Next Article in Journal
Absence of Coronavirus RNA in Faecal Samples from Wild Primates in Gabon, Central Africa
Next Article in Special Issue
Coinfection of Babesia and Borrelia in the Tick Ixodes ricinus—A Neglected Public Health Issue in Europe?
Previous Article in Journal
Septic Obturation of a Knee Endoprosthesis Caused by Aspergillus clavatus
Previous Article in Special Issue
Tick-Borne Encephalitis Virus and Borrelia burgdorferi Seroprevalence in Balkan Tick-Infested Individuals: A Two-Centre Study
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Editorial

Current Status and Challenges Associated with Tick-Borne Pathogens and Diseases: Where Do We Stand?

by
Pavle Banović
1,2,*,
Islay Rodríguez
3 and
Dejan Jakimovski
4,5,*
1
Clinic for Lyme Borreliosis and Other Tick-Borne Diseases, Pasteur Institute Novi Sad, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia
2
Department of Microbiology with Parasitology and Immunology, Faculty of Medicine in Novi Sad, University of Novi Sad, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia
3
National Reference Laboratory of Treponemes and Special Pathogens, Tropical Medicine Institute “Pedro Kourí”, Havana 10400, Cuba
4
Faculty of Medicine, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, 1000 Skopje, North Macedonia
5
University Clinic for Infectious Diseases and Febrile Conditions, 1000 Skopje, North Macedonia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pathogens 2023, 12(10), 1271; https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12101271
Submission received: 16 October 2023 / Revised: 17 October 2023 / Accepted: 19 October 2023 / Published: 23 October 2023
Lyme Borreliosis (LB), caused by Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato (s.l.) and transmitted by specific Ixodes spp. ticks, is the most common vector-borne disease in the United States and the most common tick-borne disease in the northern hemisphere [1,2]. Despite accepted guidelines for diagnosing LB, with specific clinical case definitions, in the absence of relevant clinical information or when faced with an atypical presentation, clinicians tend to rely on serological tests when including LB in the differential diagnosis. Serological tests for LB, conducted in accordance with the European Concerted Action on LB guidelines as part of a two-stage diagnostic process, frequently pose challenges in interpretation, especially with nonspecific clinical presentations. This is primarily attributed to the significant occurrence of false-positive results, which can be influenced by cross-reactivity with acute viral infections [3]. In this Special Issue, Wojciechowska-Koszko et al. [4] confirm that serological tests used in the diagnosis of LB can generate false-positive results in patients with acute viral infections. More precisely, tests used for the first step of the two-stage approach, such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent (ELISA) or indirect immunofluorescence (IIFT), and the immunoblot (IB) method for the second step of the two-stage diagnostic approach all showed significant cross-reactivity and positive results in patients with Epstein–Barr virus (EBV), cytomegalovirus (CMV), and BK virus (BKV) infections without clinical manifestations related to LB.
While Borrelia burgdorferi s.l. represents the leading bacterial entity among tick-borne pathogens (TBPs) responsible for causing LB, tick-borne encephalitidis virus (TBEV; Orthoflavivirus encephalitidis) stands out as the most important viral pathogen transmitted by hard ticks. Jakimovski et al. [5] address the public health threats of LB and tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) in North Macedonia and Serbia through serological screening of tick-infested individuals for anti-Borrelia and TBEV-neutralizing antibodies. The study’s findings show no TBEV-neutralizing antibodies in participants from northern Serbia but a single case with moderate TBEV neutralization in North Macedonia, suggesting the possibility that a TBEV-supporting ecosystem exists in North Macedonia. The study also highlights a greater prevalence of anti-Borrelia antibodies in Serbian tick-infested individuals compared to those in North Macedonia. Although the study acknowledges limitations, such as a relatively small sample size, it is considered significant as the first report suggesting possible exposure to members of the B. burgdorferi s.l. and/or TBEV in the territory of North Macedonia. It represents a foundational reference for further risk assessment and surveillance of LB and TBE emergence in North Macedonia and Serbia.
