Abstract
Ticks are major ectoparasites and vectors of pathogens affecting humans, livestock, and wildlife. They harbor diverse microbial communities that may influence tick biology and interactions with microorganisms; however, functional information on tick-associated microbiomes remains limited, particularly in North Africa. In this pilot study, we applied a metaproteomic approach based on high-resolution tandem mass spectrometry to characterize bacterial communities associated with three tick species collected in Algeria: Rhipicephalus sanguineus sensu lato, Hyalomma aegyptium, and Hyalomma dromedarii. Peptide spectra were assigned to taxa using a two-step database search strategy based on NCBInr, and bacterial composition and relative abundance were compared across tick species and sampling locations. A total of 40 bacterial genera belonging to 32 families and four phyla were identified. Microbiome composition differed significantly between tick genera and collection locations, suggesting an influence of species-specific and geographical factors on microbial community structure. Dominant genera included Streptomyces, Bacillus, Clostridium, Escherichia, Flavobacterium, Paenibacillus, and Providencia. Peptides related to Coxiella spp. were frequently detected, consistent with previous reports of Coxiella-like endosymbionts in ticks. This pilot study provides a first metaproteomic characterization of tick-associated communities in Algeria. The results reveal species- and location-associated differences in microbial composition and highlight the potential of metaproteomics for exploring tick-associated microbiomes in North Africa.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-58580-1.
Keywords: Ticks, Tick microbiome, Metaproteomics, Bacterial diversity, Hyalomma, Rhipicephalus, Algeria
Subject terms: Ecology, Ecology, Microbiology
Introduction
Ticks are obligate hematophagous ectoparasites, the group called “hard” ticks is belonging to the phylum Arthropoda, Class Arachnida, Order Acari, Suborder Ixodida Family Ixodidae1. As obligate blood-feeders of a wide range of terrestrial vertebrates, including mammals, birds, reptiles, and humans, ticks are well recognized vectors of a variety of pathogens, including bacteria, parasites, and viruses, involved in the spread of zoonotic and veterinary diseases2. In addition to harboring tick-borne pathogens (TBPs), ticks maintain diverse microbial communities, composed of opportunistic, commensal and mutualistic viruses, bacteria and parasites, influencing tick nutrition, development, reproduction, and vector competence3–10. These symbiotic microbes may also influence the colonization and transmission of pathogenic microorganisms, therefore being a relevant target for tick control11,12. Recently, studies have focused on the taxonomic and functional composition of the tick microbiome, its microbial diversity and variation under different factors including tick species, sex, and environment among others6,13. Despite their importance, studies on tick microbiomes have primarily relied on polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based detection methods, which focus on the presence of specific human or animal pathogens or co-infection patterns14. Advances in high-throughput sequencing techniques, such as DNA barcoding and metagenomics, have greatly enhanced our understanding of the tick microbiome, providing deeper insights into its taxonomic composition11,15–21. Such studies have demonstrated the coexistence of TBPs and commensal and symbiotic microorganisms within ticks; however, they primarily focus on genetic material detection and lack functional insights into microbial interactions. To address this limitation, meta-omics approaches, particularly combined metagenomics and metaproteomics, have emerged as powerful tools to characterize microbial communities at phenotypical and functional levels22–24. The quantitative aspect of the proteotyping methodology provides both a comprehensive taxonomical description and an estimation of the respective microbial communities biomasses. Furthermore, metaproteomics by quantifying the proteins of these taxa offers a functional perspective on microbial activity, metabolic pathways, and host-microbe interactions within microbiomes25,26. This approach has already been successfully applied to ticks to understand ectoparasite microbiomes, shedding light on their complexity and functional roles27,28.
Algeria is home to 37 tick species, classified into two families: Argasidae (soft ticks; 12 species) and Ixodidae (Hard ticks; 25 species). Among Algerian tick species, Rhipicephalus sanguineus sensu lato, Hyalomma aegyptium, and Hyalomma dromedarii are highly adapted to xeric environments and exhibit broad and diverse host ranges29,30. H. dromedarii is a well-established vector of Coxiella burnetii31,32, Rickettsia aeschlimannii33, Rickettsia africae34, and Anaplasma spp. closely related to A. platys32. H. aegyptium has been implicated in the transmission of R. aeschlimannii in Algeria35 and is also capable of transmitting Borrelia spp., R. africae36, and the Crimean–Congo hemorrhagic fever virus37. Finally, R. sanguineus sensu lato acts as a competent vector for a wide array of pathogens, including C. burnetii, Theileria spp., Babesia spp., Anaplasma spp., Rickettsia spp., Borrelia spp., Bartonella spp., Candidatus Rickettsia barbariae, and Francisella-like endosymbionts36,38–47. Recently, metagenomics studies investigated pathogen–pathogen interactions in ticks using high-throughput microfluidic PCR and network analysis48,49, or examined seasonal variation in tick microbiomes using NGS43,50. Additionally, in arid and semi-arid regions of North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, the camel tick H. dromedarii has also been the focus of several microbiome studies based on 16 S rRNA gene sequencing, particularly in camels from the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia. These works consistently report microbiota dominated by Proteobacteria and Firmicutes, with Francisella-like endosymbionts, Staphylococcus, Corynebacterium and Bacillus among the most abundant genera, and reveal marked variation in community structure between countries, farms and tick sexes. Related studies on other Hyalomma species in the wider MENA region, including H. excavatum in Algeria, further highlight strong seasonal and ecological effects on microbiome composition and recurrent associations between endosymbionts such as Francisella and pathogens like Rickettsia43,49–51.
Despite the growing interest in tick-associated microbiomes, metaproteomic data remain extremely limited, particularly for ticks from North Africa. The logistical constraints associated with high-resolution proteomics, together with the scarcity of reference datasets for this region and for the diversity of North African ticks, currently limit large-scale investigations. Therefore, we conducted a pilot study to provide a pilot metaproteomic characterization of the bacterial communities associated with three medically and veterinary relevant tick species collected in Algeria. This exploratory approach aimed to establish a preliminary reference framework, assess interspecific and geographic variability, and identify priority taxa and regions for future targeted surveillance. Specifically, we sought to (i) describe the taxonomic composition and relative abundance of bacterial communities associated with Rhipicephalus sanguineus sensu lato, H. aegyptium, and H. dromedarii, and (ii) assess species- and locality-specific variation that may influence the composition and functional profiles of tick-associated microbial communities. Because this study is based on cross-sectional metaproteomic profiling, the results should be interpreted as a characterization of bacterial communities associated with ticks rather than evidence of transmission dynamics or vector competence.
Methods
Ethics approval and consents of animal owners
This study was conducted on live animals in compliance with the animal welfare guidelines established by the World Organization for Animal Health52 as outlined in the Terrestrial Animal Health Code53. Verbal informed consent was obtained from animal owners to tick collection. Samples were collected under the aegis of the Pasteur Institute of Algeria. Authorization for transport was granted by the Algerian Ministry of Health, permitting their handling as homogenized material in compliance with Biosafety Level 3 laboratory requirements and following chemical inactivation for transport. Sample transfer was conducted in accordance with the Material Transfer Agreement between the Pasteur Institute of Algeria (IPA) and the French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development (CIRAD) (MTA CIRAD reference no. 2023.009).
Tick collection and identification
A total of 448 Ixodid ticks were collected during an entomological survey conducted between January and March 2023 across northern Algeria. Sampling was conducted between January and March 2023 based, collection of active ticks from several host species, ensuring the availability of sufficient biological material for metaproteomic analysis. Sampling locations included Tizi-Ouzou, Tipaza, Biskra, and Algiers (the capital city) (Fig. 1). Ticks were collected directly from animal hosts, including dogs, camels, goats, and tortoises, using tweezers to ensure the collection of the whole arthropod. The collected ticks were kept alive for subsequent identification, dissection, and then, microbiome analysis. Each tick was individually identified using previously described morphological keys54,55.
