Next Article in Journal
Growth Performance, Digestive Capacity, and Transcriptomic Analysis of the Hybrid Offspring of Mastacembelus armatus × Mastacembelus favus
Previous Article in Journal
Monocyte and Lymphocyte Count, and Lymphocyte/Monocyte Ratio as Prognostic Factors at the Time of First Relapse in Canine Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Patients Receiving Chemotherapy
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 16
Issue 1
10.3390/ani16010008
animals-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

Molecular Characterization and Epidemiology of Anaplasmataceae in Ticks and Domestic Animals in the Colombian Caribbean

by
Maria Badillo-Viloria
1,
Ignacio García-Bocanegra
2,3,*,
Steffania de la Rosa Jaramillo
1,
Salim Mattar
4,
Mario Frías-Casas
2,3,5 and
David Cano-Terriza
2,3
1
Facultad de Ciencias Básicas y Biomédicas, Centro de Investigaciones en Ciencias de la Vida, Universidad Simón Bolívar, Barranquilla 080001, Colombia
2
Grupo de Investigación en Sanidad Animal y Zoonosis (GISAZ), UIC Zoonosis y Enfermedades Emergentes ENZOEM, Departamento de Sanidad Animal, Universidad de Córdoba, 14014 Córdoba, Spain
3
CIBERINFEC, ISCIII CIBER de Enfermedades Infecciosas, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, 28029 Madrid, Spain
4
Instituto de Investigaciones Biológicas del Trópico, Universidad de Córdoba, Córdoba 230002, Colombia
5
Unidad de Enfermedades Infecciosas, Grupo de Virología Clínica y Zoonosis, Instituto Maimónides de Investigación Biomédica de Córdoba (IMIBIC), Hospital Reina Sofía, Universidad de Córdoba (UCO), 14004 Córdoba, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2026, 16(1), 8; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16010008
Submission received: 26 September 2025 / Revised: 29 November 2025 / Accepted: 16 December 2025 / Published: 19 December 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Wildlife)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Simple Summary

Tick-borne diseases represent a significant threat to both animal and public health, especially in tropical regions. Little is known about the epidemiology of these diseases in domestic animals and ticks in the Colombian Caribbean. To investigate infections caused by Anaplasmataceae bacteria, this study examined 1156 ticks and blood samples collected from 56 cattle and 17 equids in northern Colombia. Four tick species were identified, with Dermacentor nitens and Rhipicephalus microplus being the most prevalent. Around 9% of pooled tick samples and more than 60% of blood samples tested positive for Anaplasmataceae. Genetic analyses confirmed the presence of Anaplasma marginale in cattle and revealed several variants of Anaplasma and Ehrlichia, including Anaplasma sp. closely related to A. platys-like, Ehrlichia ruminantium, and E. muris. Some of these findings represent potentially novel variants in Colombia and highlight the complexity of transmission cycles between ticks and their animal hosts.

Abstract

Tick-borne diseases (TBD) pose a significant threat to both animal and public health, particularly in tropical regions. In the Colombian Caribbean region, there is limited knowledge of the epidemiology of TBD in domestic animals and their vectors. In this study, conducted in northern Colombia from 2021 to 2022, we analyzed the molecular diversity of Anaplasmataceae in a total of 1156 ticks and blood samples collected from their infested hosts: 56 cattle and 17 equids (horses and mules). Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays were performed, using primers to amplify the mitochondrial 16S rRNA gene for tick identification and bacterial 16S and 23S rRNA to detect Anaplasmataceae. The amplified products were sequenced and analyzed for molecular characterization of species. Four tick species were identified: Dermacentor nitens (55.6%), Rhipicephalus microplus (43.0%), Rhipicephalus sanguineus sensu lato (0.7%), and Amblyomma patinoi (0.7%). Overall, 9.4% of the pooled tick samples were identified as R. microplus, and 64.4% of the blood samples tested positive for Anaplasmataceae. Molecular analyses identified Anaplasma marginale in cattle and several species in ticks, including an Anaplasma sp. closely related to A. platys-like, Ehrlichia ruminantium, and E. muris and Ehrlichia variants closely related to Candidatus E. rustica, E. canis, and E. minasensis. The results indicate high infection rates and the circulation of both well-known and potentially novel Anaplasmataceae species, suggesting complex transmission dynamics among ticks and hosts.

1. Introduction

Ticks and tick-borne diseases (TBD) have a considerable impact on both livestock and public health, especially in tropical regions [1,2]. These diseases significantly reduce livestock productivity, leading to economic losses for farmers and increased veterinary costs [3,4,5]. At the same time, frequent human–animal interactions mean that TBDs are also a major public health concern [2]. Changes in the dynamics at the human–animal–vector–environment interface facilitate the spread of ticks and tick-borne pathogens (TBP) [6,7]. Agricultural expansion and intensification, land-use changes, population density variations, water and food availability, outdoor human activities, and habitat fragmentation are some of the factors likely to influence the prevalence and distribution of TBDs in a world undergoing global change [6,8,9].
The main bacterial species transmitted by ticks belong to the orders Spirochaetales and Rickettsiales [10,11,12,13]. Within the order Rickettsiales, the genera Anaplasma and Ehrlichia (family: Anaplasmataceae) comprise eight and six well-recognized species, respectively, as well as recently proposed candidate species, and unclassified genovariants that infect ticks, domestic animals, wildlife, and humans [14,15].
Anaplasma spp. and Ehrlichia spp. have been detected in different animal species and humans throughout Latin America [16,17,18,19], posing significant challenges to animal and public health in endemic regions [20]. Among these pathogens, Anaplasma phagocytophilum and Ehrlichia chaffeensis are of particular concern to public health [11,15,21]; Anaplasma marginale is mainly associated with the livestock industry, since its high prevalence and role as the primary etiological agent of bovine anaplasmosis are responsible for considerable economic and production losses [22,23,24].
Colombia is an ideal environment for ticks and tick-borne diseases, due to its vast territory, ecological diversity, and favorable climatic conditions [25,26,27,28,29]. Molecular research on domestic animals to date has predominantly focused on dogs [2,24,30,31,32] but there are very few studies on other domestic animal species in Colombia. A comprehensive understanding of the interactions between pathogens, hosts, and vectors involved in transmission cycles is essential for elucidating the eco-epidemiology of Anaplasmataceae and developing effective control strategies. This is hindered by our current state of knowledge.
The aim of the present study was to characterize the molecular and epidemiological features of Anaplasmataceae species infection in domestic animals and ticks in the Colombian Caribbean region of northern Colombia.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design, Sampling, and Specimen Collection

From 2021 to 2022, a cross-sectional study was conducted on mixed herds of cattle and equids in eight municipalities representative of the five subregions and main livestock-producing areas of the Department of Atlántico in the Colombian Caribbean region of northern Colombia. Livestock production in the Department of Atlántico is dominated by small, low-input, dual-purpose herds, and most farms maintain fewer than 50 productive and working animals [33,34]. All the farms primarily raised cattle while also keeping working equids (horses and mules) for herding and transportation. The study region has a tropical dry to sub-humid climate (mean annual temperature ~27 °C; annual rainfall 500–1500 mm). There is a marked bimodal rainfall pattern in May and September–November, as well as prolonged dry seasons [35].
Each farm was visited only after first obtaining the owner’s consent. Whole-herd inspections were attempted, but animal handling restrictions often limited access. Consequently, sampling was performed using a convenience-based approach, based on the specific conditions of the farm and the feasibility of handling the animals. The approach prioritized cattle in production, such as lactating cows, and resident working equids. In total, 142 host animals were examined: 116 cattle, 23 horses, and 3 mules, representing a median of 14.2 hosts per farm (range 6–28). To assess tick infestation, each animal was inspected systematically for approximately 5–10 min. The presence or absence of ticks was recorded, and specimens were carefully removed using sterile forceps, regardless of developmental stage or engorgement level. Standard half-body collection methods from predilection sites (legs, abdomen, tail, anal area, neck, lateral and dorsal regions, and ears) were used [36].
The ticks were collected in sterile tubes labeled according to location and host, preserved at 4 °C, and then transported to the laboratory for identification using morphological identification keys [37,38,39]. The specimens were grouped into pools according to species, developmental stage, host, and collection site. Each pool contained 1–12 adult ticks or 10–30 immature ticks (nymphs or larvae), depending on the size of the tick and degree of engorgement.
In addition, blood samples were drawn from 56 cattle, 14 horses, and 3 mules via coccygeal or jugular venipuncture. The samples were collected in EDTA tubes, transported to the laboratory under refrigeration conditions, and stored at −20 °C until analysis. Individual data on host species, sex, and age were collected. Herd-level epidemiological information was also collected, including location, management system, tick control measures, grazing rotation, contact with wild species, and type of feed.

