The influence of forest habitat type on infections with spp. in south-western Poland.

Dagmara Dyczko, Paweł Błażej, Dorota Kiewra
Author Information
  1. Dagmara Dyczko: Department of Microbial Ecology and Acaroentomology, Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Wroclaw, Przybyszewskiego 63, 51-148, Wroclaw, Poland.
  2. Paweł Błażej: Department of Bioinformatics and Genomics, Faculty of Biotechnology, University of Wroclaw, Joliot-Curie 14a, 50-383, Wroclaw, Poland.
  3. Dorota Kiewra: Department of Microbial Ecology and Acaroentomology, Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Wroclaw, Przybyszewskiego 63, 51-148, Wroclaw, Poland.

Abstract

This study investigates the prevalence of spp. in tick populations in different forest habitat types (broadleaf forest, mixed broadleaf and coniferous forest, and coniferous forest) in south-western Poland. During the survey periods from April to June 2018 and 2019 a total of 494 ticks, including 374 nymphs, 60 females and 60 males, were tested for infections by nested PCR targeting the A gene. The overall infection rate was 42.3%; however, we observed statistically significant year-to-year variation. Infection rates varied between tick developmental stages and were significantly influenced by forest habitat type. As assessed by a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM), the highest infection rates were observed in mixed broadleaf and coniferous forests, while coniferous forests had a significant negative effect on infection prevalence. DNA sequencing of selected samples confirmed the predominance of (91.2%) and less frequent (8.8%). This study suggests that the forest habitat types can influence spp. infection in tick populations; however, a comprehensive understanding of all factors influencing the level of infection requires future study.

