title: Differential mortality of dog tick vectors due to infection by diverse Francisella tularensis tularensis genotypes.
abstract: The factors involved in the long-term perpetuation of Francisella tularensis tularensis in nature are poorly understood. Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, has become a site of sustained transmission of Type A tularemia, with nearly 100 human cases reported from 2000 to 2010. We have identified a stable focus of F. tularensis transmission there, where the annual prevalence in host-seeking Dermacentor variabilis is about 3%, suggesting that this tick perpetuates the agent. However, laboratory studies have shown that infection with F. tularensis has a profound negative effect on dog tick mortality, presenting a paradox: how can a vector perpetuate an agent that negatively affects its fitness? It may be that experimental infection does not mimic that of natural transmission. Accordingly, we examined the effects that F. tularensis has on the longevity of field-derived ticks. Of 63 PCR-positive ticks collected in early summer, 89% were dead by December compared to 48% of 214 uninfected ticks collected at the same time and site. However, the quantum of F. tularensis DNA within each tick was not correlated with increased mortality. Instead, ticks with an uncommon genotype were more likely to die early than those with the common genotype. We conclude that the interaction between F. tularensis and its vector is complex and certain bacterial genotypes appear to be better adapted to their arthropod host.
authors: Division of Infectious Diseases, Tufts Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, North Grafton, Massachusetts 01536, USA.
authors: Heidi K
authors: HK
authors: Goethert
authors: Sam R
authors: SR
authors: Telford
references: J Bacteriol. 2004 Sep;186(17):5808-18
references: 15317786
references: Acta Trop. 2003 Jan;85(1):19-29
references: 12505180
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2009 Apr 7;276(1660):1369-78
references: 19141420
references: J Parasitol. 1960 Dec;46:877-84
references: 13734970
references: Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009 May;1166:144-50
references: 19538274
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2006 Jun 22;273(1593):1501-6
references: 16777744
references: J Clin Microbiol. 2004 Nov;42(11):4968-73
references: 15528681
references: Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2010 Mar;1(1):66-8
references: 20563231
references: Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2010 Sep;83(3):645-52
references: 20810833
references: PLoS Pathog. 2009 Feb;5(2):e1000319
references: 19247435
references: Exp Appl Acarol. 2003;29(3-4):355-65
references: 14635820
references: J Med Entomol. 2000 Nov;37(6):815-9
references: 11126535
references: Am J Hyg. 1953 Jul;58(1):101-18
references: 13065276
references: Emerg Infect Dis. 2006 Jun;12(6):1019-21
references: 16707067
references: J Med Entomol. 2004 May;41(3):476-83
references: 15185953
references: Microb Ecol. 2010 Feb;59(2):277-83
references: 19669828
references: BMC Microbiol. 2009 Jul 23;9:147
references: 19627585
references: Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999 Feb;65(2):773-8
references: 9925615
references: Parasitol Res. 2000 Mar;86(3):207-14
references: 10726991
references: Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2007 Jun;1105:351-77
references: 17442781
references: J Med Entomol. 2007 Nov;44(6):1074-85
references: 18047209
references: J Med Entomol. 2000 Sep;37(5):701-6
references: 11004781
references: Nature. 1981 Feb 26;289(5800):765-71
references: 7464941
references: Am Nat. 2008 Jun;171(6):743-54
references: 18462128
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2002 Jun 22;269(1497):1217-24
references: 12065037
references: Front Microbiol. 2011 Jan 28;1:150
references: 21687803
references: J Med Entomol. 2003 Jul;40(4):522-7
references: 14680121