Fig. 1.

A representative geographic map illustrating the sampling region, tick species and feeding hosts. The map was created by the authors using ArcMap version 10.8 (Esri, Redlands, CA, USA; https://www.esri.com/arcgis). Administrative boundaries were derived from the Global Administrative Areas database (GADM, version 4.1; https://gadm.org/). Coordinates of sampling sites were added by the authors.
Tick dissection and sample preparation
All dissections and sample processing were conducted in a biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) laboratory at the Pasteur Institute of Algeria. Prior to dissection for protein extraction, live ticks were surface-decontaminated by immersing them in 1% bleach for 30 s, followed by three consecutive 1-minute rinses in sterile distilled water to remove external microorganisms56. Tick dissection was performed to recover soft tissues, including Malpighian tubules, midgut, ovaries, and salivary glands, after removing the dorsal cuticle, following a previously described method57. The excised organs were placed in sterile 1.5 ml Eppendorf tubes, 300 µl of culture medium (Leibovitz’s L-15 and Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle’s Medium (DMEM) supplemented with 2% Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS)) were added to homogenize the samples. Organs were then mechanically crushed using 3 mm steel beads (DUTSCHER, France) in a MM400 homogenizer (Retsch, Germany) at 30 Hz per second for 3 min. The homogenate was then centrifuged at 7,000 rpm for 6 min at + 4 °C, after which the supernatant was divided into three aliquots of 100 µl each and stored at − 80 °C for further analysis. Prior to being frozen, aliquots for metaproteomics analysis were mixed v: v with 100 µl of DIGE buffer (7 M urea, 2 M thiourea, 4% CHAPS, 1% Triton-X-100, 30 mM Tris, pH 8) for both inactivation and protein conservation.
Sample selection and protein extraction
A total of 56 individual specimens were selected from the 448 collected ticks for metaproteomic analysis, including: (i) H. dromedarii specimens (n = 4 collected from camels, 2 males and 2 females), (ii) H. aegyptium (n = 4 collected from tortoises, 2 males and 2 females), and (iii) Rh. sanguineus s. l. (n = 48, of which n = 40 were collected from dogs, 20 males and 20 females, and n = 8 from goats, 4 males and 4 females) (Fig. 2). These specimens were selected based on species identity, host association, geographic origin, and specimen integrity after collection and dissection. The selection aimed to represent the main tick species and host types encountered during sampling while ensuring sufficient biological material for proteomic analysis. Because protein yields from individual dissected organs were low, specimens were pooled to obtain sufficient quantities for LC–MS/MS analysis. A total of 10 pooled samples were generated from the 56 ticks, with each pool containing between 2 and 10 specimens. Pools were constructed using specimens belonging to the same tick species, sex, host type, and collection locality. Each pool was treated as an independent biological replicate during downstream analyses. A detailed list of the 10 analyzed pooled samples, including tick species, sex, collection municipality, and host species, is provided in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.

Schematic overview of the study design, from tick collection to protein extraction and metaproteomic analysis.
Before protein extraction, the pooled homogenates were centrifuged at 500 g for 10 min at 4 °C to remove cell debris. The supernatant was carefully transferred to a new tube without disrupting the pellet. Protein precipitation was performed using the DOC-TCA protocol adapted from the method previously described by Bensadoun et al.58 and Chevallet et al.59. Na-deoxycholate (DOC) was added to homogenates to a final concentration of 0.1%, and after mixing trichloroacetic acid (TCA) was added to a final 10% concentration. The protein solution was precipitated at + 4 °C overnight and then centrifuged at 10,000 rpm for 15 min at 4 °C. The resulting pellet was washed with tetrahydrofuran (THF, precooled in ice) by vortexing until the pellet unstuck from the bottom of the tube and centrifuged again. The protein pellet was then resuspended in a buffer containing 50 mM Tris, 150 mM NaCl, anti-proteases (cOmplete™ Protease Inhibitor Cocktail, Roche), and 1% Triton-X100. The sample was vortexed until the pellet detached from the tube bottom, and was then fully resuspended using an agitator overnight at 4 °C.
Extraction blanks consisting of buffer-only samples were processed in parallel with the tick samples during protein extraction and digestion. These negative controls were analyzed using the same LC–MS/MS workflow to identify potential contaminant peptides. Peptides detected exclusively in the negative controls were removed from the final dataset prior to downstream analysis.
Protein quantification
Protein concentration was measured using the fluorescence-based Qubit™ quantitation assays (Invitrogen™ Qubit™ 3 Fluorometer, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Singapore) according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
Electrophoresis and sample preparation for mass spectrometry
To assess protein extraction quality, proteins were separated using PAGE (polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis). Extracted proteins (5 µl) were mixed with 5 µl of Laemmli buffer 2X (containing 5 µl of 2-Mercaptoethanol Bio-Rad® and 95 µl Laemmli buffer 2X Bio-Rad®), and then heated at 95 °C for 1 min before migration in NuPAGE™ 4–12% Bis-Tris protein gels (1.0 mm, 10-well) at 80 V for stacking, then at 200 V constant voltage for 7 min. After electrophoresis, the gel was washed 3 times with Milli-Q water before staining using colloïdal Coomassie blue G-250 (SafeStain SimplyBlue™, Invitrogen) for 5 min and washed twice for 10 min with Milli-Q water.
For the metaproteomic analysis, each gel lane were excised and divided into four bands, resulting in a total of 40 fractions for the 10 samples (4 fractions per sample). Each band was subjected to in-gel protein digestion using Trypsin Gold (V5280, Promega, Madison, USA) with 0.011% ProteaseMAX surfactant (V2071, Promega, Madison, USA), following the protocols of Hamitouche et al.60 and Hartman et al.61. The resulting peptides were quantified using the Pierce Quantitative Fluorometric Peptide Assay.
Proteomics data acquisition and interpretation
A standardized quantity of peptides (200 ng) of each of the 40 fractions were analyzed via nanoLC-MS/MS using an Exploris 480 mass spectrometer incorporating an ultra-high-field Orbitrap analyzer, coupled to a reversed-phase column (ThermoFisher Scientific, llkirch-Graffenstaden Les Ulys, France), essentially as previously described62.
Briefly, peptides were loaded on a reverse-phase Acclaim PepMap 100 C18 precolumn (5 μm, 100 Å, 300 μm i.d. × 5 mm, Thermo) and then resolved on a EasySpray PepMap 100 Neo C18 column (2 μm, 100 Å, 75 μm i.d. × 50 cm, Thermo) at a flow rate of 250 nL per min using a 60-min gradient (5–25% B in 60 min), followed by a short 5 min gradient (25–40% B) and wash of 7 min at 76% B, with 0.1% HCOOH/100% H2O as mobile phase A and 0.1% HCOOH/100% CH3CN as mobile phase B. The mass spectrometer was operated in data dependent acquisition mode as previously described, using a Top30 strategy and a dynamic exclusion time of 20 s.
MS/MS spectra were processed using Mascot software (version 2.6.1, Matrix Science, Boston, USA) to established the list of taxa and proteins using the same strategy as previously described62. Taxonomic assignment was performed using the NCBInr ((NCBI, NIH, Bethesda; http://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/blast/db/FASTA/nr.gz and tick-associated microbial genomes incomplete representation was mitigated using a two-step search strategy. MS/MS spectra were firstsearched against the complete NCBInr and Taxon-to-Spectrum Matches (TSMs) together with genus-specific peptide markers were used for initial genus-level identification. Second, a custom database restricted to detected genera and their associated taxa was generated to refine peptide assignment to reduce database redundancy and helps limit false-positive identifications. Species-level identification was retained only when peptides uniquely matched a single species. When peptides matched multiple closely related species, taxonomic assignment was restricted to the lowest unambiguous rank (typically genus level). This conservative approach was applied to reduce potential misclassification arising from highly conserved bacterial proteins.
