Next Article in Journal
Prevalence and Abundance of Bacterial Pathogens of Concern in Shrimp, Catfish and Tilapia Obtained at Retail Stores in Maryland, USA
Previous Article in Journal
COVID-19: Diabetes Perspective—Pathophysiology and Management
Previous Article in Special Issue
Epidemiological Trends of Trans-Boundary Tick-Borne Encephalitis in Europe, 2000–2019
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Pathogens
Volume 12
Issue 2
10.3390/pathogens12020185
pathogens-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Seroprevalence of Tick-Borne Encephalitis (TBE) Virus Antibodies in Wild Rodents from Two Natural TBE Foci in Bavaria, Germany

by
Philipp Johannes Brandenburg
1,*,
Anna Obiegala
1,
Hannah Maureen Schmuck
1,
Gerhard Dobler
2,
Lidia Chitimia-Dobler
2 and
Martin Pfeffer
1
1
Institute of Animal Hygiene and Veterinary Public Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Leipzig, An den Tierkliniken 1, 04103 Leipzig, Germany
2
National Consulting Laboratory for TBE, Bundeswehr Institute of Microbiology, Neuherbergstrasse 11, 80937 Munich, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pathogens 2023, 12(2), 185; https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12020185
Submission received: 30 December 2022 / Revised: 17 January 2023 / Accepted: 23 January 2023 / Published: 25 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Tick-Borne Encephalitis Virus)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) is Eurasia’s most important tick-borne viral disease. Rodents play an important role as natural hosts. Longitudinal studies on the dynamics of the seroprevalence rates in wild rodents in natural foci over the year are rare, and the dynamics of the transmission cycle still need to be understood. To better understand the infection dynamics, rodents were captured in a capture-mark-release-recapture-study in two natural foci in Bavaria, Germany, monthly from March 2019 to October 2022. Overall, 651 blood and thoracic lavage samples from 478 different wild rodents (Clethrionomys glareolus and Apodemus flavicollis) were analyzed for antibodies against tick-borne encephalitis virus (TBEV) by indirect immunofluorescence assay (IIFA) and confirmed using a serum neutralization test (SNT). Furthermore, a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) analysis was performed to investigate ecological and individual factors for the probability of infection in rodents. Clethrionomys glareolus (19.4%) had a higher seroprevalence than A. flavicollis (10.5%). Within Cl. glareolus, more males (40.4%) than females (15.6%) were affected, and more adults (25.4%) than juveniles (9.8%). The probability of infection of rodents rather depends on factors such as species, sex, and age than on the study site of a natural focus, year, and season. The high incidence rates of rodents, particularly male adult bank voles, highlight their critical role in the transmission cycle of TBEV in a natural focus and demonstrate that serologically positive rodents can be reliably detected in a natural focus regardless of season or year. In addition, these data contribute to a better understanding of the TBEV cycle and thus could improve preventive strategies for human infections.

1. Introduction

Tick-borne encephalitis virus (TBEV), belonging to the genus Flavivirus within the family Flaviviridae, is considered to be the most relevant tick-borne pathogen in Eurasia causing tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) [1,2,3]. Since 2012, TBE has been a notifiable disease in the European Union (EU) [4], resulting in over 15,000 registered human cases with an increasing incidence in the EU and the European Economic Area (EEA) between 2016 and 2020, with the highest number of confirmed cases reported in Czechia, Lithuania, and Germany [5]. In the year 2020, over 700 human cases were seen in Germany. Since then, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) has expanded the number of risk areas to 175 in 2022. Risk areas are defined by the number of TBE cases reported in at least one of the 16 five-year periods from 2002–2021 in a district or district region (consisting of the district affected plus all neighboring districts) in comparison to the number of cases expected at an incidence of one disease per 100,000 inhabitants [6]. TBEV is divided into three genetic subtypes: the European (TBEV-Eur), the Far-Eastern (TBEV-FE), and the Siberian subtype (TBEV-Sib), with at least four other proposed subtypes: two Baikalian (TBEV-Bkl-1, TBEV-Bkl-2), the Himalayan (TBEV-Him) and the Obskaya subtype (TBEV-Ob) [7]. Most human infections with TBEV are asymptomatic. However, TBE can also manifest as fevers, acute progressive encephalitis, and debilitating neurological sequelae, and in less than 2% of cases, to death. TBEV thus has a significant impact on human health in endemic regions, including Central and Eastern Europe, Siberia, far-eastern Russia, northern China, and Japan [8,9,10].
All subtypes of TBEV are maintained in complex natural endemic transmission cycles, so-called microfoci with an average size of about 0.5–1 ha [11], involving ticks as natural vectors. In Central Europe, Ixodes ricinus ticks are the main vectors transmitting the European subtype to naïve hosts through blood meals after becoming infected with TBEV when feeding on a viremic host or co-feeding with an infected tick in close proximity to a non-viremic host [2,12,13]. In addition, they serve as a virus reservoir through transstadial and transovarial transmission within tick populations [14]. The main natural mammalian hosts of TBEV are rodents, in particular, the bank vole (Clethrionomys glareolus) and the yellow-necked mouse (Apodemus flavicollis) [3,12]. In endemic areas, recent studies propose a long-lasting or persistent infection in rodents [15,16] and the possible transmission of TBEV to their offspring via maternal milk, as described in a human case study [17]. In experimentally TBEV-infected voles, the virus persisted for more than three months in multiple organs and for 50 days in the blood, analyzed with real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) [18]. Humans become infected with TBEV via tick bite, through the consumption of infected unpasteurized milk or such milk products, or, in rare cases, through organ transplants [3,19].
Recent studies have highlighted the key role of voles as reservoir hosts for TBEV in natural foci. In several studies from Hungary, Slovenia, and the Czech Republic, the prevalence of TBEV in small mammals was monitored using different methods such as PCR, indirect immunofluorescent assay (IIFA), or serum neutralization test (SNT) [20,21,22]. In general, TBEV RNA can be detected by RT-qPCR during the viremic stage in several organs of the bank vole with the highest rates in whole blood, brain, and spine samples [23]. A comparative study of bank voles showed that thoracic lavage samples, in principle, allow the detection of neutralizing antibodies but showed a reduced sensitivity in comparison to serum samples. Therefore, the examination of thoracic lavage samples is also suitable if no serum sample is available [24]. In addition, the important significance of rodents, especially the bank vole, as part of the transmission cycle of TBEV was confirmed in the past decades. However, there is still a gap in our knowledge about the dynamics of the TBEV infection in a rodent population of a distinct TBE microfocus, i.e., the changing TBEV seroprevalence in rodents over a continuous period, the persistence of antibodies in rodents in nature, and demographic factors such as trapping location, year, season, species, age, and sex and their influence on the infection probability of the rodents in natural TBEV foci. Better knowledge of the transmission dynamics of the TBEV in foci might also help to predict periods with high TBEV prevalence in nature and, therefore, higher risk periods for infections in humans. Studies in the past have only partially addressed these questions. Field studies from TBEV natural foci in Hungary, Poland, and France have come to inconclusive results. They describe factors such as year, location, species, and age as having a possible influence on the TBEV prevalence in rodents, whereas season and sex of rodents had no influence [22,25,26]. However, these factors mentioned above have not yet been investigated together yet.
In the presented four-year study from 2019–2022, the wild rodent population from two well-described TBEV natural foci located in Bavaria, Germany, were serologically monitored for TBEV antibodies using a capture-recapture method to obtain data on the seasonal dynamics and to gain greater insight into the local ecology of TBEV transmission.

