Next Article in Journal
MukB Is a Gene Necessary for Rapid Proliferation of Vibrio vulnificus in the Systemic Circulation but Not at the Local Infection Site in the Mouse Wound Infection Model
Next Article in Special Issue
Novel Protozoans in Austria Revealed through the Use of Dogs as Sentinels for Ticks and Tick-Borne Pathogens
Previous Article in Journal
The Role of Lung Colonization in Connective Tissue Disease-Associated Interstitial Lung Disease
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Microorganisms
Volume 9
Issue 5
10.3390/microorganisms9050933
microorganisms-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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Population Structure of Borrelia lusitaniae Is Reflected by a Population Division of Its Ixodes Vector

by
Ana Cláudia Norte
1,2,
Pierre H. Boyer
3,
Santiago Castillo-Ramirez
4,
Michal Chvostáč
5,
Mohand O. Brahami
6,
Robert E. Rollins
7,
Tom Woudenberg
8,
Yuliya M. Didyk
5,9,
Marketa Derdakova
5,
Maria Sofia Núncio
2,10,
Isabel Lopes de Carvalho
2,10,
Gabriele Margos
8,* and
Volker Fingerle
8
1
MARE-Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre, Department of Life Sciences, University of Coimbra, 3000-456 Coimbra, Portugal
2
Centre for Vector and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institute of Health Doutor Ricardo Jorge, Águas de Moura, 2965-575 Setúbal, Portugal
3
CHRU Strasbourg, UR7290 Lyme Borreliosis Group, ITI InnoVec, Fédération de Médecine Translationnelle de Strasbourg, Institut de Bactériologie, University of Strasbourg, 3 rue Koeberlé, 67000 Strasbourg, France
4
Programa de Genómica Evolutiva, Centro de Ciencias Genómicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Apartado Postal 565-A, Cuernavaca, CP 62210, Mexico
5
Institute of Zoology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, 84506 Bratislava, Slovakia
6
Laboratory of Ecology and Biology of Terrestrial Ecosystems, Faculty Biological and Agronomic Sciences, University Mouloud Mammeri, 15000 Tizi-Ouzou, Algeria
7
Division of Evolutionary Biology, LMU Munich, Faculty of Biology, Grosshaderner Strasse 2, 82152 Planegg-Martinsried, Germany
8
National Reference Center for Borrelia, Bavarian Health and Food Safety Authority, 85764 Oberschleissheim, Germany
9
Department of Acarology, I. I. Schmalhausen Institute of Zoology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, B. Khmelnytskogo 15, 01030 Kyiv, Ukraine
10
Environmental Health Institute, Medicine Faculty, University of Lisbon, 1649-026 Lisbon, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2021, 9(5), 933; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9050933
Submission received: 16 March 2021 / Revised: 19 April 2021 / Accepted: 21 April 2021 / Published: 27 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Borrelia Ecology and Evolution: Ticks and Hosts and the Environment)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Populations of vector-borne pathogens are shaped by the distribution and movement of vector and reservoir hosts. To study what impact host and vector association have on tick-borne pathogens, we investigated the population structure of Borrelia lusitaniae using multilocus sequence typing (MLST). Novel sequences were acquired from questing ticks collected in multiple North African and European locations and were supplemented by publicly available sequences at the Borrelia Pubmlst database (accessed on 11 February 2020). Population structure of B. lusitaniae was inferred using clustering and network analyses. Maximum likelihood phylogenies for two molecular tick markers (the mitochondrial 16S rRNA locus and a nuclear locus, Tick-receptor of outer surface protein A, trospA) were used to confirm the morphological species identification of collected ticks. Our results confirmed that B. lusitaniae does indeed form two distinguishable populations: one containing mostly European samples and the other mostly Portuguese and North African samples. Of interest, Portuguese samples clustered largely based on being from north (European) or south (North African) of the river Targus. As two different Ixodes species (i.e., I. ricinus and I. inopinatus) may vector Borrelia in these regions, reference samples were included for I. inopinatus but did not form monophyletic clades in either tree, suggesting some misidentification. Even so, the trospA phylogeny showed a monophyletic clade containing tick samples from Northern Africa and Portugal south of the river Tagus suggesting a population division in Ixodes on this locus. The pattern mirrored the clustering of B. lusitaniae samples, suggesting a potential co-evolution between tick and Borrelia populations that deserve further investigation.

1. Introduction

Populations of vector-borne infectious disease agents are shaped by migration of, and selection pressure exerted by, their hosts and vectors [1,2,3,4] and these processes leave genetic signatures in the genomes of the organisms. Investigation of the geographical distribution of genetic lineages and their diversity permit inference of evolutionary processes such as selection or migration that have shaped populations [4]. Ticks range among the most important vectors for microbial pathogens [5] but many pathogens they transmit are difficult to study [6]. Disease agents that have been associated with Ixodes ticks include Borrelia spp., Babesia spp., Anaplasma spp., Rickettsia spp., and viruses such as tick-borne encephalitis virus or Powassan virus with species varying in their geographical distribution and pathogenic potential [5], [7]. The abundance of ticks, tick-borne disease agents and resulting host-parasite interactions have been reported to be influenced by environmental changes, among them changes in land use, increases in temperature due to climate change and others [3,8,9]. In this study, as a proxy for tick-transmitted pathogens, we investigated a population of the most frequently found microbes transmitted by ticks in the temperate northern hemisphere, i.e., microbes that belong to the Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato species complex.
The Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato species complex comprises more than 20 spirochetal bacterial species that use ticks of the genus Ixodes as vector and small to medium sized vertebrate species as reservoir hosts. Borrelia species vary considerably in the scale of their host and vector specificity [1,6,10,11], and this is reflected in the geographic distribution of their lineages [11,12,13]. Furthermore, host- and vector associations have been identified as drivers for diversification and speciation in Borrelia [6,11,14,15]. For example, B. burgdorferi sensu stricto (s.s.) Johnson et al. 1984, the main cause of human Lyme borreliosis in North America, is considered a generalist species because it can have different groups of vertebrate species such as rodents or birds as reservoir hosts and several Ixodes species as vectors [16,17]. The distribution range in North America includes the Northeast and Midwest of the USA [18] ranging now into Canada [19,20,21] and Western coastal regions [22,23]. Phylogenies based on multilocus sequence typing (MLST) or genomic SNPs have revealed a complex population structure, but strains do not cluster according to geography [24,25,26,27]. Species using only avian reservoirs, such as Borrelia garinii Baranton et al. 1982 or Borrelia valaisiana Wang et al. 1997, showed very little population structure likely owing to the migration and dispersal pattern of their avian reservoir hosts [12,13,28,29,30,31,32]. In comparison, species that use hosts with smaller migration ranges such as rodents or lizards show more pronounced population structure, supposedly reflecting the migration range of their hosts [12,33].
Borrelia lusitaniae Le Fleche et al. 1997 was isolated for the first time in Portugal [34] and described as a species in 1997 [35]. The species has been associated with lizards as reservoir hosts [36,37,38] and Ixodes ricinus Linnaeus, 1758 as its main vector [39,40,41]. Several species of the family Lacertidae, e.g., Psammodromus algirus Linnaeus, 1758 [36,38,42], Podarcis spp. Wagler, 1830 [37,38,43,44], Teira dugesii Milne-Edwards 1829 [45] as well as Lacerta spp. Linnaeus, 1758 [43,46] were incriminated as potential reservoir hosts for B. lusitaniae. Some studies reported isolation of B. lusitaniae from, or detection of B. lusitaniae by PCR in, larvae feeding on the rodent Apodemus sylvaticus Linnaeus, 1758 [38,47]. Although this is not proof of reservoir competence, it cannot be immediately discounted that hosts other than lizards may serve as reservoirs for B. lusitaniae; further studies are needed to clarify this point. Initial reports of B. lusitaniae came from around the Mediterranean basin (Tunisia, Morocco, Portugal, Italy) [34,41,48,49,50] but now it has also been reported in countries such as Slovakia, Poland, and Latvia [46,51,52,53]. Remarkably high Borrelia infection rates of adult ticks (at the time identified as I. ricinus) (75%, 41 out of 55) were found in Portugal near Grândola of which a majority were identified as B. lusitaniae [54] suggesting favorable conditions in terms of reservoir hosts and vector ticks for this Borrelia species. First studies showed that B. lusitaniae induced disease in C3H/HeN mice, causing both nodular interstitial cystitis and vasculitis of the great vessels of the heart [55]. From an epidemiological perspective, further investigations of B. lusitaniae populations will be important as to date two isolates have been obtained from human clinical cases [56,57,58].
The population structure of B. lusitaniae was analyzed based on single genes (outer surface protein A; ospA) [59] and multilocus sequence typing (MLST) [33]. The study on ospA included samples from Italy, Germany, Morocco and Portugal. Phylogenetic analyses demonstrated that Portuguese tick isolates (PoTiB1, PoTiB2 and PoTiB3, all isolated from ticks from around Águas de Moura, south of the river Tagus) formed a clade together with North African isolates while isolates from Germany, Italy and a Portuguese human isolate (from Lisbon region) formed a second clade [59]. The MLST study included samples from Portugal collected in Mafra (north of the river Tagus) and Grândola (south of the river Tagus). Phylogenetic analyses of MLST sequences showed that isolates from north of the Tagus river mostly clustered together while samples from Grândola formed a second cluster suggesting two populations in Portugal–one from the north of the Tagus river, the other one from south of the Tagus river [33]. To confirm the population structure of B. lusitaniae, we analyzed, using MLST, samples from various European countries (Austria, Croatia, Latvia, Serbia, Slovakia, Ukraine and Portugal) and from North Africa (Algeria). The Portuguese samples included specimens from north (Mafra and Coimbra) and south (Santiago do Cacém) of the river Tagus and from Madeira island. In addition, we tested the hypothesis that the population structure of B. lusitaniae is shaped by association with different vector species. In 2014, a new Ixodes species was described and named Ixodes inopinatus Estrada-Peña, Nava et Petney 2014 [60]. The authors describe that I. inopinatus can be found on lizards and suggest that it replaces I. ricinus in dry Mediterranean regions of Algeria, Morocco, Portugal, Spain and Tunisia. A previous study on the population structure of I. ricinus had shown that there was a divergent clade in North Africa [61]. The latter study used concatenated sequences of four mitochondrial and nuclear genes including the 16S rRNA locus and Tick-receptor of outer surface protein A (trospA). In the present study, we used these two loci to establish whether there are different populations of Ixodes in Portugal and whether the ticks collected in Algeria may be identified as I. inopinatus.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Tick Collection and Processing

