Investigation of Coxiella burnetii and Ehrlichia canis by Molecular Methods in Ticks Removed from Patients Admitted to Hospital with Tick Bite Complaints

Year 2021, , 199 - 203, 31.12.2021

Abdurrahman Ekici , Esra Gürbüz , Ahmed Galip Halidi , Ahmet Hakan Ünlü , Selahattin Aydemir

https://doi.org/10.31594/commagene.1037939

Abstract

Ticks have to suck blood from their hosts during their developmental stages, except for the egg period. They also transmit the pathogens to their host while feeding. A total of 100 ticks obtained from 42 female and 58 male patients admitted to a hospital were included in the study. After the morphological examination of the ticks, DNA extraction was performed. Conventional PCR for Coxiella burnetii and Nested-PCR for Ehrlichia canis were performed using species-specific primers. In the morphological examination, it was determined that all of the ticks belonged to the Ixodidae family and 95 (95%) were Rhipicephalus sanguineus and 5 (5%) were Ixodes ricinus species. C. burnetii was detected in 36 ticks and E. canis was found in 26 ticks out of 100 ticks included in the study. It was determined that 33 (91.67%) of the C. burnetii infected ticks were R. sanguineus and 3 (8.33%) were I. ricinus. It was also determined that 25 (96.15%) of the E. canis infected ticks were R. sanguineus and one (3.85%) was the I. ricinus. When the incidence of C. burnetii and E. canis was examined according to the place of residence of the patients, it was found that C. burnetii was seen at a higher rate in people living in rural areas and as a result of the statistical analysis, it was found that the difference was statistically significant. In conclusion, ticks pose a significant risk as vectors of C. burnetii and E. canis.

Keywords

Tick Contact, PCR,, Ixodidae,, zoonosis,

Kene Isırığı Şikâyetiyle Hastaneye Başvuran Hastalardan Çıkarılan Kenelerde Coxiella burnetii ve Ehrlichia canis’in Moleküler Yöntemlerle Araştırılması

Abstract

Keneler, yumurta dönemleri hariç diğer gelişme safhalarında konaklarından kan emmek zorundadırlar. Beslendikleri esnada vektörlük yaptıkları patojenleri de konağa bulaştırırlar. Bu çalışmada kene ısırığı şikâyetiyle hastaneye başvuran hastalardan elde edilen kenelerde Ehrlichia canis ve Coxiella burnetii yaygınlığının moleküler yöntemlerle araştırılması amaçlandı. Çalışmaya hastaneye başvuran 42 kadın ve 58 erkek hastadan elde edilen toplam 100 kene dâhil edildi. Keneler morfolojik olarak incelendikten sonra DNA ekstraksiyonları yapıldı. Türlere özgü primerler kullanılarak C. burnetii için Konvansiyonel PCR ve E. canis için Nested-PCR yöntemi uygulandı. Yapılan morfolojik incelemede kenelerin tamamının Ixodidae ailesinden olduğu ve 95’nin (%95) Rhipicephalus sanguineus, 5’inin (%5) ise Ixodes ricinus türü olduğu saptandı. Çalışmaya dâhil edilen 100 kenenin 36’sında C. burnetii, 26’sında E. canis saptandı. C. burnetii ile enfekte kenelerin 33’ünün (%91,67) R. sanguineus, 3’ünün (%8,33) I. ricinus türü olduğu belirlendi. E. canis ile enfekte kenelerin 25’ inin (%96,15) R. sanguineus, birinin (3,85) I. ricinus türü kene olduğu belirlendi. Hastaların ikamet ettiği yere göre C. burnetii ve E. canis’in görülme sıklığı incelendiğinde kırsal kesimde yaşayan insanlarda C. burnetii’nin daha yüksek oranda görüldüğü ve yapılan istatistiksel değerlendirmede anlamlı bir fark olduğu saptandı. Sonuç olarak keneler C. burnetii ve E. canis vektörlükleri için önemli risk oluşturmaktadırlar.

