Version Changes
Revised. Amendments from Version 1
This new version considered interesting comments of the reviewers regard the taxonomy, the species, particularly focusing more on the situation in Latin America, improving the table, as well as adding news references to the article. Also was edited and improved in terms of writing with the help of the software Grammarly. In this version, Álvaro A. Faccini-Martínez contributed and participated actively and so they have been added as an author.
Abstract
Ticks are responsible for transmission of multiple bacterial, parasitic and viral diseases. Tick-borne diseases (TBDs) occur particularly in tropical and also subtropical areas. The frequency of these TBDs has been increasing and extending to new territories in a significant way, partly since ticks’ populations are highly favored by prevailing factors such as change in land use patterns, and climate change. Therefore, in order to obtain accurate estimates of mortality, premature mortality, and disability associated about TBDs, more molecular and epidemiological studies in different regions of the world, including Latin America, are required. In the case of this region, there is still a limited number of published studies. In addition, there is recently the emergence and discovering of pathogens not reported previously in this region but present in other areas of the world. In this article we discuss some studies and implications about TBDs in Latin America, most of them, zoonotic and with evolving taxonomical issues.
Keywords: Tick-borne disease, zoonoses, Anaplasma, Babesia, Borrelia, Ehrlichia, Rickettsia, epidemiology, public health
Over the past decades, there have been significant achievements in the understanding of tick-borne diseases (TBDs), which are mostly zoonoses and classed as neglected diseases
1–
5. Their occurrence is significant in tropical and subtropical areas, leading to an important impact on public health as well as the economy, as they affect humans, domestic animals, and livestock, among others
6. Knowledge of the occurrence of these diseases in animal species is of utmost importance for the understanding of the risk for human infection
7. Ticks, and animals, including human beings, interact with nature, and their environmental and ecological interactions regulate the populations of ticks and vertebrates, determining their contact rates and the circulation of the diseases
8. Regarding TBDs that affect humans, those that are caused by
Rickettsia genera, known as spotted fever group rickettsioses, are the most studied and recognized in Latin America. Nevertheless, case reports and preliminary field studies published in the last two decades, suggest that ehrlichiosis, anaplasmosis, babesiosis and relapsing fever group borreliosis, would also be present but probably are underdiagnosed.
After the first description of
Rickettsia rickettsii in North America in the first half of the twentieth century, this species also was recognized as a human pathogen in Latin America
9. Currently,
R. rickettsii rickettsiosis is the most important and deadly TBDs in México, Panamá, Colombia, Brazil, and Argentina, where is transmitted to humans by different ticks’ species as
Rhipicephalus sanguineus,
Amblyomma mixtum,
A. patinoi,
A. sculptum,
A. aureolatum, and
A. tonelliae
9,
10. Unfortunately, only in Brazil, this disease is of officially mandatory reporting
9. Moreover, in the last years, other rickettsiae have been pointed as emerging pathogenic species, causing febrile rickettsiosis (
R. parkeri and
R. massiliae) or asymptomatic/mild illness (
R. amblyommatis)
9,
10. Currently,
R. parkeri, transmitted by
A. ovale,
A. tigrinum, and
A. triste, is the main agent relate to eschar-associated rickettsiosis in Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay
11–
13. Clinically is less severe compared to
R. rickettsii rickettsiosis, and no related deaths have been reported
11–
13.
On the other hand, although
Amblyomma americanum and
Ixodes scapularis ticks, which are recognized as main vectors of human pathogenic
Ehrlichia and
Anaplasma species in the United States, are not presented in Latin America
14, some confirmed
E. chaffeensis infections have been reported in patients from Venezuela and Mexico
15,
16. The above suggests that probably other ticks’ species could be competent vectors in tropical regions. Thus, is worth to mention the recent descriptions of
Ehrlichia spp. detected in anthropophilic ticks (
A. tigrinum and
A. parvum) in Argentina
17,
18. Furthermore, particularly in Venezuela, few studies point
Anaplasma platys and
E. canis as a human pathogen
19,
20, a concern that actually discusses, but contrast with the recent description of a novel genotype of
E. canis detected in samples of human blood bank donors in Costa Rica
21. The significance of the above requires future investigations.
Babesiosis is another tick-borne disease, caused by protozoal hemoparasites of the phylum Apicomplexa. Presently, three species of the genus
Babesia (
B. microti,
B. divergens and
B. venatorum) are the main human pathogens in The United States, Europe, and Asia, where anthropophilic ticks of the
Ixodes ricinus complex (
I. scapularis,
I. ricinus, and
I. persulcatus) are the main vectors
22. In Latin America, these tick’s species are not present, and even though exist some species of the
I. ricinus complex, they do not human-biting
14. Nevertheless, interestingly, some confirmed
B. microti infection has been reported in Mexico and Bolivia
23,
24, and also in the latter and in Colombia serological studies suggest exposure to
Babesia spp. in rural individuals
23,
25. Acarological studies attempting to detect
Babesia species in anthropophilic Latin American ticks are scarce.