Questing ticks were collected by standardized flagging method [62]. Ticks from Algeria were removed from cattle, one specimen was collected in Portugal feeding on a P. algirus (PoTiB11/T3087), three specimens were collected in 2018 in Germany from great tits Parus major Linnaeus, 1758 (11-E12, 7-F5, 8-C12) [63], and three specimens feeding on humans (13310PT18, 13360PT18 and 14401PT18). Collected ticks were morphologically determined into stages and species [60,64] and stored in 70% ethanol until further analyses, except for one sample that was inoculated in BSK medium (see Table S1).
In Slovakia, ticks were collected in years 2013–2017 in an ecotone between the forest and a small mountain stream on Martinské hole mountains (49.085464, 18.863042; 630–660 m ASL). The vegetation was composed mainly of beech, spruce, hazel and elderberry with herbal undergrowth.
In Croatia, ticks were collected in 2011 in Grabovac (44.971317, 15.640267; 420 m ASL). The study area consisted of hornbeam forest, shrubs and pastures.
In Ukraine, ticks were collected during 2015–2016 in urban green areas Kyiv city: (50.446639, 30.570000; 179 m ASL). The vegetation cover at the sampling sites consisted of deciduous forests, shrubs and inhomogeneous meadows.
In Algeria, ticks were collected during 2015–2016 from cattle, in the mountainous Akfadou forest. Three collection sites were investigated during the collection campaign, which are places where cattle rest and can drink: site A (36.6289361, 4.57211111; 1567 m ASL); site B (36.690625, 4.57448611; 1196 m ASL) and site C (36.6951028, 4.55724694; 1201 m ASL).
Questing ticks from Portugal were collected in Tapada de Mafra in 2003 and 2013, and in 2009 in the Madeira Archipelago, Parque Natural Peneda-Gerês, and in Santiago do Cacém. Details on vegetation and fauna are given in Supplementary Material.
Countries where ticks were collected and Borrelia samples characterized are shown in Figure 1. Details on geographic origin, species and number of ticks included in the current analysis are given in Table 1 and Table S1.

2.2. DNA Extraction

For DNA isolation from ticks, different methods were used. In Slovakia and Ukraine, alkaline-hydrolysis was used as described [65] on individual ticks. In Portugal, a DNAeasy kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) was used. Ticks sampled in Algeria were individually extracted using the MagNA Pure 96 system using the MagNA Pure96 DNA and Viral NA Small Volume Kit (Roche Diagnostics, Meylan, France) according to the manufacturer’s instruction and for ticks from Germany the Qiagen BioSprint 96 DNA Blood kit (Qiagen) was used. DNA samples were stored frozen (at −20 °C and −80 °C, respectively), until further processing. In samples from Croatia, Slovakia, and Ukraine the presence of tick DNA was confirmed by amplification of a 620 bp fragment of the tick mitochondrial gene cytochrome B (Black & Roehrdanz 1998). Only PCR positive samples were further analyzed.

2.3. PCR Borrelia Genes

Borrelia burgdorferi s.l. was detected through PCR amplification of a 222–255 bp fragment of the rrfA-rrlB intergenic spacer (IGS) in samples from Croatia, Slovakia, and Ukraine [66] and Portugal [67]. In Portuguese and Algerian samples B. burgdorferi s.l. was confirmed through amplification of the flagellin B (flaB) gene [68,69] (see Table S2).
MLST on Borrelia positive samples was done primarily using a nested or semi-nested PCR (HotStar Taq Master Mix Kit or HotStarTaq Plus DNA Polymerase kit, Qiagen, Hilden, Germany), with primers and PCR conditions as previously described [70,71] [see also https://pubmlst.org/borrelia/ (11 February 2020)]. As the uvrA gene did not amplify in all cases, fragments of the seven housekeeping genes clpA, clpX, nifS, pepX, pyrG, recG, and rplB were amplified and sequenced. As positive control DNA of B. japonica or B. turdi was used while double distilled water was used as negative control. Table 2 and Table S2 give an overview of B. lusitaniae positive samples that were typed by MLST and for which at least seven MLST housekeeping genes gave good sequences without ambiguities. MLST sequences were submitted and are available via pubmlst.org/borrelia/ (11 May 2020) at the University of Oxford.
Purification of PCR products was done using a NucleoSpin Gel and PCR Clean-up according to the manufacturer’s recommendation (MACHEREY-NAGEL, Düren, Germany). For Slovakian and Algerian samples Sanger sequencing of all the genes was performed by Eurofins Genomics (Eurofins Genomics Germany GmbH, Ebersberg, Germany and Basel, Switzerland).

2.4. PCR on Tick Genes

To confirm the morphological identification of ticks and to differentiate I. ricinus and I. inopinatus, two previously used loci, the mitochondrial 16S rRNA locus and the nuclear gene trospA were amplified [61,72] and sequenced. We included tick samples that were characterized for Borrelia or originated from the same regions as the Borrelia positive tick samples, but they were not necessarily identical. Three morphologically identified samples that matched the 16S rRNA of I. inopinatus were available, designated as such, and were included as controls (for details see Table S1). In tick samples from Algeria, Slovakia and Portugal, the 16S rRNA gene was amplified according to [72] and the trospA locus was amplified using primers and conditions with slight modification according to [61]. The implemented modification was a touch-down protocol for the initial six rounds of amplification to minimize non-specific background; the annealing temperatures started at 61 °C and decreased 1 °C per cycle until a temperature of 56 °C was reached. Further amplification rounds were performed at 56 °C. Further details on PCR conditions are given in supplementary information.

2.5. Bioinformatic Analysis Recombination and Network Analysis on MLST Genes of Borrelia Samples

Recombination signals were analyzed in the MLST sequence alignment and in both trospA and 16S rRNA sequences employing the PhiTest implemented in SplitTree4 [73]. Because the MLST alignment had recombination signals NeighborNet was run instead of a regular phylogeny; we used SplitTree4 to construct the net and selected the uncorrected P distance and equal angle display.
To identify the potential recombination events in the MLST alignment we used Gubbins with default parameters [74]. We also conduct individual recombination analysis via PhiPack [75], following the method described for A. baumannii [76], on each the fragments of the seven housekeeping genes employed for the MLST. Of note, out of the seven housekeeping genes in clpA we found signals of recombination (p-value = 3.66 × 10−2).

2.6. Hierarchical Population Structure Analysis (HPSA) of Borrelia

For a hierarchical population structure analysis using hierBAPS [77], we used the alignment of concatenated MLST sequences. The analysis was run at four levels of clustering and the number of initial clusters was set to 20. We also computed the coefficient of differentiation via MEGA X [78] for the two major groups found at the first level of HPSA clustering.

2.7. Hierarchical Clustering of MLST Genes of Borrelia Samples

To assess the hypothesis of having two genetic clades in Europe, we applied a hierarchical clustering algorithm [79]. This algorithm aggregated the isolates towards one group using the allelic profile data on the seven genes (clpA, clpX, nifS, pepX, pyrG, recG and rplB). The hierarchical clustering algorithm treats every isolate as its own cluster and will then look for the closest related isolate based on a similarity measure (allelic profile) and fuses these into a cluster. This step is repeated until all isolates belong to a cluster which can be visualized in a dendrogram. The similarity measure was Gower’s similarity coefficient [80]. This coefficient can range from 0 to 1, where a score of 1 indicates complete similarity. Identical isolates fuse directly in the dendrogram, whereas dissimilar isolates only fuse at a more upward branch. R (version 4.0.2) [81] was used to map the data with package “rnaturalearth” and “ggplot2”. The dendrogram was build using the R package “dendextend” [82].

2.8. GoeBURST Analysis of Borrelia

We used PHYLOVIZ 1.1 [83] to conduct goeBURST analyses using the triple locus variant setting [84] using ST numbers, allelic profiles and meta information. Previous data available for B. lusitaniae isolates were downloaded from the Borrelia MLST database [www.pubmlst.org/borrelia/ (11 February 2020)] and included in our network and goeBURST analyses.

2.9. Maximum Likelihood Phylogenies of Tick Samples

As 16S rRNA and trospA did not show signals of recombination regular phylogenies were constructed. For both loci, the best model for the phylogeny was selected via jModelTest [85]. For each locus, a maximum likelihood (ML) phylogeny was run using PhyML [86] setting the best model, which was HK+I for 16S and K80+I for trospA.

3. Results

3.1. Identification of Borrelia lusitaniae in Ticks

Ticks collected in Europe (Croatia, Portugal, Slovakia, Ukraine,) and North Africa (Algeria) that tested positive for B. burgdorferi in screening PCRs were further analyzed by MLST to identify B. lusitaniae. Details of B. lusitaniae samples (country of origin, region, MLST alleles and STs) included in the present study are given in Table 2 and Table S2. An overview of the geographical distribution can be found in Figure 1.