Ticks are not uniform in their vector capabilities; their competence to acquire and transmit pathogens varies based on factors such as their species and geographical location. Ticks belonging to the Hyalomma genus are known to transmit a wide array of pathogens responsible for diseases affecting both humans and animals. These ticks have been expanding their geographical range in certain regions, which is concerning due to their ability to feed on a diverse range of hosts, including humans. Bonnet et al. [6] conducted a bibliographical study to investigate and provide validation evidence focusing on the vector potential of ticks of the Hyalomma genus. While the study provides a list of validated pathogens that can be transmitted via tick bites from Hyalomma ticks and highlights a plethora of pathogens potentially transmitted by them, it also emphasizes the need for rigorous experimental validation of vector competence, which is often challenging due to the complexity of tick–host–pathogen interactions.
Although not the most prevalent tick-borne disease, Crimean–Congo hemorrhagic fever (CCHF) is one of the most concerning due to its severe and often fatal consequences in affected individuals, as well as its potential for pandemic spread under certain circumstances [7]. CCHF virus is widespread across Europe, Asia, and Africa [8,9,10]; however, it has never been reported in Australia and the Americas. In this Special Issue, Sultankulova et al. [11] contribute to a deeper understanding of the epidemiology of CCHF by addressing the genetic diversity and prevalence of CCHF virus in the endemic areas of Kazakhstan. Out of 694 collected and analyzed ticks from 3 endemic areas (i.e., Zhambyl, Kyzylorda, and Turkestan), CCHF virus RNA was detected in 4 samples. More precisely, CCHF virus RNA was found in three Hyalomma asiaticum ticks and one I. ricinus tick. This is the first detection of CCHF virus in I. ricinus from Kazakhstan, which gives reason to suspect that this tick species can be involved in the formation and maintenance of a natural focus of CCHF virus. Genetic research on the CCHF virus S segment showed that the virus isolated in Zhambyl and Turkestan belongs to the Asia 2 genotype, and the virus isolated in the Kyzylorda region belongs to the Asia 1 genotype. The study complements previous knowledge regarding the circulation of CCHF virus genotype Asia 2 in the Kyzylorda region by also confirming the presence of the CCHFV Asia 1 genotype in the same region. Furthermore, it demonstrates the circulation of the CCHF virus Asia 2 genetic lineage in the Zhambyl region for the first time.
TBPs affecting both humans and animals globally exhibit a wide range of varieties. Among them are protozoans belonging to the genus Babesia, which infect the host’s erythrocytes and give rise to various clinical manifestations. In recent years, the number of babesiosis incidents in Poland and other Central European countries has increased [12]. The prevalence of Babesia canis is closely associated with the geographic distribution of the ornate dog tick, Dermacentor reticulatus, which serves as the primary carrier for this blood parasite. Previous scientific reports confirmed an area in Poland known as the “gap zone”, which is free of D. reticulatus ticks and spans from West Pomerania and Pomerania Voivodeships in Northern Poland to Opole, Silesia, Lesser Poland, and Subcarpathia Voivodeships in the Southern part of the country. In this region, Pawełczyk et al. [13] confirm two cases of B. canis infection in domestic dogs with no travel history. Additionally, this study also confirms D. reticulatus tick infestation in Babesia-infected dogs with no travel history in the previous 8 weeks. These findings should raise awareness among clinicians in the region of Silesian Voivodeship about B. canis infection, which should be taken into account during the differential diagnosis of tick-borne diseases.
In the article dealing with TBP spillover, Cumbie et al. reported the discovery of Bourbon virus (BRBV) in ticks in Virginia, USA, and its implications for public health [14]. BRBV is a tick-borne virus that was first identified in Kansas in 2014 and has since been associated with human infections [15]. Their study aimed to screen local Haemaphysalis longicornis ticks, an invasive tick species, for BRBV and Heartland virus (HRTV), another tick-borne virus of medical importance. The study was conducted in Virginia, which is home to several tick species, including the invasive H. longicornis, an Asian longhorned tick. H. longicornis has been found in multiple states in the eastern USA and is a vector for various pathogens [16].
