The role of juvenile Dermacentor reticulatus ticks as vectors of microorganisms and the problem of ‘meal contamination’

Juvenile Dermacentor reticulatus ticks inhabit nests and burrows of their rodent hosts and cannot be collected from vegetation. To detect vertical transmission of Babesia canis in D. reticulatus, we studied larvae and nymphs collected from rodents. However, the molecular techniques used for detection of pathogen DNA are sensitive enough to detect not only pathogens vectored by ticks but also those taken up with current or previous blood meals (‘meal contamination’) or just present in the environment and on the tick or host surface (‘environmental contaminations’). Thus, an additional aim of our study was to evaluate the extent of such contamination while studying feeding ticks collected from rodents. Juvenile D. reticulatus were collected from 140 rodents: 91 bank voles trapped in two forest sites in the Mazury Lake District and 49 rodents (Apodemus and Microtus spp.) from an open habitat near the town of Białobrzegi in Central Poland. Altogether 504 D. reticulatus ticks, comprising 266 individually evaluated nymphs and 238 larvae assigned to 50 larval pools, were studied for the presence of Babesia, Bartonella and Rickettsia spp. DNA. Statistical analyses were conducted to (1) evaluate the effect of rodent host factors (species, sex and age) on prevalence of infection in ticks, and (2) to compare the frequency of positive samples between groups of pathogen-positive and pathogen-negative rodent hosts. To complete the last aim, blood samples obtained from 49 rodents from Białobrzegi were studied for the presence of Babesia and Bartonella DNA. Infestation of rodent hosts with juvenile ticks ranged between 46 and 78%, with a mean abundance of 3.6 ticks/rodent for D. reticulatus and 4.8 ticks/rodent for Ixodes ricinus. The highest prevalence of PCR-positive D. reticulatus samples was obtained for Rickettsia spp. (28%) and R. raoultii was identified in 22 sequenced PCR products. Babesia DNA was detected in 20 (7.5%), including B. microti in 18 (6.8%) and B. canis in two (0.8%) of 266 D. reticulatus nymphs that were analyzed. Babesia microti DNA was also detected in four pools of D. reticulatus larvae (4/50 pools = 8%). The detection success of B. microti in D. reticulatus was associated with the species of the rodent hosts of the ticks (much higher for typical B. microti-host-species such as Microtus spp. than for Apodemus spp.) and host age (3 × higher in ticks collected from adult hosts in comparison to juvenile ones). Moreover, the DNA of B. microti was detected in 68% of D. reticulatus nymphs collected from B. microti-positive rodents in comparison to only 1.6% of nymphs collected from B. microti-negative rodents. Bartonella DNA was detected in 18% of D. reticulatus tick samples (38% of larval pools, 14% of nymphs). Again, host factors played important roles for ‘tick positivity’-the highest prevalence of positive ticks was on Apodemus spp., which are regarded as Bartonella reservoirs. Bartonella DNA was detected in 42% of nymphs and 57% of larval pools collected from Bartonella-positive rodents in comparison to 28% of nymphs and 11% of larvae collected from Bartonella-negative rodents. Vertical transmission of B. canis in D. reticulatus ticks was confirmed in the field. Additionally, we demonstrated that ‘meal contamination’ generates a confounding signal in molecular detection of pathogen DNA extracted from ticks collected from infected hosts and must be taken into account in evaluating the competence of tick species as vectors.