3.2. MLST, goeBURST and Phylogenetic Analyses of Borrelia Samples

3.2.1. Multilocus Sequence Typing (MLST)

For 15 B. lusitaniae positive samples at least seven MLST genes provided good sequences and these samples were included in the MLST analysis conducted here (Table 2). These samples were complemented with 40 B. lusitaniae samples available via the Borrelia MLST database [(pubmlst.org/borrelia/ (11 February 2020)]. For several of the samples, uvrA did not yield a PCR product and, thus, we describe the isolates by seven genes, namely: clpA, clpX, nifS, pepX, pyrG, recG and rplB. Most samples of B. lusitaniae were from Portugal (n = 24), followed by Serbia (n = 15) and Algeria (n = 6) (Table 2). Among the 55 isolates there are 19 differing alleles of clpA, 19 different alleles of gene clpX, nine different alleles of gene nifS, 12 alleles of pepX, 14 alleles of pyrG, 10 alleles of recG genes and 17 rplB alleles.

3.2.2. Clustering Analysis of B. lusitaniae

Based on previous results for B. lusitaniae [33,59], we investigated the hypothesis that isolates may fall into two groups, one cluster of isolates from Portugal and Algeria and one cluster of isolates from Central/Eastern Europe. We assessed this hypothesis by using hierarchical clustering, numbering the isolates 1–55 (Table 2). In the dendogram in Figure 2A two different clusters are obvious (depicted in red and green branches). Within these groups identical isolates were identified: e.g., isolates 18, 8, 9, and 1, 2, 30 were identical.
The isolates (numbered 1–55) were plotted on a map (Figure 2B); numbers and color coding for cluster 1 (red) and cluster 2 (green) correspond in Figure 2A,B. Samples from Central/Eastern Europe all fell into cluster 1 while all samples from Algeria fell into cluster 2. Interestingly, isolates from Portugal were assigned to different clusters, a subset fell into cluster 1 and a subset into cluster 2 (inlet in Figure 2B). Six isolates from Mafra and Lisbon seem to be different from other Portuguese and North African isolates.

3.2.3. goeBURST Analysis

Since the cluster analysis was in line with previous results suggesting a population division of B. lusitaniae, we used goeBURST to obtain an additional view of the population using a different method. The goeBURST diagram also indicated a population division (Figure 3). Although there was one link based on tiebreak rule 1 between ST7-007* from Algeria and ST7-004* from Mafra in Portugal, several connections (one link without choice of tiebreak rules and several lower level edges; see figure legend Figure 3 for further information) were found between STs from Algeria and STs originating from south of the Tagus river in Portugal (Grândola and Águas de Moura), resulting in a clonal complex (CC) that included 17 STs (CC7-003). A bushy clonal complex (CC918) was also formed consisting of STs from Slovakia, Serbia, Austria, Latvia, Ukraine and one ST (ST7-005) from Mafra, Portugal.
When we used goeBURST on higher level settings (level 4, using four alleles to infer inter-isolate relationships; level 5, using 5 alleles and level 6, six alleles), the picture of the relationship within populations became more obvious (see Supplementary Figures S1–S3). Most of the Portuguese isolates clustered with North African isolates, except for some isolates from Lisbon (human), Mafra and Madeira island which clustered with those from Austria, Croatia, Latvia, Serbia and Slovakia.

3.2.4. Sequence Analysis

All analyses were conducted with concatenated sequences of seven MLST genes. As previously reported [33] we found evidence for recombination (p = 0.00125) in the B. lusitaniae dataset. Therefore, a NeighborNet [73] was constructed instead of a phylogeny. The net shows that there are two very well differentiated groups (see Figure 4A,B), which was confirmed by the first level of the HPSA (Table S3). One group consisted of Portuguese and Algerian isolates (Figure 4A); the other group combined isolates from Eastern Europe, Austria and Portugal (Figure 4B). Supplementary Figure S4 provides the whole network, where two major groups are well differentiated. Notably, we did not find any recombination events between these two groups using Gubbins; further suggesting that these are well differentiated groups that may not exchange DNA. We also computed the coefficient of differentiation (NST) using MEGA X; the value of the coefficient was 0.71 (SE 0.04), which implies considerable levels of population differentiation between the two groups.
The second level of clustering using HPSA found clearly defined sub-clusters (see Table S3) within the two major groups, which suggests further geographic structuring. For instance, in major group 2 (Figure 4B) there is a cluster of Serbian isolates (blue label) and there is also a tight cluster of three Portuguese isolates (green label).

3.3. Analysis of Tick Samples

One hypothesis for the strong population division of B. lusitaniae was that this was due to vector association. To test this hypothesis, we investigated tick samples that originated from the same geographic region as the B. lusitaniae samples as well as from other regions. Ticks were identified to species status using morphological criteria [60,64,87]. Sequence data for the mitochondrial 16S rRNA gene and a nuclear gene, trospA, were used for corroboration. These loci were chosen because they showed in previous studies that there was a population division of I. ricinus between Europe and North Africa [61]. Because a new Ixodes species, I. inopinatus, was described originally in the Mediterranean region [60], samples from Germany that were identified as I. inopinatus morphologically and using molecular data (16S rRNA) were used as a control for I. inopinatus.
Given that neither of the loci, 16S rRNA and trospA, showed recombination signals (16S rRNA p = 0.82 and trospA p = 0.13), we employed ML phylogenies to depict the evolutionary relationships for each locus. All ticks tested in Slovakia were determined as I. ricinus by sequencing both 16S rRNA and trospA genes and comparing the sequences via BLASTn [88] searches to sequences available in GenBank. In the 16S rRNA ML phylogeny and as far as I. ricinus samples are concerned, the Portuguese and North African samples were dispersed in several groups across the tree (Figure 5A, green color coding). Furthermore, the I. inopinatus samples (both from GenBank and our “reference samples”) grouped together with samples that were classified as I. ricinus morphologically. Figure 5B shows the phylogeny of trospA, which seems to agree with the MLST NeighborNet in Figure 4: Two clusters emerged in the trospA phylogeny according to the geographical distribution (whatever the tick species) as in the B. lusitaniae MLST NeighborNet. Interestingly, in the trospA phylogeny, with only one exception all the Portuguese samples cluster with the North African samples (Figure 5B, green color coding). The only exception being the Portuguese sample R1756PT13 collected in Mafra (north of the river Tagus), which clusters with other non-Portuguese samples from Europe (red color coding). Of note, the three I. inopinatus control (“reference”) samples from Germany (blue color coding) did not form a monophyletic group, as they were located on different branches far apart in the tree. Taken together these results suggest that unlike the 16S rRNA-based phylogeny, the trospA phylogeny is consistent with the MLST NeighborNet in that samples from North Africa and Portugal form a separate clade. Notably, neither in the trospA phylogeny nor in the 16S RNA phylogeny did the I. inopinatus samples form a monophyletic group.

4. Discussion

4.1. Population Structure of Borrelia lusitaniae

In this study, we have further evaluated the population structure of B. lusitaniae including additional samples from Croatia, Portugal, Slovakia, Ukraine as well as from Algeria using MLST. Consistent with previously reported data [59], our data clearly show a subdivision between North African isolates and isolates from Latvia, Serbia, Slovakia, and Austria. The population division in Portugal [33] was also corroborated. In the cluster analysis isolates from north of the Tagus river clustered together (cluster 1) and only two isolates fell into cluster 2 together with isolates from south of the Tagus river which is consistent with previously reported data by [33]. Southern Portuguese isolates showed a higher degree of genetic relatedness to isolates from Algeria using goeBURST than to isolates from Mafra. However, two Portuguese STs from south of the Tagus river clustered as singletons in the goeBURST diagram with TLV settings. When higher level settings were considered, two singletons from south of the Tagus river (ST67, ST64) clustered with Algerian samples while singletons from Mafra (ST69, ST7-006) and Madeira island (ST925) clustered with samples from Europe (Supplementary Information Figures S1–S3). Thus, of the two major clonal complexes, one (CC918) consisted of STs from Austria, Croatia, Slovakia, Serbia, Latvia, Ukraine and one Portuguese ST from Mafra, the other (CC7-007*) consisted primarily of STs from Algeria, southern Portugal and two isolates from Mafra and Coimbra. The division was strongly supported through the sequenced-based network analysis where most STs from Mafra (except one) clustered with STs from other European countries and all STs from Grândola and Algeria fell into one cluster together with PoTiB2 and PoTiB3 from Águas de Moura (south of river Tagus), corroborating data published using ospA as molecular marker [47,59]. In summary, our data support, and agree with, previously published data demonstrating a population division of B. lusitaniae.
Recombination analysis and an analysis of the degree of differentiation between the two B. lusitaniae clusters suggested considerable differentiation. Previous work on Borrelia has shown that intraspecific recombination rates are 50 times higher than interspecific recombination rates [89]. Furthermore, population genomics analyses of ocean bacteria investigating early events in population differentiation suggest that gradual separation of genes pools is accompanied by population-specific recombination [90,91]. It appears that the two major groups (populations) maybe in the early stages of speciation; each one on its own trajectory. First, both the population structure analysis and Neighbor net analysis clearly unveiled two very well-defined groups. Secondly, the absence of recombination events between these two groups may suggest that there has been no recent gene flow between the two groups. Clearly further investigations considering whole genome sequences are needed to establish if there is gene flow between the two major populations.
The observed population division of B. lusitaniae did not seem to follow climate or vegetation zones known for Europe [92]. North Portugal may be influence by the Atlantic region while countries such as Italy, Spain and Algeria belong to the sub-Mediterranean or Mediterranean region. Although one could speculate that the division of Portuguese B. lusitaniae populations may follow the pattern of floristic regions or may be influenced by a geographic barrier (river Tagus), it would not explain the observed clustering of B. lusitaniae STs from North Portugal with STs from other European regions.