Statistical and data analysis
Statistical analyses were conducted using custom R (v 4.3.2)63 scripts. Alpha diversity, describing the composition of a microbial community in terms of richness (the number of taxonomic groups), evenness (the distribution of their abundances), or both, was assessed using observed richness and Shannon diversity index, computed with the Vegan R package. Statistical significance of alpha diversity differences was tested using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test (for comparison between two groups) and Kruskal-Wallis test (for comparison among more than two groups). Beta diversity, assessing differences between microbial communities by considering taxon-specific sequence abundances or simply the presence and absence of sequences, was analyzed using multidimensional scaling (MDS), implemented via the “cmdscale” function available in the R Stats package. Bray-Curtis dissimilarities were calculated using the Vegan R package, and statistical significance was evaluated using the analysis of similarities (ANOSIM) test.
Relative bacterial abundance and taxonomic composition were visualized using heatmaps generated with the “ComplexHeatmap” R package, incorporating a pruned phylogenetic tree based on NCBI taxonomy. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was performed using the “factoextra”, MASS, Vegan R packages and visualized with the R data visualisation library “ggplot2”. Finally, bar plots depicting bacterial genus richness per cohort were generated using the “tidyverse” R package.
Results
Taxonomic characterization of tick microbiomes
To provide insights into the diversity of microbiomes from the three tick species collected in Algeria, namely R. sanguineus sensu lato, H. aegyptium, and H. dromedarii, a comparative analysis was performed across tick species, sex, host species and geographic locations (Fig. 1).
The 40 resulting nanoLC-MS/MS acquisitions resulted in a global dataset comprising a total of 2,337,208 MS/MS spectra (Table 1). The reproducibility of the measurements across the ten samples was high with an average of 233,997 (± 2.7%) MS/MS spectra. The spectra from each sample were independently searched against a generic protein database to identify the peptide sequences that could then be assigned to taxa at all the different taxonomic ranks. The analysis produced 315,614 taxon-to-spectrum matches (TSMs) and 8,792 peptide sequences (detailed in Supplementary Table S1). The identified peptides indicated the presence of taxa belonging to Bacteria, Archaea, Eukaryota and Viruses. Bacterial taxa represented 4.92% of the global identified signal based on TSMs (Fig. 3).
Table 1.
Overview of the main features of the ten nanoLC-MS/MS datasets of studied tick species.
| Tick species | Datasets | #MS/MS | #TSMs | #Peptides | #Phyla | #Class | #Order | #Family | #Genus | #Species |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H. aegyptium | TOFT | 241,545 | 33,535 | 2147 | 7 | 11 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 35 |
| TOMT | 240,443 | 30,259 | 1763 | 8 | 12 | 12 | 13 | 16 | 20 | |
| H. dromedarii | BFD | 234,005 | 25,324 | 1252 | 9 | 14 | 15 | 15 | 16 | 32 |
| BMD | 229,305 | 23,034 | 931 | 9 | 13 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 40 | |
| R. sanguineus | AFCE | 240,472 | 36,627 | 2918 | 10 | 13 | 15 | 15 | 17 | 27 |
| AMCE | 229,150 | 26,313 | 1542 | 9 | 13 | 14 | 14 | 15 | 31 | |
| TFCE | 240,472 | 36,627 | 7668 | 8 | 12 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 34 | |
| TMCE | 231,577 | 34,068 | 6777 | 9 | 12 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 42 | |
| R. sanguineus s.l | TFCV | 224,163 | 36,773 | 8512 | 9 | 13 | 18 | 19 | 19 | 31 |
| TMCV | 228,839 | 33,054 | 6325 | 9 | 14 | 16 | 17 | 17 | 32 |
#: number of entities (MS/MS spectra, TSMs, Peptides) or taxa identified; TOFT & TOMT: Tizi-Ouzou, Female/Male, Tortoise; BFD & BMD: Biskra, Female/Male, Dromedary; AFCE & AMCE: Algiers, Female/Male, Dog; TFCE & TMCE: Tipaza, Female/Male, Dog; TFCV & TMCV: Tipaza, Female/Male, Goat; s.l: sensu lato.
Fig. 3.

Microbial diversity identified in tick samples using metaproteomics.
The Fig. 3 and Supplementary Tables S1 list the genus identified in the dataset and their abundances based on TSMs. Notably, 40 bacterial genera representing 143 putative species-level matches could be identified, as well as five archaeal species, 19 genera of Eukaryote (including 9 fungi) and one virus. For example, Clostridium estertheticum is detected in two samples with 16 distinctive peptides (unique peptides in the database) and relatively high abundance (108 TSMs, 0.03% of the biological biomass) in TMCV1. Other examples of fungi that could belong to the tick microbiota are Fusarium austroafricanum, which was detected in five samples, and Penicillium italicum and Aspergillus calidoustus, which were each detected in a single sample.
-
A.
Relative proportions of taxon–spectrum matches (TSMs) assigned to the four domains detected in tick samples.
-
B.
Relative proportions of TSMs assigned to the different eukaryotic genera detected.
-
C.
Relative proportions of TSMs assigned to the different archaeal genera detected.
In addition to common phyla, 39 bacterial genera were identified that are typically associated with environmental sources such as soil, fresh and saltwater, plants, vertebrates or arthropods. These genera include Bacillus, Chitinophaga, Clostridium, Desulfobulbus, Devosia, Escherichia, Halomonas, Lutibacter, Lysinibacillus, Massilia, Microbacterium, Mycolicibacterium, Nocardia, Paenibacillus, Paraburkholderia, Paracoccus, Providencia, Roseomonas, unclassified Lachnospiraceae, unclassified Rhodobacteraceae, and Variovorax (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Tables S1).
Several previously unreported bacterial genera were also detected in our tick samples including Amphritea, Aquimarina, Chitinophaga, Kushneria, Lutibacter, Myxococcales, Nonomuraea, Novosphingobium, Roseovarius, Ruegeria, and unclassified taxa from Desulfobacteraceae, Lachnospiraceae, Rhodobacteraceae The Fig. 3 and Supplementary Tables S1)
Alpha and beta diversity of tick-associated bacterial communities
Microbiota diversity analyses revealed variation among tick groups. Differences in alpha diversity were observed between some tick genera and collection locations, whereas no significant differences were detected according to tick sex or host species. Beta diversity analyses also indicated differences in microbial community composition between certain groups of samples.
Figure 4 presents the alpha and beta diversity measurements for tick samples stratified by tick genus, sex, host species, and collection location. No significant differences in alpha diversity were observed according to tick sex (P = 0.75 and 0.84; Fig. 4A) or host species (P = 0.74 and 0.085; Fig. 4E). In contrast, significant differences were detected the Shannon diversity index between the microbiomes in the genera Hyalomma and Rhipicephalus (P = 0.019, Fig. 4C) and among sampling locations (P = 0.047, Fig. 4G), although observed richness did not differ significantly between these groups (P = 0.83 and P = 0.46, respectively).
Fig. 4.

Overall results of alpha and beta diversity analyses of the tick-associated microbiome at the species level.
Beta diversity analysis further confirmed significant differences in microbial community composition between Hyalomma and Rhipicephalus (ANOSIM: P = 0.047; Fig. 4D) and between collection locations (ANOSIM: P = 0.004; Fig. 4H), whereas no significant differences were observed according to tick sex (ANOSIM: P = 0.631; Fig. 4B) or host species (P = 0.285; Fig. 4F).