Additionally, as occurs with Babesiosis, human-biting
I. ricinus complex ticks are also vectors of pathogenic-
Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato (s.l.) species (
B. burgdorferi sensu stricto,
B. mayonii,
B. garinii,
B. afzelii), causing Lyme borreliosis in temperate regions of northern hemisphere
26. In Latin America, in the last decade, new
B. burgdorferi s.l. strains or new related species have been described in countries such as Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, and Chile, from non-anthropophilic
Ixodes tick
27. This fact, as well as that
B. burgdorferi, has not yet been isolated or cultured from clinical samples from autochthonous patients, is against of Lyme borreliosis presence in Southern hemisphere of America. By contrast, considering the recently first isolation and molecular characterization of a relapsing fever
Borrelia (
B. venezuelensis) in Latin America, recovered from an
Ornithodoros rudis tick
28, is plausible the occurrence of underdiagnosed human cases, taking to account the historical records of tick-borne relapsing fever in Colombia, Venezuela and Panama
29.
Beyond the Americas, in other regions of the world, like in Europe, ticks are the main vectors of animal and human organisms. Ticks transmit several viral agents, called tick-borne viruses (TBV), such as tick-borne encephalitis virus and Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus, which have reemerged in multiple areas of the world
30. TBV have a natural cycle between ticks and wild animals in nature, with humans as accidental hosts
30,
31. Emerging TBVs are continually discovered, probably related to the increase of tick populations in different regions of the planet and invasion of human beings into areas infested by ticks
30,
31. The study of tick-borne viruses in Latin America is scarce. Recently Brazilian authors described a genetic characterization of Cacipacoré virus (genus Flavivirus) from
A. cajennense ticks collected in São Paulo State, Brazil
32. The significance of this finding requires future investigations.
Table 1. Examples of selected tick-borne diseases in Latin America.
Disease |
Etiological agent(s) |
Primary or probable vector(s) |
Rickettsia rickettsii
rickettsiosis |
Rickettsia rickettsii
|
Rhipicephalus sanguineus,
Amblyomma mixtum,
A. patinoi,
A. sculptum,
A. aureolatum,
A. tonelliae
|
Rickettsia parkeri
rickettsiosis |
Rickettsia parkeri
|
A. ovale,
A. maculatum,
A. tigrinum, A. aureolatum, A. triste
|
Rickettsia massiliae
rickettsiosis |
Rickettsia massiliae
|
Rhipicephalus sanguineus
|
Ehrlichiosis ? |
Ehrlichia sp. strain San Luis
and strain Cordoba |
A. tigrinum,
A. parvum
|
Tick-borne relapsing fever |
Borrelia venezuelensis
|
Ornithodoros rudis
|
Detection and sentinel surveillance of TBDs require molecular tools for diagnosis
33, for example, serological tests have proven to be inconclusive in diagnose Lyme disease
34. The use of molecular biology tests in recent years has increased the sensitivity and specificity of the diagnosis of infections caused by Rickettsiales. Molecular diagnosis enables the accurate identification not only at the genus level but species, providing additional characterization on the epidemiology and the evolution of the clinical disease. Furthermore, PCR, as well as enzyme restriction tests of the vector blood meal, can be employed to analyze their feeding source and possibly identify the ecological reservoir of the organisms
35.
Conclusions
Besides the number of studies in Latin America on TBDs, the prevalence of these diseases is increasing, triggered by globalization, as well the impact climate change and variability. More surveillance, more diagnostics, with better identification approaches, as well as more research, is needed. Even more, in that way, there is a lack of infrastructure and/or funding to support continued vector surveillance studies in many countries across the region. Tick and TBDs investigators, veterinary doctors, medical and public health practitioners should work to share their expertise on different aspects of TBDs, such as tick ecology, disease transmission, diagnostics, and treatment, in order to face the challenges of scientific, political, and public engagement for TBD research and control in this region
36. Systematic reviews, as well as observational analyses, are necessary in order to understand the current situation of TBDs. In fact, also there is a lack of studies of costs and burden of these diseases, as is clearly available for other vector-borne diseases (e.g. arboviral)
37. As is known, also there are clear limitations in the national budgets that are specifically earmarked for vector-borne surveillance and public health efforts. Even more, what part of that is allotted toward TBD research. This should be considered as part of this call to action. For diagnostics, molecular tools can provide valuable information for understanding the evolution of their etiological agents, as well as provide insights into host-pathogen-vector-environment interactions but need to be more widely available as part of routine diagnostics. Probably, what we have seen till now in terms of prevalence, but also in terms of action to reduce the impact of TBD, is just the tip of an iceberg and there is a need for more studies and actions towards control in Latin America about these diseases.
Data availability
The data referenced by this article are under copyright with the following copyright statement: Copyright: © 2019 Rodriguez-Morales AJ et al.
Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
No data is associated with this article.
Funding Statement
The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.