2. Results

2.1. Small Mammal Trapping

Overall, 706 captures of small rodents were documented (Table 1), corresponding to 500 different individuals (predominantly Cl. glareolus, n = 349, 69.8%, followed by A. flavicollis, n = 151, 30.2%). Furthermore, 100 individuals were re-captured 128 times within the two trapping nights of one trapping session, indicating no big harm for the animals to be trapped, chipped, and released again. Over the four years, the annual number of individually trapped bank voles and yellow-necked mice peaked in 2019 (Cl. glareolus, n = 189; A. flavicollis, n = 87), dropped in 2020 (Cl. glareolus, n = 99; A. flavicollis, n = 18), and decreased further in the two following years 2021 (Cl. glareolus, n = 47; A. flavicollis, n = 35), and 2022 (Cl. glareolus, n = 31; A. flavicollis, n = 13) (Figure 1). In the year 2019 (445 individuals/0.5 ha), the density of small mammals peaked during summer (June–August). In 2020 (189 individuals/0.5 ha) and 2021 (132 individuals/0.5 ha), the highest density was recorded in autumn (September and October), whereas in 2022 (71 individuals/0.5 ha), the density peaked again in summer. In every year and season, the density of Cl. glareolus was higher in comparison to A. flavicollis, except for autumn 2021 (Figure 1).
In total, 150 (30.0%) rodents were re-captured at two trapping sessions, and from these, 56 (11.2%) were even re-captured at a third trapping session. Overall, 19 (3.8%) rodents (17 Cl. glareolus and two A. flavicollis) were captured during two different years, with the longest period of 11 months between the trapping sessions (first capture July 2019 respectively June 2020, the last capture June 2020 and May 2021), and the shortest period of 5 months (first capture October 2019, last capture March 2020). The average period of rodents captured in two different years was 7.4 months. The proportion of rodents captured during two different years was 4.3% in 2020 (n = 12), and for the two following years, 3.8% in 2021 (n = 4) and 2022 (n = 3).

2.2. TBEV Seroprevalence in Small Mammals

We examined 420 serum samples (first capture: n = 280; second capture: n = 95; third capture: n = 45) as well as 50 thoracic lavage samples (first capture: n = 38; second capture: n = 11; third capture: n = 1) from 338 Cl. glareolus and 167 serum samples (first capture: n = 128; second capture: n = 29; third capture: n = 10) along with 14 thoracic lavage samples (first capture: n = 11; second capture: n = 3) from 140 A. flavicollis. Each serum and thoracic lavage sample belonged to different rodents, captured at one to three trapping sessions. Overall, 16.9% (95% CI: 13.8–20.6%, n = 81) of individuals, as well as 16.9% (95% CI: 14.2–20.0%, n = 110) of all tested samples were seropositive for TBEV antibodies. The proportion of seropositive individuals for A. flavicollis was 11.4% (95% CI: 7.1–17.9%, n = 16), and for Cl. glareolus, 19.2% (95% CI: 15.4–23.8%, n = 65). The proportion of entire seropositive samples was significantly higher in Cl. glareolus (19.4%, 95% CI: 16.0–23.2%, n = 91) compared to A. flavicollis (10.5%, 95% CI: 6.8–15.9%, n = 19) (Table 1) looking at the GLMM (p-value = 0.0005). The GLMM confirmed this effect on the individual infection probability by small mammal species for the location Haselmuehl (p-value = 0.0011) but not for the location Heselbach (p-value = 0.4047) (Table 2). The proportion of seropositivity did not differ significantly between years when looking at post hoc analysis (p-value = 0.361–0.986), varying from 11.8% (95% CI: 6.9–19.3%, n = 13) in 2021 to 19.2% (95% CI: 13.7–26.3%, n = 29) in 2020. Seroprevalence levels did differ significantly between summer (20.2%, 95% CI: 15.9–254%, n = 56) and autumn (10.8%, 95% CI: 7.6–15.2%, n = 29) (p-value = 0.0185) but looking at the post hoc analysis it was not significant for A. flavicollis (p-value = 0.278–0.879) and Cl. glareolus (p-value = 0.198–0.996). Consequently, spring, summer, and autumn seasons had no significant effect on the infection probability in small mammals (Table 2 and Table 3). TBEV antibodies were detected from spring to autumn in each year examined, except for the spring and autumn of 2022 (Table 1). Further, the GLMM showed that there were no differences in prevalence between small mammals from Haselmuehl (15.7%, 95% CI: 11.8–20.5%, n = 43) and Heselbach (17.8%, 95% CI: 14.2–22.0%, n = 67) (p-value = 0.2211) (Table 2 and Table 3). Seropositivity of sexes did differ significantly in the GLMM between female A. flavicollis (18.5%, 95% CI: 10.7–29.7%, n = 12) and male (7.1%, 95% CI: 3.0–14.8%, n = 6) (p-value = 0.0376). In Cl. glareolus, a significantly higher proportion of seropositivity was observed in males (40.4%, 95% CI: 31.8–49.5%, n = 46) than in females (15.6%, 95% CI: 10.9–21.8%, n = 27) (p-value = 2.43 × 10−6) (Table 2 and Table 3). Adult A. flavicollis (12.0%, 95% CI: 7.6–18.3%, n = 18) showed a significantly higher seroprevalence than juvenile (3.2%, 95% CI: 0.0–17.6%, n = 1) (p-value = 0.0374). In the GLMM for Cl. glareolus, the factors of age and sex correlate with each other, which is why both must be considered individually. As with A. flavicollis, adult Cl. glareolus (25.4%, 95% CI: 20.7–30.8%, n = 73) showed a significantly higher seroprevalence than juvenile (9.8%, 95% CI: 6.2–15.1%, n = 18) (p-value = 0.0004) (Table 2 and Table 3).
In total, 81 individuals were seropositive in at least one trapping session. Among them, 13 seroconversions were observed (four re-captured once positive), 12 seropositive rodents were re-captured once positive, and seven were re-captured twice positive. Among the seropositive recaptures, TBEV antibodies were detected in a maximal period of 189 days for Cl. glareolus and 69 days for A. flavicollis. Three seropositive rodents were tested seronegative at the time of recapture (36–107 days between captures) (Table 4).

2.3. Movement Profile of the Recaptured Small Mammals

In the sub-plot Ham1 (size of 333 m2), 42 Cl. glareolus and six A. flavicollis were recaptured; in Ham2 (size of 366 m2), 28 Cl. glareolus and 13 A. flavicollis were recaptured; in Ham3 (size of 480 m2), 48 Cl. glareolus and four A. flavicollis were recaptured. In the sub-plot Heb1 (size of 330 m2), 26 Cl. glareolus and 23 A. flavicollis were recaptured, and in Heb2 (size of 1584 m2), 95 Cl. glareolus and 49 A. flavicollis were recaptured (Figure 2). In total, 141 recaptures were counted for the study site of Haselmuehl and 193 for the study site of Heselbach. Recapture has never occurred in two different sub-plots. Within the sub-plots, the range of movement was distributed over the entire sub-plot.