2.2. Molecular Identification of Ticks and Molecular Analysis of Anaplasmataceae

To confirm the morphological identification of tick species, six tick pools were randomly selected based on their geographical location and analyzed using PCR and partial sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene, as previously described [40,41].
A previous screening PCR was performed on ticks and blood samples using primers and protocols previously established to detect a 345 bp fragment of the 16S rRNA gene of Anaplasmataceae [40,42]. PCR analysis revealed the presence of Anaplasmataceae DNA in the samples, which were then analyzed using PCR protocols targeting a 649 bp fragment of the 23S rRNA gene of Anaplasmataceae [40,43]. For each PCR, 5 μL of molecular-grade water was used as a negative control, and DNA from A. phagocytophilum, previously identified at the Instituto de Investigaciones Biológicas del Trópico (IIBT, Montería, Colombia), was used as a positive control for Anaplasmataceae.

2.3. Sequencing, Phylogenetic Analysis, and Genetic Divergence

Nine PCR 23S rRNA-positive DNA products were selected and sequenced: six were from pools consisting exclusively of adult ticks (1–10 individuals per pool) and three were from host blood samples. Selection of these samples was based on co-detection criteria in both the host and the infesting ticks, giving priority to cases in which both the host’s blood and the corresponding tick pools tested positive for Anaplasmataceae. This strategy was intended to improve the interpretation of host–vector relationships. All PCR products were purified using ExoSAP (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions and then sequenced using the Sanger method at an external laboratory. The 23S rRNA sequences obtained were edited and assembled using MEGA X (version 11) software [44]. The consensus sequences were compared with sequences available in the GenBank database using BLAST (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/BLAST/; accessed on 16 October 2025), and unique partial sequences were deposited in GenBank using the BankIt v3.0 NCBI submission tool. Alignments were constructed using the MAFFT tool in UGENE 53.0 software and default automatic settings [45]. Available sequences for Anaplasma spp. and Ehrlichia spp. from other geographic regions were incorporated and then manually edited.
Phylogenetic analysis was conducted using IQ-TREE2 (v2.2.2.6). The ModelFinder tool in IQ-TREE was used for automatic model selection. Maximum-likelihood (ML) analysis was performed with IQ-TREE2, and branch support was assessed using the ultrafast bootstrap (UFBoot) approximation (1000 replicates). The best-fit substitution model for each partition was determined using ModelFinder [46], based on the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC). Each gene was partitioned individually according to the best-fit model: Ticks 16S rRNA: TPM2u+F+G4; Anaplasma 23S rRNA: TIM3+F+G4; Ehrlichia 23S rRNA: HKY+F+R2. The resulting phylogenetic trees were visualized using iTOL (v5) and annotated using Affinity.
A pairwise distance matrix (p-distance) was created using Mega X software to estimate the distance between sequences detected in this study and those from other Anaplasmataceae species included in the phylogenetic trees [44]. The resulting pairwise p-distance values were then compared to assess the genetic divergence between the sequences obtained in this study and related sequences from GenBank.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The frequency distribution of tick species and their respective hosts was determined. Prevalence for ticks was calculated as the proportion of Anaplasmataceae-positive pools out of the total number of pools tested; prevalence for animals was the proportion of positive hosts out of the total number of individuals examined, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). The percentage of infested animals per farm was calculated as the proportion of animals carrying ticks out of the total number of animals examined on each farm.
Pearson’s chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test (for variables with fewer than six observations in any category) was used to examine variations in prevalence relative to explanatory variables. Continuous variables were categorized according to the 33rd and 66th percentiles. All explanatory variables underwent an initial screening, and those with a p-value < 0.10 were retained for multivariate analysis. Collinearity between pairs of variables was assessed using Cramer’s V coefficient. The selected variables were entered into a multiple logistic regression model to identify potential risk factors for Anaplasmataceae exposure, and the model was re-run until all the remaining variables reached statistical significance (p  <  0.05). Model fit was confirmed using the Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test [47]. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 28.0 software (Statistical Package for Social Sciences, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and GraphPad Prism 8 software (San Diego, CA, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Identification and Molecular Characterization of Ticks

Ticks and blood samples were collected from a subset of 73 tick-infested hosts, with a median of 7.3 hosts per farm (range: 4–16). A total of 1156 ticks, grouped into 159 pools, were collected and identified morphologically. The mean number of tick pools was 15.9 ± 7.2 per farm (95%CI: 10.7–21.1; range 7–27) and 2.3 ± 1.5 per animal host (95%CI: 1.9–2.6; range: 1–7). The mean number of ticks per farm was found to be 115.0 ± 61.4 (95%CI: 71.7–159.5; range 26–207), while the mean number of ticks per animal host was 16.5 ± 16.9 (95%CI: 12.5–20.6; range: 2–75).
Table 1 shows the distribution of tick species by sex and developmental stage, as well as their respective host species. Four tick species were identified: Dermacentor nitens was the most prevalent species (55.6%), primarily collected from horses and mules, followed by Rhipicephalus microplus (43.0%), mainly collected from cattle. Rhipicephalus sanguineus sensu lato and Amblyomma patinoi were also found on cattle, with each accounting for 0.7% of the total specimens.
Tick species were confirmed both morphologically and molecularly by partial sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene (Figure 1). The R. sanguineus s.l. sequence (PV616690.1) showed 99.5–100% identity with previously reported tropical lineage sequences from R. sanguineus collected from dogs in Colombia (PP682358.1, MF351575.1), Mexico (MH018816.1), and Brazil (MF187515.1). By contrast, similarity with temperate lineage sequences from Chile (GU553078.1), Argentina (MW202408.1, JX195168.1), and the USA (KT382477.1) was found to range from 93.6% to 94.2%. Comparisons with other closely related species, including Rhipicephalus linnaei (97.8%), R. turanicus (93.2–93.8%), and R. annulatus (87.7%), showed lower levels of similarity.
The R. microplus sequences (PV616688.1 and PV616689.1) exhibited 99.7–100% identity with other R. microplus sequences found in cattle in the Colombian region of Arauca (MF351567.1) and elsewhere in Atlántico (PP664303.1), as well as other American countries such as Mexico (OL708411.1) and Brazil (EU918178.1). Lower similarity values were observed with R. annulatus (97.3–97.8%) and more distantly related species, such as R. linnaei and R. turanicus (87.6–88.3%) (Figure 1).
The sequences of D. nitens (PV616686.1; PV616687.1) were 99.2–100% identical to those of D. nitens isolates found in Colombia (PP664299.1, MF353111.1, MF353116.1), Brazil (KY020994.1) and Cuba (MN880394.1). They showed lower levels of similarity with D. albipictus (92.5–93.9%) and D. variabilis (91.8–92.3%) (Figure 1).
Finally, the A. patinoi sequence (PV616685.1) was found to be 100% identical to previously reported A. patinoi and Amblyomma sp. sequences associated with cattle and horses in Colombia (MZ959819.1, MZ959820.1, NC072689.1, PP664294.1, KP036467.1). In contrast, Amblyomma mixtum (92.7–93.0%) showed lower similarity (Figure 1).

3.2. Anaplasmataceae in Ticks and Hosts

Of the 159 tick pools collected, 15 (9.4%; 95%CI: 5.0–14.0) tested positive for Anaplasmataceae by 16S rRNA PCR; all of these corresponded to R. microplus ticks collected from cattle (18.3%; 95%CI: 10.0–27.0) (Table 1). Forty-seven of the 73 blood samples taken from the infested tick hosts (64.4%; 95%CI: 53.0–76.0) tested positive for Anaplasmataceae by 16S rRNA PCR; of these, 40 were from cattle and seven from horses (Table 1). Figure 2 shows the geographic distribution of the sampled farms and infection rates in different host and tick species. Of the 47 positive hosts, 19.1% (9/47) had at least one positive tick pool, whereas 80.9% (38/47) were only associated with negative pools. Conversely, 7.7% (2/26) of negative hosts were associated with positive tick pools, and 92.3% (24/26) exclusively with negative pools.
Table 2 shows the variables associated with Anaplasmataceae infection in the sampled animals. Four explanatory variables were selected for multivariate analysis (p < 0.10): “host species”, “location”, “percentage of infested animals on the farm”, and “grazing rotation”. The final multiple logistic regression model identified “host species” and “percentage of infested animals on the farm” as the main risk factors potentially associated with Anaplasmataceae infection (Table 3). The prevalence of infection was significantly higher in cattle (71.4%) than in horses (50.0%) (p = 0.008). Furthermore, animals on farms where ≥78% of animals were tick-infested had a 9.1-fold higher risk of Anaplasmataceae infection (80%; p = 0.002) than those on farms with lower infestation rates (Table 2 and Table 3).

