Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38685096›Full record

ArticleParasites & vectors2024

Italian peninsula as a hybridization zone of Ixodes inopinatus and I. ricinus and the prevalence of tick-borne pathogens in I. inopinatus, I. ricinus, and their hybrids.

Ondřej Daněk, Alena Hrbatová, Karolina Volfová, Sylvie Ševčíková, Paulina Lesiczka, Markéta Nováková, Sajjad Ghodrati, Kristyna Hrazdilova, Vincenzo Veneziano, Ettore Napoli and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Parasites & vectors, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. What is the status ofCurrent research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

17 authors at 10 institutions in 4 countries.

Ondřej DaněkBiology Centre, Institute of Parasitology, Czech Academy of Sciences, České Budějovice, Czech Republic.
Alena HrbatováCEITEC University of Veterinary Sciences, Brno, Czech Republic.
Karolina VolfováCEITEC University of Veterinary Sciences, Brno, Czech Republic.
Sylvie ŠevčíkováDepartment of Microbiology, Nutrition and Dietetics, Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic.
Paulina LesiczkaDepartment of Veterinary Sciences, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic.
Markéta NovákováCEITEC University of Veterinary Sciences, Brno, Czech Republic.
Sajjad GhodratiBiology Centre, Institute of Parasitology, Czech Academy of Sciences, České Budějovice, Czech Republic.
Kristyna HrazdilovaFaculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Biomedical Center, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic.
Vincenzo VenezianoDepartment of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Productions, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Ettore NapoliDepartment of Veterinary Sciences, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
Domenico OtrantoDepartment of Veterinary Medicine, University of Bari, Valenzano, Italy.
Fabrizio MontarsiInstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, Legnaro, Italy.
Andrei Daniel MihalcaDepartment of Parasitology and Parasitic Diseases, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Cluj-Napoca, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Noureddine MechoukDepartment of Parasitology and Parasitic Diseases, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Cluj-Napoca, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Peter AdamíkDepartment of Zoology, Palacky University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic.
David ModrýBiology Centre, Institute of Parasitology, Czech Academy of Sciences, České Budějovice, Czech Republic.
Ludek ZurekCEITEC University of Veterinary Sciences, Brno, Czech Republic. lzurek01@gmail.com.
Central European Institute of Technology · CZCzech University of Life Sciences Prague · CZUniversity of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Cluj-Napoca · ROCharles University · CZCity University of Hong Kong · HKIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie · ITMasaryk University · CZPalacký University Olomouc · CZUniversity of Messina · ITUniversity of Naples Federico II · IT

Funding

Czech Science Foundation GACR 21-11661SNational Institute of Virology and Bacteriology EXCELES, LX22NPO5103
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIxodes inopinatus was described from Spain on the basis of morphology and partial sequencing of 16S ribosomal DNA. However, several studies suggested that morphological differences between I. inopinatus and Ixodes ricinus are minimal and that 16S rDNA lacks the power to distinguish the two species. Furthermore, nuclear and mitochondrial markers indicated evidence of hybridization between I. inopinatus and I. ricinus. In this study, we tested our hypothesis on tick dispersal from North Africa to Southern Europe and determined the prevalence of selected tick-borne pathogens (TBPs) in I. inopinatus, I. ricinus, and their hybrids.

methodsTicks were collected in Italy and Algeria by flagging, identified by sequencing of partial TROSPA and COI genes, and screened for Borrelia burgdorferi s.l., B. miyamotoi, Rickettsia spp., and Anaplasma phagocytophilum by polymerase chain reaction and sequencing of specific markers.

resultsOut of the 380 ticks, in Italy, 92 were I. ricinus, 3 were I. inopinatus, and 136 were hybrids of the two species. All 149 ticks from Algeria were I. inopinatus. Overall, 60% of ticks were positive for at least one TBP. Borrelia burgdorferi s.l. was detected in 19.5% of ticks, and it was significantly more prevalent in Ixodes ticks from Algeria than in ticks from Italy. Prevalence of Rickettsia spotted fever group (SFG) was 51.1%, with significantly greater prevalence in ticks from Algeria than in ticks from Italy. Borrelia miyamotoi and A. phagocytophilum were detected in low prevalence (0.9% and 5.2%, respectively) and only in ticks from Italy.

conclusionsThis study indicates that I. inopinatus is a dominant species in Algeria, while I. ricinus and hybrids were common in Italy. The higher prevalence of B. burgdorferi s.l. and Rickettsia SFG in I. inopinatus compared with that in I. ricinus might be due to geographical and ecological differences between these two tick species. The role of I. inopinatus in the epidemiology of TBPs needs further investigation in the Mediterranean Basin.

Indexed as

IxodesRickettsiaAlgeriaAnaplasma phagocytophilumAnimalsBorreliaBorrelia burgdorferiFemaleHybridization, GeneticItalyMalePrevalenceRNA, Ribosomal, 16STick-Borne DiseasesRNA, Ribosomal, 16SAlgeriaAnaplasma phagocytophilumB. miyamotoiBorrelia burgdorferi s.l.HybridsItalyIxodes inopinatusIxodes ricinusRickettsia SFG

Identifiers

PMID38685096
PMCPMC11059663
OpenAlexW4396534478

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.