3. Discussion

This four-year study increases our knowledge of the seasonal and interannual dynamics of TBEV circulation in small mammals in two active natural TBE microfoci and provides additional information on demographic host factors influencing TBEV infection on an individual level. Our results confirm an active circulation of TBEV in rodents of at least two different species in two natural TBE foci. This study is the first to examine small mammals for the dynamics of TBEV antibodies over four years in Germany. The two TBE foci, Haselmuehl and Heselbach, were identified as TBE microfoci after residents near the foci developed clinical TBE symptoms. Since 2009 TBEV was continuously detected in questing ticks in these foci [27,28]. Both sites are located in one of the most severely TBE-affected areas in Germany, with the highest incidence rates in the current five-year period (2017–2021) with a total of 115 reported human cases in both districts combined [29].
Apodemus flavicollis and Cl. glareolus densities (71–445 individuals/year/0.5 ha) at those sites were investigated in the current study and were comparable to densities from a TBEV seroprevalence study in Hungary (78–165 individuals/year/0.5 ha) [30] and substantially higher than data from France (4–57 individuals/year/0.5 ha) [27]. The abundant food supply of fruits and fungi via seeds from seed-rich trees in an area is essential to maintain rodent population densities [31]. These environmental conditions seemed to be adequate in our study areas to maintain stable rodent populations over the study period. To successfully circulate TBEV in nature, the virus requires an area with dense rodent and tick populations and woodlands with dense understory cover, which are present at both study sites [27,32].
For the continuous detection of TBE infection in rodents, serological test systems are usually the methods of choice as virus detection by PCR or virus isolation usually needs organ material which causes the death of the animal. The SNT is considered the most specific serological test; however, it needs to work with live viruses under BSL-3 laboratory conditions [33]. Whereas methods such as the IIFA, which we mainly used in our study, were shown to reach a sensitivity of almost 80% and a specificity of nearly 99% compared to the neutralization test (NT) when tested with dog sera [34] such comparative studies in sera from wild rodents are missing. Possible cross-reactions with other flaviviruses, such as West Nile virus or Louping-ill virus, are negligible since rodents are not natural reservoirs in the enzootic cycles of these viruses and are not known to be prevalent in the study areas [35]. We took the opportunity to test if the IIFA may be a suitable alternative for the detection of antibodies against TBEV in small mammals. Therefore, all thoracic lavage samples from the years 2019–2022 that had tested positive using IIFA were verified by SNT and showed a sensitivity of 94.3% compared to SNT results. There is a possibility that specific TBEV antibodies may be detected by IIFA that do not show neutralizing activity and therefore are not detected by NT, which could explain the slightly lower detection rate [34].
In our study, TBEV antibodies were detected in 16.9% of the investigated samples. The seroprevalence in the current study is higher than that observed in studies in Northern and Central Europe that have also examined rodent samples serologically using IIFA. In two natural foci in Finland, a seroprevalence of 4.0% was found [15], while nationwide studies from Slovenia [21], Germany [18], and Switzerland [36] showed seroprevalences of 5.9%, 10.2%, and 3.6%, respectively. Other serological studies using different testing methods from natural foci in Western and Central Europe published seroprevalences of 5.1% in Hungary [30], 14.8% in Poland [25], 1.5% in the Czech Republic [37], 7.0% and 14.6%, respectively, in Slovakia [38,39], 4.2% in France [26], and 14.0% in Bavaria, Germany [40], while a study from Eastern Europe in Russia described a seroprevalence of 61.4% in small mammals in a study area with occurrences of the TBEV-FE, and the TBEV-Sib which may explain this high prevalence [16]. Concerning the seroprevalence rates, our results are to be classified for the bank vole (19.4%) in the highest prevalence range within Europe (2.2% to 20.5%) [15,18,21,22,25,26,36,37,38,39,40], with for example, 14.3% in Slovenia [21], 5.3% in Switzerland [36]. For the yellow-necked mouse (10.5%), the prevalence varies in the middle range (1.3% to 18.1%) [18,21,22,26,36,37,38,39,40], with, for example, 4.0% in Slovenia [21] and 18.1% in Slovakia [39].
In Haselmuehl, yellow-necked mice seem to play a minor contribution to TBEV circulation (1.6%). In Heselbach, seropositive, yellow-necked mice were found only in 2019 (22.6%) and 2020 (20.0%), but none at all in 2021, and only one individual in summer 2022 (7.7%), which is indicative of a subordinate role concerning the circulation of the virus within the natural foci studied for this rodent species. Similar background positivity for A. flavicollis was described in Hungary (3.7%) [22] and in Switzerland (1.3%) [36]. The fact that the TBEV prevalence is higher in bank voles has also been pointed out earlier [15,18,21,25]. A study from France described a significantly higher tick load on A. flavicollis compared to Cl. glareolus [26], which may develop resistance to feeding ticks after repeated infestations through the involvement of T-helper cells in the immune response. Furthermore, due to the larger body surface, A. flavicollis seem to be more susceptible to tick infestation [41]. This finding should lead to a higher prevalence of A. flavicollis. Yet, evidence of stronger viremia, higher antibody titers, and a longer half-life of TBEV antibodies in Cl. glareolus compared to Apodemus species disproved these assumptions, presumably due to immune response characteristics to TBEV infection [21,42,43,44]. Thus, the above-shown data indicate that Cl. glareolus is more significant compared to A. flavicollis for a systemic transmission of TBEV.
Another finding of our study was that within the species Cl. glareolus, a significantly larger number of males (40.4%) were seropositive compared to females (15.6%). One reason for this could be the larger territories of male bank voles and, thereby, the possible increased contact with a higher number of ticks in the vegetation [22,45]. Due to high testosterone levels, sexually active bank voles also exhibit reduced innate and acquired immunity, allowing more ticks to be collected and increasing the transmission probability of TBEV [46].
Host age also plays a vital role in our study, which significantly affects the seroprevalence of TBEV in rodents. This observation was also confirmed by other studies in Hungary and Poland [22,25]. During the period of investigation, the seroprevalence of the virus was higher among adult bank voles and yellow-necked mice (25.4%, respectively 12.0%) compared to juvenile individuals (9.8%, respectively 3.2%). Also, in Hungary and Poland, more adult bank voles (25.9%, respectively, 20.8%) were seropositive compared to juveniles (8.3%, respectively 8.7%) [22,25]. The likelihood and possibilities of parasitic infestation increase with host age [47]. In addition, seroprevalence increases with age because antibodies have been detected over a long period (189 days). Nevertheless, these results must be interpreted with caution since we used only weight as a parameter for age classification and had three individuals that were seronegative when recaptured but seropositive before. Another limitation of the study is that we also cannot clarify by the study design whether seropositivity is maintained by a single TBEV infection or by recurrent bites of infected ticks.
From 2019–2022, we did not detect significant annual or seasonal differences in TBEV seroprevalence in rodents, although the density of small mammals has decreased over the years. A higher seroprevalence could be expected in years with fewer rodents. Thus, an increased tick load per individual, which did not occur as described in France, where a total of 541 small mammals were sampled in 2012, 36 in 2013, and 87 in 2014, and the seroprevalence had dropped from 3.5% to 1.1%. In contrast, the tick infestation rate on rodents increased from 38.2% to 83.3% over the years [26,36]. It is known that antibodies against TBEV are detectable in the blood of rodents after 5 days post-infection [18,23]. In several studies, TBEV antibodies were detected up to 100–168 days after infection [18,48]. In our study, all but three rodents tested seropositive continuously in re-captures with the longest period of up to 189 days, indicating a very long circulation period of TBEV antibodies. The fact that two of the three rodents shown to have converted from seropositive to seronegative during recaptures were A. flavicollis, and the detection period of seropositivity was shorter than that of Cl. glareolus may also be a reason for the lower seroprevalence in A. flavicollis. The detection of seroconversions across all seasons studied, even between years, indicates that rodents are likely exposed to year-round infection pressure. Since Clethrionomys spp. have 3–4 litters during the reproductive season from April to the end of September and Apodemus spp. have 2–3 litters from March to the end of October, naïve animals are always present in the natural focus which can become infected, and thus serve as a transmission source of TBEV for juvenile tick stages during the viremic phase of up to 28 days post-infection [23,49]. Due to the short lifespan of rodents (maximum 11 months in our study) and the low annual recapture rates (3.8–4.3%), it can be inferred that a new naive population builds up each year in spring and is infected by ticks in which the virus has overwintered. Similar data were described in a seroprevalence study of recaptured rodents from Hungary, where the maximum lifespan was 1–1.5 years and the recapture rates from last year ranged from 1.3–7.3% [30].
The movement profiles of the recaptured animals were particularly interesting in the study site of Haselmuehl because the three sub-plots were close to each other (distance of 30–40 m). It turned out that among the 141 recaptures, not a single animal was caught in two different sub-plots. In the literature, home ranges of Cl. glareolus are described from 737–1753 m2 and for A. flavicollis 100–2300 m2 [50,51]. Thus, as in Haselmuehl, a footpath or a meadow represent natural barriers for the rodents, which will not be crossed under optimal living conditions. From this, we can infer that the virus cycle between juvenile ticks and rodents occurs in several small microfoci with an average size of about 0.5 to 1 ha forming a natural focus. From these microfoci, infected adult ticks passively migrate with the help of larger wild animals to other locations to form a new microfocus under adequate conditions, which would be, i.e., formed by the presence of vector and reservoir hosts, suitable climatic conditions for the vitality of I. ricinius and the presence of coniferous or mixed forests [11].

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Study Area

The study was conducted in two well-studied natural foci of TBE at Haselmuehl and Heselbach, where viral sequences were previously obtained from TBEV strains from questing ticks [28]. The first site, “Haselmuehl,” is a rural area in the administrative district of Amberg-Sulzbach, around 60 km east of Nuremberg, in the German federal state of Bavaria (Figure 3). It is located 430 m above sea level at a geographic longitude of 11°52′53.6″ E and a latitude of 49°24′31.0″ N. The sampling site is divided into three sub-plots (Ham1–3) separated through a footpath or a meadow, which have a size of 0.03 to 0.05 ha and are close to each other (Figure 2). The second site, “Heselbach,” is a rural area in the administrative district of Schwandorf, more than 26 km southeast of Haselmuehl, in the German federal state of Bavaria (Figure 3). It is located 440 m above sea level at geographic longitude 12°12′02.4″ E and latitude 49°17′51.2″ N. This sampling site is divided into two sub-plots (Heb1 and 2) with a distance of 500 m in between, which have a size of 0.02 and 0.15 ha (Figure 2). The sampling sites in Haselmuehl and Heselbach are characterized by mixed forests with primary pines (Pinus sylvestris), fern species, hazelnut, broom, and blackberry bushes. Both study sites belong to the two most affected TBE districts in Germany concerning the current five-year incidence (2017–2021), with an incidence of 55.34/100,000 inhabitants for the district of Amberg-Sulzbach, and an incidence of 40.96/100,000 inhabitants for the district of Schwandorf [6].

