Erratum
Unfortunately, we noticed that in our published paper [1] the numbers of ticks co-infected with Borrelia burgdorferi (sensu lato) (s.l.) and Anaplasma phagocytophilum were partly incorrect as one adult female tick was detected false-positive for A. phagocytophilum infection. Corrected data showed that none of the female or adult ticks was co-infected with Borrelia burgdorferi (s.l.) and Anaplasma phagocytophilum. Among all tick stages, only six instead of seven out of 2,100 ticks were infected with both pathogens, but the prevalence of 0.3 % reported in [1] remained unchanged. The corrected Table 4 is included below. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.
Table 4.
Co-infections with B. burgdorferi (s.l.) and Rickettsiales in Hanoverian ticks in 2010
| No. of collected ticks | No. of B. burgdorferi (s.l.) positive ticks | Total co-infections | Rickettsia spp. co-infections | A. phagocytophilum co-infections | Co-infections with Rickettsia spp. and A. phagocytophilum | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. (%) | No. (%) | No. (%) | No. (%) | No. (%) | ||
| Adults | 372 | 124 (33.3) | 43 (11.6) | 42 (11.3) | 0 (na*) | 0 (na*) |
| Males | 196 | 58 (29.6) | 22 (11.2) | 22 (11.2) | 0 (na*) | 0 (na*) |
| Females | 176 | 66 (37.5) | 21 (11.9) | 20 (11.4) | 0 (na*) | 0 (na*) |
| Nymphs | 1697 | 344 (20.3) | 120 (7.1) | 111 (6.5) | 6 (0.4) | 3 (0.2) |
| Larvae | 31 | 8 (25.8) | 0 (na*) | 0 (na*) | 0 (na*) | 0 (na*) |
| All stages | 2,100 | 476 (22.7) | 163 (7.8) | 153 (7.3) | 6 (0.3) | 3 (0.1) |
*na, not applicable
Footnotes
The online version of the original article can be found under doi:10.1186/1756-3305-7-441.
Reference
- 1.Tappe J, Jordan D, Janecek E, Fingerle V, Strube C. Revisited: Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato infections in hard ticks (Ixodes ricinus) in the city of Hanover (Germany) Parasit Vectors. 2014;7:441. doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-7-441. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]