Alpha diversity was assessed using observed richness and Shannon indices. Beta diversity was assessed using Bray–Curtis dissimilarity. P values were determined using two-sided paired Wilcoxon tests, with no adjustment for multiple comparisons. Error bars indicate the median and interquartile range.
-
A.
Alpha diversity comparison between female (deep pink) and male (deep sky blue) ticks shown as boxplots.
-
B.
Beta diversity between female and male ticks visualized using multidimensional scaling (MDS).
-
C.
Alpha diversity comparison between ticks of the genera Hyalomma (deep pink) and Rhipicephalus (deep sky blue).
-
D.
Alpha diversity among ticks collected from dogs (deep pink), dromedaries (deep sky blue), goats (dark green), and tortoises (moderate grey).
-
E.
Beta diversity among ticks collected from dogs, dromedaries, goats, and tortoises visualized using MDS (ANOSIM, P = 0.258).
-
F.
Alpha diversity among ticks collected from Algiers (strong blue), Biskra (deep sky blue), Tipaza (dark green), and Tizi Ouzou (moderate grey).
-
G.
Beta diversity among ticks collected from Algiers, Biskra, Tipaza, and Tizi Ouzou visualized using MDS.
Differences in microbial community composition and taxonomic relative abundance
In our tick samples, we identified 40 bacterial genera belonging to 32 families spanning four phyla (Fig. 5 and Table S1). At the phylum level, Proteobacteria was the dominant group (44.29% of the bacterial biomass as judged by TSMs), followed by Firmicutes (27.52%), Actinobacteria (20.77%), and Bacteroidetes (7.42%). Among the identified bacterial genera, four could not be named, as they are not yet taxonomically described: unclassified_Rhodobacteraceae, unclassified_Lachnospiraceae, unclassified_Myxococcales, unclassified_Desulfobacteraceae. The most abundant identified genera (%TSMs) in the ten tick microbiomes were Streptomyces (22.36%), Bacillus (15.1%), unclassified_Desulfobacteraceae (10.3%), Coxiella (8.2%), Escherichia (6.6%), Clostridium (5.6%), Flavobacterium (4.5%), Rhizobium (4.2%), Paenibacillus (4%), while other genera were accounting for less than 3% (Fig. 3). In addition to the overall diversity, 143 bacterial species were identified, including well-characterized endosymbionts like Candidatus Coxiella mudrowiae (a Coxiella-like endosymbiont), and commensal bacteria such as Escherichia coli, which has been rarely reported in ticks. It also includes environmental bacteria typically found in soil, plants and marine environment, including the genera Paenibacillus, Bacillus, Bradyrhizobium, Novosphingobium, Rhizobium, Aquimarina. Pathogenic species such as Clostridium perfringens64 and Coxiella burnetii, a well-documented tick-borne pathogen65, were also detected. In particular, C. burnetii was identified in sample TMCV1 with 236 distinctive peptides, and 438 TSMs, thus representing 1.3% of the global biomass in this sample (Fig. 5 and Table S1).
Fig. 5.

Relative abundance of tick-associated microbial taxa. Bar charts show the relative abundance of microbial taxa at the phylum and genus levels according to tick-associated factors: (A) phylum-level composition by tick sex; (B) genus-level composition by tick sex; (C) phylum-level composition by tick genus; (D) genus-level composition by tick genus; (E) phylum-level composition by tick feeding host; (F) genus-level composition by tick feeding host; (G) phylum-level composition by tick collection location; and (H) genus-level composition by tick collection location. The x-axis represents individual samples, and the y-axis indicates the relative abundance of microbial taxa.
Influence of tick species and sex on the tick microbiome
The relative abundance (RA) of bacterial genera varied among tick species and sexes, as illustrated in Fig. 5. Hyalomma ticks exhibited the lowest diversity in peptide sequences, resulting in the lowest microbial biomass and microbial diversity, compared to Rhipicephalusticks. While Streptomyces was the microbial genus consistently present in all tick species (mean abundance: 22.36%, prevalence 100%), whereas Escherichia and Coxiella were exclusively identified in Rhipicephalus ticks (mean abundance: 6.56% and 8.16%, respectively, prevalence 60%). Bacillus (family Bacillaceae) was detected in R. sanguineus and H. aegyptium but not in H. dromedarii (mean abundance: 15.07%, prevalence 60%). Non-Metric Multidimensional Scaling (NMDS) analysis and ordination plots indicated that tick genus appeared to be associated with differences in microbiome composition (Fig. 4D and Fig. 5, Panels C and D) whereas tick sex had a minimal influence on microbial diversity (Fig. 4B and Fig. 5, Panels A & B).
Finally, a heatmap of the total relative abundance of the top 40 bacterial species at the phylum level revealed that collection location may contribute to differences in tick microbial composition (Fig. 6).
Fig. 6.

Heatmap representation of tick-associated microbiota composition. The heatmap shows the relative abundances (log-transformed) of the 40 most prevalent prokaryotic taxa across tick samples. Microbial composition is displayed according to tick-associated factors, including tick genus, tick sex, feeding host, and collection location. Dendrograms for samples and taxa were generated using hierarchical clustering. Annotations at the top of the heatmap indicate the corresponding tick-associated factors (sex, genus, host, and geographic location).
Influence of feeding host species on the tick microbiome
The composition of the tick microbiome varied according to feeding host species (Fig. 5. Panels E and F). Proteobacteria exhibited the highest relative abundance in ticks collected from goats, whereas Bacteroidetes were more prevalent in ticks from dromedaries. Firmicutes dominated the microbiome of ticks collected from tortoises.
Additionaly, we recorded a notably higher relative abundance of Coxiella in ticks collected from goats, while, the Streptomyces genus was present across all host species.
Influence of collection location on the tick microbiome
The microbiome composition of R. sanguineus sensu lato, H. aegyptium, and H. dromedarii varied across collection localities, with distinct bacterial genera dominating in different regions (Figs. 5 and 6). In Algiers, R. sanguineus s.l. collected from dogs’ harbored microbiomes dominated by Bacillus and Paenibacillus (Firmicutes), whereas in Tipaza, Escherichia and Desulfobacteraceae (Proteobacteria) plus Streptomyces (Actinobacteria) were predominant. Interestingly, R. sanguineus s.l. collected from goats in Tipaza, males exhibited higher relative abundance of Coxiella (a tick-borne pathogen, TBP) and Escherichia (a commensal proteobacterium), especially in male specimens, while unclassified Myxococcales (Proteobacteria) and Streptomyces (Actinobacteria) were more prevalent in females.
In H. dromedarii collected from dromedaries in Biskra, Desulfobacteraceae and Rhizobium (Proteobacteria) were dominant, while Streptomyces (Actinobacteria), also abundant in H. aegyptium collected from tortoises in Algiers was mainly associated with Bacillus (Firmicutes) and Streptomyces (Actinobacteria).
Functional insights into tick-associated microbial communities
A total of 110 proteins were identified, including abundant proteins such as chaperonin GroEL, elongation factor Tu, DNA-directed RNA polymerase, and several ribosomal proteins, suggesting the presence of metabolically active bacterial cells in the sample. Among the detected proteins were LbtU family siderophore porins (WP_039669233.1 and WP_010957902.1), the opacity protein LomR (WP_005772774.1), the periplasmic OmpH chaperone for outer membrane proteins (WP_042525978.1), and the protein-export chaperone SecB (WP_005772050.1), which are commonly associated with bacterial membrane function and protein export.
Stress-related proteins including the universal stress protein UspA (WP_032074717.1), recombinase RecA (WP_005768713.1), catalase (WP_005772736.1), and superoxide dismutase (WP_005770533.1), were also detected.