4.2. Host and Vector Associations

Previous work has suggested that host association is a key factor for driving diversification and speciation in Borrelia [6,14]. Subsequently it was suggested that vector associations may also drive diversification and ultimately speciation in Borrelia [11]. In view of the latest described Ixodes species (I. inopinatus) and its geographic distribution in North Africa, southern Spain and Portugal [60], it was a very attractive hypothesis to investigate whether the association with different vector species may be responsible for the observed population division. However, our data do not unambiguously support the hypothesis that an association with I. inopinatus is responsible for the observed population division of B. lusitaniae. We added three sample of I. inopinatus as reference because these were morphologically identified as I. inopinatus and their 16S rRNA sequences were identical to samples designated I. inopinatus in GenBank. Surprisingly, the I. inopinatus sequences from GenBank (GenBank accession numbers for 16S rRNA/trospA, respectively: GU074596TN/GU074839TN; GU074598DZ/GU074841DZ; GU074602MA/GU074845MA) and our own I. inopinatus reference samples did not form a monophyletic group. These data call for good reference sequences for this tick species and currently we cannot confirm the hypothesis of I. inopinatus association being the reason for the population division of B. lusitaniae. Intriguingly, in the trospA tree sequences clustered according to geographical origin: a divergent clade contained (with one exception) all the Portuguese and North African samples, samples designated as I. inopinatus in GenBank and one sample that the 16S rRNA BLAST search identified as I. inopinatus (3117DZ16). A separation between North African and Eurasian I. ricinus was also found by [61] and [93] using concatenated sequences of four mitochondrial and nuclear genes or 125 single nucleotide polymorphisms, respectively, although none of the studies included tick samples from Portugal. Thus, the B. lusitaniae population structure obtained by MLST seems to match the population structure of Ixodes using the trospA gene. Although these data are suggestive of co-evolution between B. lusitaniae and its vector, the drivers for this process remain to be elucidated.
Regarding host association, in the various countries were B. lusitaniae has been described, several lizard species have been suggested as reservoir hosts. In Slovakia, Germany and Italy green lizards (L. viridis) [46], sand lizards (L. agilis) [43] and common wall lizards (Podarcis muralis) [37,43,44] were described as reservoir hosts. However, these species do not occur on the Iberian Peninsula or in North Africa (see also https://www.Eurolizards.com). In Portugal and Spain, L. schreiberi is commonly found but its role as reservoir for B. lusitaniae cannot be confirmed with current data, although feeding I. ricinus nymphs have been found on this host [38]. Psammodromus algirus, the Algerian lizard, is widespread in North Africa (Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia) and on the Iberian Peninsula but its distribution in Italy or other countries is very restricted. The species has been shown to be divided into differentiated populations in East and West Iberia and North Africa. Furthermore, this species also shows some lineage differentiation in its western range in Iberia, between northern and southern populations, but miscegenation and relatively small sample size has precluded any taxonomic divisions [94,95]. The species has been identified as reservoir host for B. lusitaniae in Tunisia [36,42,96] and Portugal [38]. Given the different geographic distributions of potential reservoir hosts for B. lusitaniae, it remains to be investigated how narrow the niche for reservoir hosts of B. lusitaniae is and serum sensitivity or transmission experiments could help solving this question.

5. Conclusions

In this study, we have expanded investigations on the population structure of B. lusitaniae and confirmed a population division separating samples from southern Portugal and Algeria from samples from northern Portugal and other European countries. Molecular analyses of morphologically identified Ixodes samples (encompassing I. ricinus and I. inopinatus) acquired from the same geographical regions as Borrelia samples showed that the two loci investigated, i.e., 16S rRNA and trospA, were phylogenetically incongruous also with respect to clustering of Ixodes species. One clade in the trospA phylogeny consisted mostly of tick samples from North Africa and Portugal and mirrored the population division found in Borrelia. These data suggest that some co-evolution between Ixodes and B. lusitaniae populations may have occurred which warrants further investigation.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/microorganisms9050933/s1, Table S1: Ixodes tick samples included in this study including information on processing of samples, Table S2: Borrelia samples included in this study, sequence type (ST) number (if available), allele numbers of the seven genes included for analyses and details of sample processing, Table S3: Detailed results of Hierarchical BAPS analyses at levels 1 and 2, Supplementary Methods, Figure S1: Phyloviz diagram [83] of B. lusitaniae samples based on allele profile for seven MLST genes (level 4), Figure S2: Phyloviz diagram of B. lusitaniae samples based on allele profiles for seven MLST genes (level 5), Figure S3: Phyloviz diagram of B. lusitaniae samples based on allele profiles for seven MLST genes (level 6), Figure S4: NeighborNet of the MLST alignment generated in Splitstree4.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.C.N., G.M., M.S.N., I.L.d.C. and V.F.; methodology, M.D., R.E.R., P.H.B.; formal analysis, A.C.N., S.C.-R., T.W., P.H.B., M.C., Y.M.D., M.D.; resources, A.C.N., P.H.B., M.C., M.O.B., R.E.R., Y.M.D., M.D.; writing—original draft preparation, A.C.N., G.M., V.F.; writing—review and editing, A.C.N., S.C.-R., G.M., P.H.B., T.W., M.D., R.E.R., I.L.d.C.; visualization, A.C.N., S.C.-R.; funding acquisition, A.C.N., V.F., M.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was financially supported by the Slovak Research and Development Agency (grant number APVV-16-0463), by the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia by the transitory norm contract DL57/2016/CP1370/CT89 to Ana Cláudia Norte and MARE (MARE-UID/MAR/04292/2020), and by the National Institute of Health Doutor Ricardo Jorge, Lisbon, Portugal. The National Reference Center for Borrelia was supported by the Robert-Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

MLST data: All MLST sequence data are available from the MLST database at https://pubmlst.org/borrelia/ (accessed on 23 April 2021) via isolate names. GenBank Accession numbers: Tick sequences obtained and used in this study were submitted to GenBank under the accession numbers MW017342-MW017360 and MW287230-MW287232 (mitochondrial 16S rRNA locus) and MW379826-MW379844 and MW344866–MW344868 (nuclear gene trospA).