4.2. Small Mammal Trapping and Sampling

Small mammals were trapped for 8 months per year from March to October in the years 2019–2022, except for April and May 2020, when rodent trapping was not possible due to travel restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic. The trapping grid consisted of 50 live animal traps (sized 7.62 × 8.89 × 22.86 cm, H. B. Sherman Inc., Tallahassee, FL, USA) per study area set in lines at 5–15 m intervals covering the sub-plots, if possible, over a rodent hole or near a tree trunk (Figure 2). Each trap is assigned a number, which is recorded on the trap log of the respective trap location. Live traps were set for two consecutive nights and baited with peanut flips and apple pieces. Wood wool was placed in the traps to provide nesting material and to prevent hypothermia (overall 30 trapping sessions, 60 trapping nights). The traps were checked in 12-h intervals in the morning and evening. The captured rodents were placed individually in a bucket and anesthetized with isoflurane at a 5% concentration and an oxygen flow of 1 L/min until the motorial movement of the rodent was no longer observed. Subsequently, inhalation anesthesia was maintained with isoflurane at a 2.5–3.5% concentration and an oxygen flow of 1 L/min to reduce stress during handling and sampling. At first capture, each rodent was individually marked with a transponder (Glass transponder EM4102, 2.12 × 12 mm, LUX-IDent s.r.o., Lanškroun, Czech Republic). Trapping location and date of capture, species, sex, reproductive status (testicles visible for males; vagina open, teats formed for females), body mass, and length were recorded, ectoparasites collected located on the rodent, and 100–200 µL of blood was taken through the retro-orbital sinus from rodents weighing over 14 g. By documenting the exact trapping location within the sub-plots of the study sites, we could create movement profiles of the re-captured animals to make a statement about the distances covered. The rodents were divided into two age groups (juvenile and adult) instead of three based on weight and time between the re-captures (age class 1 and 2, respectively 1 comprise juvenile Cl. glareolus, respectively A. flavicollis; age class 3 respectively age class 2 and 3 comprise adult Cl. glareolus respectively A. flavicollis) [52]. Accordingly, individuals weighing less than 19.5 g (less than 2.5 months old) for Cl. glareolus and 20 g for A. flavicollis (less than 3.5 months old) were considered juveniles. When the time between the re-captures was longer than 2.5 months for Cl. glareolus, respectively 3.5 months for A. flavicollis, the rodent was classified as an adult. The number of captures and the number of samples were not equal since some animals were not sampled due to weakened physical conditions or the body weight was below 14 g. After sampling, the rodents were placed back into the bucket. Anesthetic treatment was stopped, and rodents were observed. Animals that were visibly fully awake were released at the exact location of capture, and traps were re-baited. For rodents that were re-captured within a trapping session, only the location of capture was documented and afterward directly released. Once a rodent was captured in three different months, it was euthanized by exsanguination through the retro-orbital sinus, followed by neck fracture under anesthesia, as described above. Euthanized rodents and rodents that died in the traps were immediately stored on dry ice (−80 °C). Together with the blood samples, stored at +4 °C, they were transported to the laboratory for further processing. In the laboratory, the blood samples were centrifugated at 7000 rpm for 8 min, and serum samples were obtained from the supernatant. A thoracic lavage with 500 µL phosphate-buffered saline buffer (PBS) was taken from rodents that died in the trap. Serum and thoracic lavage samples were frozen at −80 °C until testing for TBEV antibodies.

4.3. Ethical Statement

The animal experiment with small mammals fulfilled the EU Directive 2010/63/EU and was approved by the District Government of Lower Franconia (RUF-55.2.2-2532-2-780-15). All efforts were made to minimize animal suffering. Apodemus flavicollis is a protected species in Germany according to Section 7, paragraph 2, Section 13, letter c) of the Federal Nature Conservation Act (BNatSchG) in connection with attachment 1 of the Federal Species Protection Regulations (BArtSchV). The exemption for this study was approved by the District Government of Upper Palatinate (ROP-SG55.1-8646.4-1-96-19). Only trained staff was handling the animals under EU directive 2010/63 Function A and following the recommendations of the Federation of European Laboratory Animal Science Associations (FELASA) and the Society of Laboratory Animals (GV-SOLAS). The rodent trapping took place with permission from the landowners.

4.4. Serological Analysis

4.4.1. Indirect Immunofluorescence Assay (IIFA)

Serum and thoracic lavage samples were transported on dry ice to the Bundeswehr Institute of Microbiology (Munich, Germany) and were screened for the presence of TBEV antibodies using an IIFA (FSME-Viren (TBEV), Euroimmun AG, Luebeck, Germany). The testing was performed according to the manufacturer’s instructions with appropriate adaption for examining rodent samples instead of human samples, as it has already been performed with dog samples [34]. Therefore, the enclosed fluorescein-labeled anti-human conjugate was replaced with an anti-mouse conjugate (DAKO, Glostrup, Denmark) and used in a pre-defined 1:20 dilution. Serum samples were diluted 1:10, according to the dilution scheme to determine antibodies of the IgG class. Thoracic lavage samples were used without dilution, assuming a dilution of about 1:10 before the examination for TBEV-specific antibodies. The results were read independently by two trained staff members using a fluorescence microscope (Leica DM 5000B, Wetzlar, Germany) and classified as either “positive” (fine to coarse granular structures fluoresce in the cytoplasm, no fluorescence in the control field) or “negative” (no fluorescence in the cytoplasm visible, no fluorescence in the control field/uncharacteristic fluorescence in positive and control field), as recommended by the manufacturers.

4.4.2. Serum Neutralization Test (SNT)

To avoid false positive samples, the IIFA-positive thoracic lavage samples of 2019–2022 were confirmed with the SNT, which was not used for serum samples due to the insufficient amount of serum obtained by retro-orbital puncture. The SNTs were performed according to standard procedures [53] using the validated protocol of the accredited diagnostic laboratory at the Bundeswehr Institute of Microbiology (Munich, Germany) [54]. In summary, TBEV (strain Neudoerfl) was cultured in A549 cells, and virus stocks (40–60 tissue culture infective dose (TCID)/50 µL) were prepared and stored at −80 °C until further use. SNTs were performed in a micro-format in 96-well cell culture plates (Greiner bio-one, Frickenhausen, Germany). After inactivation of thoracic lavage samples at 56 °C for 30 min, they were run in duplicate and diluted in Minimal Essential Medium (MEM, plus Non-Essential Amino Acids Solution plus Antibiotic-Antimycotic Solution; all Invitrogen, ThermoFisher Scientific, Darmstadt, Germany). Assuming a predilution of about 1:10, the dilutions ranged from 1:20–1:2560. One cell control and one virus re-titration were used as controls on each 96-well plate. A total of 40–60 TCID of virus stock was added to each well, and the respective thoracic lavage-virus solutions were incubated at 37 °C (5% CO2) for one hour. A549 cells (1 × 104 cells/50 µL) were then added per well and incubated at 37 °C (5% CO2) for 5–7 days. The supernatant was then discarded, and the 96-well plates were fixed in 13% formalin/PBS, stained with crystal violet (0.1%), and the titers were determined visually. The antibody titer corresponding to the highest thoracic lavage dilution that showed complete inhibition of cytopathic effect (CPE) in both wells was reported. Samples were classified as either “SNT negative” (titer < 1:20) or “SNT positive” (titer ≥ 1:20), with the highest readable titer being ≥ 1:2560.