Keywords

References

  1. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2016 Oct;7(6):1180-1185 [PMID: 27499188]
  2. Front Public Health. 2014 Dec 01;2:251 [PMID: 25520947]
  3. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2023 Mar;14(2):102103 [PMID: 36525762]
  4. Ecol Appl. 2023 Mar;33(2):e2763 [PMID: 36264047]
  5. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 May 27;19(11): [PMID: 35682098]
  6. Ecohealth. 2019 Dec;16(4):647-658 [PMID: 29691680]
  7. Emerg Infect Dis. 2022 Apr;28(4):893-895 [PMID: 35318933]
  8. Ecohealth. 2011 Sep;8(3):320-31 [PMID: 22173291]
  9. Sci Rep. 2023 Jun 30;13(1):10645 [PMID: 37391552]
  10. Parasite. 2019;26:20 [PMID: 30943150]
  11. Mol Biol Evol. 2018 Jun 1;35(6):1547-1549 [PMID: 29722887]
  12. Pathogens. 2023 Jul 12;12(7): [PMID: 37513780]
  13. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2012 Dec;3(5-6):271-8 [PMID: 23177355]
  14. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2018 Aug;18(8):404-407 [PMID: 29664700]
  15. Exp Appl Acarol. 2016 Feb;68(2):223-6 [PMID: 26613759]
  16. Int J Mol Sci. 2023 Jan 06;24(2): [PMID: 36674613]
  17. Parasit Vectors. 2017 Nov 6;10(1):549 [PMID: 29110691]
  18. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2014 Mar;5(2):135-8 [PMID: 24252265]
  19. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2010 Jun;1(2):101-3 [PMID: 21771515]
  20. J Med Entomol. 2021 Jul 16;58(4):1546-1564 [PMID: 33095859]
  21. J Vector Ecol. 2012 Dec;37(2):307-15 [PMID: 23181853]
  22. Ecol Evol. 2021 Feb 21;11(6):2761-2774 [PMID: 33767834]
  23. Parasitology. 2013 Feb;140(2):237-46 [PMID: 23036286]
  24. Parasit Vectors. 2022 Oct 19;15(1):378 [PMID: 36261834]
  25. Parasitol Res. 2020 May;119(5):1455-1466 [PMID: 32219549]
  26. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2018 Feb;9(2):427-434 [PMID: 29290582]
  27. Parasitol Res. 2022 Jun;121(6):1575-1585 [PMID: 35347426]
  28. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2022 Jun 27;16(6):e0010576 [PMID: 35759517]
  29. Microbes Infect. 2015 Nov-Dec;17(11-12):834-8 [PMID: 26384814]
  30. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2013 Oct;26(4):657-702 [PMID: 24092850]
  31. BMC Ecol. 2017 Sep 6;17(1):31 [PMID: 28874197]
  32. Parasit Vectors. 2017 Sep 19;10(1):433 [PMID: 28927432]
  33. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2013 Jul 30;3:36 [PMID: 23908971]
  34. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2022 May 9;16(5):e0010432 [PMID: 35533208]
  35. Annu Rev Entomol. 2021 Jan 7;66:373-388 [PMID: 33417823]
  36. Microbiome. 2022 Aug 4;10(1):120 [PMID: 35927748]
  37. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2016 Feb;7(1):150-153 [PMID: 26507182]
  38. Parasitology. 2012 Sep;139(10):1273-81 [PMID: 22717041]
  39. Front Physiol. 2012 Mar 27;3:64 [PMID: 22470348]
  40. Infect Immun. 2022 Sep 15;90(9):e0062121 [PMID: 35993770]
  41. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2014 Mar;5(2):161-5 [PMID: 24342052]
  42. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2023 Jan 09;12:1081666 [PMID: 36699720]
  43. Front Public Health. 2015 Apr 21;3:55 [PMID: 25954738]
  44. Nature. 2020 Aug;584(7821):398-402 [PMID: 32759999]
  45. Parasit Vectors. 2009 Sep 04;2(1):41 [PMID: 19732416]
  46. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2021 May;12(3):101657 [PMID: 33524939]
  47. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2010 Jul;76(13):4413-20 [PMID: 20453131]
  48. Insects. 2024 Mar 02;15(3): [PMID: 38535366]
  49. Microbes Infect. 2013 Feb;15(2):140-6 [PMID: 23178758]
  50. PeerJ. 2022 May 3;10:e13279 [PMID: 35529481]
  51. Parasit Vectors. 2010 Aug 04;3:66 [PMID: 20684755]
  52. Parasit Vectors. 2019 Sep 6;12(1):434 [PMID: 31492171]
  53. Ecohealth. 2019 Dec;16(4):611-626 [PMID: 30993545]
  54. Parasit Vectors. 2017 Nov 9;10(1):558 [PMID: 29121976]
  55. Parasitol Res. 2022 Aug;121(8):2241-2252 [PMID: 35641833]
  56. Exp Appl Acarol. 2013 Jul;60(3):411-20 [PMID: 23344639]
  57. Pathogens. 2022 Nov 08;11(11): [PMID: 36365060]
  58. Parasit Vectors. 2016 May 27;9(1):309 [PMID: 27234215]
  59. J Med Entomol. 2012 May;49(3):766-71 [PMID: 22679887]
  60. Sci Rep. 2022 Jul 6;12(1):11464 [PMID: 35794219]
  61. Trends Ecol Evol. 2009 Mar;24(3):127-35 [PMID: 19185386]
  62. J Med Entomol. 2015 Sep;52(5):1096-102 [PMID: 26336223]
  63. J Med Entomol. 2001 May;38(3):361-70 [PMID: 11372959]
  64. Exp Appl Acarol. 1996 Jan;20(1):23-30 [PMID: 8746131]
  65. Parasit Vectors. 2014 Mar 24;7:121 [PMID: 24661311]
  66. Ann Parasitol. 2016;62(2):89-100 [PMID: 27614472]
  67. Pathog Glob Health. 2012 Mar;106(1):40-5 [PMID: 22595273]
  68. J Med Entomol. 2021 Jul 16;58(4):1536-1545 [PMID: 33112403]
  69. Parasit Vectors. 2013 Jan 02;6:1 [PMID: 23281838]
  70. Interdiscip Perspect Infect Dis. 2009;2009:593232 [PMID: 19277106]
  71. Ecol Appl. 2012 Mar;22(2):658-67 [PMID: 22611862]
  72. Vet Sci. 2022 Jul 08;9(7): [PMID: 35878360]
  73. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2016 Feb;7(1):135-141 [PMID: 26515058]
  74. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2019 Aug;10(5):1060-1065 [PMID: 31176664]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0forestinfectionhabitatconiferousstudyspptickbroadleafmixedprevalencepopulationstypessouth-westernPoland60infectionshoweverobservedsignificantratestypeforestsinfluenceRickettsiainvestigatesdifferentsurveyperiodsAprilJune20182019total494ticksincluding374nymphsfemalesmalestestednestedPCRtargetinggeneoverallrate423%statisticallyyear-to-yearvariationInfectionvarieddevelopmentalstagessignificantlyinfluencedassessedgeneralizedlinearmodelGLMMhighestnegativeeffectDNAsequencingselectedsamplesconfirmedpredominance912%lessfrequent88%suggestscancomprehensiveunderstandingfactorsinfluencinglevelrequiresfutureConiferousForestecosystemshelveticamonacensisTick-bornepathogens

Similar Articles

Cited By