Acknowledgments

We thank Michal Stanko, Bronislava Vichova and Branislav Peťko for providing DNA from B. lusitaniae positive ticks from Grabovac, Croatia. Luís Pascoal da Silva for help with sample collection.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Kurtenbach, K.; Hoen, A.G.; Bent, S.J.; Vollmer, S.A.; Ogden, N.H.; Margos, G. Population biology of lyme borreliosis spirochetes. In Bacterial Population Genetics in Infectious Disease, 1st ed.; Robinson, D.A., Falush, D., Feil, E.J., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  2. Margos, G.; Vollmer, S.A.; Ogden, N.H.; Fish, D. Population genetics, taxonomy, phylogeny and evolution of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2011, 11, 1545–1563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Rizzoli, A.; Tagliapietra, V.; Cagnacci, F.; Marini, G.; Arnoldi, D.; Rosso, F.; Rosa, R. Parasites and wildlife in a changing world: The vector-host-pathogen interaction as a learning case. Int. J. Parasitol. Parasites Wildl. 2019, 9, 394–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Frank, S.A. Immunology and Evolution of Infectious Disease; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  5. Jongejan, F.; Uilenberg, G. The global importance of ticks. Parasitology 2004, 129, S3–S14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kurtenbach, K.; Hanincova, K.; Tsao, J.I.; Margos, G.; Fish, D.; Ogden, N.H. Fundamental processes in the evolutionary ecology of Lyme borreliosis. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2006, 4, 660–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Telford, S.R.; Goethert, H.K. Emerging tick-borne infections: Rediscovered and better characterized, or truly ‘new’? Parasitology 2004, 129, 301–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Medlock, J.M.; Hansford, K.M.; Bormane, A.; Derdakova, M.; Estrada-Peña, A.; George, J.-C.; Golovjona, I.; Jaenson, T.G.T.; Jensen, J.-K.; Jensen, P.M.; et al. Driving forces for changes in geographical distribution of Ixodes ricinus ticks in Europe. Parasites Vectors 2013, 6, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Rizzoli, A.; Hauffe, H.C.; Carpi, G.; Vourc’h, G.I.; Neteler, M.; Rosà, R. Lyme borreliosis in Europe. Euro Surveill 2011, 16, 19906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Becker, N.S.; Margos, G.; Blum, H.; Krebs, S.; Graf, A.; Lane, R.S.; Castillo-Ramirez, S.; Sing, A.; Fingerle, V. Recurrent evolution of host and vector association in bacteria of the Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato species complex. BMC Genom. 2016, 17, 734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  11. Margos, G.; Fingerle, V.; Reynolds, S.E. Borrelia bavariensis: Vector Switch, Niche Invasion, and Geographical Spread of a Tick-Borne Bacterial Parasite. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Vollmer, S.A.; Bormane, A.; Dinnis, R.E.; Seelig, F.; Dobson, A.D.; Aanensen, D.M.; James, M.C.; Donaghy, M.; Randolph, S.E.; Feil, E.J.; et al. Host migration impacts on the phylogeography of Lyme Borreliosis spirochaete species in Europe. Environ. Microbiol. 2011, 13, 184–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Vollmer, S.A.; Feil, E.J.; Chu, C.Y.; Raper, S.L.; Cao, W.C.; Kurtenbach, K.; Margos, G. Spatial spread and demographic expansion of Lyme borreliosis spirochaetes in Eurasia. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2013, 14, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Ogden, N.H.; Mechai, S.; Margos, G. Changing geographic ranges of ticks and tick-borne pathogens: Drivers, mechanisms and consequences for pathogen diversity. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2013, 3, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Tsao, J.I. Reviewing molecular adaptations of Lyme borreliosis spirochetes in the context of reproductive fitness in natural transmission cycles. Vet. Res. 2009, 40, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Hanincova, K.; Kurtenbach, K.; Diuk-Wasser, M.; Brei, B.; Fish, D. Epidemic spread of Lyme borreliosis, northeastern United States. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2006, 12, 604–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Eisen, L. Vector competence studies with hard ticks and Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato spirochetes: A review. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2020, 11, 101359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Diuk-Wasser, M.A.; Gatewood, A.G.; Cortinas, M.R.; Yaremych-Hamer, S.; Tsao, J.; Kitron, U.; Hickling, G.; Brownstein, J.S.; Walker, E.; Piesman, J.; et al. Spatiotemporal patterns of host-seeking Ixodes scapularis nymphs (Acari: Ixodidae) in the United States. J. Med. Entomol. 2006, 43, 166–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Mechai, S.; Margos, G.; Feil, E.J.; Lindsay, L.R.; Ogden, N.H. Complex population structure of Borrelia burgdorferi in southeastern and south central Canada as revealed by phylogeographic analysis. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2015, 81, 1309–1318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Ogden, N.H.; Lindsay, L.R.; Hanincova, K.; Barker, I.K.; Bigras-Poulin, M.; Charron, D.F.; Heagy, A.; Francis, C.M.; O’Callaghan, C.J.; Schwartz, I.; et al. Role of migratory birds in introduction and range expansion of Ixodes scapularis ticks and of Borrelia burgdorferi and Anaplasma phagocytophilum in Canada. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2008, 74, 1780–1790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Ogden, N.H.; Margos, G.; Aanensen, D.M.; Drebot, M.A.; Feil, E.J.; Hanincova, K.; Schwartz, I.; Tyler, S.; Lindsay, L.R. Investigation of genotypes of Borrelia burgdorferi in Ixodes scapularis ticks collected during surveillance in Canada. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2011, 77, 3244–3254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Lane, R.S.; Loye, J.E. Lyme disease in California: Interrelationship of ixodid ticks (Acari), rodents, and Borrelia burgdorferi. J. Med. Entomol. 1991, 28, 719–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Girard, Y.A.; Travinsky, B.; Schotthoefer, A.; Fedorova, N.; Eisen, R.J.; Eisen, L.; Barbour, A.G.; Lane, R.S. Population structure of the lyme borreliosis spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi in the western black-legged tick (Ixodes pacificus) in Northern California. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2009, 75, 7243–7252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Tyler, S.; Tyson, S.; Dibernardo, A.; Drebot, M.; Feil, E.J.; Graham, M.; Knox, N.C.; Lindsay, L.R.; Margos, G.; Mechai, S.; et al. Whole genome sequencing and phylogenetic analysis of strains of the agent of Lyme disease Borrelia burgdorferi from Canadian emergence zones. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 10552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Walter, K.S.; Carpi, G.; Caccone, A.; Diuk-Wasser, M.A. Genomic insights into the ancient spread of Lyme disease across North America. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2017, 1, 1569–1576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Margos, G.; Tsao, J.I.; Castillo-Ramirez, S.; Girard, Y.A.; Hamer, S.A.; Hoen, A.G.; Lane, R.S.; Raper, S.L.; Ogden, N.H. Two boundaries separate Borrelia burgdorferi populations in North America. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2012, 78, 6059–6067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Castillo-Ramirez, S.; Fingerle, V.; Jungnick, S.; Straubinger, R.K.; Krebs, S.; Blum, H.; Meinel, D.M.; Hofmann, H.; Guertler, P.; Sing, A.; et al. Trans-Atlantic exchanges have shaped the population structure of the Lyme disease agent Borrelia burgdorferi sensu stricto. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 22794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Gomez-Diaz, E.; Boulinier, T.; Sertour, N.; Cornet, M.; Ferquel, E.; McCoy, K.D. Genetic structure of marine Borrelia garinii and population admixture with the terrestrial cycle of Lyme borreliosis. Environ. Microbiol. 2011, 13, 2453–2467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Comstedt, P.; Jakobsson, T.; Bergstrom, S. Global ecology and epidemiology of Borrelia garinii spirochetes. Infect. Ecol. Epidemiol. 2011, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Munro, H.J.; Ogden, N.H.; Mechai, S.; Lindsay, L.R.; Robertson, G.J.; Whitney, H.; Lang, A.S. Genetic diversity of Borrelia garinii from Ixodes uriae collected in seabird colonies of the northwestern Atlantic Ocean. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2019, 10, 101255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Norte, A.C.; Margos, G.; Becker, N.S.; Albino Ramos, J.; Nuncio, M.S.; Fingerle, V.; Araujo, P.M.; Adamik, P.; Alivizatos, H.; Barba, E.; et al. Host dispersal shapes the population structure of a tick-borne bacterial pathogen. Mol. Ecol. 2020, 29, 485–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mtierova, Z.; Derdakova, M.; Chvostac, M.; Didyk, Y.M.; Mangova, B.; Rusnakova Taragelova, V.; Selyemova, D.; Sujanova, A.; Vaclav, R. Local Population Structure and Seasonal Variability of Borrelia garinii Genotypes in Ixodes ricinus Ticks, Slovakia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Vitorino, L.R.; Margos, G.; Feil, E.J.; Collares-Pereira, M.; Ze-Ze, L.; Kurtenbach, K. Fine-scale Phylogeographic Structure of Borrelia lusitaniae Revealed by Multilocus Sequence Typing. PLoS ONE 2008, 3, e4002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Núncio, M.S.; Péter, O.; Alves, M.J.; Bacellar, F.; Filipe, A.R. Isolamento e caracterização de borrélias de Ixodes ricinus L. em Portugal. Revista Portuguesa Doenças Infecciosas 1993, 16, 175–179. [Google Scholar]