The most abundant proteins originating from the R. sanguineus host were associated with muscle structure, including myosin, filamin, tropomyosin, tubulin, spectrin, and troponin. A stress-induced phosphoprotein (XP_037524567.1) was also detected at relatively high abundance.
Discussion
Although Algeria hosts a rich diversity of tick species, most studies focus on species identification, pathogen occurrence, and seasonal dynamics, rather than microbial community profiling29. In contrast, tick-associated microbiomes have been increasingly characterized in other regions using omics approaches, revealing that microbial composition varies according to tick species, sex, developmental stage, environment, and can influence pathogen acquisition and transmission11,66. This indicates that tick microbiomes are still a relatively unexplored ecosystem of high interest for improving prokaryote systematics67 Previous recent studies used mass spectrometry to identify tick species in Algeria, whereas associated microorganisms were identified mainly by molecular methods36,68. Here, we performed a metaproteomic approach to characterize bacterial communities associated with the soft organs of R. sanguineus s.l., H. aegyptium, and H. dromedarii, providing the first metaproteomic characterization of tick-associated bacterial communities in Algeria.
The use of pooled samples limits the assessment of individual variability and reduces statistical power. Nevertheless, the observed patterns provide a useful overview of bacterial communities associated with Algerian ticks. Recent improvements in high-resolution mass spectrometry, including the Quadrupole-Orbitrap platforms, are likely to enhance metaproteomic sensitivity and coverage in future work68,69. Metaproteomics remains less sensitive than DNA-based tools for detecting low-abundance taxa, but it provides more accurate taxonomic resolution and a functional view of the active microbiome70,71.
Overall, despite the small sample size, we detected significant differences in alpha and beta diversity across tick genera and collection sites, consistent with patterns observed in other regions72–74. Rhipicephalus ticks displayed lower microbiome diversity than Hyalomma ticks, likely reflecting differences in host use and life-history traits75–77. Ticks from Algiers showed higher diversity than those from other regions, possibly due to a higher probability of pathogen uptake or to environmental factors (climate, altitude, biodiversity, and anthropogenic activity) influencing microbial acquisition, as many detected taxa are known to be environmentally derived as previously described for several tick species66,78. Tick sex and host species showed no significant effect on microbiome composition, in agreement with previous findings in dog-associated ticks79. Nonetheless, other studies have demonstrated that species identity, feeding status, geography, and developmental stage can shape microbial communities27,80,81. Together, these findings highlight the influence of ecological and biological factors on tick-associated bacterial communities and provide new insights into microbiome diversity in Mediterranean tick species.
The bacterial communities were dominated by Proteobacteria, followed by Actinobacteria, Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes. This distribution is consistent with previous metagenomics and metagenomic studies performed in other tick species, including I. ricinus (laboratory colonies), where these phyla were also predominant27,82,83. Proteobacteria are commonly reported as the dominant bacterial phylum in various tick genera: including Rhipicephalus, Haemaphysalis Dermacentor Ambylomma Ixodes81–84. Conversely, with the exception for Coxiella, several well-known tick-associated bacteria such as Borrelia, Rickettsia, Spiroplasma, Ehrlichia, and Wolbachia were not detected in our study. This absence may reflect the limitations of metaproteomics in detecting low-abundance taxa compared with DNA-based methods, but it may be influenced by host specificity, geographic location, and environmental conditions.
In addition to common phyla, 39 bacterial genera were identified that are typically associated with environmental sources such as soil, fresh and saltwater, plants, vertebrates or arthropods (Supplementary Table S1), suggesting a possible role in microbial symbiosis, vector competence, or environmental contamination66. In particular, genera such as Novosphingobium and Roseovarius, despite their usual association with marine and soil environments, suggest that they may contribute to microbiome stability, biofilm formation, or antimicrobial defense mechanisms within the tick host. Grouping these taxa based on ecological function could help clarify their roles and relevance within tick biology.
Streptomyces was the dominant bacterial genus detected in all three tick species. This genus is widely distributed in soil and is well-known for producing bioactive compounds, including antimicrobial compounds85. Streptomyces has also been identified as an endosymbiont in various arthropods, including ticks (D. nuttalli and Ornithodoros turicata), woodlice, leaf beetles, millipedes, wasps, ants, sawflies and mite (Sarcoptes scabiei)83,85–90.
Its high abundance across all three tick species highlights a possible ecological role within the tick microbiome, potentially contributing to microbial and colonization resistance, as described in other arthropods-associated symbioses. Further functional and experimental studies are warranted to explore its possible role in shaping microbial interactions and enhancing tick fitness.
Another highly abundant bacterial genus in our study was Coxiella, particularly in R. sanguineus s.l. tick collected from goats. The Coxiellaceae family includes both symbiotic and pathogenic species that can cause important diseases in humans and animals, with Coxiella burnetii being the well-known etiological agent of Q-fever, while Coxiella-like endosymbionts (CLEs) are widely distributed in ticks and other arthropods7,91–93. Our proteomic data identified several proteins associated with Coxiella burnetii, including GroEL, which also matched Candidatus Coxiella mudrowiae, a recently described endosymbiont identified in hard ticks from China85. This finding suggests that the detected Coxiella may represent an endosymbiotic lineage rather than a pathogenic form such as C. burnetii94. Overall, our findings are consistent with previous studies on the genus Rhipicephalus, which have identified Coxiella as one of the most dominant bacterial taxa in these ticks, often in association with Coxiella-like endosymbionts (CLEs)95,96. As peptide sequences may map to conserved proteins shared across Coxiella species, additional molecular and functional validation of Coxiella-related proteins through targeted proteomics, transcriptomics, or immunoassays, would be necessary to distinguish pathogenic from symbiotic strains. This distinction is critical for interpreting their role in tick physiology and vector competence. Similar challenges have been highlighted by Jourdain et al.97 who reported that molecular assays targeting Coxiella burnetii may cross-react with Coxiella-like bacteria, complicating epidemiological interpretations.
Conclusion
This pilot metaproteomic study provides the first metaproteomic characterization of bacterial communities associated with ticks in Algeria. The microbiome was dominated by Proteobacteria, particularly taxa such as Streptomyces and Coxiella, and varied according to tick species and collection site. These findings demonstrate the ability of metaproteomics to characterize active tick-associated microbial communities and provide new insights into the diversity of bacterial taxa associated with Algerian ticks.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Acknowledgements
We thank all of the people who participated in the tick collection. The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to Ms. Julie Puget, from the Interns and Students Office at IRD, for her invaluable support and dedication. Without her assistance, Mr. Kernif Tahar would not have been able to complete his secondment at IRD. Her efficiency and commitment were instrumental to the success of this collaboration. This work benefited from a capacity-building initiative aimed at strengthening research collaborations and supporting researchers from Southern institutions. This program provides support for training and research mobility but does not fund research expenses or publication costs. Finally, Mr. Clément LOZANO & Mr. Jean ARMENGAUD gratefully acknowledge the support from the French National Agency for Research (France 2030, the French Proteomics Infrastructure INBS ProFI, grant number ANR-24-INBS-0015-05) which has contributed to the advancement of metaproteomics expertise within their research team.
Author contributions
For research articles Conceptualization, B.A., T.K., N.E.,D.S., P.H. Methodology, S.D., C.L., N.E., A.H., T.K., N.E.,D.S., P.H.; software, B.M.; validation, T.K., B.M., S.D.,D.S. and P.H; formal analysis, C.L., B. A., T.K., B.M., D.S. and P.H.; investigation, B.A., T.K., B.M., D.S. and P.H.; resources, D.S.; data curation, BA., B.F., T.K., D.S. and P.H.; writing—original draft preparation, B.A., T.K., B.M. P.H. and D.S.; writing—review and editing, All auteurs; visualization, T.K., S.D., D.S. and P.H.; supervision, D.S.; project administration, P.H. and D.S.; funding acquisition, D.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by LeiSHeild-RISE MATI project, Grant Agreement No 778298.