[version 2; peer review: 2 approved
References
-
1.
Talagrand-Reboul E, Boyer PH, Bergstrom S, et al. :
Relapsing Fevers: Neglected Tick-Borne Diseases.
Front Cell Infect Microbiol.
2018;8:98.
10.3389/fcimb.2018.00098
[DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
2.
Molina-Hoyos K, Montoya-Ruiz C, Díaz F, et al. :
Enfermedades virales transmitidas por garrapatas. scielo.org.co.2018;31(1):36–50.
10.17533/udea.iatreia.v31n1a04
[DOI] [Google Scholar]
-
3.
Tirosh-Levy S, Gottlieb Y, Apanaskevich DA, et al. :
Species distribution and seasonal dynamics of equine tick infestation in two Mediterranean climate niches in Israel.
Parasit Vectors.
2018;11(1):546.
10.1186/s13071-018-3093-0
[DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
4.
Cheng TY, Chen Z, Li ZB, et al. :
First Report of
Ixodes nipponensis Infection in Goats in China.
Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis.
2018;18(10):575–8.
10.1089/vbz.2017.2263
[DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
5.
Yousefi A:
Phylogenetic analysis of
Anaplasma marginale and
Anaplasma ovis isolated from small ruminant based on MSP
4 gene in western regions of Iran.
Comp Clin Path.
2018;27(5):1161–1165.
10.1007/s00580-018-2715-4
[DOI] [Google Scholar]
-
6.
Eisen RJ, Kugeler KJ, Eisen L, et al. :
Tick-Borne Zoonoses in the United States: Persistent and Emerging Threats to Human Health.
ILAR J.
2017;58(3):319–35.
10.1093/ilar/ilx005
[DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
7.
Andersson MO, Marga G, Banu T, et al. :
Tick-borne pathogens in tick species infesting humans in Sibiu County, central Romania.
Parasitol Res.
2018;117(5):1591–7.
10.1007/s00436-018-5848-0
[DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
8.
Estrada-Peña A, de la Fuente J:
Host Distribution Does Not Limit the Range of the Tick
Ixodes ricinus but Impacts the Circulation of Transmitted Pathogens.
Front Cell Infect Microbiol.
2017;7:405.
10.3389/fcimb.2017.00405
[DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
9.
Hidalgo M, Faccini-Martínez ÁA, Valbuena G:
[Tick-borne rickettsioses in the Americas: clinical and epidemiological advances, and diagnostic challenges].
Biomedica.
2013;33 Suppl 1:161–178.
10.7705/biomedica.v33i0.1466
[DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
10.
Blanton LS:
The Rickettsioses: A Practical Update.
Infect Dis Clin North Am.
2019;33(1):213–229.
10.1016/j.idc.2018.10.010
[DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
11.
Faccini-Martínez ÁA, de Oliveira SV, Cerutti Junior C, et al. :
Rickettsia parkeri spotted fever in Brazil: Epidemiological surveillance, diagnosis and treatment.
J Health Biol Sci.
2018;6(3):299–312.
10.12662/2317-3076jhbs.v6i3.1940.p299-312.2018
[DOI] [Google Scholar]
-
12.
Romer Y, Seijo AC, Crudo F, et al. :
Rickettsia parkeri Rickettsiosis, Argentina.
Emerg Infect Dis.
2011;17(7):1169–1173.
10.3201/eid1707.101857
[DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
13.
Faccini-Martínez ÁA, Félix ML, Armua-Fernandez MT, et al. :
An autochthonous confirmed case of
Rickettsia parkeri rickettsiosis in Uruguay.
Ticks Tick Borne Dis.
2018;9(3):718–719.
10.1016/j.ttbdis.2018.02.015
[DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
14.
Guglielmone AA, Robbins RG, Apanaskevich DA, et al. :
Individual Species Accounts.In: Guglielmone AA, Robbins RG, Apanaskevich DA, Petney TN, Estrada-Peña A, Horak IG, editors.
The Hard Ticks of the World (Acari: Ixodida: Ixodidae) 1st ed. Springer;2014;379
10.1007/978-94-007-7497-1_7
[DOI] [Google Scholar]
-
15.
Martínez MC, Gutiérrez CN, Monger F, et al. :
Ehrlichia chaffeensis in child, Venezuela.
Emerg Infect Dis.
2008;14(3):519–20.
10.3201/eid1403.061304
[DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
16.
Sosa-Gutierrez CG, Solorzano-Santos F, Walker DH, et al. :
Fatal Monocytic Ehrlichiosis in Woman, Mexico, 2013.
Emerg Infect Dis.
2016;22(5):871–4.
10.3201/eid2205.151217
[DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
17.
Cicuttin GL, De Salvo MN, Nava S:
Two novel
Ehrlichia strains detected in
Amblyomma tigrinum ticks associated to dogs in peri-urban areas of Argentina.
Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis.
2017;53:40–44.
10.1016/j.cimid.2017.07.001
[DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
18.