4.5. Statistical Analysis

4.5.1. Definition

The trapping sessions from March to October 2019 to 2022 were divided into three seasons: spring grouped the captures of March to May (beginning of small mammal reproduction); summer corresponded to the captures of June to August (peak of small mammal reproduction); and autumn grouped the captures of September and October (reduction of small mammal abundance).
The calculation of the density is based on the minimal number alive (MNA), i.e., the number of individual rodents captured in a season plus the number of rodents captured in at least one previous and one following season to estimate the population size. The number of captures was divided by the size of the sampling sites in the unit ha and extrapolated to 0.5 ha for better illustration and comparison.

4.5.2. Statistical Analyses of TBEV Seroprevalence in Small Mammals

Confidence intervals (95% CI) for the prevalence were determined by the Clopper and Pearson method with GraphPad Software (Graph Pad Software InCr., San Diego, CA, USA). To analyze TBEV prevalence in small mammals in relation to season, year, habitat, and small mammal species, we conducted a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with binomial error distribution using R-software (version 4.1.2. for Windows, Boston, MA, USA) and the lme4 package [55]. The infection status was used as a binary dependent variable (TBEV-seropositive = 1; TBEV-seronegative = 0). The GLMM was generated to estimate how (1) seasonality (independent binary variable: summer vs. spring); (2) small mammal species (independent categorical variable); (3) host age (independent binary variable: adult vs. juvenile), and (4) sex (independent binary variable: male vs. female), (5) year of capture (independent categorical variable), and (6) habitat (independent binary variable: Haselmuehl vs. Heselbach) affect individual infection status (dependent binary variable). For small mammals, the interaction term for the GLMM consisted of three variables with at least two levels each. Therefore, we computed marginal means using the emmeans package within R and a post hoc test for comparing the effects of all independent variables separately [56]. The significance threshold was set at p ≤ 0.05.