Bourbon virus is a type of Thogotovirus, a segmented, negative-sense RNA virus transmitted by arthropods, including ticks. Before 2014, only Dhori virus and Thogoto virus were known as human pathogens in this group (14). The discovery of BRBV in Kansas marked the first case of human pathogenic Thogotovirus infection in North America. Since 2014, there have been two additional cases of human BRBV infections in the USA, one in Oklahoma and another fatal case in Missouri in 2017. While the virus was initially identified in Kansas, it has since been detected in other states [17,18]. Another tick-borne virus of concern in this article is Heartland virus, which was first identified in Missouri in 2009. It can cause severe symptoms in infected individuals and has been associated with fatalities [19].
Cumbie et al. detected BRBV in H. longicornis ticks from multiple counties in western Virginia. While HRTV was not detected, further research is needed to understand its presence in the region. The study also tested the blood of local wildlife, such as white-tailed deer, raccoons, groundhogs, striped skunks, and eastern cottontails, for evidence of exposure to BRBV. Some of these animals showed neutralizing antibodies against BRBV. Their findings indicate that BRBV is circulating in multiple counties in western Virginia, and the presence of BRBV-infected H. longicornis ticks raises concerns about its potential spread and impact on public health.
On the other hand, Fang et al. investigated the prevalence of intracellular bacterial pathogens in Haemaphysalis flava ticks collected from hedgehogs in Hubei Province, China [20]. The study aimed to identify the presence of bacteria such as Rickettsia, Ehrlichia, Anaplasma, and Coxiella burnetii within these ticks, as these bacteria are known to cause severe human diseases and are transmitted by ticks [20]. Tick-borne diseases are prevalent in many parts of China due to its vast territory, complex geography, and different climates. Hard body ticks, including H. flava, play an important role in transmitting TBPs. The study identified the presence of Rickettsia (R. japonica and R. raoultii), a novel Ehrlichia species, Coxiella burnetii, and Anaplasma bovis in the collected H. flava ticks. The infection rates of these pathogens varied among different tick developmental stages, with dead engorged ticks having the highest TBP prevalence.
An interesting observation by the authors is that the significantly higher infection rate of intracellular bacteria in dead engorged ticks could be attributed to the detrimental effects of the bacteria on ticks or the loss of bacteria during oviposition and molting. This might explain the lower bacteria prevalence in molted adult ticks and eggs.
Tully et al. primarily focus on comparing the infection, persistence, and replication of Francisella tularensis in three different tick species (i.e., Dermacentor variabilis, Amblyomma americanum, and H. longicornis). The study directly compared F. tularensis infections in D. variabilis, A. americanum, and H. longicornis ticks using a mouse–tick–F. tularensis infection model [21]. The study examined the infection, persistence, replication, and transmission of F. tularensis in these tick species at different infectious doses. Francisella tularensis was found to infect and persist in both D. variabilis and A. americanum ticks, but H. longicornis ticks were unable to support F. tularensis infection, suggesting that they are unlikely to be major vectors for tularemia. Although A. americanum ticks initially acquired higher F. tularensis numbers, in this case, F. tularensis replicated more robustly in D. variabilis ticks, especially in the first few weeks. The study identified FTL1793, a chitinase enzyme, as a factor contributing to F. tularensis persistence and replication in ticks. Chitinases are thought to help F. tularensis degrade chitin, a major component of ticks.
Mkize et al. provided a review dealing with the importance of identifying genetic markers associated with tick resistance in cattle through genome-wide association studies (GWAS). They highlighted the economic and environmental significance of tick resistance, the limitations of traditional tick control methods, the role of genotyping technologies and SNPs, and the challenges and opportunities in conducting GWAS for tick resistance [22].
