ArticleParasites & vectors2015
Candidatus Neoehrlichia sp. in an Austrian fox is distinct from Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis, but closer related to Candidatus Neoehrlichia lotoris.
Article in Parasites & vectors, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Molecular detection and phylogenetic characterization of pathogenic and endosymbiont microorganisms in Hyalomma ticks collected from livestock.Parasites & vectors · 2026Article
- Geographic Variation in the Prevalence of Candidatus Neoehrlichia procyonis in Raccoons (Procyon lotor) in the United States and Canada.MicrobiologyOpen · 2025Article
- Ticks From Mink and Their Associated Microorganisms in Spain.Transboundary and emerging diseases · 2025Article
- Tick-Borne Bacterial Diseases in Europe: Threats to public health.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2024Review
- Red Foxes (Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Infectious Wildlife Diseases in Austria-A Literature Review From 1980 Until 2017.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2020Review
- Ticks are more suitable than red foxes for monitoring zoonotic tick-borne pathogens in northeastern Italy.Parasites & vectors · 2018Article
- 'New microbes and new infections · 2018Review
- Diversity ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2018Review
- The raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) and the raccoon (Procyon lotor)-their role and impact of maintaining and transmitting zoonotic diseases in Austria, Central Europe.Parasitology research · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCandidatus Neoehrlichia came under the focus of recent research in terms of human and pet relevance. Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis seems to be relatively abundant in animals and humans from Central European countries, whereas Candidatus Neoehrlichia lotoris was found solely in raccoons from the USA.
findingsSpleen samples from a total of 164 red foxes, originating from two western provinces in Austria (Tyrol and Vorarlberg), were collected and examined for the presence of tick-borne bacteria of the family Anaplasmataceae by PCR and sequencing. In a fox sample originating from Vorarlberg Candidatus Neoehrlichia sp. was found, which is genetically (16S rRNA, groEL) closely related to Candidatus Neoehrlichia lotoris but clearly distinct from Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis.
conclusionsThe present study revealed, for the first time, the occurrence of Candidatus Neoehrlichia sp. in a red fox worldwide. A continuing screening of wild carnivores, especially foxes, and ticks for this potential pathogen is required to evaluate the actual occurrence and distribution of these bacteria. Further research is needed to elucidate the relationships of Neoehrlichia, as well as their reservoir and impact on wildlife, pets and humans.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.