3.3. Identity, Phylogenetic, and Genetic Divergence of Anaplasmataceae

A total of nine Anaplasmataceae 23S rRNA sequences were obtained. Four of these were related to Anaplasma spp., including one from R. microplus (PV595969) and three from cattle (PV595970, PV595971, and PV595972). The remaining five sequences from R. microplus ticks were related to Ehrlichia spp. (PV595967, PV595968, PV595973, PV595974, and PV595975). Interestingly, none of the Anaplasmataceae species detected on cattle matched those identified in ticks collected from the same animals.
The first sequence, identified as Anaplasma sp., was isolated from R. microplus and formed a separate clade with Anaplasma sp. isolates closely related to Anaplasma platys-like bacteria (98.73% identity; bootstrap 92%), which have previously been detected in Rhipicephalus annulatus from Algeria (MH321195.1), and in cattle and sheep from Egypt (MN626398.1; MN626397.1). This clade was also closely related to the A. platys clade isolated previously from R. sanguineus in Colombia (PP669665.1) (96.84–97.71% identity; bootstrap 84%) (Figure 3A). Genetic divergence within these clades ranged from 0.02 to 0.04 (Figure 3B).
The phylogenetic tree showed that the three remaining Anaplasma sequences from cattle belonged to a major clade alongside A. marginale isolates from Africa and the Americas. This clade was further divided into two subclades. One of these exhibited 99.59–100% identity (bootstrap 86%) with A. marginale strains detected in cattle from the USA (NR_076579.1), Mexico (CP006847.1), and Brazil (CP023730.1), and in cattle and camels from Algeria and Egypt (MH321194.1, MN625938, MN626393.1). The other subclade included sequences previously isolated in R. microplus in Colombia and showed 98.30–99.33% identity (bootstrap 98%) (Figure 3A). Genetic divergence within these clades ranged from 0.00 to 0.03 (Figure 3B). The minimum and maximum divergence rates between the four Anaplasma spp. sequences in this study were 0.00 and 0.06, respectively (Figure 3B).
For the Ehrlichia spp. sequences, phylogenetic analysis revealed that one sequence was placed within a clade containing Ehrlichia ruminantium isolates previously reported in Amblyomma hebraeum on sheep and goats from South Africa (CR767821.1, CP040120.1, CP040116.1, NR_077002.1) and showed 99.70% identity (bootstrap 100%) (Figure 4A). The genetic distance within this clade was 0.01 (Figure 4B).
Another sequence of Ehrlichia was clustered within a major clade containing Ehrlichia muris isolates (bootstrap 82%). The clade was further divided into two subclades, one including E. muris sequences previously reported in Ixodes scapularis from the USA (KP702294.1), with 99.23% identity, while the other comprised a sequence obtained from a wild mouse (Eothenomys kageus) from Japan (CP006917.1, NR121968.1), with 97.84% identity. The genetic distance within this clade was 0.01 (Figure 4A). The remaining three sequences, identified as Ehrlichia sp., formed a major clade that was divided into two subclades. One subclade included isolates of Candidatus Ehrlichia rustica and Ehrlichia sp., which were genetically close to Ehrlichia canis, E. minasensis and E. chaffeensis, previously reported in Hyalomma truncatum from Senegal (PQ351178.1, PQ351180.1), R. annulatus from French Polynesia (KT335265.1), R. microplus and H. truncatum from Côte d’Ivoire (KT364331.1, KT364332.1, KT364333.1), and R. microplus from Egypt (MN614108.1) (98.68–100% identity; bootstrap 73%).
The other subclade showed 97.00–97.65% sequence identity with Ehrlichia sp., which has previously been reported in R. microplus in Colombia (Figure 4A). Genetic divergence within these clades ranged from 0.00 to 0.02 (Figure 4B). The minimum and maximum genetic divergence values among the five Ehrlichia spp. sequences analyzed were 0.00 and 0.05, respectively (Figure 3B). None of the seven samples of horse blood that tested positive for Anaplasmataceae DNA yielded interpretable sequencing results.

4. Discussion

To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study conducted in the Caribbean area of Colombia to investigate the community of Anaplasmataceae bacteria in competent vectors and animal hosts simultaneously. This integrative approach provides novel molecular and epidemiological insights into pathogen–host–vector interactions in the Colombian Caribbean that are important for both human and animal health, particularly in the context of livestock production.
Our results showed a markedly lower prevalence of Anaplasmataceae in tick pools (9.4%) than in host animals (64.4%) (p < 0.001). There was limited concordance between host and tick infection status, with only 19.1% (9/47) of positive animals having at least one positive tick pool. Despite the relatively small sample size, our findings are consistent with previous reports indicating that pathogen detection in ticks often underestimates host infection status. Factors that account for this include the unequal distribution of tick burden among individual hosts and the use of alternative transmission routes involving other arthropods such as flies and dipterans [48,49].
Some ticks may have acquired the pathogen during earlier life stages, such as the larval or nymphal stage, when blood intake is minimal, making detection less likely. In other cases, the pathogen may have been present but remained undetected due to the degradation of residual DNA during digestion [50]. Together, these findings underscore the fact that pathogen detection in ticks and hosts may not coincide in time, which limits the sensitivity of single-timepoint sampling under field conditions.
All Anaplasmataceae-positive ticks were identified as R. microplus (18.3%), the most prevalent cattle-infesting tick species in Colombia [51]. These findings are consistent with previous reports of up to 40% Anaplasmataceae prevalence in Rhipicephalus spp. [25,26,40]. R. microplus is recognized as a competent vector and reservoir of some Anaplasmataceae species, such as A. marginale, with documented evidence of transovarial transmission and co-infection events [52,53]. By contrast, D. nitens, the most prevalent tick species obtained in our study, tested negative for Anaplasmataceae or showed a very low prevalence, which is consistent with previous reports in Colombia [23,28,29]. This suggests that, despite its high abundance, D. nitens probably plays a limited role in transmitting these agents.
The frequency of Anaplasmataceae infection detected in cattle was high (71.4%). Previous studies carried out in other Caribbean regions of Colombia using microscopy and/or molecular methods have reported lower prevalence rates in cattle, ranging from 20.6% to 59.0% [23,24,49,54,55,56,57]. Future studies involving a greater number of animals are needed to more accurately assess the situation in the study region.
None of the Anaplasmataceae-positive samples from equids could be confirmed to species level by sequencing, probably due to low levels of bacteremia that prevented the generation of sufficiently amplified fragments. Nevertheless, the molecular infection frequency (50%) observed in this study exceeds that reported in other Latin American countries, such as Guatemala (13%), Chile (16.6%), and Costa Rica (14.6%) [17,58,59]. This finding contrasts with studies in Brazil [60] and Colombia [61] in which no infections were identified. There may be various reasons for these differences, including variations in study design, the number of animals analyzed, the epidemiological context and the diagnostic techniques and protocols employed.
The prevalence of Anaplasmataceae infection observed in the host species was high; nevertheless, risk factor analysis confirmed that the frequency of Anaplasmataceae in the animals tested was species-related, with a significantly higher prevalence found in cattle than in horses. This discrepancy may be indicative of vector host preferences and/or greater exposure of cattle to infected ticks, likely due to differences in grazing behavior and habitat use [54,62]. There may also be a direct correlation between the prevalence of tick infestation on farms and the observed infection risk in analyzed hosts. Specifically, the risk of Anaplasmataceae infection in individuals on farms where at least 78% of hosts were tick-infested was found to be 9.1 times higher compared to farms with a lower percentage of host infestation. This finding aligns with previous studies suggesting that high tick infestation increases the risk of Anaplasmataceae infection [24,49,55,63]. Indeed, the presence of persistently infected animals and the co-circulation of competent tick vectors on farms sustain ongoing Anaplasmataceae infection cycles [49,64]. These factors highlight the importance of effective management practices [24,49]. Measures that have been shown to reduce the tick burden and minimize the risk of Anaplasmataceae transmission include the strategic, selective use of chemical or biological acaricides to prevent resistance, as well as vaccinations against ticks, appropriate habitat and grazing management, and the use of tick-resistant breeds. These measures are particularly useful in endemic tropical areas where complete tick eradication is rarely feasible [65,66,67].
Several Anaplasmataceae species were identified in ticks and their hosts. While Ehrlichia sp., E. ruminantium, E. muris, and Anaplasma sp. (related to A. platys-like) were detected exclusively in ticks, A. marginale was found only in cattle, but not in the ticks infesting them. This is consistent with reports indicating that bovine ehrlichiosis is less prevalent than anaplasmosis [68]. Interestingly, none of the Anaplasmataceae species detected in cattle matched those identified in their associated tick pools. This discrepancy suggests a complex dynamic involving the acquisition of pathogens by ticks, influenced by several factors. These may include prior infections in hosts caused by previous tick bites, limited pathogen acquisition influenced by low rickettsemia levels, antigenic shifts or genetic variability in the pathogen during prolonged infections, or host immune responses that hinder pathogen uptake and reduce vector competence, among others [69,70,71,72,73].
The detection of A. marginale in cattle is consistent with reports from Brazil, Ecuador, and Colombia confirming its endemic circulation in tropical regions [16,19,55,63]. Its high and persistent prevalence in Colombia is largely driven by seasonal reinfections by infected ticks [49,54]. Phylogenetic analysis revealed genetically diverse A. marginale strains, suggesting the co-circulation of different genotypes. As observed in previous studies using different molecular markers, this genetic variability may be indicative of regional adaptation and varying pathogenicity [52,63,74,75].
The Anaplasma sp. sequence detected in R. microplus was closely related to A. platys-like strains that have previously been reported in ruminants in Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Senegal [42,76,77,78] and Italy [79]. Anaplasma platys, on the other hand, is primarily associated with R. sanguineus and is considered a canine pathogen [15], although infections have also been reported in humans [80,81,82] and in various tick species in Colombia [26,27,40,83,84]. There is documented evidence of A. platys-like organisms infecting cattle in Algeria and Brazil [42,85]. The pathogenicity of A. platys-like strains is not fully understood, but the close genetic relationship with A. platys, a known zoonotic species, and their wide host and vector range, suggest that they could have an epidemiologically relevant and geographically widespread distribution, which may include circulation in Colombia.
The E. muris isolate in the present study clustered with other strains previously identified in Ixodes ticks from the USA and rodents from Japan [86,87], showing low genetic variability and high bootstrap support (>80%). Its close relationship with the North American strain suggests that it could be classified as E. muris subsp. Eauclairensis [88]. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of an E. muris-like agent in Colombian ticks. However, as this identification is based on partial gene sequencing, further studies are necessary to confirm its presence and transmission dynamics.
We also report the first detection of E. ruminantium in Colombia. The sequence was strongly clustered (100% bootstrap) within the African clade [89,90,91] and showed low genetic variability. This pathogen, which is predominantly reported in Africa and the Caribbean, causes heartwater in ruminants. It is mainly transmitted by Amblyomma spp., although transmission by Rhipicephalus spp. has also been documented [67,92,93,94]. The detection of E. ruminantium in Colombia raises concerns about its potential establishment in the region and underscores its relevance as an agent of bovine ehrlichiosis. This finding is consistent with reports from Brazil [95,96], Canada [97] and also Africa [98].
In addition, we identified three Ehrlichia sp. that clustered with isolates related to Ca. E. rustica as well as species closely related to E. canis and E. minasensis, but distinct from the E. minasensis previously reported in Hyalomma and Rhipicephalus spp. from various regions of Africa and French Polynesia [90,99]. These sequences were identified in R. microplus, shared only 97% identity with previously reported strains [40] and exhibited moderate genetic divergence (0.02), which suggests the circulation of unclassified Ehrlichia agents in the Colombian Caribbean. Further molecular and phylogenetic studies are needed to validate this hypothesis.
The following limitations of the study should be acknowledged. First, the relatively small number of hosts analyzed, the limited set of sequenced samples selected from Anaplasmataceae-positive host–tick pairs, and reliance on a single genetic marker for species identification may have restricted the detection of additional genotypes or potential host–vector associations. These factors should be considered when interpreting the results. Second, the absence of serological testing limited the assessment of past exposure. Nevertheless, despite these constraints, the study provides novel molecular data on the circulation of Anaplasmataceae in the Colombian Caribbean and contributes valuable baseline data for forthcoming ecoepidemiological investigations. Future studies that integrate molecular and serological tools, analyze a larger number of samples, and include additional genetic markers to improve species resolution will be essential to clarify transmission dynamics and host–vector–pathogen interactions in the region.

5. Conclusions

This study enhances our knowledge and understanding of the prevalence and molecular characteristics of Anaplasmataceae in ticks and their host species in northern Colombia. It reveals high infection rates in vectors and host species, as well as circulation of both recognized and potentially novel Anaplasmataceae species. The detection of Anaplasma sp. closely related to A. platys-like, E. muris, E. ruminantium, and different Ehrlichia spp. in ticks highlights the complexity of the transmission dynamics and the possible zoonotic implications. This study represents the first regional investigation of the pathogen–vector–host interface, and provides a baseline for future studies with broader sampling and improved molecular characterization. Our findings underscore the need for expanded molecular surveillance and the inclusion of diverse tick and host species in diagnostic and control strategies, in accordance with the One Health framework.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.B.-V. and I.G.-B.; methodology, M.B.-V., S.d.l.R.J., I.G.-B., D.C.-T. and M.F.-C.; maps and graphs, M.B.-V. and S.d.l.R.J.; data curation, D.C.-T. and M.F.-C.; formal analysis, M.B.-V. and D.C.-T.; investigation, M.B.-V., I.G.-B. and D.C.-T.; funding acquisition, S.M. and I.G.-B.; resources, S.M. and I.G.-B.; writing—original draft preparation, M.B.-V.; writing—review and editing, I.G.-B., D.C.-T., M.F.-C. and S.M.; supervision, I.G.-B. and D.C.-T.; project administration, I.G.-B. and D.C.-T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was financed by the University of Córdoba-Colombia through the Instituto de investigaciones biológicas del trópico (IIBT), the University Simón Bolívar in Barranquilla-Colombia through the Vice-Rectory of Research, and was partially supported by the Consorcio Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red (CIBER) (CB 2021/13/00083), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación and Unión Europea-NextGenerationEU.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Universidad Simón Bolívar (Barranquilla, Colombia), according to the ethical principles of animal research under number CIE-USB-CE-0317-00 of 28 February 2020.

Informed Consent Statement

We obtained written informed consent from the owners of the sampled animals or from an agent authorized by the owner.

Data Availability Statement

The data that supports the findings of this study are available from the authors upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank veterinarians Yesid Rodado Orozco and Jorge Vergara for their participation in sample collection. We thank all the farmers and farm owners for kindly providing permission to examine the study animals, and to the Ibero-American Postgraduate University Association (AUIP) for the scholarship obtained within the Ibero-American Doctoral Training Program in Biosciences, Biomedicine, and Food Sciences.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Rodríguez-Morales, A.J.; Bonilla-Aldana, D.K.; Idarraga-Bedoya, S.E.; García-Bustos, J.J.; Cardona-Ospina, J.A.; Faccini Martínez, Á.A. Epidemiology of zoonotic tick-borne diseases in Latin America: Are we just seeing the tip of the iceberg? F1000 Res. 2019, 31, 1988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Eraso-Cadena, M.P.; Molina-Guzmán, L.P.; Cardona, X.; Cardona-Arias, J.A.; Ríos-Osorio, L.A.; Gutierrez-Builes, L.A. Serological evidence of exposure to some zoonotic microorganisms in cattle and humans with occupational exposure to livestock in Antioquia, Colombia. Cad. Saude Publica 2018, 34, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Salih, O.; Chitanga, S.; Govinder, K.; Mukaratirwa, S. Modelling the burden of disease for cattle-A case of ticks and tick-borne diseases in cattle in a rural set-up in South Africa. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Betancourt, J. Nueva vacuna para prevención y control de garrapatas en ganado. Periódico El Agro. 2017, 72, 421–434. [Google Scholar]
  5. Grisi, L.; Leite, R.C.; Martins, J.R.d.S.; de Barros, A.T.M.; Andreotti, R.; Cançado, P.H.D.; de León, A.A.P.; Pereira, J.B.; Villela, H.S. Reassessment of the potential economic impact of cattle parasites in Brazil. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 2014, 23, 150–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Baker, R.E.; Mahmud, A.S.; Miller, I.F.; Rajeev, M.; Rasambainarivo, F.; Rice, B.L.; Takahashi, S.; Tatem, A.J.; Wagner, C.E.; Wang, L.-F.; et al. Infectious disease in an era of global change. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2021, 20, 193–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gortazar, C.; Reperant, L.A.; Kuiken, T.; de la Fuente, J.; Boadella, M.; Martínez-Lopez, B.; Ruiz-Fons, F.; Estrada-Peña, A.; Drosten, C.; Medley, G.; et al. Crossing the Interspecies Barrier: Opening the Door to Zoonotic Pathogens. PLoS Pathog. 2014, 10, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Ortiz, D.I.; Piche-Ovares, M.; Romero-Vega, L.M.; Wagman, J.; Troyo, A. The Impact of Deforestation, Urbanization, and Changing Land Use Patterns on the Ecology of Mosquito and Tick-Borne Diseases in Central America. Insects 2021, 13, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Diuk-Wasser, M.A.; Vanacker, M.C.; Fernandez, M.P. Impact of Land Use Changes and Habitat Fragmentation on the Eco-epidemiology of Tick-Borne Diseases. J. Med. Entomol. 2021, 58, 1546–1564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. De la Fuente, J.; Estrada-Peña, A.; Rafael, M.; Almazán, C.; Bermúdez, S.; Abdelbaset, A.E.; Kasaija, P.D.; Kabi, F.; Akande, F.A.; Ajagbe, D.O.; et al. Perception of ticks and tick-borne diseases worldwide. Pathogens 2023, 12, 1258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Springer, A.; Glass, A.; Probst, J.; Strube, C. Tick-borne zoonoses and commonly used diagnostic methods in human and veterinary medicine. Parasitol. Res. 2021, 120, 4075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Rochlin, I.; Toledo, A. Emerging tick-borne pathogens of public health importance: A mini-review. J. Med. Microbiol. 2020, 69, 781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Parola, P.; Paddock, C.D.; Socolovschi, C.; Labruna, M.B.; Mediannikov, O.; Kernif, T.; Abdad, M.Y.; Stenos, J.; Bitam, I.; Fournier, P.-E.; et al. Update on Tick-Borne Rickettsioses around the World: A Geographic Approach. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2013, 26, 657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Bermúdez, C.S.; Zieman, E.A.; Tarragona, E.; Martins, T.F.; Faccini-Martínez, A.A.; Thomas, R.; Guzmán-Cornejo, C.; Muñoz-Leal, S. Tick-Borne Microorganisms in Neotropical Vertebrates. In Ecology of Wildlife Diseases in the Neotropics; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2024; pp. 345–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Rar, V.; Tkachev, S.; Tikunova, N. Genetic diversity of Anaplasma bacteria: Twenty years later. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2021, 91, 104833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Guarnizo, T.R.M.; Alvarez, D.O.; Díaz-Sánchez, A.A.; Cabezas-Cruz, A.; Gutiérrez, L.Z.; Marrero, S.M.; Corona-González, B. Epidemiology and genetic diversity of Anaplasma marginale in Zamora-Chinchipe, Ecuador. Ticks Tick. Borne Dis. 2020, 11, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Hurtado, C.; Torres, R.; Pérez-Macchi, S.; Sagredo, K.; Uberti, B.; Zanatto, D.C.d.S.; Machado, R.Z.; André, M.R.; Bittencourt, P.; Müller, A. Serological and molecular detection of Anaplasma phagocytophilum in Thoroughbred horses from Chilean racecourses. Ticks Tick. Borne Dis. 2020, 11, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Maggi, R.G.; Krämer, F. A review on the occurrence of companion vector-borne diseases in pet animals in Latin America. Parasites Vectors 2019, 12, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gioia, G.V.; Vinueza, R.L.; Marsot, M.; Devillers, E.; Cruz, M.; Petit, E.; Boulouis, H.J.; Moutailler, S.; Monroy, F.; Coello, M.A.; et al. Bovine anaplasmosis and tick-borne pathogens in cattle of the Galapagos Islands. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2018, 65, 1262–1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Semenza, J. Vector-Borne Disease Emergence and Spread in the European Union-Global Health Impacts of Vector-Borne Diseases: Workshop Summary; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  21. Bakken, J.S.; Dumler, J.S. Human granulocytic anaplasmosis. Infect. Dis. Clin. North Am. 2015, 29, 341–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Mattos Ferreira, G.C.; Andrighetto Canozzi, M.E.; Peripolli, V.; de Moura, G.P.; Sánchez, J.; Nogueira Martins, C.E. Prevalence of bovine Babesia spp., Anaplasma marginale, and their co-infections in Latin America: Systematic review-meta-analysis. Ticks Tick. Borne Dis. 2022, 13, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Jaimes-Dueñez, J.; Triana-Chávez, O.; Mejía-Jaramillo, A.M. Parasitological and molecular surveys reveal high rates of infection with vector-borne pathogens and clinical anemia signs associated with infection in cattle from two important livestock areas in Colombia. Ticks Tick. Borne Dis. 2017, 8, 290–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Jaimes-Dueñez, J.; Tique-Oviedo, M.; Arias-Vega, L.; Castiblanco-Diaz, E.; Rivero-Rodriguez, L.; Marin-Cossio, L.; Gongora-Orjuela, A.; Jimenez-Leaño, A. Epidemiological assessment of Anaplasma marginale, Babesia bigemina, and Babesia bovis infections in Colombian creole cattle breeds: A molecular survey in northeastern Colombia. Vet. Parasitol. Reg. Stud. Reports 2024, 50, 101011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Martínez Diaz, H.-C.; Gil-Mora, J.; Betancourt-Ruiz, P.; Silva-Ramos, C.R.; Matiz-González, J.M.; Villalba-Pérez, M.-A.; Ospina-Pinto, M.C.; Ramirez-Hernández, A.; Olaya-M, L.-A.; Bolaños, E.; et al. Molecular detection of tick-borne rickettsial pathogens in ticks collected from domestic animals from Cauca, Colombia. Acta Trop. 2023, 238, 106773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Cabrera, R.; Mendoza, W.; López-Mosquera, L.; Cano, M.A.; Ortiz, N.; Campo, V.; Keynan, Y.; López, L.; Rueda, Z.V.; Gutiérrez, L.A. Tick-Borne-Agents Detection in Patients with Acute Febrile Syndrome and Ticks from Magdalena Medio, Colombia. Pathogens 2022, 11, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Arroyave, E.; Cornwell, E.R.; McBride, J.W.; Díaz, C.A.; Labruna, M.B.; Rodas, J.D. Detection of tick-borne rickettsial pathogens in naturally infected dogs and dog-associated ticks in Medellin, Colombia. Rev. Bras. De Parasitol. Veterinária 2020, 29, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Cotes-Perdomo, A.P.; Oviedo, Á.; Castro, L.R. Molecular detection of pathogens in ticks associated with domestic animals from the Colombian Caribbean region. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2020, 82, 137–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Santodomingo, A.; Sierra-Orozco, K.; Cotes-Perdomo, A.; Castro, L.R. Molecular detection of Rickettsia spp., Anaplasma platys and Theileria equi in ticks collected from horses in Tayrona National Park, Colombia. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2019, 77, 411–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bonilla-Aldana, D.K.; Gutiérrez-Grajales, E.J.; Martínez-Arboleda, J.P.; Reina-Mora, M.A.; Trejos-Mendoza, A.E.; Pérez-Vargas, S.; Valencia-Mejía, L.; Marín-Arboleda, L.F.; Osorio-Navia, D.; Chacón-Peña, M.; et al. Seroprevalence canine survey for selected vector-borne pathogens and its relationship with poverty in metropolitan Pereira, Colombia, 2020. Parasite Epidemiol Control. 2022, 17, e00249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Forero-Becerra, E.; Patel, J.; Martínez-Díaz, H.-C.; Betancourt-Ruiz, P.; Benavides, E.; Durán, S.; Olaya-Másmela, L.-A.; Bolaños, E.; Hidalgo, M.; McBride, J.W. Seroprevalence and Genotypic Analysis of Ehrlichia canis Infection in Dogs and Humans in Cauca, Colombia. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2021, 104, 1771–1776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Badillo-Viloria, M.; Díaz-Pérez, A.; Orozco-Sánchez, C.; de Lavalle-Galvis, R. Infection by Ehrlichia canis and Anaplasma sp. in dogs attended in veterinary clinics, Barranquilla, Colombia. Rev. MVZ Córdoba 2017, 22, 6023–6033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. González-Quintero, R.; Barahona-Rosales, R.; Bolívar-Vergara, D.M.; Chirinda, N.; Arango, J.; Pantévez, H.A.; Correa-Londoño, G.; Sánchez-Pinzón, M.S. Technical and environmental characterization of dual-purpose cattle farms and ways of improving production: A case study in Colombia. Pastoralism 2020, 10, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. ICA. Censos Pecuarios Nacional. Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario. 2025. Available online: https://www.ica.gov.co/areas/pecuaria/servicios/epidemiologia-veterinaria/censos-2016/censo-2018 (accessed on 21 July 2025).
  35. IDEAM. Instituto de Hidrología, Meteorología y Estudios Ambientales. 2023. Available online: http://www.ideam.gov.co/ (accessed on 19 June 2023).
  36. Heylen, D.J.A.; Kumsa, B.; Kimbita, E.; Frank, M.N.; Muhanguzi, D.; Jongejan, F.; Adehan, S.B.; Toure, A.; Aboagye-Antwi, F.; Ogo, N.I.; et al. Tick-borne pathogens and body condition of cattle in smallholder rural livestock production systems in East and West Africa. Parasit. Vectors 2023, 16, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Battesti, D.M.B.; Arzua, M.; Bechara, G.H. Carrapatos De Importância Médico-Veterinária Da Região Neotropical: Um Guia Ilustrado Para Identificação De Espécies; Instituto Butantan: São Paulo, Brazil, 2006; p. 223. [Google Scholar]
  38. Dantas-Torres, F.; Martins, T.F.; Muñoz-Leal, S.; Onofrio, V.C.; Barros-Battesti, D.M. Ticks (Ixodida: Argasidae, Ixodidae) of Brazil: Updated species checklist and taxonomic keys. Ticks Tick. Borne Dis. 2019, 10, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Nava, S.; Venzal, J.M.; González-Acuña, D.; Martins, T.F.; Guglielmone, A.A. Morphological Keys for Genera and Species of Ixodidae and Argasidae. In Ticks of the Southern Cone of America; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017; pp. 323–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Badillo-Viloria, M.; Mattar, S.; Remesar, S.; de la Rosa-Jaramillo, S.; García-Bocanegra, I.; Miranda, J.; Portillo, A.; Cervera-Acedo, C.; Oteo, J.A.; Cano-Terriza, D. Rickettsia spp. and Anaplasmataceae in Ticks from Domestic Animals in Northern Colombia. Zoonoses Public. Health 2025, 72, 421–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Norris, D.E.; Klompen, J.S.H.; Keirans, J.E.; Black IV, W.C. Population Genetics of Ixodes scapularis (Acari: Ixodidae) Based on Mitochondrial 16S and 12S Genes. J. Med. Entomol. 1996, 33, 78–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Inokuma, H.; Raoult, D.; Brouqui, P. Detection of Ehrlichia platys DNA in brown dog ticks (Rhipicephalus sanguineus) in Okinawa Island, Japan. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2000, 38, 4219–4221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Dahmani, M.; Marié, J.-L.; Mediannikov, O.; Raoult, D.; Davoust, B. First identification of Anaplasma platys in the blood of dogs from French Guiana. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2015, 15, 170–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Kumar, S.; Stecher, G.; Li, M.; Knyaz, C.; Tamura, K. MEGA X: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis across Computing Platforms. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2018, 35, 1547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Okonechnikov, K.; Golosova, O.; Fursov, M.; Varlamov, A.; Vaskin, Y.; Efremov, I. Unipro UGENE: A unified bioinformatics toolkit. Bioinformatics 2012, 28, 1166–1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hoang, D.T.; Chernomor, O.; von Haeseler, A.; Minh, B.Q.; Vinh, L.S. UFBoot2: Improving the Ultrafast Bootstrap Approximation. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2018, 35, m518–m522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Hosmer, D.W.; Lemeshow, S. Applied Logistic Regression; Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zaid, T.; Ereqat, S.; Nasereddin, A.; Al-Jawabreh, A.; Abdelkader, A.; Abdeen, Z. Molecular characterization of Anaplasma and Ehrlichia in ixodid ticks and reservoir hosts from Palestine: A pilot survey. Vet. Med. Sci. 2019, 5, 230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Murcia-Mono, C.A.; Falla-Tapias, S.; Morales Cabrera, A.F.; Navia Álvarez, L.C.; Rivera-Sánchez, L.; Gómez Vargas, Y.; Burgos-Paz, W.O. Risk Factors Associated with Hemoparasites in Dual-Purpose Cattle of Colombia. Pathogens 2025, 14, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Pierce, K.A.; Paddock, C.D.; Sumner, J.W.; Nicholson, W.L. Pathogen prevalence and blood meal identification in Amblyomma ticks as a means of reservoir host determination for ehrlichial pathogens. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2009, 15, 37–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Segura, J.A.; Isaza, J.P.; Botero, L.E.; Alzate, J.F.; Gutiérrez, L.A. Assessment of bacterial diversity of Rhipicephalus microplus ticks from two livestock agroecosystems in Antioquia, Colombia. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0234005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Pérez, A.E.; Guillemi, E.C.; Sarmiento, N.F.; Cantón, G.J.; Farber, M.D. Rhipicephalus microplus and Its Impact on Anaplasma marginale Multistrain Infections in Contrasting Epidemiological Contexts. Pathogens 2025, 14, 160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. De la Fournière, S.; Guillemi, E.C.; Paoletta, M.S.; Pérez, A.; Obregón, D.; Cabezas-Cruz, A.; Sarmiento, N.F.; Farber, M.D. Transovarial Transmission of Anaplasma marginale in Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus Ticks Results in a Bottleneck for Strain Diversity. Pathogens 2023, 12, 1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Mor, N.H.; Tavera, J.V.M.; Tobón, J.C.; Barragán, B.L.G.; López, G.B.; Duarte, J.J.V.; Corredor, D.W.S.; Tafur-Gómez, G.A. Hemoparasitism in grazing cattle and risk factors associated with husbandry management in an endemic area of Eastern Colombia. J. Parasit. Dis. 2024, 48, 924–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Jaimes-Dueñez, J.; Triana-Chávez, O.; Mejía-Jaramillo, A.M. Genetic, host and environmental factors associated with a high prevalence of Anaplasma marginale. Ticks Tick. Borne Dis. 2018, 9, 1286–1295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Blanco Martínez, R.; Cardona Álvarez, J.; Vargas Viloria, M. Prevalencia de parásitos hematrópicos endoglobulares en bovinos gyr puros en Córdoba, Colombia. Rev. Med. Vet. 2016, 31, 67–74. Available online: http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0122-93542016000100007 (accessed on 13 March 2025). [CrossRef]
  57. Herrera, M.; Soto, M.Á.; Urrego, M.V.; Rivera, M.G.; Zapata, B.M.; Rios, L. Frecuencia de hemoparásitos en bovinos del bajo Cauca y alto San Jorge. 2000–2005. Rev. MVZ Córdoba 2008, 13, 1486–1494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  58. Herrera, J.A.; Morales, A.S.; Dolz, G. Hemoparásitos en equinos de la Unidad de la Policía Montada del Ministerio de Seguridad Pública de Costa Rica. Ciencias Veterinarias 2023, 41, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Teglas, M.; Matern, E.; Lein, S.; Foley, P.; Mahan, S.M.; Foley, J. Ticks and tick-borne disease in Guatemalan cattle and horses. Vet. Parasitol. 2005, 131, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Costa, S.C.L.; Freitas, J.d.S.; Carvalho, F.S.; Pereira, M.J.S.; Cordeiro, M.D.; da Fonseca, A.H.; Jusi, M.M.G.; Machado, R.Z.; Munhoz, A.D. Frequency and factors associated of potential zoonotic pathogens (Borrelia spp., Rickettsia spp., Leishmania spp., and Anaplasma phagocytophilum) in equids in the state of Bahia, Brazil. Parasit. Vectors 2021, 14, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Agudelo-Ruíz, Y.; Acevedo-Gutiérrez, L.; Montoya-Sanchéz, A.; Paternina, L.; Rodas, J. Molecular identification of tick-borne hemoparasites in equines from Northwestern Colombia. Rev. MVZ Cordoba 2017, 22, 6004–6013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  62. Miranda, J.; Mattar, S. Molecular detection of Rickettsia bellii and Rickettsia sp. strain colombianensi in ticks from Cordoba, Colombia. Ticks Tick. Borne Dis. 2014, 5, 208–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Pereira, J.G.; Garcia, A.B.; Gonçalves, L.R.; Ramos, I.A.d.S.; Braga, M.D.S.C.O.; dos Santos, L.S.; Melo, F.A.; Santos, H.P.; Neta, A.V.d.C.; Rosário, C.J.R.M.D.; et al. High genetic diversity of Anaplasma marginale infecting dairy cattle in northeastern Brazil. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 2021, 30, e014321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Groenevelt, M.; Wijburg, S.R.; Sprong, H.; Kerkhof, K.; Stuen, S. Role of tick infestation in the progression of Anaplasma phagocytophilum infection in lambs. Ticks Tick. Borne Dis. 2025, 16, 102477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. de la Fuente, J.; Almazán, C.; Kocan, K.M. Subolesin: A 20-year path from discovery to an effective tick vaccine. Expert. Rev. Vaccines 2025, 24, 412–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Giunchetti, C.; Fuentes Zaldivar, M.; Goodwill Makwarela, T.; Seoraj-Pillai, N.; Nangammbi, T.C. Tick Control Strategies: Critical Insights into Chemical, Biological, Physical, and Integrated Approaches for Effective Hard Tick Management. Vet. Sciences 2025, 12, 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Pfeffer, M.; Król, N.; Obiegala, A. Prevention and Control of Tick-Borne Anaplasmosis, Cowdriosis and Babesiosis in the Cattle Industry in: Pests and Vector-Borne Diseases in the Livestock Industry; Wageningen Academic: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 175–194. [Google Scholar]
  68. Bonilla-Aldana, D.K.; Quintero-Rada, K.; Montoya-Posada, J.P.; Soler-Tovar, D.; Barato, P.; Arteaga-Livias, K.; Zambrano, L.I.; Faccini-Martínez, Á.A.; Rodriguez-Morales, A.J. Bovine Ehrlichiosis Prevalence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Molecular Studies. World’s Vet. J. 2021, 11, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Piloto-Sardiñas, E.; Foucault-Simonin, A.; Wu-Chuang, A.; Mateos-Hernández, L.; Marrero-Perera, R.; Abuin-Denis, L.; Roblejo-Arias, L.; Díaz-Corona, C.; Zając, Z.; Kulisz, J.; et al. Dynamics of Infections in Cattle and Rhipicephalus microplus: A Preliminary Study. Pathogens 2023, 12, 998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Kocan, K.M.; De La Fuente, J.; Blouin, E.F.; Garcia-Garcia, J.C. Anaplasma marginale (Rickettsiales: Anaplasmataceae): Recent advances in defining host–pathogen adaptations of a tick-borne rickettsia. Parasitology 2004, 129, S285–S300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. De la Fuente, J.; Garcia-Garcia, J.C.; Blouin, E.F.; Saliki, J.T.; Kocan, K.M. Infection of tick cells and bovine erythrocytes with one genotype of the intracellular ehrlichia Anaplasma marginale excludes infection with other genotypes. Clin. Diagn. Lab. Immunol. 2002, 9, 658–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Barbet, A.F.; Yi, J.; Lundgren, A.; McEwen, B.R.; Blouin, E.F.; Kocan, K.M. Antigenic variation of Anaplasma marginale: Major surface protein 2 diversity during cyclic transmission between ticks and cattle. Infect. Immun. 2001, 69, 3057–3066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  73. Eriks, I.S.; Stiller, D.; Palmer, G.H. Impact of persistent Anaplasma marginale rickettsemia on tick infection and transmission. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1993, 31, 2091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Pohl, A.E.; Cabezas-Cruz, A.; Ribeiro, M.F.B.; da Silveira, J.A.G.; Silaghi, C.; Pfister, K.; Passos, L.M.F. Detection of genetic diversity of Anaplasma marginale isolates in Minas Gerais, Brazil. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 2013, 22, 129–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Jimenez Ocampo, R.; Vega y Murguia, C.A.; Oviedo Ortega, N.; Rojas Ramírez, E.E.; Garcia Ortiz, M.A.; Preciado de la Torre, J.F.; Cruz, R.R.; García, D.I.D.; Camarillo, S.D.R. Genetic diversity of the msp1a gene variable region and msp4 gene of Anaplasma marginale strains from Mexico. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Pecu. 2012, 3, 373–386. Available online: https://cienciaspecuarias.inifap.gob.mx/index.php/Pecuarias/article/view/730/728 (accessed on 13 March 2025).