Authors emphasize the need for standardized phenotyping procedures, genotype imputation, collaboration, and the establishment of genetic evaluation programs. It also touches on the potential benefits of genetic selection for tick resistance in cattle breeding programs. It is clear that genetic approaches, such as GWAS, have the potential to improve tick resistance in cattle, reducing the need for chemical control methods that have limitations and can impact both animal health and food safety. Genomic selection, based on the identification of relevant genetic markers, offers a promising avenue for enhancing tick resistance in cattle populations, thereby improving animal health, welfare, and productivity.
Tawana et al.’s paper discusses the prevalence of TBPs in domestic ruminants in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region. Authors highlight that ticks are a significant concern in the SADC region due to their role as vectors of TBPs, which can affect the health of domestic animals and humans. The SADC region has various tick species belonging to different families, including Argasidae, Ixodidae, and Nuttalliellidae [23].
TBPs are a concern in tropical and subtropical regions of Africa, and their prevalence varies by geographic location, depending on the tick species present [24]. The study conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of articles reporting tick abundance, TBP prevalence, and distribution in domestic ruminants across the SADC region. The results of the analysis showed that the overall pooled prevalence estimate of TBPs in domestic animals in the SADC region was 52.2%. Cattle had the highest prevalence at 51.2%, followed by sheep (45.4%) and goats (29.9%).
Various TBPs, including Anaplasma spp., Babesia spp., Ehrlichia spp., Rickettsia spp., and Theileria spp., were documented as significant pathogens in domestic ruminants, particularly cattle [25,26,27,28,29,30]. The review also examined the prevalence of TBPs in different tick species. It found that Amblyomma ticks had a higher prevalence of TBPs compared to Rhipicephalus ticks, with Amblyomma variegatum being the most infected tick species [23].
Authors observed a declining trend in TBP prevalence over the years, suggesting potential improvements in tick and TBP control measures in the region. The study acknowledges limitations, including variations in data availability across SADC countries and differences in study design and sample sizes.
Authors provide insights into the prevalence and distribution of TBPs in domestic ruminants across the SADC region, highlighting the importance of understanding and managing tick-borne diseases in this area. It also suggests the need for further research and collaboration to address this veterinary and public health concern effectively.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Burn, L.; Tran, T.M.P.; Pilz, A.; Vyse, A.; Fletcher, M.A.; Angulo, F.J.; Gessner, B.D.; Moïsi, J.C.; Jodar, L.; Stark, J.H. Incidence of Lyme Borreliosis in Europe from National Surveillance Systems (2005–2020). Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. Larchmt N. 2023, 23, 156–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Bobe, J.R.; Jutras, B.L.; Horn, E.J.; Embers, M.E.; Bailey, A.; Moritz, R.L.; Zhang, Y.; Soloski, M.J.; Ostfeld, R.S.; Marconi, R.T.; et al. Recent Progress in Lyme Disease and Remaining Challenges. Front. Med. 2021, 8, 666554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Strasfeld, L.; Romanzi, L.; Seder, R.H.; Berardi, V.P. False-Positive Serological Test Results for Lyme Disease in a Patient with Acute Herpes Simplex Virus Type 2 Infection. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2005, 41, 1826–1827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Wojciechowska-Koszko, I.; Kwiatkowski, P.; Sienkiewicz, M.; Kowalczyk, M.; Kowalczyk, E.; Dołęgowska, B. Cross-Reactive Results in Serological Tests for Borreliosis in Patients with Active Viral Infections. Pathogens 2022, 11, 203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Jakimovski, D.; Mateska, S.; Dimitrova, E.; Bosilkovski, M.; Mijatović, D.; Simin, V.; Bogdan, I.; Grujić, J.; Budakov-Obradović, Z.; Meletis, E.; et al. Tick-Borne Encephalitis Virus and Borrelia burgdorferi Seroprevalence in Balkan Tick-Infested Individuals: A Two-Centre Study. Pathogens 2023, 12, 922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Bonnet, S.I.; Bertagnoli, S.; Falchi, A.; Figoni, J.; Fite, J.; Hoch, T.; Quillery, E.; Moutailler, S.; Raffetin, A.; René-Martellet, M.; et al. An Update of Evidence for Pathogen Transmission by Ticks of the Genus Hyalomma. Pathogens 2023, 12, 513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Jakimovski, D.; Grozdanovski, K.; Rangelov, G.; Pavleva, V.; Banović, P.; Cabezas-Cruz, A.; Spasovska, K. Cases of Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever in North Macedonia, July to August 2023. Eurosurveillance 2023, 28, 2300409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Maltezou, H.C.; Andonova, L.; Andraghetti, R.; Bouloy, M.; Ergonul, O.; Jongejan, F.; Kalvatchev, N.; Nichol, S.; Niedrig, M.; Platonov, A.; et al. Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever in Europe: Current situation calls for preparedness. Eurosurveillance 2010, 15, 19504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Temur, A.I.; Kuhn, J.H.; Pecor, D.B.; Apanaskevich, D.A.; Keshtkar-Jahromi, M. Epidemiology of Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF) in Africa—Underestimated for Decades. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2021, 104, 1978–1990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Al-Abri, S.S.; Al Abaidani, I.; Fazlalipour, M.; Mostafavi, E.; Leblebicioglu, H.; Pshenichcnaya, N.; Memish, Z.A.; Hewson, R.; Petersen, E.; Mala, P.; et al. Current status of Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever in the World Health Organization Eastern Mediterranean Region: Issues, challenges, and future directions. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2017, 58, 82–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sultankulova, K.T.; Shynybekova, G.O.; Kozhabergenov, N.S.; Mukhami, N.N.; Chervyakova, O.V.; Burashev, Y.D.; Zakarya, K.D.; Nakhanov, A.K.; Barakbayev, K.B.; Orynbayev, M.B. The Prevalence and Genetic Variants of the CCHF Virus Circulating among Ticks in the Southern Regions of Kazakhstan. Pathogens 2022, 11, 841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Bajer, A.; Beck, A.; Beck, R.; Behnke, J.M.; Dwużnik-Szarek, D.; Eichenberger, R.M.; Farkas, R.; Fuehrer, H.-P.; Heddergott, M.; Jokelainen, P.; et al. Babesiosis in Southeastern, Central and Northeastern Europe: An Emerging and Re-Emerging Tick-Borne Disease of Humans and Animals. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Pawełczyk, O.; Kotela, D.; Asman, M.; Witecka, J.; Wilhelmsson, P.; Bubel, P.; Solarz, K. The First Records of Canine Babesiosis in Dogs from Dermacentor reticulatus—Free Zone in Poland. Pathogens 2022, 11, 1329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Cumbie, A.N.; Trimble, R.N.; Eastwood, G. Pathogen Spillover to an Invasive Tick Species: First Detection of Bourbon Virus in Haemaphysalis longicornis in the United States. Pathogens 2022, 11, 454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Roe, M.K.; Huffman, E.R.; Batista, Y.S.; Papadeas, G.G.; Kastelitz, S.R.; Restivo, A.M.; Stobart, C.C. Comprehensive Review of Emergence and Virology of Tickborne Bourbon Virus in the United States. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2023, 29, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Tufts, D.M.; Diuk-Wasser, M.A. First hemispheric report of invasive tick species Haemaphysalis punctata, first state report of Haemaphysalis longicornis, and range expansion of native tick species in Rhode Island, USA. Parasites Vectors 2021, 14, 394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bricker, T.L.; Shafiuddin, M.; Gounder, A.P.; Janowski, A.B.; Zhao, G.; Williams, G.D.; Jagger, B.W.; Diamond, M.S.; Bailey, T.; Kwon, J.H.; et al. Therapeutic efficacy of favipiravir against Bourbon virus in mice. PLOS Pathog. 2019, 15, e1007790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Savage, H.M.; Burkhalter, K.L.; Godsey, M.S.; Panella, N.A.; Ashley, D.C.; Nicholson, W.L.; Lambert, A.J. Bourbon Virus in Field-Collected Ticks, Missouri, USA. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2017, 23, 2017–2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Esguerra, E.M. Heartland Virus: A New Virus Discovered in Missouri. Mo. Med. 2016, 113, 256–257. [Google Scholar]