Data availability
Data available upon reasonable request.
Declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Footnotes
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Contributor Information
Tahar Kernif, Email: kernif.tahar@gmail.com.
Denis Sereno, Email: denis.sereno@ird.fr.
Philippe Holzmuller, Email: philippe.holzmuller@cirad.fr.
References
- 1.Mans, B. J. Paradigms in tick evolution. Trends Parasitol.39, 475–486. 10.1016/j.pt.2023.03.011 (2023). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Fivaz, B., Petney, T. & Horak, I. Tick Vector Biology: Medical and Veterinary Aspects (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012).
- 3.Duron, O. et al. Tick-bacteria mutualism depends on B vitamin synthesis pathways. Curr. Biol.28, 1896–1902. 10.1016/j.cub.2018.04.038 (2018). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Zhong, Z. et al. Symbiont-regulated serotonin biosynthesis modulates tick feeding activity. Cell. Host Microbe. 29, 1545–1557. 10.1016/j.chom.2021.08.011 (2021). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Sonenshine, D. E. & Stewart, P. E. Microbiomes of blood-feeding arthropods: genes coding for essential nutrients and relation to vector fitness and pathogenic infections. Rev. Microorganisms. 9, 2433. 10.3390/microorganisms9122433 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Narasimhan, S. et al. Grappling with the tick microbiome. Trends Parasitol.37, 722–733. 10.1016/j.pt.2021.04.004 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Zhong, Z., Wang, K. & Wang, J. Tick symbiosis. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci.62, 101163. 10.1016/j.cois.2024.101163 (2024). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Wang, J., Gao, L. & Aksoy, S. Microbiota in disease-transmitting vectors. Nat. Rev. Microbiol.21, 604–618. 10.1038/s41579-023-00901-6 (2023). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Serrato-Salas, J. & Gendrin, M. Involvement of microbiota in insect physiology: focus on B vitamins. MBio14, e02225–e02222. 10.1128/mbio.02225-22 (2023). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Song, X., Zhong, Z., Gao, L., Weiss, B. L. & Wang, J. Metabolic interactions between disease-transmitting vectors and their microbiota. Trends Parasitol.38, 697–708. 10.1016/j.pt.2022.05.002 (2022). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Bonnet, S. I., Binetruy, F., Hernández-Jarguín, A. M. & Duron, O. The tick microbiome: Why non-pathogenic microorganisms matter in tick biology and pathogen transmission. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol.7, 1–14. 10.3389/fcimb.2017.00236 (2017). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Hussain, S. et al. The symbiotic continuum within ticks: Opportunities for disease control. Front. Microbiol.13, 854803. 10.3389/fmicb.2022.854803 (2022). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Wu-Chuang, A. et al. Current debates and advances in tick microbiome research. Curr. Res. Parasitol. Vector-Borne Dis.1, 100036. 10.1016/j.crpvbd.2021.100036 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Clay, K. et al. Microbial communities and interactions in the lone star tick, Amblyomma americanum. Mol. Ecol.17, 4371–4381. 10.1111/j.1365-294x.2008.03914.x (2008). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Duron, O. et al. The Recent Evolution of a Maternally-Inherited Endosymbiont of Ticks Led to the Emergence of the Q Fever Pathogen, Coxiella burnetii. PLOS Pathog. 11, e1004892. 10.1371/journal.ppat.1004892 (2015). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Duron, O. et al. Evolutionary changes in symbiont community structure in ticks. Mol. Ecol.26, 2905–2921. 10.1111/mec.14094 (2017). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Andreotti, R. et al. Assessment of bacterial diversity in the cattle tick Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus through tag-encoded pyrosequencing. BMC Microbiol.11, 1–11. 10.1186/1471-2180-11-6 (2011). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Carpi, G. et al. Metagenomic profile of the bacterial communities associated with Ixodes ricinus ticks. PLoS One. 6, e25604. 10.1371/journal.pone.0025604 (2011). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Ponnusamy, L. et al. Microbiome of Invasive Tick Species Haemaphysalis Longicornis in North Carolina. USA Insects. 15, 153. 10.3390/insects15030153 (2024). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Grandi, G. et al. Characterization of the bacterial microbiome of Swedish ticks through 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing of whole ticks and of individual tick organs. Parasites Vectors. 16, 1–10. 10.1186/s13071-022-05638-4 (2023). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Williams-Newkirk, A. J., Rowe, L. A., Mixson-Hayden, T. R. & Dasch, G. A. Characterization of the bacterial communities of life stages of free living lone star ticks (Amblyomma americanum). PLoS One. 9, e102130. 10.1371/journal.pone.0102130 (2014). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Zhang, X. & Figeys, D. Perspective and guidelines for metaproteomics in microbiome studies. J. Proteome Res.18, 2370–2380. 10.1021/acs.jproteome.9b00054 (2019). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Salvato, F., Hettich, R. L. & Kleiner, M. Five key aspects of metaproteomics as a tool to understand functional interactions in host associated microbiomes. In Advances in clinical immunology, medical microbiology, COVID-19, and big data 647–660. 10.1371/journal.ppat.1009245 (Jenny Stanford Publishing, 2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 24.Armengaud, J. Metaproteomics to understand how microbiota function: The crystal ball predicts a promising future. Environ. Microbiol.25, 115–125. 10.1111/1462-2920.16238 (2023). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Pavelescu, L. A. et al. A Proteogenomic Approach to Unveiling the Complex Biology of the Microbiome. Int. J. Mol. Sci.25, 10467. 10.3390/ijms251910467 (2024). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Armengaud, J. The dawn of the revolution that will allow us to precisely describe how microbiomes function. J. Proteom.316, 105430. 10.1016/j.jprot.2025.105430 (2025). [DOI] [PubMed]
- 27.Hernández-Jarguín, A., Díaz-Sánchez, S., Villar, M. & de la Fuente, J. Integrated metatranscriptomics and metaproteomics for the characterization of bacterial microbiota in unfed Ixodes ricinus. Ticks Tick. Borne Dis.9, 1241–1251. 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2018.04.020 (2018). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Shamoon-Pour, M. et al. Genomic and Proteomic Analyses of Bacterial Communities of Ixodes scapularis Ticks from Broome County, New York. Microorganisms.13, 258. 10.3390/microorganisms13020258 (2025). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 29.Mechouk, N., Mihalca, A. D., Deak, G. & Bouslama, Z. Synopsis of the ticks of Algeria with new hosts and localities records. Parasites Vectors. 15, 1–18. 10.1186/s13071-022-05424-2 (2022). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Bendjeddou, M. L. et al. Bat Ectoparasites (Acari, Diptera, Hemiptera, Siphonaptera) in the Grand Maghreb (Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia): A Literature Review and New Data. Acta Parasitol.69, 106–120. 10.1007/s11686-023-00732-8 (2023). [DOI] [PubMed]