  76. Abdullah, H.H.A.M.; Amanzougaghene, N.; Dahmana, H.; Louni, M.; Raoult, D.; Mediannikov, O. Multiple vector-borne pathogens of domestic animals in Egypt. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2021, 15, e0009767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ben Said, M.; Belkahia, H.; El Mabrouk, N.; Saidani, M.; Alberti, A.; Zobba, R.; Cherif, A.; Mahjoub, T.; Bouattour, A.; Messadi, L. Anaplasma platys-like strains in ruminants from Tunisia. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2017, 49, 226–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Dahmani, M.; Davoust, B.; Sambou, M.; Bassene, H.; Scandola, P.; Ameur, T.; Raoult, D.; Fenollar, F.; Mediannikov, O. Molecular investigation and phylogeny of species of the Anaplasmataceae infecting animals and ticks in Senegal. Parasit. Vectors 2019, 12, 495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Zobba, R.; Anfossi, A.G.; Parpaglia, M.L.P.; Dore, G.M.; Chessa, B.; Spezzigu, A.; Rocca, S.; Visco, S.; Pittau, M.; Alberti, A. Molecular Investigation and Phylogeny of Anaplasma spp. in Mediterranean Ruminants Reveal the Presence of Neutrophil-Tropic Strains Closely Related to A. platys. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2014, 80, 271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Arraga-Alvarado, C.M.; Qurollo, B.A.; Parra, O.C.; Berrueta, M.A.; Hegarty, B.C.; Breitschwerdt, E.B. Molecular Evidence of Anaplasma platys Infection in Two Women from Venezuela. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2014, 91, 1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Breitschwerdt, E.B.; Hegarty, B.C.; Qurollo, B.A.; Saito, T.B.; Maggi, R.G.; Blanton, L.S.; Bouyer, D.H. Intravascular persistence of Anaplasma platys, Ehrlichia chaffeensis, and Ehrlichia ewingii DNA in the blood of a dog and two family members. Parasit. Vectors 2014, 7, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Maggi, R.G.; Mascarelli, P.E.; Havenga, L.N.; Naidoo, V.; Breitschwerdt, E.B. Co-infection with Anaplasma platys, Bartonella henselae and Candidatus Mycoplasma haematoparvum in a veterinarian. Parasit. Vectors 2013, 6, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Pesapane, R.; Foley, J.; Thomas, R.; Castro, L.R. Molecular detection and characterization of Anaplasma platys and Ehrlichia canis in dogs from northern Colombia. Vet. Microbiol. 2019, 233, 184–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Vargas-Hernandez, G.; André, M.R.; Cendales, D.M.; de Sousa, K.C.M.; Gonçalves, L.R.; Rondelli, M.C.H.; Machado, R.Z.; Tinucci-Costa, M. Molecular detection of Anaplasma species in dogs in Colombia. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 2016, 25, 459–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. André, M.R.; Calchi, A.C.; Herrera, H.M.; Zanatto, D.C.d.S.; Horta, B.d.C.L.S.; Tasso, J.B.; Ramos, I.A.d.S.; de Mello, V.V.C.; Machado, R.Z. The co-infection with Ehrlichia minasensis, Anaplasma marginale and Anaplasma platys is not associated with anemia in beef cattle in the Brazilian Pantanal. Vet. Parasitol. Reg. Stud. Reports 2020, 21, 100437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Thirumalapura, N.R.; Qin, X.; Kuriakose, J.A.; Walker, D.H. Complete Genome Sequence of Ehrlichia muris Strain AS145T, a Model Monocytotropic Ehrlichia Strain. Genome Announc. 2014, 2, e01234-e13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Pritt, B.S.; Sloan, L.M.; Johnson, D.K.H.; Munderloh, U.G.; Paskewitz, S.M.; McElroy, K.M.; McFadden, J.D.; Binnicker, M.J.; Neitzel, D.F.; Liu, G.; et al. Emergence of a new pathogenic Ehrlichia species, Wisconsin and Minnesota, 2009. N Engl J Med. 2011, 365, 422–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Pritt, B.S.; Allerdice, M.E.J.; Sloan, L.M.; Paddock, C.D.; Munderloh, U.G.; Rikihisa, Y.; Tajima, T.; Paskewitz, S.M.; Neitzel, D.F.; Johnson, D.K.H.; et al. Proposal to reclassify Ehrlichia muris as Ehrlichia muris subsp. Muris subsp. nov. and description of Ehrlichia muris subsp. eauclairensis subsp. nov., a newly recognized tick-borne pathogen of humans. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2017, 67, 2121–2126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Liebenberg, J.; Steyn, H.C.; Josemans, A.I.; Faber, E.; Zweygarth, E. In vitro propagation and genome sequencing of three ‘atypical’ Ehrlichia ruminantium isolates. Onderstepoort J. Vet. Res. 2020, 87, 1769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Laroche, M.; Marie, J.; Mediannikov, O.; Almeras, L.; Berenger, J.-M.; Musso, D.; Raoult, D.; Parola, P. A novel ehrlichial agent detected in tick in French Polynesia. Ticks Tick. Borne Dis. 2016, 7, 1203–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Frutos, R.; Viari, A.; Ferraz, C.; Morgat, A.; Eychenié, S.; Kandassamy, Y.; Chantal, I.; Bensaid, A.; Coissac, E.; Vachiery, N.; et al. Comparative genomic analysis of three strains of Ehrlichia ruminantium reveals an active process of genome size plasticity. J. Bacteriol. 2006, 188, 2533–2542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Onyiche, T.G.E.; MacLeod, E.T. Hard ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) and tick-borne diseases of sheep and goats in Africa: A review. Ticks Tick. Borne Dis. 2023, 14, 102232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Allsopp, B.A. Heartwater–Ehrlichia ruminantium infection. OIE Rev. Sci. Tech. 2015, 34, 557–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Rar, V.; Golovljova, I. Anaplasma, Ehrlichia, and “Candidatus Neoehrlichia” bacteria: Pathogenicity, biodiversity, and molecular genetic characteristics, a review. Infect. Genet. Evolution 2011, 11, 1842–1861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Osman, A.M.; Hassan-Kadle, A.A.; André, M.R.; Collere, F.C.M.; Córdova, A.S.A.; Montiani-Ferreira, F.; Vieira, T.S.W.J.; Ibrahim, A.M.; Yusuf, A.A.; Machado, R.Z.; et al. Ehrlichia Species in Dromedary Camels (Camelus dromedarius) and Ruminants from Somalia. Pathogens 2025, 14, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Aguiar, D.M.; Ziliani, T.F.; Zhang, X.; Melo, A.L.; Braga, Í.A.; Witter, R.; Freitas, L.C.; Rondelli, A.L.; Luis, M.A.; Sorte, E.C.; et al. A novel Ehrlichia genotype strain distinguished by the TRP36 gene naturally infects cattle in Brazil and causes clinical manifestations associated with ehrlichiosis. Ticks Tick. Borne Dis. 2014, 5, 537–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Gajadhar, A.A.; Lobanov, V.; Scandrett, W.B.; Campbell, J.; Al-Adhami, B. A novel Ehrlichia genotype detected in naturally infected cattle in North America. Vet. Parasitol. 2010, 173, 324–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Iweriebor, B.C.; Mmbaga, E.J.; Adegborioye, A.; Igwaran, A.; Obi, L.C.; Okoh, A.I. Genetic profiling for Anaplasma and Ehrlichia species in ticks collected in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. BMC Microbiol. 2017, 17, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Ehounoud, C.B.; Yao, K.P.; Dahmani, M.; Achi, Y.L.; Amanzougaghene, N.; N’douba, A.K.; N’guessan, J.D.; Raoult, D.; Fenollar, F.; Mediannikov, O. Multiple Pathogens Including Potential New Species in Tick Vectors in Côte d’Ivoire. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2016, 10, e0004367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Animals 16 00008 g001
Figure 1. Maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree (ML: 1000 bootstrap replicates) inferred from the partial 16S rRNA genes of ticks. Sequences identified in this study are shown in bold red.
Figure 1. Maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree (ML: 1000 bootstrap replicates) inferred from the partial 16S rRNA genes of ticks. Sequences identified in this study are shown in bold red.
Animals 16 00008 g001
Animals 16 00008 g002
Figure 2. Geographic distribution of sampled farms and infection rates of Anaplasmataceae across host and tick species in the Department of Atlántico, Colombia.
Figure 2. Geographic distribution of sampled farms and infection rates of Anaplasmataceae across host and tick species in the Department of Atlántico, Colombia.
Animals 16 00008 g002
Animals 16 00008 g003
Figure 3. Phylogenetic tree and p-distances for Anaplasma spp. (A) Maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree based on the partial 23S rRNA gene of Anaplasma spp. (B) Heatmap of mean p-distances. The respective values for each pairwise comparison are shown in each cell. Isolates from this study are highlighted in red. The color scale represents genetic distance: green shades indicate lower distances (higher similarity); red shades indicate higher distances (lower similarity). Abbreviations: A.: Anaplasma; G: Group of sequences obtained from GenBank; n: number of samples.
Figure 3. Phylogenetic tree and p-distances for Anaplasma spp. (A) Maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree based on the partial 23S rRNA gene of Anaplasma spp. (B) Heatmap of mean p-distances. The respective values for each pairwise comparison are shown in each cell. Isolates from this study are highlighted in red. The color scale represents genetic distance: green shades indicate lower distances (higher similarity); red shades indicate higher distances (lower similarity). Abbreviations: A.: Anaplasma; G: Group of sequences obtained from GenBank; n: number of samples.
Animals 16 00008 g003
Animals 16 00008 g004
Figure 4. Phylogenetic tree and p-distances for Ehrlichia spp. (A) Maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree based on the partial 23S rRNA gene of Ehrlichia spp. (B) Heatmap of mean p-distances. The respective values for each pairwise comparison are shown in each cell. Isolates from this study are highlighted in red. The color scale represents genetic distance: green shades indicate lower distances (higher similarity); red shades indicate higher distances (lower similarity). Abbreviations: E.: Ehrlichia; G: Group of sequences obtained from GenBank; n: number of samples.
Figure 4. Phylogenetic tree and p-distances for Ehrlichia spp. (A) Maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree based on the partial 23S rRNA gene of Ehrlichia spp. (B) Heatmap of mean p-distances. The respective values for each pairwise comparison are shown in each cell. Isolates from this study are highlighted in red. The color scale represents genetic distance: green shades indicate lower distances (higher similarity); red shades indicate higher distances (lower similarity). Abbreviations: E.: Ehrlichia; G: Group of sequences obtained from GenBank; n: number of samples.
Animals 16 00008 g004
Table 1. Frequency of Anaplasmataceae infection in ticks and host animals in the Department of Atlántico, Colombia.
Table 1. Frequency of Anaplasmataceae infection in ticks and host animals in the Department of Atlántico, Colombia.
Ticks and Host Infectedn (%)
(Developmental Stages)		No. Pools (%)Positive (%)CI95%p-Value
Tick speciesRhipicephalus sanguineus * (cattle)8 (0.7)
(M:6, L:2)		2 (1.3)0/2 (0.0)0.0–0.0<0.01
Rhipicephalus microplus *497 (43.0)
(M:153, F:299, N:45)		82 (51.3)15/82 (18.3)10.0–27.0
Dermacentor nitens **643 (55.6)
(M:302, F:150, N:136, L:55)		70 (44.0)0/70 (0.0)0.0–0.0
Amblyomma patinoi *8 (0.7)
(M:1, F:7)		5 (3.1)0/5 (0.0)0.0–0.0
Total1156 (100)159 (100)15/159 (9.4)5.0–14.0
Host speciesCattle56 (76.7)-40 (71.4)59.0–84.00.02
Horse14 (19.2)-7 (50.0)15.0–67.0
Mule3 (4.1)-0 (0.0)0.0–0-0
Total73 (100)-47 (64.4)53.0–76.0
M: male; F: female; N: nymph; L: larva. * Collected exclusively from cattle; ** Collected exclusively from horses and mules.
Table 2. Distribution of explanatory variables associated with Anaplasmataceae infection in sampled host species in the Department of Atlántico, Colombia.
Table 2. Distribution of explanatory variables associated with Anaplasmataceae infection in sampled host species in the Department of Atlántico, Colombia.
VariableCategoriesPositive/Total%p
Host speciesCattle40/5671.40.025
Equids7/1741.2
AgeJuvenile (<3 years)19/3161.30.409
Adult (≥3 years)28/4266.7
SexMale10/1952.60.167
Female37/5468.5
LocationMetropolitan13/1872.20.014
Eastern8/1747.1
South6/785.7
Central20/2774.1
Coast0/40.0
Infested animals on the farm (%)≥78%28/3580.00.017
50–78%12/2157.1
<50%7/1741.2
Management systemExtensive11/1478.60.185
Intensive25/3767.6
Semiextensive11/2250.0
Tick control measuresPour on2/540.00.238
Pour on and by injection45/6866.2
Grazing rotationYes38/6459.40.014
No9/9100
Contact with wildlifeYes27/4658.70.142
No20/2774.1
Type of feedGrass and forage13/2356.50.244
Grass and concentrate34/5068.0
Table 3. Multiple logistic regression analysis of risk factors associated with Anaplasmataceae infection in sampled animals in the Department of Atlántico, Colombia.
Table 3. Multiple logistic regression analysis of risk factors associated with Anaplasmataceae infection in sampled animals in the Department of Atlántico, Colombia.
VariableCategoriesp-ValueOR (95% CI)
Infested animals on the farm (%)≥78%
50–78%
<50%		0.002
0.160
a		9.1 (2.2–37.6)
2.7 (0.7–10.8)
a
Host speciesCattle
Equids		0.008
a		5.7 (1.6–20.9)
a
a Reference Category.
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