  20. Fang, L.Z.; Lei, S.C.; Yan, Z.J.; Xiao, X.; Liu, J.W.; Gong, X.Q.; Yu, H.; Yu, X.J. Detection of Multiple Intracellular Bacterial Pathogens in Haemaphysalis flava Ticks Collected from Hedgehogs in Central China. Pathogens 2021, 10, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Tully, B.G.; Huntley, J.F. A Francisella tularensis Chitinase Contributes to Bacterial Persistence and Replication in Two Major U.S. Tick Vectors. Pathogens 2020, 9, 1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Mkize, N.; Maiwashe, A.; Dzama, K.; Dube, B.; Mapholi, N. Suitability of GWAS as a Tool to Discover SNPs Associated with Tick Resistance in Cattle: A Review. Pathogens 2021, 10, 1604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Tawana, M.; Onyiche, T.E.; Ramatla, T.; Mtshali, S.; Thekisoe, O. Epidemiology of Ticks and Tick-Borne Pathogens in Domestic Ruminants across Southern African Development Community (SADC) Region from 1980 until 2021: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Pathogens 2022, 11, 929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Haji, I.; Simuunza, M.; Jiang, N.; Chen, Q. Tick populations and molecular detection of selected tick-borne pathogens in questing ticks from northern and central Tanzania. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2023, 90, 389–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Mtshali, P.S.; Tsotetsi, A.M.; Thekisoe, M.M.O.; Mtshali, M.S. Nested PCR Detection and Phylogenetic Analysis of Babesia bovis and Babesia bigemina in Cattle from Peri-Urban Localities in Gauteng Province, South Africa. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 2014, 76, 145–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Mtshali, P.S.; Mtshali, M.S. In silico and phylogenetic analyses of partial BbRAP-1, BbCP2, BbSBP-4 and BbβTUB gene sequences of Babesia bovis isolates from cattle in South Africa. BMC Vet. Res. 2017, 13, 383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Smeenk, I.; Kelly, P.; Wray, K.; Musuka, G.; Trees, A.; Jongejan, F. Babesia bovis and B. bigemina DNA detected in cattle and ticks from Zimbabwe by polymerase chain reaction. J. S. Afr. Vet. Assoc. 2000, 71, 21–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Adelabu, O.A.; Iweriebor, B.C.; Okoh, A.I.; Obi, L.C. Phylogenetic profiling for zoonotic Ehrlichia spp. from ixodid ticks in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2020, 67, 1247–1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kolo, A.O.; Collins, N.E.; Brayton, K.A.; Chaisi, M.; Blumberg, L.; Frean, J.; Gall, C.A.; Wentzel, J.M.; Wills-Berriman, S.; Boni, L.D.; et al. Anaplasma phagocytophilum and Other Anaplasma spp. in Various Hosts in the Mnisi Community, Mpumalanga Province, South Africa. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Okal, M.N.; Odhiambo, B.K.; Otieno, P.; Bargul, J.L.; Masiga, D.; Villinger, J.; Kalayou, S. Anaplasma and Theileria Pathogens in Cattle of Lambwe Valley, Kenya: A Case for Pro-Active Surveillance in the Wildlife–Livestock Interface. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Banović, P.; Rodríguez, I.; Jakimovski, D. Current Status and Challenges Associated with Tick-Borne Pathogens and Diseases: Where Do We Stand? Pathogens 2023, 12, 1271. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12101271

AMA Style

Banović P, Rodríguez I, Jakimovski D. Current Status and Challenges Associated with Tick-Borne Pathogens and Diseases: Where Do We Stand? Pathogens. 2023; 12(10):1271. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12101271

Chicago/Turabian Style

Banović, Pavle, Islay Rodríguez, and Dejan Jakimovski. 2023. "Current Status and Challenges Associated with Tick-Borne Pathogens and Diseases: Where Do We Stand?" Pathogens 12, no. 10: 1271. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12101271

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop