| Literature DB >> 35627785 |
Jordan Salomon1, Nadia Angelica Fernandez Santos2,3, Italo B Zecca4, Jose G Estrada-Franco2, Edward Davila4, Gabriel L Hamer3, Mario Alberto Rodriguez Perez2, Sarah A Hamer4.
Abstract
Of the documented tick-borne diseases infecting humans in México, Rocky Mountain spotted fever (RMSF), caused by the Gram-negative bacterium Rickettsia rickettsii, is responsible for most fatalities. Given recent evidence of brown dog tick, Rhipicephalus sanguineus s.l., as an emerging vector of human RMSF, we aimed to evaluate dogs and their ticks for rickettsiae infections as an initial step in assessing the establishment of this pathosystem in a poorly studied region of northeastern México while evaluating the use of dogs as sentinels for transmission/human disease risk. We sampled owned dogs living in six disadvantaged neighborhoods of Reynosa, northeastern México to collect whole blood and ticks. Of 168 dogs assessed, tick infestation prevalence was 53%, composed of exclusively Rh. sanguineus s. l. (n = 2170 ticks). Using PCR and sequencing, we identified an overall rickettsiae infection prevalence of 4.1% (n = 12/292) in ticks, in which eight dogs harbored at least one infected tick. Rickettsiae infections included Rickettsia amblyommatis and Rickettsia parkeri, both of which are emerging human pathogens, as well as Candidatus Rickettsia andeanae. This is the first documentation of pathogenic Rickettsia species in Rh. sanguineus s.l. collected from dogs from northeastern México. Domestic dog infestation with Rickettsia-infected ticks indicates ongoing transmission; thus, humans are at risk for exposure, and this underscores the importance of public and veterinary health surveillance for these pathogens.Entities:
Keywords: Rhipicephalus sanguineus; Rickettsia parkeri; dogs; rickettsiosis; tick-borne disease
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35627785 PMCID: PMC9141927 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19106249
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1(A) Green area shows the State of Tamaulipas in northeastern México. (B) Red dots show the locations of the neighborhoods that were sampled within the city of Reynosa, in the State of Tamaulipas. (C) Satellite images show the land use composition of the six sampled neighborhoods in Reynosa. Figures are original maps, created by the authors using QGIS 3.18.2 with public domain map data from INEGI, and satellite images from Google maps. (https://qgis.org/en/site/) (accessed on 15 September 2021) with public domain map data from INEGI (https://www.inegi.org.mx/app/mapas/) (accessed on 15 September 2021), and satellite images from Google maps (https://www.google.com.mx/maps) (accessed on 15 September 2021).
Figure 2(a) Ticks were scored for engorgement on a scale from 0 to 5. This image is an example of the scoring scale for Rh. sanguineus s. l. adult females. Each life stage was scaled appropriately, except males were grossly indistinguishable and were therefore not scored for engorgement. (b) Removing ticks from participating dog ears upon inspection. This individual Chihuahua had 526 Rh. sanguineus s. l. attached.
Primers used to test for rickettsiae in this study.
| Gene | Primers | Nucleotide Sequence (5′-3′) | Amplicon Size | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Citrate synthase | RrCS.372 | TTTGTAGCTCTTCTCATCCTATGGC | 617 bp | [ |
| Citrate synthase | RpCs.877p | GGGGGCCTGCTCACGGCGG | 381 bp | [ |
| rOmpB | 120-M59 | CCGCAGGGTTGGTAACTGC | 862 bp | [ |
| OmpA | Rr190-70 | ATGGCGAATATTTCTCCAAAA GTTCCGTTAATGGCAGCATCT | 632 bp | [ |
| OmpA | Rr190-70 | ATGGCGAATATTTCTCCAAAA | 550 bp | [ |
A collection summary of each neighborhood sampled in Reynosa, northeastern México. The table indicates all dogs enrolled in the study, their total ticks removed, the average tick burden, the dogs tick infestation prevalence, the rickettsiae prevalence, and the Rickettsia spp. amplified from ticks removed from each of the six neighborhoods. Overall metrics are also given.
| Neighborhood | Dogs | Total | Mean | Dog Infestation Prevalence | Rickettsiae | Rickettsiae |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15 de Enero | 21 | 497 | 23.67 | 67% (14/21) | 9.38% (6/64) | |
| Aquiles Serdán | 22 | 84 | 3.82 | 36% (8/22) | 5.88% (1/17) |
|
| La Cima | 45 | 939 | 20.87 | 60% (27/45) | 0 | NA |
| Col. Margarita Maza de Juárez | 9 | 18 | 2.00 | 67% (6/9) | 16.67% (1/6) |
|
| Pedro J. Méndez | 19 | 347 | 18.26 | 63% (12/19) | 3.45% (2/58) | |
| Villa Florida | 52 | 285 | 5.48 | 37% (19/52) | 1.69% (1/59) |
|
| Overall | 168 | 2170 | 12.92 | 51% (86/168) | 4.11 % (12/292) |
Host and tick attributes for ticks infected with Rickettsia species from Reynosa, northeastern México.
| Dog Identification | Dog Sex | Dog Age (Years) | Dog Breed | Dog Tick Burden | No. Ticks Processed | Tick Infection Prevalence | Life Stage | Sex | Engorgement | Rickettsiae |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19PJMD1 | F | 2 | Mix | 22 | 4 | 25% (1/4) | N | NA | 5 |
|
| 19PJMD6 | M | 1 | Mix | 88 | 10 | 20% (2/10) | A | F | 3 |
|
| N | NA | 4 |
| |||||||
| 19MMJD01 | F | 2 | Mix | 2 | 1 | 100% (1/1) | A | F | 1 |
|
| 19VFD30 | F | 4 | Chihuahua | 7 | 1 | 100% (1/1) | L | NA | 4 |
|
| 190615DED1 | M | 5 | Mix | 75 | 10 | 10% (1/10) | A | M | NA |
|
| 1915DED10 | F | 1 | Mix | 10 | 40% (4/10) | A | F | 3 |
| |
| A | F | 2 |
| |||||||
| N | NA | 3 |
| |||||||
| A | F | 5 |
| |||||||
| 190615DED4 | F | 0.33 | Mix | 13 | 3 | 33% (1/3) | A | F | 0 |
|
| 19ASD11 | F | 0.83 | Mix | 74 | 10 | 10% (1/10) | N | NA | 4 |
|
Figure 3Tick burdens of those dogs from Reynosa, northeastern México were highly skewed, where most dogs had no ticks, but one had over 500 ticks.
Figure 4Mean attached Rh. sanguineus on dogs at each collection site. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean. The white number inside the bars represent how many dogs were enrolled in the study at each neighborhood. Significant differences are indicated as “*”, where p < 0.05.
Summary of attached ticks by life stage and engorgement status. Male ticks were unfed and not scored for engorgement. Additionally, some damaged ticks were not scored for engorgement. na = not applicable.
| Engorgement Score | Adult Females | Adult Males | Nymphs | Larvae | Total Ticks (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 119 | na | 226 | 42 | 387 (18%) |
| 1 | 94 | na | 68 | 11 | 173 (8%) |
| 2 | 107 | na | 122 | 46 | 275 (13%) |
| 3 | 64 | na | 180 | 71 | 315 (15%) |
| 4 | 32 | na | 128 | 18 | 178 (8%) |
| 5 | 22 | na | 115 | 20 | 157 (7.3%) |
| Engorgement not scored | 13 | 621 | 32 | 9 | 675 (31%) |
| Total ticks | 451 | 621 | 871 | 217 | 2160 |