- 31.Bellabidi, M. et al. Coxiella burnetii in camels (Camelus dromedarius) from Algeria: Seroprevalence, molecular characterization, and ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) vectors. Acta Trop.206, 105443. 10.1016/j.actatropica.2020.105443 (2020). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Z Hamlili, F. et al. MALDI-TOF MS identification of dromedary camel ticks and detection of associated microorganisms, Southern Algeria. Microorganisms10, 2178. 10.3390/microorganisms10112178 (2022). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Djerbouh, A. et al. The first molecular detection of Rickettsia aeschlimannii in the ticks of camels from southern Algeria. Ticks Tick. Borne Dis.3, 374–376. 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2012.10.014 (2012). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Kernif, T. et al. Rickettsia africae in Hyalomma dromedarii ticks from sub-Saharan Algeria. Ticks Tick. Borne Dis.3, 377–379. 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2012.10.013 (2012). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Bitam, I., Kernif, T., Harrat, Z., Parola, P. & Raoult, D. First detection of Rickettsia aeschlimannii in Hyalomma aegyptium from Algeria. Clin. Microbiol. Infect.15, 253–254. 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2008.02274.x (2009). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Boucheikhchoukh, M. et al. MALDI-TOF MS identification of ticks of domestic and wild animals in Algeria and molecular detection of associated microorganisms. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis.57, 39–49. 10.1016/j.cimid.2018.05.002 (2018). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Kautman, M., Tiar, G., Papa, A. & Široký, P. AP92-like Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus in Hyalomma aegyptium ticks, Algeria. Emerg. Infect. Dis.22, 354. 10.3201/eid2202.151528 (2016). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Abdelkadir, K. et al. Presence of Rickettsia aeschlimannii,‘Candidatus Rickettsia barbariae’and Coxiella burnetii in ticks from livestock in Northwestern Algeria. Ticks Tick. Borne Dis.10, 924–928. 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2019.04.018 (2019). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Zeroual, F. et al. Detection of Rickettsia species in ticks feeding on wild boar (Sus scrofa algira) in Algeria. Vet. J.314, 106468. 10.1016/j.tvjl.2025.106468 (2025). [DOI] [PubMed]
- 40.Aouadi, A. et al. Molecular evidence of tick-borne hemoprotozoan-parasites (Theileria ovis and Babesia ovis) and bacteria in ticks and blood from small ruminants in Northern Algeria. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis.50, 34–39. 10.1016/j.cimid.2016.11.008 (2017). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Bessas, A. et al. Molecular evidence of vector-borne pathogens in dogs and cats and their ectoparasites in Algiers, Algeria. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis.45, 23–28. 10.1016/j.cimid.2016.01.002 (2016). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Bitam, I. et al. First molecular detection of R. conorii, R. aeschlimannii, and R. massiliae in ticks from Algeria. Ann. N Y Acad. Sci.1078, 368–372. 10.1196/annals.1374.073 (2006). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Boularias, G. et al. High-throughput microfluidic real-time pcr for the detection of multiple microorganisms in ixodid cattle ticks in Northeast Algeria. Pathogens10, 362. 10.3390/pathogens10030362 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Dib, L. et al. Seasonal distribution of Rickettsia spp. in ticks in northeast Algeria. New. Microbes New. Infect.27, 48–52. 10.1016/j.nmni.2018.10.008 (2019). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Khaldi, M. et al. Rickettsiae in arthropods collected from the North African Hedgehog (Atelerix algirus) and the desert hedgehog (Paraechinus aethiopicus) in Algeria. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis.35, 117–122. 10.1016/j.cimid.2011.11.007 (2012). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Leulmi, H. et al. Detection of Bartonella tamiae, Coxiella burnetii and rickettsiae in arthropods and tissues from wild and domestic animals in northeastern Algeria. Parasit. Vectors. 9, 1–8. 10.1186/s13071-016-1316-9 (2016). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Sadeddine, R. et al. Molecular identification of protozoal and bacterial organisms in domestic animals and their infesting ticks from north-eastern Algeria. Ticks Tick. Borne Dis.11, 101330. 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2019.101330 (2020). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Defaye, B., Moutailler, S., Pasqualini, V. & Quilichini, Y. Distribution of tick-borne pathogens in domestic animals and their ticks in the countries of the Mediterranean basin between 2000 and 2021: A systematic review. Microorganisms10, 1236. 10.3390/microorganisms10061236 (2022). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Abdelali, S. K. et al. Guild dynamics and pathogen interactions in Hyalomma ticks from Algerian cattle. Transbound. Emerg. Dis.2024, 5384559. 10.1155/tbed/5384559 (2024). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 50.Abdelali, S. K. et al. Seasonal Variations in the Microbiome of Hyalomma excavatum Ticks in Algeria: Abdelali et al. Microb. Ecol.88, 96. 10.1007/s00248-025-02597-y (2025). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Al Masri, M. T., Ali, A. S., Vijayan, R., Muzaffar, S. B. & Al-Deeb, M. A. Influence of farm composition and management on the microbiome of the camel tick (Hyalomma dromedarii). Sci. Rep.15, 43448. 10.1038/s41598-025-27375-1 (2025). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.WOAH. Animal welfare: a vital asset for a more sustainable world. Anim Welf. - Vis 1–8 (2024).
- 53.WOAH. W. O. for A. H. Terrestrial animal health code: Sect. 1. Animal disease diagnosis, surveillance and notification. Paris: WOAH; 2024 [cited 2026 Jan 7]https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/standards/codes-and-manuals/terrestrial-code-online-access/
- 54.Walker, A. R. et al. Ticks of Domestic Animals in Africa: A Guide to Identification of Species (Bioscience Reports, 2003).
- 55.Estrada-Peña, A., Mihalca, A. D. & Petney, T. N. Ticks of Europe and North Africa: A Guide to Species Identification (Springer International Publishing, 2017).
- 56.Binetruy, F., Dupraz, M., Buysse, M. & Duron, O. Surface sterilization methods impact measures of internal microbial diversity in ticks. Parasites Vectors. 12, 1–10. 10.1186/s13071-019-3517-5 (2019). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Edwards, K. T., Goddard, J. & Varela-Stokes, A. S. Examination of the internal morphology of the Ixodid tick, Amblyomma maculatum Koch,(Acari: Ixodidae); a how-to pictorial dissection guide. Midsouth Entomologist at (2009).
- 58.Bensadoun, A. & Weinstein, D. Assay of proteins in the presence of interfering materials. Anal. Biochem.70, 241–250. 10.1016/s0003-2697(76)80064-4 (1976). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Chevallet, M., Diemer, H., Van Dorssealer, A., Villiers, C. & Rabilloud, T. Toward a better analysis of secreted proteins: the example of the myeloid cells secretome. Proteomics7, 1757–1770. 10.1002/pmic.200601024 (2007). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Hamitouche, F., Armengaud, J., Dedieu, L. & Duport, C. Cysteine Proteome Reveals Response to Endogenous Oxidative Stress in Bacillus cereus. Int. J. Mol. Sci.22, 7550. 10.3390/ijms22147550 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Hartmann, E. M., Allain, F., Gaillard, J. C., Pible, O. & Armengaud, J. Taking the shortcut for high-throughput shotgun proteomic analysis of bacteria. Methods Mol. Biol.1197, 275–285. 10.1007/978-1-4939-1261-2_16 (2014). [DOI] [PubMed]
- 62.Grenga, L. et al. Taxonomical and functional changes in COVID-19 faecal microbiome could be related to SARS-CoV-2 faecal load. Environ. Microbiol.24, 4299–4316. 10.1111/1462-2920.16028 (2022). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 63.The R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2008).