5. Conclusions

This study presents for the first time the seroprevalence rates of TBEV antibodies in wild rodents in the two natural foci of Haselmuehl and Heselbach in Germany over four years. TBEV antibodies were detected at an average prevalence rate of 16.9% in rodent sera and thoracic lavage, irrespective of seasonal or annual variation. This was regardless of the detection of seroconversions across seasons and between years. This confirms the presence of TBEV at suspected sites in reservoir hosts and the possibility of TBEV infection in rodents throughout the year. Antibodies were detected in a maximum period of 189 days for Cl. glareolus and 69 days for A. flavicollis, indicating a very long, maybe life-long period of circulating TBEV antibodies. Male adult bank voles were more often infected with TBEV in our study. Yellow-necked mice probably play a subordinate role as hosts in the TBEV cycle. Thus, the probability of infection of rodents depends rather on individual factors such as species, age, and sex than on abiotic and biotic external factors such as study site of a natural focus, year, and season. More studies of this type on other TBEV natural foci and reservoir hosts, as well as experimental studies with rodents and ticks, are necessary to better understand the time of infection and seroconversion for Cl. glareolus and A. flavicollis and the period of seropositivity as a contribution to a better understanding of the complex life cycle of TBEV.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.D. and M.P.; methodology, P.J.B., A.O., H.M.S., G.D., L.C.-D. and M.P.; sample collection, P.J.B. and H.M.S.; validation, P.J.B. and A.O.; formal analysis, P.J.B. and A.O.; investigation, P.J.B., H.M.S., G.D. and L.C.-D.; data curation, P.J.B. and A.O.; writing—original draft preparation, P.J.B.; writing—review and editing, A.O., H.M.S., G.D., L.C.-D. and M.P.; visualization, P.J.B.; supervision, A.O., G.D. and M.P.; project administration, G.D. and M.P.; funding acquisition, G.D. and M.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research within the Research Network of Zoonotic Infectious Diseases as part of the joint research project “Tick-borne encephalitis in Germany” (TBENAGER) to MP (grant number 01KI2010D) and GD (grant number 01KI2010A). We acknowledge support from the German Research Foundation (DFG) and Leipzig University within the program of Open Access Publishing by covering the publication fees.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The animal protocol was approved by the Veterinary and Consumer Protection Division of the Environment, Health, and Consumer Protection Department of the District Government of Lower Franconia (protocol code RUF-55.2.2-2532-2-780-15 from 13 December 2018).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors are very grateful to all persons who helped during rodent trapping, especially Sara Weilage, Elisabeth Fritsch, Nina Król, Leonard Gothe, Mario Reinhardt, and Philipp Koch, and to the District Government of Lower Franconia and the District Government of Upper Palatinate, who authorized trapping in the study sites Haselmuehl, and Heselbach. Other thanks to Jens Jacob from the Julius Kühn-Institute for providing the transponders for marking the rodents.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lindquist, L.; Vapalahti, O. Tick-borne encephalitis. Lancet 2008, 371, 1861–1871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Mansfield, K.L.; Johnson, N.; Phipps, L.P.; Stephenson, J.R.; Fooks, A.R.; Solomon, T. Tick-borne encephalitis virus—A review of an emerging zoonosis. J. Gen. Virol. 2009, 90, 1781–1794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Dobler, G.; Gniel, D.; Petermann, R.; Pfeffer, M. Epidemiology and distribution of tick-borne encephalitis. Wien. Med. Wochenschr. 2012, 162, 230–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Amato-Gauci, A.J.; Zeller, H. Tick-borne encephalitis joins the diseases under surveillance in the European Union. Eurosurveillance 2012, 17, 20299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Tick-borne encephalitis—Annual Epidemiological Report for 2020. Available online: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/tick-borne-encephalitis-annual-epidemiological-report-2020 (accessed on 3 November 2022).
  6. Robert Koch-Institut. Epidemiologisches Bulletin; Robert-Koch-Institut: Berlin/Wernigerode, Germany, 2022; Volume 9, pp. 3–19.
  7. Deviatkin, A.A.; Karganova, G.G.; Vakulenko, Y.A.; Lukashev, A.N. TBEV Subtyping in Terms of Genetic Distance. Viruses 2020, 12, 1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ruzek, D.; Salát, J.; Palus, M.; Gritsun, T.S.; Gould, E.A.; Dyková, I.; Skallová, A.; Jelínek, J.; Kopecký, J.; Grubhoffer, L. CD8+ T-cells mediate immunopathology in tick-borne encephalitis. Virology 2009, 384, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Valarcher, J.F.; Hägglund, S.; Juremalm, M.; Blomqvist, G.; Chirico, J. Tick-borne encephalitis. Rev. Sci. Tech. 2015, 34, 453–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  10. Bogovic, P.; Strle, F. Tick-borne encephalitis: A review of epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and management. WJCC 2015, 3, 430–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Borde, J.P.; Glaser, R.; Braun, K.; Riach, N.; Hologa, R.; Kaier, K.; Chitimia-Dobler, L.; Dobler, G. Decoding the Geography of Natural TBEV Microfoci in Germany: A Geostatistical Approach Based on Land-Use Patterns and Climatological Conditions. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 11830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Labuda, M.; Randolph, S.E. Survival strategy of tick-borne encephalitis virus: Cellular basis and environmental determinants. Zent. Für Bakteriol. 1999, 289, 513–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Randolph, S.E. Transmission of tick-borne pathogens between co-feeding ticks: Milan Labuda’s enduring paradigm. Ticks Tick-Borne Dis. 2011, 2, 179–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Karbowiak, G.; Biernat, B. The role of particular tick developmental stages in the circulation of tick-borne pathogens affecting humans in Central Europe. 2. Tick-borne encephalitis virus. Ann. Parasitol. 2016, 62, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Tonteri, E.; Jääskeläinen, A.E.; Tikkakoski, T.; Voutilainen, L.; Niemimaa, J.; Henttonen, H.; Vaheri, A.; Vapalahti, O. Tick-borne encephalitis virus in wild rodents in winter, Finland, 2008–2009. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2011, 17, 72–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Bakhvalova, V.N.; Dobrotvorsky, A.K.; Panov, V.V.; Matveeva, V.A.; Tkachev, S.E.; Morozova, O.V. Natural tick-borne encephalitis virus infection among wild small mammals in the southeastern part of western Siberia, Russia. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2006, 6, 32–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kerlik, J.; Avdičová, M.; Musilová, M.; Bérešová, J.; Mezencev, R. Breast Milk as Route of Tick-Borne Encephalitis Virus Transmission from Mother to Infant. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2022, 28, 1060–1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Achazi, K.; Růžek, D.; Donoso-Mantke, O.; Schlegel, M.; Ali, H.S.; Wenk, M.; Schmidt-Chanasit, J.; Ohlmeyer, L.; Rühe, F.; Vor, T.; et al. Rodents as sentinels for the prevalence of tick-borne encephalitis virus. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2011, 11, 641–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Lipowski, D.; Popiel, M.; Perlejewski, K.; Nakamura, S.; Bukowska-Osko, I.; Rzadkiewicz, E.; Dzieciatkowski, T.; Milecka, A.; Wenski, W.; Ciszek, M.; et al. A Cluster of Fatal Tick-borne Encephalitis Virus Infection in Organ Transplant Setting. J. Infect. Dis. 2017, 215, 896–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Weidmann, M.; Schmidt, P.; Hufert, F.T.; Krivanec, K.; Meyer, H. Tick-borne encephalitis virus in Clethrionomys glareolus in the Czech Republic. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2006, 6, 379–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Knap, N.; Korva, M.; Dolinšek, V.; Sekirnik, M.; Trilar, T.; Avšič-Županc, T. Patterns of tick-borne encephalitis virus infection in rodents in Slovenia. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2012, 12, 236–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zöldi, V.; Papp, T.; Reiczigel, J.; Egyed, L. Bank voles show high seropositivity rates in a natural TBEV focus in Hungary. Infect. Dis. 2015, 47, 178–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Michelitsch, A.; Fast, C.; Sick, F.; Tews, B.A.; Stiasny, K.; Bestehorn-Willmann, M.; Dobler, G.; Beer, M.; Wernike, K. Long-term presence of tick-borne encephalitis virus in experimentally infected bank voles (Myodes glareolus). Ticks Tick-Borne Dis. 2021, 12, 101693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Michelitsch, A.; Tews, B.A.; Klaus, C.; Bestehorn-Willmann, M.; Dobler, G.; Beer, M.; Wernike, K. In Vivo Characterization of Tick-Borne Encephalitis Virus in Bank Voles (Myodes glareolus). Viruses 2019, 11, 1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Grzybek, M.; Alsarraf, M.; Tołkacz, K.; Behnke-Borowczyk, J.; Biernat, B.; Stańczak, J.; Strachecka, A.; Guz, L.; Szczepaniak, K.; Paleolog, J.; et al. Seroprevalence of TBEV in bank voles from Poland-a long-term approach. Emerg. Microbes Infect. 2018, 7, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Bournez, L.; Umhang, G.; Moinet, M.; Richomme, C.; Demerson, J.-M.; Caillot, C.; Devillers, E.; Boucher, J.-M.; Hansmann, Y.; Boué, F.; et al. Tick-Borne Encephalitis Virus: Seasonal and Annual Variation of Epidemiological Parameters Related to Nymph-to-Larva Transmission and Exposure of Small Mammals. Pathogens 2020, 9, 518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Borde, J.P.; Kaier, K.; Hehn, P.; Matzarakis, A.; Frey, S.; Bestehorn, M.; Dobler, G.; Chitimia-Dobler, L. The complex interplay of climate, TBEV vector dynamics and TBEV infection rates in ticks-Monitoring a natural TBEV focus in Germany, 2009–2018. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0244668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Weidmann, M.; Frey, S.; Freire, C.C.M.; Essbauer, S.; Růžek, D.; Klempa, B.; Zubrikova, D.; Vögerl, M.; Pfeffer, M.; Hufert, F.T.; et al. Molecular phylogeography of tick-borne encephalitis virus in central Europe. J. Gen. Virol. 2013, 94, 2129–2139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Robert Koch-Institut. SurvStat@RKI 2.0. Available online: https://survstat.rki.de/Content/Query/Create.aspx (accessed on 4 November 2022).
  30. Zöldi, V.; Papp, T.; Rigó, K.; Farkas, J.; Egyed, L. A 4-year study of a natural tick-borne encephalitis virus focus in Hungary, 2010–2013. EcoHealth 2015, 12, 174–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Viro, P.; Niethammer, J. Clethrionomys glareolus (Schreber, 1780)—Rötelmaus. In Handbuch der Säugetiere Europas; Niethammer, J., Krapp, F., Eds.; Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft: Wiesbaden, Germany, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  32. Torre, I.; Arrizabalaga, A. Habitat preferences of the bank vole Myodes glareolus in a Mediterranean mountain range. Acta Theriol. 2008, 53, 241–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Litzba, N.; Zelená, H.; Kreil, T.R.; Niklasson, B.; Kühlmann-Rabens, I.; Remoli, M.E.; Niedrig, M. Evaluation of different serological diagnostic methods for tick-borne encephalitis virus: Enzyme-linked immunosorbent, immunofluorescence, and neutralization assay. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2014, 14, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Girl, P.; Haut, M.; Riederer, S.; Pfeffer, M.; Dobler, G. Comparison of Three Serological Methods for the Epidemiological Investigation of TBE in Dogs. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Gilbert, L.; Jones, L.D.; Hudson, P.J.; Gould, E.A.; Reid, H.W. Role of small mammals in the persistence of Louping-ill virus: Field survey and tick co-feeding studies. Med. Vet. Entomol. 2000, 14, 277–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Burri, C.; Korva, M.; Bastic, V.; Knap, N.; Avsic-Zupanc, T.; Gern, L. Serological evidence of tick-borne encephalitis virus infection in rodents captured at four sites in Switzerland. J. Med. Entomol. 2012, 49, 436–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Zeman, P.; Januška, J. Epizootiologic background of dissimilar distribution of human cases of Lyme borreliosis and tick-borne encephalitis in a joint endemic area. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 1999, 22, 247–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Kozuch, O.; Gresíková, M.; Nosek, J.; Lichard, M.; Sekeyová, M. The role of small rodents and hedgehogs in a natural focus of tick-borne encephalitis. Bull. World Health Organ. 1967, 36, 61–66. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  39. Kozuch, O.; Labuda, M.; Lysý, J.; Weismann, P.; Krippel, E. Longitudinal study of natural foci of Central European encephalitis virus in West Slovakia. Acta Virol. 1990, 34, 537–544. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  40. Kocianová, E.; Kozuch, O.; Bakoss, P.; Rehácek, J.; Kovácová, E. The prevalence of small terrestrial mammals infected with tick-borne encephalitis virus and leptospirae in the foothills of the southern Bavarian forest, Germany. Appl. Parasitol. 1993, 34, 283–290. [Google Scholar]