Monje LD, Fernandez C, Percara A:
Detection of
Ehrlichia sp. strain San Luis and
Candidatus Rickettsia andeanae in
Amblyomma parvum ticks.
Ticks Tick Borne Dis.
2019;10(1):111–114.
10.1016/j.ttbdis.2018.09.008
[DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
19.
Arraga-Alvarado CM, Qurollo BA, Parra OC, et al. :
Case report: Molecular evidence of
Anaplasma platys infection in two women from Venezuela.
Am J Trop Med Hyg.
2014;91(6):1161–5.
10.4269/ajtmh.14-0372
[DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
20.
Perez M, Bodor M, Zhang C, et al. :
Human infection with
Ehrlichia canis accompanied by clinical signs in Venezuela.
Ann N Y Acad Sci.
2006;1078:110–7.
10.1196/annals.1374.016
[DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
21.
Bouza-Mora L, Dolz G, Solórzano-Morales A, et al. :
Novel genotype of
Ehrlichia canis detected in samples of human blood bank donors in Costa Rica.
Ticks Tick Borne Dis.
2017;8(1):36–40.
10.1016/j.ttbdis.2016.09.012
[DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
22.
Krause PJ:
Human babesiosis.
Int J Parasitol.
2019; pii: S0020-7519(19)30005-0.
10.1016/j.ijpara.2018.11.007
[DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
23.
Gabrielli S, Totino V, Macchioni F, et al. :
Human Babesiosis, Bolivia, 2013.
Emerg Infect Dis.
2016;22(8):1445–7.
10.3201/eid2208.150195
[DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
24.
Peniche-Lara G, Balmaceda L, Perez-Osorio C, et al. :
Human Babesiosis, Yucatán State, Mexico, 2015.
Emerg Infect Dis.
2018;24(11):2061–2062.
10.3201/eid2411.170512
[DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
25.
Buelvas F, Alvis N, Buelvas I, et al. :
[A high prevalence of antibodies against
Bartonella and
Babesia microti has been found in villages and urban populations in Cordoba, Colombia].
Rev Salud Publica (Bogota).
2008;10(1):168–77.
[DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
26.
Lohr B, Fingerle V, Norris DE, et al. :
Laboratory diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis: Current state of the art and future perspectives.
Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci.
2018;55(4):219–245.
10.1080/10408363.2018.1450353
[DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
27.
Robles A, Fong J, Cervantes J:
[
Borrelia Infection in Latin America].
Rev Invest Clin.
2018;70(4):158–63.
10.24875/RIC.18002509
[DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
28.
Muñoz-Leal S, Faccini-Martínez ÁA, Costa FB, et al. :
Isolation and molecular characterization of a relapsing fever
Borrelia recovered from
Ornithodoros rudis in Brazil.
Ticks Tick Borne Dis.
2018;9(4):864–871.
10.1016/j.ttbdis.2018.03.008
[DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
29.
Faccini-Martínez ÁA, Gozález M, Mattar S:
Tick-borne relapsing fever: another underdiagnosed etiology in tropical Latin America?
Rev MVZ Cordoba.
2018;23(1):6399–6402.
10.21897/rmvz.1230
[DOI] [Google Scholar]
-
30.
Failloux AB, Bouattour A, Faraj C, et al. :
Surveillance of Arthropod-Borne Viruses and Their Vectors in the Mediterranean and Black Sea Regions Within the MediLabSecure Network.
Curr Trop Med Rep.
2017;4(1):27–39.
10.1007/s40475-017-0101-y
[DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
31.
Brackney DE, Armstrong PM:
Transmission and evolution of tick-borne viruses.
Curr Opin Virol.
2016;21:67–74.
10.1016/j.coviro.2016.08.005
[DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
32.
de Figueiredo GG, Amarilla AA, de Souza WM, et al. :
Genetic characterization of Cacipacoré virus from ticks collected in São Paulo State, Brazil.
Arch Virol.
2017;162(6):1783–1786.
10.1007/s00705-017-3279-3
[DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
33.
Faccini-Martinez ÁA, Hidalgo M:
[Speaking of Latin American guidelines for the diagnosis of tick-transmitted rickettsiosis].
Rev Chilena Infectol.
2014;31(3):354.
10.4067/S0716-10182014000300019
[DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
34.
Leeflang MM, Ang CW, Berkhout J, et al. :
The diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for Lyme borreliosis in Europe: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BMC Infect Dis.
2016;16:140.
10.1186/s12879-016-1468-4
[DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
35.
Guillemi EC, Tomassone L, Farber MD:
Tick-borne Rickettsiales: Molecular tools for the study of an emergent group of pathogens.
J Microbiol Methods.
2015;119:87–97.
10.1016/j.mimet.2015.10.009
[DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
36.
Sakamoto JM:
Progress, challenges, and the role of public engagement to improve tick-borne disease literacy.
Curr Opin Insect Sci.
2018;28:81–9.
