Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32533261›Full record

ArticleParasitology research2020

Morphological and molecular identification of ixodid tick species (Acari: Ixodidae) infesting cattle in Uganda.

Stephen Balinandi, Lidia Chitimia-Dobler, Giulio Grandi, Teddy Nakayiki, William Kabasa, Johnson Bbira, Julius J Lutwama, Deon K Bakkes, Maja Malmberg, Lawrence Mugisha

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Parasitology research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Molecular identification ofParasite epidemiology and control · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Distribution ofParasite epidemiology and control · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Stephen BalinandiUganda Virus Research Institute, P.O. Box 49, Entebbe, Uganda.
Lidia Chitimia-DoblerBundeswehr Institute of Microbiology, Neuherbergstrasse 11, 80937, Munich, Germany.
Giulio GrandiSection of Virology, Department of Biomedical Sciences and Veterinary Public Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7028, 750 07, Uppsala, Sweden.
Teddy NakayikiUganda Virus Research Institute, P.O. Box 49, Entebbe, Uganda.
William KabasaCollege of Veterinary Medicine, Animal Resources and Biosecurity, Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda.
Johnson BbiraCollege of Veterinary Medicine, Animal Resources and Biosecurity, Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda.
Julius J LutwamaUganda Virus Research Institute, P.O. Box 49, Entebbe, Uganda.
Deon K BakkesGertrud Theiler Tick Museum, Epidemiology, Parasites and Vectors, Agricultural Research Council - Onderstepoort Veterinary Research, Pretoria, 0110, South Africa.
Maja MalmbergSection of Virology, Department of Biomedical Sciences and Veterinary Public Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7028, 750 07, Uppsala, Sweden. maja.malmberg@slu.se.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4506-0408
Lawrence MugishaCollege of Veterinary Medicine, Animal Resources and Biosecurity, Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda.

Funding

Vetenskapsrådet 2016-05705
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In Uganda, the role of ticks in zoonotic disease transmission is not well described, partly, due to limited available information on tick diversity. This study aimed to identify the tick species that infest cattle. Between September and November 2017, ticks (n = 4362) were collected from 5 districts across Uganda (Kasese, Hoima, Gulu, Soroti, and Moroto) and identified morphologically at Uganda Virus Research Institute. Morphological and genetic validation was performed in Germany on representative identified specimens and on all unidentified ticks. Ticks were belonging to 15 species: 8 Rhipicephalus species (Rhipicephalus appendiculatus, Rhipicephalus evertsi evertsi, Rhipicephalus microplus, Rhipicephalus decoloratus, Rhipicephalus afranicus, Rhipicephalus pulchellus, Rhipicephalus simus, and Rhipicephalus sanguineus tropical lineage); 5 Amblyomma species (Amblyomma lepidum, Amblyomma variegatum, Amblyomma cohaerens, Amblyomma gemma, and Amblyomma paulopunctatum); and 2 Hyalomma species (Hyalomma rufipes and Hyalomma truncatum). The most common species were R. appendiculatus (51.8%), A. lepidum (21.0%), A. variegatum (14.3%), R. evertsi evertsi (8.2%), and R. decoloratus (2.4%). R. afranicus is a new species recently described in South Africa and we report its presence in Uganda for the first time. The sequences of R. afranicus were 2.4% divergent from those obtained in Southern Africa. We confirm the presence of the invasive R. microplus in two districts (Soroti and Gulu). Species diversity was highest in Moroto district (p = 0.004) and geographical predominance by specific ticks was observed (p = 0.001). The study expands the knowledge on tick fauna in Uganda and demonstrates that multiple tick species with potential to transmit several tick-borne diseases including zoonotic pathogens are infesting cattle.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiodiversityCattleCattle DiseasesIxodidaeTick InfestationsUganda16S sequencingCattleIxodid ticksMorphologySpecies distributionUganda

Identifiers

PMID32533261
PMCPMC7366568

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.