4.4 Article

Diversity of spotted fever group Rickettsia infection in hard ticks from Suifenhe, Chinese-Russian border

期刊

TICKS AND TICK-BORNE DISEASES
卷 7, 期 5, 页码 715-719

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH, URBAN & FISCHER VERLAG
DOI: 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2016.02.023

关键词

Rickettsia raoultii; R. heilongjiangensis; Candidatus Rickettsia tarasevichiae; Ixodes persulcatus; Suifenhe

资金

  1. General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People's Republic of China (AQSIQ) scientific research subject [2014IK047]
  2. Heilongjiang Import and Export Inspection and Quarantine Bureau autonomous scientific research subject [2013HK006]
  3. National Critical Project for Science and Technology on Infectious Disease of P.R. China [2012ZX10004219]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In order to investigate the diversity of spotted fever group (SFG) Rickettsia infection in hard ticks, ticks were harvested from the forest areas in Suifenhe city, along the Chinese-Russian border and conventional PCR was carried out using universal SFG Rickettsia primers targeting gltA and ompA genes to screen for their infection with SFG Rickettsia organisms. Results showed that of the 215 ticks belonging to Ixodes persulcatus, Haemaphysalis concinna and Haemaphysalis japonica Warburton, 1908 species, 138 (64.2%) were positive for SFG Rickettsia. Three species of SFG Rickettsia were detected, Rickettsia raoultii, Rickettsia heilongjiangensis and Candidatus Rickettsia tarasevichiae. No co-infection with different species of SFG Rickettsia was found in any individual tick among the three tick species. We detected more than one SFG Rickettsia species in ticks from each of the three tick species with an overlapping distribution and potentially similar transmission cycles of SFG Rickettsia in the areas surveyed. Consequently, different pathogenic rickettsial species may be involved in human cases of rickettsiosis after a bite of the three above-mentioned tick species in that area Rickettsia. (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier GmbH.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据