Keywords

Kene Teması, PCR,, Ixodidae,, Zoonoz

References

• Abdelkadir, K., Palomar, A.M., Portillo, A., Oteo, J.A., Ait-Oudhia, K., & Khelef, D. (2019). Presence of Rickettsia aeschlimannii,‘Candidatus Rickettsia barbariae’and Coxiella burnetii in ticks from livestock in Northwestern Algeria. Ticks and Tick-Borne Diseases, 10(4), 924-928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ttbdis.2019.04.018
• Altay, Ç.G., Zişan, E., Canpolat, S., Vatansever, Y., & Düzgün, A. (2013). Detection of Coxiella burnetii from ticks by polymerase chain reaction and restriction fragment length polymorphism. Ankara Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, 60(4), 263-268. https://doi.org/10.1501/Vetfak_0000002590
• Andrić, B. (2014). Diagnostic evaluation of Ehrlichia canis human infections. Open Journal of Medical Microbiology, 4, 132-139. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojmm.2014.42015
• Arabacı, P., Ekşi, F., & Bayram, A. (2017). Investigation of Brucella and Coxiella burnetii antibodies among humans at risk and control groups living in Southeastern Turkey. European Journal of Therapeutics, 23(3), 111-116. https://doi.org/10.5152/EurJTher.2017.65
• Ayan, A., Kilinc, O., Erdogan, S., Akyildiz, G., Bia, M.M, & Lee, D. (2020). High prevalence of Ehrlichia canis in dogs in Van, Turkey. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research 18(1), 1953-1960. https://doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1801_19531960
• Ayan, A., Kilinc, O., Yılmaz, A., & Babaoğlu, A. (2019). Prevalence of Ehrlichıa spp in ticks collected from dogs in province of Van in Turkey. International Journal of Ecosystems and Ecology Science, 9 (3), 537-542. https://doi.org/10.31407/ijees9317
• Aydın, M.F., & Coşkun, A. (2019). İnsanlarda kene ile bulaşan hastalık etkenleri ve Türkiye’deki durumu. Journal of Advances in VetBio Science and Techniques, 4(1), 26-32. https://doi.org/10.31797/vetbio.486679
• Aydin, L., & Bakirci, S. (2007). Geographical distribution of ticks in Turkey. Parasitology research, 101(2), 163-166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-007-0694-5
• Cetinkaya, H., Matur, E., Akyazi, I., Ekiz, E.E., Aydin, L., & Toparlak, M. (2016). Serological and molecular investigation of Ehrlichia spp. and Anaplasma spp. in ticks and blood of dogs, in the Thrace Region of Turkey. Ticks and tick-borne diseases, 7(5), 706-714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ttbdis.2016.02.021
• Cikman, A., Aydin, M., Gulhan, B., Karakecili, F., Ozcicek, A., Kesik, O. A., ... & Gültepe, B. (2017). The seroprevalence of Coxiella burnetii in Erzincan, Turkey: Identification of the risk factors and their relationship with geographical features. Journal of Vector Borne Diseases, 54(2), 157-163. https://www.jvbd.org/text.asp?2017/54/2/157/211691
• Çıtıl, R., Çolak, İ.Y., Mehmet, E., & Önder, Y. (2020). 2012-2018 yılları arasında Tokat Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversite Hastanesi Acil Servisine kene teması ile başvuran olguların epidemiyolojik incelenmesi. Journal of Contemporary Medicine, 10(2), 253-260. https://doi.org/10.16899/jcm.717429
• Dumanli, N., Altay, K., & Aktas, M. (2016). Keneler ve kenelerle taşınan hastalıklar. Manas Journal of Agriculture Veterinary and Life Sciences, 6(2), 45-54.
• Eisen, R.J., Kugeler, K.J., Eisen, L., Beard, C.B., & Paddock, C.D. (2017). Tick-borne zoonoses in the United States: persistent and emerging threats to human health. Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources journal, 58(3), 319-335. https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar/ilx005
• Ertürk, R., Poyraz, Ö., & Güneş, T. (2017). Serosurvey of Coxiella burnetii in high risk population in Turkey, endemic to Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever virus. Journal of Vector Borne Diseases, 54(4), 341. 347.
• Estrada-Pena, A., Bouattour, A., Camicas, J.L., & Walker, A.R, (2004). Ticks of domestic animals in mediterranean region. A guide to identification of species. London, UK. Bioscience Reports.
• Eyigör, M., Kırkan, Ş., Gültekin, B., Yaman, S., Tekbıyık, S., & Aydın, N. (2006). Q humması için risk gruplarında Coxıella burnetıı’ye karşı oluşan antikorların ELISA ve IFA testleri ile saptanması. İnfeksiyon Dergisi, 20(1), 31-36.
• Gürbüz, E., Ekici, A., Ünlü, A.H., & Yılmaz, H. (2021). Evaluation of seroprevalence and clinical and laboratory findings of patients admitted to health institutions in Gümüşhane with suspicion of Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, 51(4), 1825-1832. https://doi.org/10.3906/sag-2001-82
• İnci, A., Yıldırım, A., & Düzlü, Ö. (2016). The current status of ticks in Turkey: A 100-year period review from 1916 to 2016. Türkiye Parazitolojii Dergisi, 40(3), 152-157. https://doi.org/10.5152/tpd.2016.4844
• Kılıçoğlu, Y., Cagirgan, A.A., Serdar, G., Kaya, S., Durmaz, Y., & Gur, Y. (2020). Molecular investigation, isolation and phylogenetic analsysis of Coxiella burnetii from aborted fetus and ticks. Comparative Immunology, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 73, 101571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cimid.2020.101571
• Kireçci, E., & Uğuz, M. T. (2019). Kahramanmaraş ilindeki risk gruplarında Coxiella burnetii’ye karşı oluşan faz II IgG antikorlarının serolojik olarak incelenmesi. Sağlık Akademisi Kastamonu, 4(2), 90-97. https://doi.org/10.25279/sak.506991
• Laušević, D., Ilić, T., Nenadović, K., Bacić, D., & Obrenović, S. (2019). Seroprevalences of Rickettsia conorii, Ehrlichia canis and Coxiella burnetii in dogs from Montenegro. Acta Parasitologica, 64(4), 769-778. https://doi.org/10.2478/s11686-019-00098-w
• Mares-Guia, M.A.M.M., Rozental, T., Guterres, A., Gomes, R., Almeida, D.N.D., Moreira, N.S., ... & Lemos, E.R.S.D. (2014). Molecular identification of the agent of Q fever–Coxiella burnetii–in domestic animals in State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical, 47, 231-234. https://doi.org/10.1590/0037-8682-0076-2013
• Nava, S., Guglielmone, A.A., & Mangold, A.J. (2009). An overview of systematics and evolution of ticks. Frontiers in Bioscience, 14(8), 2857-2877. https://doi.org/10.2741/3418
• Rojas-Triviño, A., Rueda-Hurtado, A., Diaz-Molano, D., Mesa-Cobo, N.C., Benavides-Montaño, J.A., Imbachi-López, K., ... & López-Bermúdez, R. (2013). Identificación de Ehrlichia canis (Donatien & Lestoquard) Moshkovski mediante PCR anidada. Veterinaria y Zootecnía, 7(1), 37-48.
• Santoro, M., Veneziano, V., D’Alessio, N., Di Prisco, F., Lucibelli, M.G., Borriello, G., ... & Galiero, G. (2016). Molecular survey of Ehrlichia canis and Coxiella burnetii infections in wild mammals of southern Italy. Parasitology Research, 115(11), 4427-4431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-016-5213-0
• Sonenshine, D.E., & Roe, R.M. (2014). Overview: ticks, people and animals. In biology of ticks. New York, Oxford University Press., pp. 3–16.
• Yücesan, B.Ç., Babür, C., Sezen, F., & Nalbantoğlu, S. (2019). Ankara’da insana tutunan kene türleri: Tür çeşitliliği, konak özellikleri ve coğrafi dağılımı. Türk Hijyen ve Deneysel Biyoloji Dergisi, 76, 3-14. https://doi.org/10.5505/TurkHijyen.2019.44452