  41. Dizij, A.; Kurtenbach, K. Clethrionomys glareolus, but not Apodemus flavicollis, acquires resistance to Ixodes ricinus L., the main European vector of Borrelia burgdorferi. Parasite Immunol. 1995, 17, 177–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Heigl, Z.; von Zeipel, G. Experimental Infection with Tick-Borne Encephalitis Virus in Clethrionomys glareolus, Apodemus flavicollis, Apodemus sylvaticur and Mus musculus. I. Virological Studies. Acta Pathol. Microbiol. Scand. 1966, 66, 489–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Von Zeipel, G.; Heigl, Z. Experimental infection with tick-borne virus in Clethrionomys glareolus, Apodemus flavicollis, Apodemus sylvaticus and Mus musculus. 2. Serological studies. Acta Pathol. Microbiol. Scand. 1966, 68, 211–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Labuda, M.; Nuttall, P.A.; Kozuch, O.; Elecková, E.; Williams, T.; Zuffová, E.; Sabó, A. Non-viraemic transmission of tick-borne encephalitis virus: A mechanism for arbovirus survival in nature. Experientia 1993, 49, 802–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Radda, A.; LOEW, J.; Pretzmann, G. Investigations in a Natural Focus of Early Summer Meningoencephalitis in Lower Austria. 2. Attempt to isolate Virus from Arthropods and Small Mammals. Zent. Fur Bakteriol. Parasitenkd. Infekt. Und Hyg. 1963, 190, 281–298. [Google Scholar]
  46. Hughes, V.L.; Randolph, S.E. Testosterone increases the transmission potential of tick-borne parasites. Parasitology 2001, 123, 365–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Grzybek, M.; Bajer, A.; Bednarska, M.; Al-Sarraf, M.; Behnke-Borowczyk, J.; Harris, P.D.; Price, S.J.; Brown, G.S.; Osborne, S.-J.; Siński, E.; et al. Long-term spatiotemporal stability and dynamic changes in helminth infracommunities of bank voles (Myodes glareolus) in NE Poland. Parasitology 2015, 142, 1722–1743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Labuda, M.; Kozuch, O.; Zuffová, E.; Elecková, E.; Hails, R.S.; Nuttall, P.A. Tick-borne encephalitis virus transmission between ticks cofeeding on specific immune natural rodent hosts. Virology 1997, 235, 138–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Stenseth, N.C.; VIljugrein, H.; Jędrzejewski, W.; Mysterud, A.; Pucek, Z. Population dynamics of Clethrionomys glareolus and Apodemus flavicollis: Seasonal components of density dependence and density independence. Acta Theriol. 2002, 47, 39–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Vukićević-Radić, O.; Mati, R.; Kataranovski, D.; Stamenković, S. Spatial organization and home range of Apodemus flavicollis and A. agrarius on Mt. Avala, Serbia. Acta Zool. Acad. Sci. Hung. 2006, 52, 81–96. [Google Scholar]
  51. Bujalska, G.; Grüm, L. Social organization of the bank vole (Clethrionomys glareolus, Schreber 1780) and its demographic consequences: A model. Oecologia 1989, 80, 70–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Bajer, A.; Bednarska, M.; Pawełczyk, A.; Behnke, J.M.; Gilbert, F.S.; Sinski, E. Prevalence and abundance of Cryptosporidium parvum and giardia spp. in wild rural rodents from the Mazury Lake District region of Poland. Parasitology 2002, 125, 21–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Cullinane, A.A.; Garvey, M. A review of diagnostic tests recommended by the World Organisation for Animal Health Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals. Rev. Sci. Tech. 2021, 40, 75–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Coroian, M.; Mihalca, A.D.; Dobler, G.; Euringer, K.; Girl, P.; Borșan, S.-D.; Kalmár, Z.; Tincuța Briciu, V.; Flonta, M.; Topan, A.; et al. Seroprevalence Rates against West Nile, Usutu, and Tick-Borne Encephalitis Viruses in Blood-Donors from North-Western Romania. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 8182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Bates, D.; Mächler, M.; Bolker, B.; Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Soft. 2015, 67, 1–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Length, R.; Singmann, H.; Love, J.; Buerkner, P.; Herve, M. Emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R Package Version 2018, 1, 3. [Google Scholar]
Pathogens 12 00185 g001 550
Figure 1. Calculation of the density in Haselmuehl and Heselbach for two species, the bank vole (Clethrionomys glareolus) and yellow-necked mouse (Apodemus flavicollis), per season and year. Density represents the minimum number alive (MNA) per season of captured rodents per 0.5 hectares. Spring (March–May), summer (June–August), autumn (September–October).
Figure 1. Calculation of the density in Haselmuehl and Heselbach for two species, the bank vole (Clethrionomys glareolus) and yellow-necked mouse (Apodemus flavicollis), per season and year. Density represents the minimum number alive (MNA) per season of captured rodents per 0.5 hectares. Spring (March–May), summer (June–August), autumn (September–October).
Pathogens 12 00185 g001
Pathogens 12 00185 g002 550
Figure 2. Overview of the sampling site in Haselmuehl with three sub-plots (Ham1–Ham3) (a) and Heselbach with two sub-plots (Heb1 and Heb2) (b); each white dot represents one live animal trap. The image was created by using Google Earth Pro, Map: Google Earth ©2022 Google, Image Landsat/Copernicus ©2022 GeoBasis-DE/BKG.
Figure 2. Overview of the sampling site in Haselmuehl with three sub-plots (Ham1–Ham3) (a) and Heselbach with two sub-plots (Heb1 and Heb2) (b); each white dot represents one live animal trap. The image was created by using Google Earth Pro, Map: Google Earth ©2022 Google, Image Landsat/Copernicus ©2022 GeoBasis-DE/BKG.
Pathogens 12 00185 g002
Pathogens 12 00185 g003 550
Figure 3. Overview of Bavaria (dark grey) in Germany (white) with the location of the study area marked by a square (a); trapping locations within the study area (b). The image was created by using Google Earth Pro, Map: Google Earth ©2022 Google, Image Landsat/Copernicus ©2022 GeoBasis-DE/BKG.
Figure 3. Overview of Bavaria (dark grey) in Germany (white) with the location of the study area marked by a square (a); trapping locations within the study area (b). The image was created by using Google Earth Pro, Map: Google Earth ©2022 Google, Image Landsat/Copernicus ©2022 GeoBasis-DE/BKG.
Pathogens 12 00185 g003
Table
Table 1. Tick-borne encephalitis virus seropositivity rates for rodents by years, seasons, and locations. Serum and thoracic lavage samples are considered together.
Table 1. Tick-borne encephalitis virus seropositivity rates for rodents by years, seasons, and locations. Serum and thoracic lavage samples are considered together.
HaselmuehlHeselbach
Clethrionomys glareolusApodemus flavicollisClethrionomys glareolusApodemus flavicollis
YearSeasonNTRSeropos. (Seropos./
Sampled Rodents		RF (%)NTRSeropos. (Seropos./
Sampled Rodents		RF (%)NTRSeropos. (Seropos./
Sampled Rodents		RF (%)NTRSeropos. (Seropos./
Sampled Rodents		RF (%)
YSYSYSYS
2019Spring347/3021.323.3110/1000287/2618.026.9134/1022.640.0
Summer7214/5923.7120/110495/3215.6388/3324.2
Autumn529/5217.3170/170426/4214.3212/1910.5
2020Spring00/010.8000/00073/723.942.900/020.00
Summer192/1910.550/504914/4431.8113/1127.3
Autumn192/1811.130/20415/4112.240/40
2021Spring20/217.6000/05.60114/1118.836.400/000
Summer21/250.010/10223/2213.6110/110
Autumn132/1315.4171/175.9152/1513.3160/160
2022Spring60/633.3000/00030/30010/17.70
Summer95/955.610/1060/60111/119.1
Autumn00/0000/00110/11010/10
Total 22842/21020.0671/641.628449/26018.812718/11715.4
Y = Year; S = Season; NTR = Number of trapped rodents; Seropos. = Seropositivity; seropos. = seropositive; RF = Relative frequency.
Table
Table 2. Results of a generalized linear mixed model with binominal error distribution with effects of location, seasonality, small mammal species, sex, and age on infection probability in small mammal specimens in total, per location and species.
Table 2. Results of a generalized linear mixed model with binominal error distribution with effects of location, seasonality, small mammal species, sex, and age on infection probability in small mammal specimens in total, per location and species.
FactorEstimateStd. Errorz-Valuep-Value
Total
Intercept−2.93720.3989−7.3631.8 × 10-13 ***
A. flavicollis v. Cl. glareolus1.06030.30373.4910.000481 ***
Autumn v. spring0.66710.35171.8970.057849 .
Autumn v. summer0.64630.27452.3550.018545 *
Haselmuehl v. Heselbach0.28830.23561.2240.221094
2019 v. 2020−0.10450.2798−0.3740.708743
2019 v. 2021−0.57080.3552−1.6070.108080
2019 v. 2022−0.75710.4762−1.5900.111845
Adult v. juvenile−0.67160.3426−1.9600.049969 *
Female v. male0.81020.25093.2290.001240 **
Haselmuehl
Intercept−5.888061.16148−5.0693.99 × 10−7 ***
Autumn v. spring0.046090.585150.0790.93722
Autumn v. summer0.542460.434451.2490.21181
A. flavicollis v. Cl. glareolus3.441871.057403.2550.00113 **
2019 v. 2020−0.654510.61951−1.0560.29074
2019 v. 20210.513850.669470.7680.44276
2019 v. 20220.095610.681520.1400.88843
Adult v. juvenile0.412230.517030.7970.42528
Female v. male2.111640.478194.4161.01 × 10−5 ***
Heselbach
Intercept−1.731610.49816−3.4760.000509 ***
Autumn v. spring1.306240.442242.9540.003140 **
Autumn v. summer0.818170.372292.1980.027974 *
A. flavicollis v. Cl. glareolus0.287400.344910.8330.404698
2019 v. 20200.238720.350380.6810.495677
2019 v. 2021−0.782070.43313−1.8060.070976
2019 v. 2022−2.017111.04650−1.9270.053920 .
Adult v. juvenile−1.310920.44867−2.9220.003480 **
Female v. male0.090020.317430.2840.776736
Apodemus flavicollis
Intercept−3.95931.1871−3.3350.000852 ***
Autumn v. spring1.40470.92421.5200.128515
Autumn v. summer1.02980.72171.4270.153607
Haselmuehl v. Heselbach2.71111.06872.5370.011184 *
2019 v. 2020−0.56730.7925−0.7160.474066
2019 v. 2021−1.84051.1040−1.6670.095504
2019 v. 2022−1.73621.1382−1.5250.127161
Adult v. juvenile−2.32981.1194−2.0810.037411 *
Female v. male−1.23730.5951−2.0790.037597 *
Clethrionomys glareolus
Intercept−1.9358550.330835−5.8514.87 × 10−9 ***
Autumn v. spring0.5242910.3617271.4490.1472
Autumn v. summer0.4949200.2885991.7150.0864
Haselmuehl v. Heselbach−0.0845380.266944−0.3170.7515
2019 v. 20200.0016820.3106680.0050.9957
2019 v. 2021−0.2682200.399430−0.6720.5019
2019 v. 2022−0.7967840.540969−1.4730.1408
Female v. male1.3638630.2893384.7142.43 × 10−6 ***
Std. Error = Standard Error; v. = versus; Significance codes: 0 ‘***’ = extremely significant; 0.001 ‘**’ = highly significant; 0.01 ‘*’ = very significant; 0.05 ‘.’ = significant.
Table
Table 3. The number of tick-borne encephalitis virus seropositive rodents of total sampled by years, seasons, and locations. Serum and thoracic lavage samples are considered together.
Table 3. The number of tick-borne encephalitis virus seropositive rodents of total sampled by years, seasons, and locations. Serum and thoracic lavage samples are considered together.
TBEV Seropositive/Sampled Rodents
Haselmuehl Heselbach
Clethrionomys glareolusApodemus flavicollis Clethrionomys glareolusApodemus flavicollis
YearSeasonMFJuv.MFJuv.TotalSeropos. (%)MFJuv.MFJuv.TotalSeropos. (%)
YSYS
2019Spring3/52/192/60/80/20/07/4016.817.52/75/160/31/23/50/311/3619.830.6
Summer9/152/173/270/70/40/014/7020.03/50/112/163/184/81/713/6520.0
Autumn3/131/145/250/80/80/19/6913.01/63/122/242/100/60/38/6113.1
2020Spring0/00/00/00/00/00/00/09.101/40/02/30/00/00/03/723.442.9
Summer2/30/150/10/10/40/02/248.38/136/190/120/33/70/117/5530.9
Autumn1/30/81/70/10/10/02/2010.03/81/81/250/30/10/05/4511.1
2021Spring0/00/00/20/00/00/00/211.400/54/60/00/00/00/04/1112.036.4
Summer1/10/10/00/00/10/01/333.32/101/60/60/60/40/13/339.1
Autumn1/11/40/80/51/30/93/3010.02/30/30/90/80/40/42/316.5
2022Spring0/40/20/00/00/00/00/631.300/20/10/00/00/10/00/43.00
Summer4/41/50/00/00/10/05/1050.00/10/20/30/41/50/21/175.9
Autumn0/00/00/00/00/00/00/000/10/40/60/10/00/00/120
Total 24/497/8511/760/301/240/1043/274 22/6520/887/1076/5511/411/2167/377
Seropos. (%) 49.08.214.504.2015.7 33.822.76.510.926.84.817.8
Y = Year; S = Season; M = Male; F = Female; Juv. = Juvenile; Seropos. = Seropositivity.
Table
Table 4. Listing of seropositive rodents which were caught at least two times with the results of the indirect immunofluorescence assay (IIFA).
Table 4. Listing of seropositive rodents which were caught at least two times with the results of the indirect immunofluorescence assay (IIFA).
IDSpeciesSexFirst CaptureSecond CaptureThird Capture
SampleIIFADays upon 2nd CaptureSampleIIFADays upon 3rd CaptureSampleIIFA
Seroconversion
35_HebCl glareolus.fserumneg.42serumpos.
26_HebCl. glareolusfserumneg.43lavagepos.
31_HebCl. glareolusfserumneg.42lavagepos.
220_HebCl. glareolusfserumneg.293serumpos.
169_HebA. flavicollismserumneg.59serumpos.
250_HebA. flavicollisfserumneg.308lavagepos.
224_HebCl. glareolusfserumneg.47serumneg.142serumpos.
194_HebCl. glareolusmn.a.n.a.23serumneg.293serumpos.
222_HebCl. glareolusmserumneg.47serumneg.246serumpos.
59_HamCl. glareolusmserumneg.48serumpos.36serumpos.
297_HebCl. glareolusfserumneg.294serumpos.37serumpos.
275_HebA. flavicollisfserumneg.244serumpos.20serumpos.
465_HamCl. glareolusmserumneg.62serumpos.29serumpos.
Positive recaptured once
20_HamCl. glareolusmserumpos.92serumpos.
21_HamCl. glareolusmserumpos.92serumpos.
146_HamCl. glareolusmserumpos.59serumpos.
84_HamCl. glareolusmserumpos.92serumpos.
105_HamCl. glareolusfserumpos.59serumpos.
232_HebCl. glareolusfserumpos.48serumpos.
388_HebCl. glareolusmserumpos.29serumpos.
426_HebCl. glareolusmserumpos.30serumpos.
290_HebCl. glareolusfserumpos.17serumpos.
261_HebCl. glareolusmserumpos.141serumpos.
283_HebCl. glareolusfserumpos.17lavagepos.
Positive recaptured twice
16_HamCl. glareolusfserumpos.42n.a.n.a.50serumpos.
9_HamCl. glareolusmserumpos.91serumpos.36serumpos.
80_HebCl. glareolusmserumpos.33serumpos.59serumpos.
232_HebCl. glareolusfserumpos.47serumpos.142serumpos.
294_HebCl. glareolusmserumpos.15serumpos.21serumpos.
305_HebCl. glareolusmserumpos.20serumpos.36serumpos.
385_HebCl. glareolusfserumpos.36serumpos.28serumpos.
77_HebA. flavicollisfserumpos.33serumpos.36serumpos.
Seropositive to seronegative captures
189_HamCl. glareolusfn.a.n.a.23serumpos.48serumneg.
136_HebA. flavicollismserumpos.36lavageneg.
69_HebA. flavicollismserumpos.16n.a.n.a.91serumneg.
n.a. = not available (due to weakened physical conditions or the body weight was under 14 g); pos. = positive; neg. = negative.
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