- 64.Songer, J. G. Clostridia as agents of zoonotic disease. Vet. Microbiol.140, 399–404. 10.1016/j.vetmic.2009.07.003 (2010). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Ullah, Q., Jamil, T., Saqib, M., Iqbal, M. & Neubauer, H. Q fever—a neglected zoonosis. Microorganisms10, 1530. 10.3390/microorganisms10081530 (2022). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Maldonado-Ruiz, P. The Tick Microbiome: The Other Bacterial Players in Tick Biocontrol. Microorganisms12, 2451. 10.3390/microorganisms12122451 (2024). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Gtari, M., Tisa, L. S., Palmer, M. & Armengaud, J. Exploring the diversity, ecological significance, and systematics of uncultivated prokaryotic taxa. Front. Microbiol.16, 1604849. 10.3389/fmicb.2025.1604849 (2025). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 68.Benyahia, H. et al. Molecular and MALDI-TOF MS characterisation of Hyalomma aegyptium ticks collected from turtles and their associated microorganisms in Algeria. Ticks Tick. Borne Dis.13, 101858. 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2021.101858 (2022). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Dumas, T. et al. The astounding exhaustiveness and speed of the Astral mass analyzer for highly complex samples is a quantum leap in the functional analysis of microbiomes. Microbiome12, 46. 10.1186/s40168-024-01766-4 (2024). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Bekker-Jensen, D. B. et al. A compact quadrupole-orbitrap mass spectrometer with FAIMS interface improves proteome coverage in short LC gradients. Mol. Cell. Proteom.19, 716–729. 10.1074/mcp.tir119.001906 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Van Den Bossche, T. et al. The microbiologist’s guide to metaproteomics. iMeta e70031. 10.1002/imt2.70031 (2025). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Budachetri, K., Gaillard, D., Williams, J., Mukherjee, N. & Karim, S. A snapshot of the microbiome of Amblyomma tuberculatum ticks infesting the gopher tortoise, an endangered species. Ticks Tick. Borne Dis.7, 1225–1229. 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2016.07.010 (2016). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73.Song, K. et al. Bacterial microbiota in unfed ticks (Dermacentor nuttalli) from Xinjiang detected through 16S rDNA amplicon sequencing and culturomics. Zoonoses.1, 988. 10.15212/ZOONOSES-2021-0007 (2021). [DOI]
- 74.Portillo, A. et al. Exploring the bacteriome in anthropophilic ticks: To investigate the vectors for diagnosis. PLoS One. 14, e0213384. 10.1371/journal.pone.0213384 (2019). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75.Rizzatti, G., Lopetuso, L. R., Gibiino, G., Binda, C. & Gasbarrini, A. Proteobacteria: A Common Factor in Human Diseases. Biomed. Res. Int.2017, 9351507. 10.1155/2017/9351507 (2017). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.Waksman, S. A. & Henrici, A. T. The nomenclature and classification of the actinomycetes. J. Bacteriol.46, 337–341. 10.1128/jb.46.4.337-341.1943 (1943). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Swe, P. M., Zakrzewski, M., Waddell, R., Sriprakash, K. S. & Fischer, K. High-throughput metagenome analysis of the Sarcoptes scabiei internal microbiota and in-situ identification of intestinal Streptomyces sp. Sci. Rep.9, 11744. 10.1038/s41598-019-47892-0 (2019). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78.Seipke, R. F., Kaltenpoth, M. & Hutchings, M. I. Streptomyces as symbionts: an emerging and widespread theme? FEMS Microbiol. Rev.36, 862–876. 10.1111/j.1574-6976.2011.00313.x (2012). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79.Gebhardt, K. et al. Endophenazines AD, new phenazine antibiotics from the arthropod associated endosymbiont Streptomyces anulatus I. Taxonomy, fermentation, isolation and biological activities. J. Antibiot. (Tokyo). 55, 794–800. 10.7164/antibiotics.55.794 (2002). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80.Barraza-Guerrero, S. I. et al. General microbiota of the soft tick Ornithodoros turicata parasitizing the bolson tortoise (Gopherus flavomarginatus) in the Mapimi biosphere reserve, Mexico. Biology (Basel). 9, 275. 10.3390/biology9090275 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81.Diarra, U., Osborne-Naikatini, T. & Subramani, R. Actinomycetes associated with hymenopteran insects: a promising source of bioactive natural products. Front. Microbiol.15, 1303010. 10.3389/fmicb.2024.1303010 (2024). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82.Saini, N. & Gupta, R. S. A robust phylogenetic framework for members of the order Legionellales and its main genera (Legionella, Aquicella, Coxiella and Rickettsiella) based on phylogenomic analyses and identification of molecular markers demarcating different clades. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 114, 957–982. 10.1007/s10482-021-01569-9 (2021). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83.Garrity, G. M., Bell, J. A., Lilburn, T. & Family, I. I. Coxiellaceae fam nov. Bergey’s Man. Syst. Bacteriol.2, 237–247 (2007). [Google Scholar]
- 84.Eldin, C. et al. From Q fever to Coxiella burnetii infection: a paradigm change. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.30, 115–190. 10.1128/cmr.00045-16 (2017). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85.Shi, M., Qin, T., Liu, Z., Feng, H. & Sun, Y. Molecular Detection of Candidatus Coxiella mudorwiae in Haemaphysalis concinna in China. Zoonoses2, 962. 10.15212/ZOONOSES-2022-0041 (2022). [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 86.Lalzar, I., Harrus, S., Mumcuoglu, K. Y. & Gottlieb, Y. Composition and seasonal variation of Rhipicephalus turanicus and Rhipicephalus sanguineus bacterial communities. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.78, 4110–4116. 10.1128/aem.00323-12 (2012). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87.René-Martellet, M. et al. Bacterial microbiota associated with Rhipicephalus sanguineus (sl) ticks from France, Senegal and Arizona. Parasit. Vectors. 10, 1–10. 10.1186/s13071-017-2352-9 (2017). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88.Namina, A. et al. Comparative Microbiome Analysis of Three Epidemiologically Important Tick Species in Latvia. Microorganisms11, 1970. 10.3390/microorganisms11081970 (2023). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89.Will, V. T. et al. Variation in the Microbiota of Ixodes Ticks with Regard to Geography, Species, and Sex. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.81, 6200–6209. 10.1128/aem.01562-15 (2015). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90.Estrada-Peña, A., Cabezas-Cruz, A., Pollet, T., Vayssier-Taussat, M. & Cosson, J. F. High throughput sequencing and network analysis disentangle the microbial communities of ticks and hosts within and between ecosystems. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol.8, 236. 10.3389/fcimb.2018.00236 (2018). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91.Landesman, W. J. et al. Potential effects of blood meal host on bacterial community composition in Ixodes scapularis nymphs. Ticks Tick. Borne Dis.10, 523–527. 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2019.01.002 (2019). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92.Rynkiewicz, E. C., Hemmerich, C., Rusch, D. B., Fuqua, C. & Clay, K. Concordance of bacterial communities of two tick species and blood of their shared rodent host. Mol. Ecol.24, 2566–2579. 10.1111/mec.13187 (2015). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93.Gomard, Y. et al. Changes in bacterial diversity, composition and interactions during the development of the seabird tick Ornithodoros maritimus (Argasidae). Microb. Ecol.81, 770–783. 10.1007/s00248-020-01611-9 (2021). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94.Trout Fryxell, R. T. & DeBruyn, J. M. The microbiome of Ehrlichia-infected and uninfected lone star ticks (Amblyomma americanum). PLoS One. 11, e0146651. 10.1371/journal.pone.0146651 (2016). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95.Wang, S., Hua, X. & Cui, L. Characterization of microbiota diversity of engorged ticks collected from dogs in China. J. Vet. Sci.22, e36. 10.4142/jvs.2021.22.e37 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96.Benyedem, H. et al. First insights into the microbiome of Tunisian Hyalomma ticks gained through next-generation sequencing with a special focus on H. scupense. PLoS One. 17, e0268172. 10.1371/journal.pone.0268172 (2022). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97.Jourdain, E., Duron, O., Barry, S., González-Acuña, D. & Sidi-Boumedine, K. Molecular methods routinely used to detect Coxiella burnetii in ticks cross-react with Coxiella-like bacteria. Infect. Ecol. Epidemiol.5, 29230. 10.3402/iee.v5.29230 (2015). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
Data available upon reasonable request.