  35. Le Fleche, A.; Postic, D.; Girardet, K.; Peter, O.; Baranton, G. Characterization of Borrelia lusitaniae sp. nov. by 16S ribosomal DNA sequence analysis. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 1997, 47, 921–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Dsouli, N.; Younsi-Kabachii, H.; Postic, D.; Nouira, S.; Gern, L.; Bouattour, A. Reservoir role of lizard Psammodromus algirus in transmission cycle of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato (Spirochaetaceae) in Tunisia. J. Med. Entomol. 2006, 43, 737–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Amore, G.; Tomassone, L.; Grego, E.; Ragagli, C.; Bertolotti, L.; Nebbia, P.; Rosati, S.; Mannelli, A. Borrelia lusitaniae in immature Ixodes ricinus (Acari: Ixodidae) feeding on common wall lizards in Tuscany, central Italy. J. Med. Entomol. 2007, 44, 303–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Norte, A.C.; Alves da Silva, A.; Alves, J.; da Silva, L.P.; Nuncio, M.S.; Escudero, R.; Anda, P.; Ramos, J.A.; Lopes de Carvalho, I. The importance of lizards and small mammals as reservoirs for Borrelia lusitaniae in Portugal. Environ. Microbiol. Rep. 2015, 7, 188–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Baptista, S.; Quaresma, A.; Aires, T.; Kurtenbach, K.; Santos-Reis, M.; Nicholson, M.; Collares-Pereira, M. Lyme borreliosis spirochetes in questing ticks from mainland Portugal. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2004, 293 (Suppl. 37), 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Norte, A.C.; Ramos, J.A.; Gern, L.; Nuncio, M.S.; Lopes de Carvalho, I. Birds as reservoirs for Borrelia burgdorferi s.l. in Western Europe: Circulation of B. turdi and other genospecies in bird-tick cycles in Portugal. Environ. Microbiol. 2013, 15, 386–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. De Carvalho, I.L.; Milhano, N.; Santos, A.S.; Almeida, V.; Barros, S.C.; De Sousa, R.; Nuncio, M.S. Detection of Borrelia lusitaniae, Rickettsia sp. IRS3, Rickettsia monacensis, and Anaplasma phagocytophilum in Ixodes ricinus collected in Madeira Island, Portugal. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2008, 8, 575–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Younsi, H.; Postic, D.; Baranton, G.; Bouattour, A. High prevalence of Borrelia lusitaniae in Ixodes ricinus ticks in Tunisia. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2001, 17, 53–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Richter, D.; Matuschka, F.R. Perpetuation of the Lyme disease spirochete Borrelia lusitaniae by lizards. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2006, 72, 4627–4632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Ragagli, C.; Bertolotti, L.; Giacobini, M.; Mannelli, A.; Bisanzio, D.; Amore, G.; Tomassone, L. Transmission dynamics of Borrelia lusitaniae and Borrelia afzelii among Ixodes ricinus, lizards, and mice in Tuscany, central Italy. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2011, 11, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. De Sousa, R.; Lopes de Carvalho, I.; Santos, A.S.; Bernardes, C.; Milhano, N.; Jesus, J.; Menezes, D.; Nuncio, M.S. Role of the lizard Teira dugesii as a potential host for Ixodes ricinus tick-borne pathogens. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2012, 78, 3767–3769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Majlathova, V.; Majlath, I.; Derdakova, M.; Vichova, B.; Pet’ko, B. Borrelia lusitaniae and green lizards (Lacerta viridis), Karst Region, Slovakia. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2006, 12, 1895–1901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. De Carvalho, I.L.; Zeidner, N.; Ullmann, A.; Hojgaard, A.; Amaro, F.; Ze-Ze, L.; Alves, M.J.; de Sousa, R.; Piesman, J.; Nuncio, M.S. Molecular characterization of a new isolate of Borrelia lusitaniae derived from Apodemus sylvaticus in Portugal. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2010, 10, 531–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Sarih, M.; Jouda, F.; Gern, L.; Postic, D. First isolation of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato from Ixodes ricinus ticks in Morocco. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2003, 3, 133–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Zhioua, E.; Bouattour, A.; Hu, C.M.; Gharbi, M.; Aeschliman, A.; Ginsberg, H.S.; Gern, L. Infection of Ixodes ricinus (Acari: Ixodidae) by Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato in North Africa. J. Med. Entomol. 1999, 36, 216–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  50. Bertolotti, L.; Tomassone, L.; Tramuta, C.; Grego, E.; Amore, G.; Ambrogi, C.; Nebbia, P.; Mannelli, A. Borrelia lusitaniae and spotted fever group rickettsiae in Ixodes ricinus (Acari: Ixodidae) in Tuscany, central Italy. J. Med. Entomol. 2006, 43, 159–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Taragelova, V.R.; Mahrikova, L.; Selyemova, D.; Vaclav, R.; Derdakova, M. Natural foci of Borrelia lusitaniae in a mountain region of Central Europe. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2016, 7, 350–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Wodecka, B.; Skotarczak, B. First isolation of Borrelia lusitaniae DNA from Ixodes ricinus ticks in Poland. Scand. J. Infect. Dis. 2005, 37, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Okeyo, M.; Hepner, S.; Rollins, R.E.; Hartberger, C.; Straubinger, R.K.; Marosevic, D.; Bannister, S.A.; Bormane, A.; Donaghy, M.; Sing, A.; et al. Longitudinal study of prevalence and spatio-temporal distribution of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato in ticks from three defined habitats in Latvia, 1999–2010. Environ. Microbiol. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. De Michelis, S.; Sewell, H.S.; Collares-Pereira, M.; Santos-Reis, M.; Schouls, L.M.; Benes, V.; Holmes, E.C.; Kurtenbach, K. Genetic diversity of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato in ticks from mainland Portugal. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2000, 38, 2128–2133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Zeidner, N.S.; Schneider, B.S.; Nuncio, M.S.; Gern, L.; Piesman, J. Coinoculation of Borrelia spp. with tick salivary gland lysate enhances spirochete load in mice and is tick species-specific. J. Parasitol. 2002, 88, 1276–1278. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  56. Collares-Pereira, M.; Couceiro, S.; Franca, I.; Kurtenbach, K.; Schafer, S.M.; Vitorino, L.; Goncalves, L.; Baptista, S.; Vieira, M.L.; Cunha, C. First isolation of Borrelia lusitaniae from a human patient. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2004, 42, 1316–1318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Da Franca, I.; Santos, L.; Mesquita, T.; Collares-Pereira, M.; Baptista, S.; Vieira, L.; Viana, I.; Vale, E.; Prates, C. Lyme borreliosis in Portugal caused by Borrelia lusitaniae? Clinical report on the first patient with a positive skin isolate. Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift 2005, 117, 429–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Lopes de Carvalho, I.L.; Fonseca, J.E.; Marques, J.G.; Ullmann, A.; Hojgaard, A.; Zeidner, N.; Nuncio, M.S. Vasculitis-like syndrome associated with Borrelia lusitaniae infection. Clin. Rheumatol. 2008, 27, 1587–1591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Grego, E.; Bertolotti, L.; Peletto, S.; Amore, G.; Tomassone, L.; Mannelli, A. Borrelia lusitaniae OspA gene heterogeneity in Mediterranean basin area. J. Mol. Evol. 2007, 65, 512–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Estrada-Peña, A.; Nava, S.; Petney, T. Description of all the stages of Ixodes inopinatus n. sp. (Acari: Ixodidae). Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2014, 5, 734–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Noureddine, R.; Chauvin, A.; Plantard, O. Lack of genetic structure among Eurasian populations of the tick Ixodes ricinus contrasts with marked divergence from north-African populations. Int. J. Parasitol. 2010, 41, 183–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Falco, R.C.; Fish, D. A comparison of methods for sampling the deer tick, Ixodes dammini, in a Lyme disease endemic area. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 1992, 14, 165–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Rollins, R.E.; Mouchet, A.; Margos, G.; Fingerle, V.; Becker, N.S.; Dingemanse, N.J. Repeatable differences in exploratory behaviour predict tick infestation probability in wild great tits. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2021, 75, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Estrada-Peña, A.; Bouattour, A.; Camicas, J.L.; Walker, A.R. Ticks of Domestic Animals in the Mediterranean Region—A Guide to Identification of Species; University of Zaragoza: Zaragoza, Spain, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  65. Guy, E.C.; Stanek, G. Detection of Borrelia burgdorferi in patients with Lyme disease by the polymerase chain reaction. J. Clin. Pathol. 1991, 44, 610–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Derdakova, M.; Beati, L.; Pet’ko, B.; Stanko, M.; Fish, D. Genetic variability within Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato genospecies established by PCR-single-strand conformation polymorphism analysis of the rrfA-rrlB intergenic spacer in Ixodes ricinus ticks from the Czech Republic. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2003, 69, 509–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  67. Rijpkema, S.G.; Molkenboer, M.J.; Schouls, L.M.; Jongejan, F.; Schellekens, J.F. Simultaneous detection and genotyping of three genomic groups of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato in Dutch Ixodes ricinus ticks by characterization of the amplified intergenic spacer region between 5S and 23S rRNA genes. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1995, 33, 3091–3095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Johnson, B.J.; Happ, C.M.; Mayer, L.W.; Piesman, J. Detection of Borrelia burgdorferi in ticks by species-specific amplification of the flagellin gene. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 1992, 47, 730–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Hidri, N.; Barraud, O.; de Martino, S.; Garnier, F.; Paraf, F.; Martin, C.; Sekkal, S.; Laskar, M.; Jaulhac, B.; Ploy, M.C. Lyme endocarditis. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2012, 18, E531–E532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  70. Margos, G.; Gatewood, A.G.; Aanensen, D.M.; Hanincova, K.; Terekhova, D.; Vollmer, S.A.; Cornet, M.; Piesman, J.; Donaghy, M.; Bormane, A.; et al. MLST of housekeeping genes captures geographic population structure and suggests a European origin of Borrelia burgdorferi. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 8730–8735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Margos, G.; Vollmer, S.A.; Cornet, M.; Garnier, M.; Fingerle, V.; Wilske, B.; Bormane, A.; Vitorino, L.; Collares-Pereira, M.; Drancourt, M.; et al. A new Borrelia species defined by Multilocus Sequence Analysis of Housekeeping Genes. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2009, 75, 5410–5416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  72. Mangold, A.J.; Bargues, M.D.; Mas-Coma, S. Mitochondrial 16S rDNA sequences and phylogenetic relationships of species of Rhipicephalus and other tick genera among Metastriata (Acari: Ixodidae). Parasitol. Res. 1998, 84, 478–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Huson, D.H.; Bryant, D. Application of phylogenetic networks in evolutionary studies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2006, 23, 254–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Croucher, N.J.; Page, A.J.; Connor, T.R.; Delaney, A.J.; Keane, J.A.; Bentley, S.D.; Parkhill, J.; Harris, S.R. Rapid phylogenetic analysis of large samples of recombinant bacterial whole genome sequences using Gubbins. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015, 43, e15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Bruen, T.C.; Philippe, H.; Bryant, D. A simple and robust statistical test for detecting the presence of recombination. Genetics 2006, 172, 2665–2681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Grana-Miraglia, L.; Evans, B.A.; Lopez-Jacome, L.E.; Hernandez-Duran, M.; Colin-Castro, C.A.; Volkow-Fernandez, P.; Cevallos, M.A.; Franco-Cendejas, R.; Castillo-Ramirez, S. Origin of OXA-23 Variant OXA-239 from a Recently Emerged Lineage of Acinetobacter baumannii International Clone V. mSphere 2020, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Cheng, L.; Connor, T.R.; Sirén, J.; Aanensen, D.M.; Corander, J. Hierarchical and spatially explicit clustering of DNA sequences with BAPS software. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2013, 30, 1224–1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Stecher, G.; Tamura, K.; Kumar, S. Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis (MEGA) for macOS. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2020, 37, 1237–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. James, G.; Witten, D.; Hastie, T.; Tibshirani, R. An Introduction to Statistical Learning, 1st ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Gower, J.C. A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties. Biometrics 1971, 27, 857–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  82. Galili, T. Dendextend: An R package for visualizing, adjusting and comparing trees of hierarchical clustering. Bioinformatics 2015, 31, 3718–3720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Francisco, A.P.; Vaz, C.; Monteiro, P.T.; Melo-Cristino, J.; Ramirez, M.; Carrico, J.A. PHYLOViZ: Phylogenetic inference and data visualization for sequence based typing methods. BMC Bioinform. 2012, 13, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Francisco, A.P.; Bugalho, M.; Ramirez, M.; Carrico, J.A. Global optimal eBURST analysis of multilocus typing data using a graphic matroid approach. BMC Bioinform. 2009, 10, 152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Darriba, D.; Taboada, G.L.; Doallo, R.; Posada, D. jModelTest 2: More models, new heuristics and parallel computing. Nat. Methods 2012, 9, 772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Guindon, S.; Gascuel, O. A simple, fast, and accurate algorithm to estimate large phylogenies by maximum likelihood. Syst. Biol. 2003, 52, 696–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Pérez-Eid, C. Les Tiques: Identification, Biologie, Importance Médicale et Veterinaire; Lavoisier: Paris, France, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  88. Altschul, S.F.; Gish, W.; Miller, W.; Myers, E.W.; Lipman, D.J. Basic local alignment search tool. J. Mol. Biol. 1990, 215, 403–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Jacquot, M.; Gonnet, M.; Ferquel, E.; Abrial, D.; Claude, A.; Gasqui, P.; Choumet, V.; Charras-Garrido, M.; Garnier, M.; Faure, B.; et al. Comparative population genomics of the Borrelia burgdorferi species complex reveals high degree of genetic isolation among species and underscores benefits and constraints to studying intra-specific epidemiological processes. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e94384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Shapiro, B.J.; Friedman, J.; Cordero, O.X.; Preheim, S.P.; Timberlake, S.C.; Szabo, G.; Polz, M.F.; Alm, E.J. Population genomics of early events in the ecological differentiation of bacteria. Science 2012, 336, 48–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Shapiro, B.J. Signatures of natural selection and ecological differentiation in microbial genomes. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 2014, 781, 339–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Frey, W.; Lösch, R. Geobotanik—Pflanze und Vegetation in Raum und Zeit; Spektrum Akademischer Verlag: Munich, Germany; Heidelberg, Germany, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  93. Poli, P.; Lenoir, J.; Plantard, O.; Ehrmann, S.; Roed, K.H.; Leinaas, H.P.; Panning, M.; Guiller, A. Strong genetic structure among populations of the tick Ixodes ricinus across its range. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2020, 11, 101509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Carranza, S.; Harris, D.J.; Arnold, E.N.; Batista, V.; Gonzalez de la Vega, J.P. Phylogeography of the lacertid lizard, Psammodromus algirus, in Iberia and across the Strait of Gibraltar. J. Biogeogr. 2006, 33, 1279–1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Verdú Ricoy, J.; Carranza, S.; Salvador, A.; Busack, S.; Díaz, J. Phylogeography of Psammodromus algirus (Lacertidae) revisited: Systematic implications. Amphib. Reptil. 2010, 31, 576–582. [Google Scholar]
  96. Younsi, H.; Sarih, M.; Jouda, F.; Godfroid, E.; Gern, L.; Bouattour, A.; Baranton, G.; Postic, D. Characterization of Borrelia lusitaniae isolates collected in Tunisia and Morocco. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2005, 43, 1587–1593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Microorganisms 09 00933 g001 550
Figure 1. Map of countries from which ticks and B. lusitaniae were included in this study. Samples from Austria, Latvia, Serbia and some samples from Portugal were retrieved from the MLST website. The locations of sample collection were slightly shifted for visualization purposes. The map was generated in R. For details, see Table 1 and Table 2, Tables S1 and S2.
Figure 1. Map of countries from which ticks and B. lusitaniae were included in this study. Samples from Austria, Latvia, Serbia and some samples from Portugal were retrieved from the MLST website. The locations of sample collection were slightly shifted for visualization purposes. The map was generated in R. For details, see Table 1 and Table 2, Tables S1 and S2.
Microorganisms 09 00933 g001
Microorganisms 09 00933 g002 550
Figure 2. (A) Dendrogram of 55 isolates of B. lusitaniae. The dendrogram shows the similarity between isolates. Identical isolates are joined together on the same terminal branch, whereas a connection of isolates in the dendrogram further towards the left indicates less similarity (Gower, 1971, R). Color coding of terminal points is according to country (see legend), colors of the branches in the dendrogram specify the two clusters: cluster 1 = red, cluster 2 = green. (B) Geographical distribution of isolates belonging to cluster 1 and cluster 2. Color coding of countries corresponds to terminal points in 2A. Color coding of clusters is identical to the branch color in (A), cluster 1 = red, cluster 2 = green. The inlet shows the distribution of samples from mainland Portugal belonging to cluster 1 and cluster 2 in more detail. Most samples collected north of the river Tagus fell into cluster 1 while samples from south of the river Tagus fell into cluster 2.
Figure 2. (A) Dendrogram of 55 isolates of B. lusitaniae. The dendrogram shows the similarity between isolates. Identical isolates are joined together on the same terminal branch, whereas a connection of isolates in the dendrogram further towards the left indicates less similarity (Gower, 1971, R). Color coding of terminal points is according to country (see legend), colors of the branches in the dendrogram specify the two clusters: cluster 1 = red, cluster 2 = green. (B) Geographical distribution of isolates belonging to cluster 1 and cluster 2. Color coding of countries corresponds to terminal points in 2A. Color coding of clusters is identical to the branch color in (A), cluster 1 = red, cluster 2 = green. The inlet shows the distribution of samples from mainland Portugal belonging to cluster 1 and cluster 2 in more detail. Most samples collected north of the river Tagus fell into cluster 1 while samples from south of the river Tagus fell into cluster 2.
Microorganisms 09 00933 g002
Microorganisms 09 00933 g003 550
Figure 3. goeBURST diagram [83] of B. lusitaniae samples based on allele profile for seven MLST genes. The triple locus variant setting was chosen. Samples are color coded according to country of origin. For samples from Portugal, the region is indicated. The link color of edges are as follows: Link colors for goeBURST results: Black-Link drawn without recourse to tiebreak rules; Blue-Link drawn using tiebreak rule 1 (number of SLVs); Gray-Links drawn at DLV (darker gray) or TLV (lighter/dotted gray) if the groups are constructed at DLV/TLV level. * indicate STs derived from seven genes only with no correspondence to MLST database ST numbers. § includes one isolate from a human. Dotted line separates samples from the north and south of river Tagus in Portugal.
Figure 3. goeBURST diagram [83] of B. lusitaniae samples based on allele profile for seven MLST genes. The triple locus variant setting was chosen. Samples are color coded according to country of origin. For samples from Portugal, the region is indicated. The link color of edges are as follows: Link colors for goeBURST results: Black-Link drawn without recourse to tiebreak rules; Blue-Link drawn using tiebreak rule 1 (number of SLVs); Gray-Links drawn at DLV (darker gray) or TLV (lighter/dotted gray) if the groups are constructed at DLV/TLV level. * indicate STs derived from seven genes only with no correspondence to MLST database ST numbers. § includes one isolate from a human. Dotted line separates samples from the north and south of river Tagus in Portugal.
Microorganisms 09 00933 g003
Microorganisms 09 00933 g004 550
Figure 4. NeighborNet of the MLST alignment generated in Splitstree4 [73]. The net was yielded considering uncorrected P distance and equal angle display. Panel A shows the major group that includes the North African and some Portuguese isolates, whereas panel B shows the other major group containing most of the European isolates. The different color labels indicate the clusters found at the second level of clustering of the hierarchical population structure analysis (HPSA) using hierBAPS [77] (see Table S3). The scale bar shows the number of substitutions per site.
Figure 4. NeighborNet of the MLST alignment generated in Splitstree4 [73]. The net was yielded considering uncorrected P distance and equal angle display. Panel A shows the major group that includes the North African and some Portuguese isolates, whereas panel B shows the other major group containing most of the European isolates. The different color labels indicate the clusters found at the second level of clustering of the hierarchical population structure analysis (HPSA) using hierBAPS [77] (see Table S3). The scale bar shows the number of substitutions per site.
Microorganisms 09 00933 g004
Microorganisms 09 00933 g005 550
Figure 5. 16S rRNA (A) and trospA (B) Maximum Likelihood phylogeny [86]. Phylogeny based on the 16S RNA gene (A). The model HK+I was used to construct the tree. Red labels mark I. ricinus non-Portuguese European sequences; green labels highlight Ixodes sequences of Portuguese and North African samples; and the blue labels denote I. inopinatus “reference” sequences from Germany. Phylogeny based on the trospA gene (B). The model K80+I was used to construct the tree. Red labels mark I. ricinus non-Portuguese European sequences; green labels highlight Portuguese and North African Ixodes sequences; and the blue labels denote I. inopinatus “reference” sequences. The scale bars show the number of substitutions per site.
Figure 5. 16S rRNA (A) and trospA (B) Maximum Likelihood phylogeny [86]. Phylogeny based on the 16S RNA gene (A). The model HK+I was used to construct the tree. Red labels mark I. ricinus non-Portuguese European sequences; green labels highlight Ixodes sequences of Portuguese and North African samples; and the blue labels denote I. inopinatus “reference” sequences from Germany. Phylogeny based on the trospA gene (B). The model K80+I was used to construct the tree. Red labels mark I. ricinus non-Portuguese European sequences; green labels highlight Portuguese and North African Ixodes sequences; and the blue labels denote I. inopinatus “reference” sequences. The scale bars show the number of substitutions per site.
Microorganisms 09 00933 g005
Table
Table 1. Tick samples included in this study.
