| Literature DB >> 34890445 |
Lionel Nyabongo1,2,3, David O Odongo1, Gad Milton4, Eunice Machuka2, Patrick Vudriko5, Roger Pelle2, Esther G Kanduma6.
Abstract
A recent research study on prevalence of tick-borne pathogens in Burundi reported high prevalence and endemicity of Theileria parva, Anaplasma marginale and Babesia bigemina infections in cattle. Detailed information about tick species infesting animals, their distribution and genetic diversity in Burundi is outdated and limited. This study therefore assessed the prevalence and genetic diversity of tick species infesting cattle across agroecological zones (AEZs) in Burundi. A cross-sectional study on the occurrence of tick species was conducted in 24 districts of Burundi between October and December 2017. Differential identification and characterization of ticks collected was conducted using tick morphological keys and molecular tools (cox1 and 12S rRNA gene). Chi-square test was used to test for association between agroecological zones and the prevalence of tick species. Phylogenetic relationships were inferred using bayesian and maximum likelihood algorithms. A total of 483 ticks were collected from the five AEZs sampled. Six tick species comprising of Rhipicephalus appendiculatus, R. sanguineus, R. evertsi evertsi, R. microplus, R. decoloratus and Amblyomma variegatum were observed. Rhipicephalus appendiculatus were the most prevalent ticks (~45%). A total of 138 specimens (28%) were found to be Rhipicephalus microplus, suggesting an emerging threat for cattle farmers. Twelve R. appendiculatus cox1 haplotypes were obtained from 106 specimens that were sequenced. Two cox1 haplotypes of R. microplus which clustered into previously reported Clade A were observed. Rhipicephalus sanguineus and R. evertsi evertsi ticks, the vectors of numerous zoonotic pathogens, were collected from cattle, which constitute a high risk for public health. These findings reveal an overlapping distribution of tick vectors in Burundi. The design of ticks and tick-borne diseases control strategies should consider the distribution of different vectors across the AEZs particularly the presence of the highly invasive R. microplus tick in Burundi and the potential risk of introducing the pathogenic Babesia bovis.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34890445 PMCID: PMC8664164 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261218
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Prevalence and distribution of tick species across AEZs.
| AEZ | No. ticks sampled | n | Prev | 95% CI | n | Prev (%) | 95% CI | n | Prev (%) | 95% CI | n | Prev (%) | 95% CI | n | Prev (%) | 95% CI | n | Prev (%) | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CND | 114 | 74 | 64.91 | 55.79–73.05 | 13 | 11.4 | 6.78–18.53 | 10 | 8.77 | 4.83–15.39 | 13 | 11.4 | 6.78–18.53 | 1 | 0.88 | 0.15–4.8 | 3 | 2.63 | 0.89–7.45 |
| Depressions | 94 | 22 | 23.4 | 15.99–32.9 | 26 | 27.66 | 19.63–37.44 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 42 | 44.68 | 35.03–54.74 | 4 | 4.26 | 1.66–10.43 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Highlands | 78 | 30 | 38.46 | 28.44–49.55 | 12 | 15.38 | 9.02–24.99 | 1 | 1.28 | 0.22–6.91 | 35 | 44.87 | 34.33–55.89 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Imbo | 87 | 60 | 68.97 | 58.61–77.71 | 5 | 5.75 | 2.47–12.75 | 1 | 1.15 | 0.2–6.22 | 11 | 12.64 | 7.2–21.23 | 8 | 9.2 | 4.73–17.1 | 2 | 2.3 | 0.63–7.99 |
| Slope CND | 110 | 31 | 28.18 | 20.62–37.21 | 30 | 27.27 | 19.82–36.25 | 9 | 8.18 | 4.36–14.82 | 37 | 33.64 | 25.49–42.88 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2.73 | 0.93–7.71 |
| Total | 483 | 217 | 44.93 | 40.54–49.38 | 86 | 17.81 | 14.65–21.46 | 21 | 4.35 | 2.86–6.55 | 138 | 28.57 | 24.72–32.75 | 13 | 2.69 | 1.57–4.55 | 8 | 1.66 | 0.84–3.23 |
* Congo Nile Divide.
**Prevalence.
Mitochondrial nucleotide and haplotype diversity of Burundian R. appendiculatus cox1 haplotypes and other reference haplotypes from East and Central Africa described in earlier studies.
| Country | N | S | H | Hd ± SD | Pi ± SD | K | Theta (per site) | Theta (sequence) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Burundi | 106 | 20 | 12 | 0.737±0.035 | 0.00568±0.001 | 3.045 | 0.00713 | 3.82 |
| DRC | 52 | 27 | 22 | 0.962±0.009 | 0.01093±0.00138 | 5.856 | 0.01115 | 5.975 |
| Kenya | 99 | 30 | 28 | 0.947±0.009 | 0.01367±0.00059 | 7.328 | 0.01083 | 5.806 |
| Uganda | 10 | 21 | 9 | 0.978±0.054 | 0.01692±0.00180 | 9.067 | 0.01385 | 7.423 |
| Overall | 267 | 51 | 51 | 0.915±0.010 | 0.0108±0.00061 | 5.827 | 0.01544 | 8.276 |
N: Sample size, S: Number of polymorphic sites; H: Number of Haplotypes; Hd: Haplotype (gene) diversity, SD: standard deviation, Theta: Watterson estimator (from S). K: Average number of nucleotide differences, Pi: Nucleotide diversity.
