. mikurensis at each location. Location numbers correspond to location numbers in Table 5. The areas of the pie charts are proportional to the number of ticks. Collection 4 is not included as it includes only larvae. The locality is the same as collection 5
Confirmation testing for ticks positive by SYBR-green PCR
| Collection | Location | Total Pos (SYBR-green) | Confirmed by probe | Confirmed by sequencing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Spjærøy | 7/67 | NT | |
| 2 | Håøya | 5/95 | 4/4 | |
| 3 | Brønnøya | 11/92 | NT | |
| 5 | Langøya | 32/194 | 18/18 | 3/3 |
| 6 | Jomfruland | 23/495 | 20/23 | 2/2 |
| 7 | Lower Telemark | 5/103 | 3/3 | |
| 8 | Tromøya | 9/95 | 1/1 | |
| 9 | Hillevåg | 13/80 | 11/11 | 7/7 |
| 10 | Reme | 0/101 | NA | |
| 11 | Vindafjord | 0/29 | NA | |
| 12 | Stord | 0/73 | NA | |
| 13 | Nordland | 9/139 | 5/5 | 3/3 |
| All | – | 125/1561 | 62/65 | 15/15 |
NA: not applicable; no ticks were positive. NT: not tested; no material was available for confirmation
Spiking test for PCR inhibition in negative samples
| Extraction method | N | Non-inhibitory | Partially inhibitory | Completely inhibitory |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 9 | 8 | 1 | 0 |
| 2 | 15 | 14 | 0 | 1 |
| 3 | 9 | 2 | 6 | 1 |
| 4 | 9 | 2 | 2 | 5 |