Table 1. Tick samples included in this study.
Tick AN for NCBI_16S rRNATick AN for NCBI_trospATick Species
(16S rRNA Based ID)		YearStage/SexB. lusitaniae
Infection Status		MLST
B. lusitaniae		 Region Specific †Reference
GU074596TNGU074839TNIxodes inopinatus # Funknown TN, Jbel el Jouza[61]
GU074598DZ ‡GU074841DZIxodes inopinatus # Funknown DZ, El Tarf[61]
GU074602MAGU074845MAIxodes inopinatus # Munknown MA, Taza[61]
GU074597FRGU074840FR ‡Ixodes ricinus Funknown FR, Forêt de Chizé[61]
GU074606ES ‡GU074849ESIxodes ricinus Funknown ES, Otxandio[61]
GU074595IE ‡GU074838IEIxodes ricinus Funknown IE, Cork, Killarney National park[61]
GU074603GBGU074846GBIxodes ricinus Nunknown UK[61]
GU074607NLGU074850NLIxodes ricinus Funknown NL[61]
GU074605DE ‡GU074848DEIxodes ricinus Nunknown DE, Munich, English garden[61]
GU074599IRGU074842IRIxodes ricinus Funknown IR, Mazendaran province[61]
GU074592DKGU074835DKIxodes ricinus Funknown DK, Grib Skov Forest[61]
GU074593SE ‡GU074836SEIxodes ricinus Funknown SE, Alsike[61]
GU074588SKGU074831SKIxodes ricinus Funknown SK, Železná Studnička[61]
GU074589SK ‡GU074832SK ‡Ixodes ricinus Funknown SK, Vel’ký Lom[61]
GU074590SKGU074833SKIxodes ricinus Funknown SK, Malá Lehota[61]
GU074594EE ‡GU074837EE ‡Ixodes ricinus Funknown EE, Tartumaa[61]
GU074600FIGU074843FIIxodes ricinus Funknown FI, Turku archipelago[61]
GU074604HUGU074847HUIxodes ricinus Funknown HU, Mátrafüred forest[61]
GU074591MDGU074834MD ‡Ixodes ricinus Funknown MD[61]
GU074601BGGU074844BGIxodes ricinus Funknown BG, Sofia[61]
13310PT18 ‡13310PT18Ixodes ricinus2018Fpositive south TagusPT, Santiago do CacémThis study
13360PT18 ‡13360PT18Ixodes ricinus2018Fpositive south TagusPT, GrândolaThis study
14401PT18 ‡14401PT18Ixodes ricinus2018Fpositive south TagusPT, Santiago do CacémThis study
G101PT09 ‡G101PT09Ixodes ricinus2009Nunknown north TagusPT, GerêsThis study
R1756PT13 ‡R1756PT13Ixodes ricinus2013Npositive north TagusPT, MafraThis study
R1773PT13 ‡R1773PT13Ixodes ricinus2013Npositive north TagusPT, MafraThis study
R1812PT13 ‡R1812PT13Ixodes ricinus2013Nnegative north TagusPT, MafraThis study
R1794PT13R1794PT13Ixodes ricinus2013Nnegative north TagusPT, MafraThis study
3117DZ163117DZ16Ixodes inopinatus2016 positiveyes: ID 3117 DZ, KabylieThis study
T73T04DZ16 ‡T73T04DZ16Ixodes ricinus2016 positive DZ, KabylieThis study
3115DZ163115DZ16Ixodes ricinus2016 positive DZ, KabylieThis study
MH152SK17 ‡MH152SK17Ixodes ricinus2017Mpositive SK, Martinské holeThis study
MH149SK14 ‡MH149SK14Ixodes ricinus2014Mpositive SK, Martinské holeThis study
MH139SK14MH139SK14Ixodes ricinus2014Mpositiveyes: ID 2653 SK, Martinské holeThis study
MH106SK17 ‡MH106SK17Ixodes ricinus2017Fpositive SK, Martinské holeThis study
MH60SK17 ‡MH60SK17Ixodes ricinus2017Fpositive SK, Martinské holeThis study
2874SK16 ‡2874SK16Ixodes ricinus2016Fpositive SK, Martinské holeThis study
MH126SK14 ‡MH126SK14Ixodes ricinus2014Fpositive SK, Martinské holeThis study
2652SK162652SK16Ixodes ricinus2016Fpositiveyes: ID 2652SK, Martinské holeThis study
11-E1211-E12Ixodes inopinatus2018Nnegative DE, StarnbergThis study
7-F57-F5Ixodes inopinatus2018Nnegative DE, StarnbergThis study
8-C128-C12Ixodes inopinatus2018Nnegative DE, StarnbergThis study
AN = accession number, M = male, F = female, N = nymh, † the two-letter country code (ISO 3166) is given, ‡ Sequence detected in more than one country., # designated I. ricinus in Noureddine et al. 2011 [61] but now designated I. inopinatus in GenBank.
Table
Table 2. Borrelia lusitaniae samples included in this study for which seven MLST genes were available.
Table 2. Borrelia lusitaniae samples included in this study for which seven MLST genes were available.
Sample
No.		Sample IDStrainGenospeciesCountryAreaContinentSTYear of CollectionBiological SourceTick CodeReference
159162/11bBorrelia lusitaniaeSerbiaBelgrade-Titov gajEurope6282011Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
263167/11bBorrelia lusitaniaeSerbiaBelgrade-KosutnjakEurope6282011Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
364167/11cBorrelia lusitaniaeSerbiaBelgrade-KosutnjakEurope1362011Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
4124PoTiBGr41Borrelia lusitaniaePortugalGrândolaEurope602002Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
5125PoTiBGr82Borrelia lusitaniaePortugalGrândolaEurope612002Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
6126PoTiBGr130Borrelia lusitaniaePortugalGrândolaEurope622003Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
7127PoTiBGr131Borrelia lusitaniaePortugalGrândolaEurope632003Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
8128PoTiBGr136Borrelia lusitaniaePortugalGrândolaEurope642003Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
9129PoTibGr409Borrelia lusitaniaePortugalGrândolaEurope642003Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
10130PoTiBGr143Borrelia lusitaniaePortugalGrândolaEurope652003Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
11131PoTiBGr211Borrelia lusitaniaePortugalGrândolaEurope652003Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
12132PoTiBGr209Borrelia lusitaniaePortugalGrândolaEurope662003Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
13133PoTiBGr213Borrelia lusitaniaePortugalGrândolaEurope662003Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
14134PoTiBGr288Borrelia lusitaniaePortugalGrândolaEurope672003Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
15135PoTiBGr293Borrelia lusitaniaePortugalGrândolaEurope682003Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
16136PoHL1Borrelia lusitaniaePortugalLisbonEurope692002human MLST DB
17137PoTiBL37Borrelia lusitaniaePortugalMafraEurope691999Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
18249PotiB2Borrelia lusitaniaePortugal Europe64 Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
1937471412LBorrelia lusitaniaeLatvia Europe2182007Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
2011640911001ABorrelia lusitaniaeAustriaNorth-TirolEurope3362009Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
2111810921035ABorrelia lusitaniaeAustriaNorth-TirolEurope3452009Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
2211820921036ABorrelia lusitaniaeAustriaNorth-TirolEurope3462009Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
231250233/13bBorrelia lusitaniaeSerbiaBelgrade-AvalaEurope1482013Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
241252221/10cBorrelia lusitaniaeSerbiaBelgrade-Titov gajEurope1532013Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
251253225/10aBorrelia lusitaniaeSerbiaBelgrade-Titov gajEurope6302013Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
261254228/10aBorrelia lusitaniaeSerbiaBelgrade-Titov gajEurope1942013Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
271255229/10aBorrelia lusitaniaeSerbiaBelgrade-KosutnjakEurope2092013Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
28158576/12aBorrelia lusitaniaeSerbiaEastern Serbia-Dobra (Djerdap Gorge)Europe5802012Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
29158677/12bBorrelia lusitaniaeSerbiaEastern Serbia-Dobra (Djerdap Gorge)Europe5862012Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
301815220/10bBorrelia lusitaniaeSerbiaBelgrade-KosutnjakEurope6282010Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
311817222/10dBorrelia lusitaniaeSerbiaBelgrade-Titov gajEurope6292010Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
321819224/10cBorrelia lusitaniaeSerbiaBelgrade-Titov gajEurope6302010Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
331821226/10dBorrelia lusitaniaeSerbiaBelgrade-Titov gajEurope6312010Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
341822227/10cBorrelia lusitaniaeSerbiaBelgrade-Titov gajEurope6302010Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
352073PoTiB3Borrelia lusitaniaePortugal Europe7661993Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
36250082NCHGBorrelia lusitaniaeCroatiaGrabovacEurope9002011Ixodes ricinus This study
372525PotiBmfP147Borrelia lusitaniaePortugalMafraEurope7-0112003Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
382526PotiBmfP220Borrelia lusitaniaePortugalMafraEurope7-0042003Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
392527PotiBmfJ2Borrelia lusitaniaePortugalMafraEurope7-0052001Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
402528PotiBmfJ50Borrelia lusitaniaePortugalMafraEurope7-0052003Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
412529PotiBmfP364Borrelia lusitaniaePortugalMafraEurope7-0062003Ixodes ricinus MLST DB
422594658 UABorrelia lusitaniaeUkraineKyiv, M.M. Gryshko Nat. Bot. GardenEurope9092015Ixodes ricinus This study
432652MH2016F8Borrelia lusitaniaeSlovakiaMartinské hole mountainEurope9182016Ixodes ricinus2652SK16This study
442653SMHM139Borrelia lusitaniaeSlovakiaMartinské hole mountainEurope9192013Ixodes ricinusMH139SK14This study
523126PoTiB10/M436Borrelia lusitaniaePortugalMadeiraEurope9252009Ixodes ricinus This study
533127PoTiB11/T3087Borrelia lusitaniaePortugalCoimbraEurope9262014 This study
513125PoTiB9/B88Borrelia lusitaniaePortugalSantiago do CacémEurope9242009Dermacentor
marginatum		 This study
453114Tube101-Tick25/run1-2Borrelia lusitaniaeAlgeriaKabylieAfrica7-0002016Ixodes ricinus This study
463117Tube104-Tick14/run1-5Borrelia lusitaniaeAlgeriaKabylieAfrica7-0012016Ixodes ricinus3117DZ16This study
473118Tube94-Tick5/run1-6Borrelia lusitaniaeAlgeriaKabylieAfrica7-0022016Ixodes ricinus This study
483120Tube101-Tick24/run1-11Borrelia lusitaniaeAlgeriaKabylieAfrica7-0032016Ixodes ricinus This study
493119Tube 95-Tick5/run1-9Borrelia lusitaniaeAlgeriaKabylieAfrica7-0072016Ixodes ricinus This study
503123Tube94-tick6/run2-7Borrelia lusitaniaeAlgeriaKabylieAfrica7-0082016Ixodes ricinus This study
542873MH2016F1Borrelia lusitaniaeSlovakiaMartinské hole mountainEurope7-0092016Ixodes ricinus This study
552874MH2016F9Borrelia lusitaniaeSlovakiaMartinské hole mountainEurope7-0102016Ixodes ricinus This study
7-0XX = provisional ST number. MLST DB – Multilocus sequence typing database www.pubmlst.org/borrelia/ (accessed on 11 February 2020).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Norte, A.C.; Boyer, P.H.; Castillo-Ramirez, S.; Chvostáč, M.; Brahami, M.O.; Rollins, R.E.; Woudenberg, T.; Didyk, Y.M.; Derdakova, M.; Núncio, M.S.; et al. The Population Structure of Borrelia lusitaniae Is Reflected by a Population Division of Its Ixodes Vector. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 933. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9050933

AMA Style

Norte AC, Boyer PH, Castillo-Ramirez S, Chvostáč M, Brahami MO, Rollins RE, Woudenberg T, Didyk YM, Derdakova M, Núncio MS, et al. The Population Structure of Borrelia lusitaniae Is Reflected by a Population Division of Its Ixodes Vector. Microorganisms. 2021; 9(5):933. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9050933

Chicago/Turabian Style

Norte, Ana Cláudia, Pierre H. Boyer, Santiago Castillo-Ramirez, Michal Chvostáč, Mohand O. Brahami, Robert E. Rollins, Tom Woudenberg, Yuliya M. Didyk, Marketa Derdakova, Maria Sofia Núncio, and et al. 2021. "The Population Structure of Borrelia lusitaniae Is Reflected by a Population Division of Its Ixodes Vector" Microorganisms 9, no. 5: 933. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9050933

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