Badillo-Viloria, M.; García-Bocanegra, I.; de la Rosa Jaramillo, S.; Mattar, S.; Frías-Casas, M.; Cano-Terriza, D. Molecular Characterization and Epidemiology of Anaplasmataceae in Ticks and Domestic Animals in the Colombian Caribbean. Animals 2026, 16, 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16010008

AMA Style

Badillo-Viloria M, García-Bocanegra I, de la Rosa Jaramillo S, Mattar S, Frías-Casas M, Cano-Terriza D. Molecular Characterization and Epidemiology of Anaplasmataceae in Ticks and Domestic Animals in the Colombian Caribbean. Animals. 2026; 16(1):8. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16010008

Chicago/Turabian Style

Badillo-Viloria, Maria, Ignacio García-Bocanegra, Steffania de la Rosa Jaramillo, Salim Mattar, Mario Frías-Casas, and David Cano-Terriza. 2026. "Molecular Characterization and Epidemiology of Anaplasmataceae in Ticks and Domestic Animals in the Colombian Caribbean" Animals 16, no. 1: 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16010008

APA Style

Badillo-Viloria, M., García-Bocanegra, I., de la Rosa Jaramillo, S., Mattar, S., Frías-Casas, M., & Cano-Terriza, D. (2026). Molecular Characterization and Epidemiology of Anaplasmataceae in Ticks and Domestic Animals in the Colombian Caribbean. Animals, 16(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16010008

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