10.1016/j.cois.2018.05.011
[DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
37.
Cardona-Ospina JA, Villamil-Gómez WE, Jimenez-Canizales CE, et al. :
Estimating the burden of disease and the economic cost attributable to chikungunya, Colombia, 2014.
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg.
2015;109(12):793–802.
10.1093/trstmh/trv094
[DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
I would like to highlight some points that could be improved:
The title of the manuscript creates an expectation that is not answered. In the manuscript is finished stating that further studies could help answer this question. Methodologically this is not correct. Suggestion to change the title to: Epidemiology of zoonotic tick-borne diseases in Latin América.
The authors mention that Brazil is the only country in Latin America that TBDs are mandatory reporting. In Brazil Spotted Fever is diseases the mandatory notification. Authors need to provide the correct source of information. They should mention the ordinance that regulates the notification in Brazil and that is available at this
Link.
About the title question: Are we just seeing the tip of the iceberg?
Even in Brazil with the best data compared to other Latin American countries it was still not possible to answer this question.
In order to measure these subrecords, it would be advisable to evaluate different sources of information through retrospective studies that include information on patients with clinical suspicions with differential diagnoses for TBDs.
In Brazil different information systems are used for different functionalities. There is a system that records the notification diseases (Notification Disease Information System), another records the deaths (Mortality Information System), another the laboratory diagnosis requests (Laboratory Environment Manager). To evaluate subrecords it would be interesting to crosscheck data that takes into account the information from the different information systems. Ideally a system of clinical suspicion and laboratory investigation based on a syndromic diagnosis would be the most effective for detecting TBDs cases.
Finally, the updated review highlights very important points, such as the lack of information, the need to assess the burden and impact of TBDs and the advances made so far and the challenges, especially in diagnosis, clinical and laboratory. Therefore, I consider this article appropriate for indexing.
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.
This second version of the manuscript entitled “Epidemiology of zoonotic tick-borne diseases in Latin America: Are we just seeing the tip of the iceberg?” has undergone edits, the inclusion of more references, and the addition of an author. I have chosen "Approved" because, although there are some minor comments that should be addressed, there is no "minor revision" option available.
Many of the edits that the authors have included have improved readability and flow. However, there are some points that need clarification. Most of these are grammatical/typographical errors, but a few have to do with structural organization of sentences or lack of citations. I would like to point out that, while it is commendable that the authors utilized a tool like Grammarly, the general (i.e. non-academic) version of Grammarly does not work as well for scientific terminology or syntax:
Paragraph 1: “Regarding TBDs that affect humans, those that are caused by
Rickettsia genera, known as spotted fever group rickettsioses, are the most studied and recognized in Latin America."
1) The wording is a little confusing because of the structure. Start with "The most important tick-borne diseases in Latin America are caused by pathogen spotted fever group
Rickettsia."
2) Replace “genera". It should be “Multiple species in the genus
Rickettsia” or “
Rickettsia spp.” There is only one genus of
Rickettsia.
Paragraph 2: “Currently,
R. rickettsii rickettsiosis is the most important and deadly TBDs in México, Panamá, Colombia, Brazil, and Argentina, where is transmitted to humans by different ticks’ species as
Rhipicephalus sanguineus, Amblyomma mixtum, A. patinoi, A. sculptum, A. aureolatum, and A. tonelliae”
1) Change “where”. It should be “which”.
2) Change “ticks’ species as’” to “tick species such as”.
3) Use "Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever" to describe the disease caused by
R. rickettsii. e.g. "Currently, Rocky Mountain Spotted fever (
R. rickettsii) is the most important and deadly TBD..."
Paragraph 3: “Furthermore, particularly in Venezuela, few studies point
Anaplasma platys and
E. canis as a human pathogen, a concern that actually discusses, but contrast with the recent description of a novel genotype of
E. canis detected in samples of human blood bank donors in Costa Rica”
1) I am not sure I understand the point of this sentence. Grammatically, it seems like you are missing some words in this part of the sentence: “…few studies point
Anaplasma platys and
E. canis as a human pathogen…” should be changed to:
“…studies point
to
Anaplasma platys and
E. canis as human pathogen
s…”?
2) The
E. canis genotype paper does not "contrast" with the human blood bank donor study. Blood tested from two case studies is a pretty low sample size (N = 2) to make any conclusion. Maybe just stop after "
E. canis as human pathogens"
Paragraph 5: "This fact, as well as that
B. burgdorferi, has not yet been isolated or cultured from clinical samples from autochthonous patients, is against of Lyme borreliosis presence in Southern hemisphere of America. “
The structural organization of this sentence is confusing. Maybe: “Because
B. burgdorferi s.l. has not been isolated or cultured from...It is not thought to be present in…”
Paragraph 5: “ By contrast, considering the recently first isolation and molecular characterization of a relapsing fever
Borrelia (
B. venezuelensis) in Latin America, recovered from an
Ornithodoros rudis tick, is plausible the occurrence of underdiagnosed human cases, taking to account the historical records of tick-borne relapsing fever in Colombia, Venezuela and Panama. ”
Organize this sentence differently. Break this sentence into two, e.g.: “In contrast, tick-borne relapsing fevers have historically occurred in Colombia, Venezuela, and Panama. Recently, the relapsing fever pathogen
Borrelia venezuelensis has been isolated and molecularly characterized from the soft tick
Ornithodoros rudis."