Fig 1Bayesian phylogenetic tree based on cox1 gene.
Haplotypes generated in the present study are labeled with a letter h followed by a number (h1, hn) while reference sequences from GenBank are represented by their accession numbers. Clades with a posterior probability > 95% are shown.
Proportion of infested cattle and tick density across AEZs.
| Number of infested cattle per tick species | |||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AEZ | No of sampled cattle | No of infested cattle | % of infested cattle | No Ticks | n | % | N | % | n | % | n | % | N | % | n | % | Tick infestation per animal |
| CND | 166 | 27 | 16.27 | 114 | 15 | 9.04 | 3 | 1.81 | 6 | 3.61 | 3 | 1.81 | 1 | 0.60 | 1 | 0.60 | 4.22 |
| Depressions | 53 | 15 | 28.30 | 94 | 4 | 7.55 | 3 | 5.66 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 13.21 | 2 | 3.77 | 0 | 0 | 6.27 |
| Highlands | 107 | 15 | 14.02 | 78 | 6 | 5.61 | 6 | 5.61 | 1 | 0.93 | 3 | 2.80 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5.20 |
| Imbo | 100 | 12 | 12.00 | 87 | 5 | 5.00 | 3 | 3.00 | 1 | 1.00 | 1 | 1.00 | 2 | 2.00 | 1 | 1.00 | 7.25 |
| Slope CND | 80 | 9 | 11.25 | 110 | 3 | 3.75 | 1 | 1.25 | 4 | 5.00 | 3 | 3.75 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2.50 | 12.22 |
| Total | 506 | 78 | 15.42 | 483 | 33 | 6.52 | 16 | 3.16 | 12 | 2.37 | 17 | 3.36 | 5 | 0.99 | 4 | 0.79 | 6.19 |
Type of acaricides used in the studied area and farmer’s perceptions on the level of efficacy.
| Frequency of application of the acaricide | Reported level of efficacy | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brand name | Active ingredient | C | Dilution | No of farmers applying the acaricide | % within class | % Overall | No of Farmers who did not respond | twice a week | once a week | every two weeks | once per 4 weeks or longer interval | No of Farmers who did not respond | Very poor | Poor | Good | Very Good |
| Taktic | Amitraz | 125 | 2:1 | 14 | 4.02 | 3.65 | 1 | 0 | 9 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 10 |
| Ectraz | Amitraz | 125 | 1:0.5 | 46 | 13.22 | 11.98 | 0 | 7 | 33 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 16 | 29 |
| Amitix | Amitraz | 125 | 2:1 | 108 | 31.03 | 28.13 | 0 | 21 | 59 | 19 | 9 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 50 | 55 |
| Amitraz | Amitraz | 125 | 2:1 | 79 | 22.70 | 20.57 | 4 | 10 | 46 | 9 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 7 | 22 | 48 |
| Ashitraz | Amitraz | 125 | 2:1 | 3 | 0.86 | 0.78 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Intraz | Amitraz | 125 | 2:1 | 8 | 2.30 | 2.08 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 |
| Norotraz | Amitraz | 125 | 2:1 | 59 | 16.95 | 15.36 | 0 | 5 | 41 | 9 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 22 | 35 |
| Tixfix | Amitraz | 125 | 2:1 | 15 | 4.31 | 3.91 | 0 | 10 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 |
| Triatix | Amitraz | 125 | 2:1 | 16 | 4.60 | 4.17 | 0 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 9 |
| Cybadip | Cypermethrin | 15 | 1:2 | 31 | 93.94 | 8.07 | 1 | 12 | 17 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 23 |
| Cythrin | Cypermethrin | 100 | 1.5:1 | 1 | 3.03 | 0.26 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Deltathrin | Deltamethrin | 25 | 1:1 | 1 | 3.03 | 0.26 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Steladone | Chlorfenvinphos | 300 | 1:1 | 3 | 100.00 | 0.78 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Total | 384 | 6 | 70 | 228 | 52 | 28 | 3 | 5 | 9 | 136 | 230 | |||||
*Concentration: gramme/litre
** ml of acaricide/litre of water, AM: Amitraz, SP: Synthetic pyrethroid, OP: organophosphate.