Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37704990›Full record

ArticleParasites & vectors2023

Molecular detection of pathogens from ticks collected from dogs and cats at veterinary clinics in Finland.

Fathiah Zakham, Essi M Korhonen, Petteri T Puonti, Robert S Castrén, Ruut Uusitalo, Teemu Smura, Ravi Kant, Olli Vapalahti, Tarja Sironen, Paula M Kinnunen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Parasites & vectors, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Rickettsia spp. in finnish ixodid ticks.Parasites & vectors · 2025
    Article
  7. Seroprevalence ofVeterinary sciences · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Molecular Detection ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Co-Occurrence ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  13. 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.

Fathiah ZakhamDepartment of Virology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Essi M KorhonenDepartment of Virology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Petteri T PuontiDepartment of Veterinary Biosciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Robert S CastrénDepartment of Virology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Ruut UusitaloDepartment of Virology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Teemu SmuraDepartment of Virology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Ravi KantDepartment of Virology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Olli VapalahtiDepartment of Virology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Tarja SironenDepartment of Virology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Paula M KinnunenDepartment of Veterinary Biosciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. Paula.Kinnunen@merck.com.

Funding

CrossBar Academy of Finland 339510Veclimit Academy of Finland 329323
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTicks carry microbes, some of which are pathogenic for humans and animals. To assess this One Health challenge, 342 ticks were collected from pet dogs and cats at 10 veterinary clinics in Finland as part of the European project "Protect Our Future Too".

methodsThe tick species were identified, and ticks were screened with quantitative PCR (qPCR) for tick-borne pathogens, including Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato, Borrelia miyamotoi, Ehrlichia canis, Anaplasma spp., Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis, tick-borne encephalitis virus (TBEV), and Babesia spp. For comparison, a subset of tick DNA (20 qPCR-positive samples) was analysed with 16S next-generation sequencing (NGS).

resultsMost ticks were Ixodes ricinus (289, 84.5%), followed by Ixodes persulcatus (51, 14.9%). One hybrid tick (I. ricinus/I. persulcatus, 0.3%) and one Rhipicephalus sanguineus tick (0.3%) were identified. We found one or more of the analysed pathogens in 17% (59/342) of the ticks. The most prevalent pathogen was B. burgdorferi s.l. (36, 10.5%), followed by Anaplasma phagocytophilum (12, 3.5%), B. miyamotoi (5, 1.5%), Babesia venatorum (4, 1.2%), and TBEV (1, 0.3%). Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis DNA was amplified from three (0.9%) ticks. Ehrlichia canis was not detected. In the 16S NGS, six samples produced enough reads for the analysis. In these six samples, we confirmed all the positive qPCR findings of Borrelia spp. and Ca. N. mikurensis.

conclusionsThe high prevalence of pathogenic microorganisms in the ticks of this study emphasizes the importance of awareness of ticks and tick-borne diseases and prevention. Furthermore, the results show that veterinary surveillance can facilitate early detection of tick-borne pathogens and new tick species and draw attention to possible co-infections that should be considered both in symptomatic humans and animals after tick bites.

Indexed as

AnaplasmataceaeBabesiaCat DiseasesDog DiseasesEncephalitis Viruses, Tick-BorneIxodesAnimalsBorreliaCatsDogsEhrlichia canisFinlandHospitals, AnimalHumansAnaplasma spp.Babesia spp.Borrelia spp.Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensisEhrlichia canisIxodid ticksNext-generation sequencingOne HealthPCRTick-borne encephalitis virus

Identifiers

PMID37704990
PMCPMC10498522

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.