Brandenburg, P.J.; Obiegala, A.; Schmuck, H.M.; Dobler, G.; Chitimia-Dobler, L.; Pfeffer, M. Seroprevalence of Tick-Borne Encephalitis (TBE) Virus Antibodies in Wild Rodents from Two Natural TBE Foci in Bavaria, Germany. Pathogens 2023, 12, 185. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12020185

AMA Style

Brandenburg PJ, Obiegala A, Schmuck HM, Dobler G, Chitimia-Dobler L, Pfeffer M. Seroprevalence of Tick-Borne Encephalitis (TBE) Virus Antibodies in Wild Rodents from Two Natural TBE Foci in Bavaria, Germany. Pathogens. 2023; 12(2):185. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12020185

Chicago/Turabian Style

Brandenburg, Philipp Johannes, Anna Obiegala, Hannah Maureen Schmuck, Gerhard Dobler, Lidia Chitimia-Dobler, and Martin Pfeffer. 2023. "Seroprevalence of Tick-Borne Encephalitis (TBE) Virus Antibodies in Wild Rodents from Two Natural TBE Foci in Bavaria, Germany" Pathogens 12, no. 2: 185. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12020185

APA Style

Brandenburg, P. J., Obiegala, A., Schmuck, H. M., Dobler, G., Chitimia-Dobler, L., & Pfeffer, M. (2023). Seroprevalence of Tick-Borne Encephalitis (TBE) Virus Antibodies in Wild Rodents from Two Natural TBE Foci in Bavaria, Germany. Pathogens, 12(2), 185. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12020185

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