↓ Skip to main content

Ticks are more suitable than red foxes for monitoring zoonotic tick-borne pathogens in northeastern Italy

Overview of attention for article published in Parasites & Vectors, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Ticks are more suitable than red foxes for monitoring zoonotic tick-borne pathogens in northeastern Italy
Published in
Parasites & Vectors, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13071-018-2726-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Graziana Da Rold, Silvia Ravagnan, Fabio Soppelsa, Elena Porcellato, Mauro Soppelsa, Federica Obber, Carlo Vittorio Citterio, Sara Carlin, Patrizia Danesi, Fabrizio Montarsi, Gioia Capelli

Abstract

Northeastern Italy is a hotspot for several tick-borne pathogens, transmitted to animals and humans mainly by Ixodes ricinus. Here we compare the results of molecular monitoring of ticks and zoonotic TBPs over a six-year period, with the monitoring of red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in an endemic area. In the period 2011-2016, 2,578 ticks were collected in 38 sites of 20 municipalities of Belluno Province. Individual adults (264), pooled larvae (n = 330) and nymphs (n = 1984) were screened for tick-borne encephalitis virus, Borrelia burgdorferi (s.l.), Rickettsia spp., Babesia spp., Anaplasma phagocytophilum and "Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis" by specific SYBR green real-time PCR assays and sequencing. The spleens of 97 foxes, culled in the period 2015-2017 during sport hunting or population control programs, were also screened. Overall, nine different pathogens were found in I. ricinus nymph and adult ticks: Rickettsia helvetica (3.69%); R. monacensis (0.49%); four species of the B. burgdorferi (s.l.) complex [B. afzelii (1.51%); B. burgdorferi (s.s.) (1.25%); B. garinii (0.18%); and B. valaisiana (0.18%)]; A. phagocytophilum (3.29%); "Candidatus N. mikurensis" (1.73%); and Babesia venatorum (0.04%). Larvae were collected and screened in the first year only and two pools (0.6%) were positive for R. helvetica. Tick-borne encephalitis virus was not found in ticks although human cases do occur in the area. The rate of infection in ticks varied widely according to tick developmental stage, site and year of collection. As expected, adults were the most infected, with 27.6% harboring at least one pathogen compared to 7.3% of nymphs. Pathogens with a minimum infection rate above 1% were recorded every year. None of the pathogens found in ticks were detectable in the foxes, 52 (54%) of which were instead positive for Babesia cf. microti (also referred to as Babesia microti-like, "Theileria annae", "Babesia annae" and "Babesia vulpes"). The results show that foxes cannot be used as sentinel animals to monitor tick-borne pathogens in the specific epidemiological context of northeastern Italy. The high prevalence of Babesia cf. microti in foxes and its absence in ticks strongly suggests that I. ricinus is not the vector of this pathogen.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 19%
Researcher 12 18%
Other 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Student > Master 5 7%
Other 14 21%
Unknown 14 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 20 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 4%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 23 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 April 2018.
All research outputs
#13,348,775
of 23,031,582 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#2,338
of 5,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,003
of 332,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#84
of 184 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,031,582 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,506 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,279 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 184 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.