Paragraph 7: "Detection and sentinel surveillance of TBDs require molecular tools for diagnosis, for example, serological tests have proven to be inconclusive in diagnose Lyme disease”
There are a couple of things wrong with this sentence.
1) "diagnose" should be "diagnosis of" or "diagnostics of"
2) I am not sure serological tests are inconclusive, although there are problems with cross-reactivity or poor sensitivity during early Lyme disease onset
1.
Paragraph 7 “… at the genus level but species, ….
• Change to: “to the species level”
Conclusion: “As is known, also there are clear limitations in the national budgets that are specifically earmarked for vector-borne surveillance and public health efforts.Even more, what part of that is allotted toward TBD research. This should be considered as part of this call to action."
The point of your piece is that there is a growing tick-borne disease problem that needs to be and is currently not addressed. “As is known” is referring to anecdotal information. Please find a reference to support this claim that national budgets are not providing enough funds for vector-borne surveillance and compare (or contrast) this with what you think it should be (probably the Colombian National Public Health Institutions will have information on this).
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.
References
-
1.
:
The Accuracy of Diagnostic Tests for Lyme Disease in Humans, A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of North American Research.
PLoS One.2016;11(12) :
10.1371/journal.pone.0168613
e0168613
10.1371/journal.pone.0168613
[DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
This manuscript entitled "Epidemiology of zoonotic tick-borne diseases in Latin America: Are we just seeing the tip of the iceberg?" suggests that more studies on TTBD (ticks and tick-borne diseases) are needed worldwide, and particularly in Latin America, but there is a dearth of available data published.
Because the authors emphasized that their manuscript was not intended to be an extensive review article, but was originally presented as an opinion piece, I reviewed this manuscript as the latter. There is a lack of cohesiveness and transition between subjects within the manuscript and an overall lack of a common theme. There are also some minor errors in terminology and italicization throughout, which I will point out in each paragraph. In summary, while I appreciate the fact that this paper was originally intended to be a superficial review intended to emphasize the lack of research literature on ticks and TBD in Latin America, it does not do so in a cohesive manner, nor does it make a clear case for the need for further resources. Nevertheless, many Latin American countries would benefit from more resources dedicated to TBD research and surveillance. Should the authors reorganize and focus their attention to a specific objective, this might make for a stronger case.
Specific Comments:
The 1st paragraph gives a brief introduction to the impacts of TTBD on human and animal health, particularly in tropical and subtropical areas of the world. While it is interesting to point out that some TBD can be transmitted in other ways besides via ticks, I'm not sure that really supports the point of your manuscript. Make sure to be consistent in whether you use "tick-borne" or "tick borne" throughout the manuscript.
The 2nd paragraph begins with an introduction to Latin America, but then goes directly into rickettsioses, followed by a paragraph each on ehrlichioses, babesioses, and a brief mention of borrelioses. This feels much like a listing of diseases that have no connectivity with the overall purpose of the article. To help this, a sentence or two to introduce what will be discussed in the coming paragraphs might help to outline what a reader might expect to see. Maybe something like…”Here we will briefly review the known literature and highlight the increasing incidence/discovery/etc of tick-borne pathogens…”
There seems to be a missing word in "
Rickettsia
rickettsii were reported in rural and urban of Panama"
"Until some years ago, R. rickettsia was the only tick-borne species of rickettsia present in Latin America. Nowadays" - 'Nowadays' is too colloquial. Perhaps "Presently" or "Currently" are better alternatives?
There is what looks like an autocorrect error ("
R. rickettsia" should be "
R.
rickettsii").
Question: Is it possible that other
Rickettsia spp. were present already, but the older serological diagnostics that identified RMSF (
R. rickettsii) were cross-reacting with them and were all recorded as RMSF?
Many
Rickettsia spp. are non-pathogenic and are instead obligate symbionts of the ticks in which they reside.
3rd paragraph: "specie" should be "species". The genus "Ehrlichia" should be italicized.
4th paragraph: I refer you to "Rickettsia species".
Rickettsia capitalized refers to the genus and it should be italicized. If referring to the colloquial term used to refer to Rickettsiales, then it should be lowercase and not italicized (rickettsias). I believe the former applies in this sentence. "sp." indicates that the species designation is not known and is not italicized.
5th paragraph:
"Till" should be "Until".
The paragraph is almost entirely about babesioses worldwide, yet the last sentence briefly mentions
Borrelia and does not flow at all. Borreliosis should be its own section, with a discussion on both Lyme borreliosis and relapsing fever variants. Perhaps the authors could mention the role that soft ticks play in relapsing fever, particularly since this is a problem in Latin America.
6th paragraph:
If the purpose of this paper is to focus on Latin America and the paucity of work on ticks and tickborne disease relative to other parts of the world, there should be more focus on Latin America. The discussion of other countries detracts from this message. The only exception is in the context of potential TTBD flow between these countries via trade, human or animal migration, and impacts of climate change.
Further, there is a sudden switch mid-paragraph to tickborne viruses (TBV). Is the purpose of mentioning TBV to say that TBV exist in Latin America, but no one has looked hard enough? There are a few review articles that may provide support for this, but I suggest that as it is here, there is no context and it feels like it was just added after-the-fact.
Replace “vectorized” with “transmitted”. Note “Transmit” = verb, “vector” = noun. "Vectorized” isn’t really a word, or at least not commonly used North American medical entomology.
7th paragraph: I'm unclear on the purpose of this paragraph. Is it to highlight the advances in diagnostics that make it possible to detect TBD? If so, how does this support the overall theme of this article?
The last sentence of the 7th paragraph is not clear and has several errors. "Etiological agents of the group of
Rickettsial, including those in the
genuses
Anaplasma,
Neorickettsia,
Ehrlichia, and
Rickettsia, are relevant and often vector-borne organisms of canines and felines, but also of bovine, live-stock and other animals, which appears to be a wide range of hosts". Could this be moved somewhere else to make a transition or taken out completely?
“group of “Rickettsial” should be either “rickettsial pathogens in the…” OR “Etiological agents in the Order Rickettsiales”
"live-stock" should be "livestock"
“Genuses” should be “genera"
The Order Rickettsiales is an Order and not italicized. Admittedly this order's taxonomy is problematic, but if you are going to refer to it, don't italicize it.
Table 1:
Your table is entitled “Examples of selected tick-borne diseases in Latin America,” yet contains tick species mostly localized to North America (
D.
andersoni
, D.
variabilis
, D.
occidentalis
, I.
pacificus
, and
I.
scapularis). There was a review by Esteve-Gassent et al (2014)
1 that suggests that some of these species could
potentially spill over the Mexico-USA border and therefore these species could potentially warrant further study. Your use of this table, however, does not provide any context and feels out-of-place and irrelevant.
There have been several articles detailing known hard and soft tick species and their epidemiological significance from many different Latin American countries (e.g. Rivera-Páez in 2018 gives updates to Colombian Ixodidae
2; Mastropaolo 2014 reviewed both hard and soft ticks of Bolivia
3; Lopes in 2016 of Belize
4, and Witter in 2016 from wild animals of Brazil
5, just to name a few). There have also been reviews on tick species found in the Caribbean, Cuba, and Mexico. If you can obtain it, a valuable and comprehensive resource is “The Hard Ticks of the World (Acari: Ixodida: Ixodidae)”, by Guglielmone et al (2014)
6, which contains summaries of all known hard tick species worldwide, including host associations and geographic distributions.
Conclusion: I am afraid I don't see the relevance of this conclusion section to the rest of the article. What you need is to tie together what you have written and make a conclusion.
What is your conclusion? Do we need more surveillance? More research? Better diagnostics? Better identification approaches?
What are you trying to state that leads to your final concluding statement that this is "just the tip of the iceberg"? To say there is not enough data is sort of vague. More data is always better, but I myself have at least 100 references for literature on TTBD from Central and South America, and my list is not extensive. I would posit that you may need to rethink the purpose of your article. To state that there insufficient work on this topic in Latin America borders on insulting those who have spent careers working on these exact topics.
There is an element that you have not discussed: the lack of infrastructure and/or funding to support continued vector surveillance studies. Are there reports comparing the estimated costs of these types of studies (surveillance as well as diagnostics)? If so, how does that compare to the estimated proportion of the national budgets that are specifically earmarked for vector-borne surveillance and public health efforts, and what part of that is allotted toward TTBD research? Perhaps this would strengthen your case for a call to action.
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.
References
-
1.
:
Pathogenic Landscape of Transboundary Zoonotic Diseases in the Mexico-US Border Along the Rio Grande.
Front Public Health.2014;2:
10.3389/fpubh.2014.00177
177
10.3389/fpubh.2014.00177
[DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
2.
:
Contributions to the knowledge of hard ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) in Colombia.
Ticks Tick Borne Dis.9(1) :
10.1016/j.ttbdis.2017.10.008
57-66
10.1016/j.ttbdis.2017.10.008
[DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
3.
:
The ticks (Acari: Ixodida: Argasidae, Ixodidae) of Bolivia.
Ticks Tick Borne Dis.2014;5(2) :
10.1016/j.ttbdis.2013.10.005
186-94
10.1016/j.ttbdis.2013.10.005
[DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
4.
:
Ticks and rickettsiae from wildlife in Belize, Central America.
Parasit Vectors.2016;9:
10.1186/s13071-016-1348-1
62
10.1186/s13071-016-1348-1
[DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
5.
:
Rickettsial infection in ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) of wild animals in midwestern Brazil.
Ticks Tick Borne Dis.2016;7(3) :
10.1016/j.ttbdis.2015.12.019
415-23
10.1016/j.ttbdis.2015.12.019
[DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
6.
:
The Hard Ticks of the World.2014;
10.1007/978-94-007-7497-1
10.1007/978-94-007-7497-1
[DOI] [Google Scholar]
Dear Dr. Sakamoto
Thanks for your valuable comments. We want to answer all your comments, as we improved significantly our manuscript based on yours as well as on the other reviewer.
This manuscript entitled "Epidemiology of zoonotic tick-borne diseases in Latin America: Are we just seeing the tip of the iceberg?" suggests that more studies on TTBD (ticks and tick-borne diseases) are needed worldwide, and particularly in Latin America, but there is a dearth of available data published.
Certainly, there are more available data published, but our original intention was present an Opinion Article. As an Advisor of this Gateway, called, Disease Outbreaks, I should explain to you that at this open publishing platform where there are Opinion Articles, Review Articles and Systematic Review Articles.
This article is NOT a Systematic Review, it was originally submitted as an Opinion Article, as an invitation from F1000Research as being F1000Research Disease Outbreaks Gateway Advisor, but later classified as Review (narrative review). As you well read, we only referred to some examples of studies in Latin America, including yours (cited, now 36. Sakamoto JM: Progress, challenges, and the role of public engagement to improve tick-borne disease literacy. Curr Opin Insect Sci. 2018;28:81–9. 30551772 10.1016/j.cois.2018.05.011), about tick-borne diseases, that illustrate the problem, in terms of a neglected group of conditions in the region, wherein most of the countries are not under surveillance, and there is still a lack of studies, but even more actions for effective control.
Because the authors emphasized that their manuscript was not intended to be an extensive review article, but was originally presented as an opinion piece, I reviewed this manuscript as the latter. There is a lack of cohesiveness and transition between subjects within the manuscript and an overall lack of a common theme. There are also some minor errors in terminology and italicization throughout, which I will point out in each paragraph. In summary, while I appreciate the fact that this paper was originally intended to be a superficial review intended to emphasize the lack of research literature on ticks and TBD in Latin America, it does not do so in a cohesive manner, nor does it make a clear case for the need for further resources. Nevertheless, many Latin American countries would benefit from more resources dedicated to TBD research and surveillance. Should the authors reorganize and focus their attention to a specific objective, this might make for a stronger case.
We have significantly improved the grammatical and orthography of this paper. We modified the paper considering your comments.
Specific Comments:
The 1st paragraph gives a brief introduction to the impacts of TTBD on human and animal health, particularly in tropical and subtropical areas of the world. While it is interesting to point out that some TBD can be transmitted in other ways besides via ticks, I'm not sure that really supports the point of your manuscript. Make sure to be consistent in whether you use "tick-borne" or "tick borne" throughout the manuscript.
Well, that's a comment, additionally to the main point of this article. Regard your comment of consistency in the use of tick-borne, we have checked and only left "tick-borne".
The 2nd paragraph begins with an introduction to Latin America but then goes directly into rickettsioses, followed by a paragraph each on ehrlichioses, babesioses, and a brief mention of borrelioses. This feels much like a listing of diseases that have no connectivity with the overall purpose of the article. To help this, a sentence or two to introduce what will be discussed in the coming paragraphs might help to outline what a reader might expect to see. Maybe something like…”Here we will briefly review the known literature and highlight the increasing incidence/discovery/etc of tick-borne pathogens…”
We have restructured the paragraph in that way.
There seems to be a missing word in "
Rickettsia
rickettsii
were reported in rural and urban of Panama". Corrected.
"Until some years ago, R. rickettsia was the only tick-borne species of rickettsia present in Latin America. Nowadays" - 'Nowadays' is too colloquial. Perhaps "Presently" or "Currently" are better alternatives? Corrected.
There is what looks like an autocorrect error ("
R. rickettsia" should be "
R.
rickettsii
"). Corrected.
Question: Is it possible that other
Rickettsia spp. were present already, but the older serological diagnostics that identified RMSF (
R.
rickettsii
) were cross-reacting with them and were all recorded as RMSF? Included.
Many
Rickettsia spp. are non-pathogenic and are instead obligate symbionts of the ticks in which they reside. Considered.
3rd paragraph: "specie" should be "species". The genus "Ehrlichia" should be italicized.
Done. All that should be italicized, has been done.
4th paragraph: I refer you to "Rickettsia species".
Rickettsia capitalized refers to the genus and it should be italicized. If referring to the colloquial term used to refer to Rickettsiales, then it should be lowercase and not italicized (rickettsias). I believe the former applies in this sentence. "sp." indicates that the species designation is not known and is not italicized.
Done. Capitalized where corresponded.
5th paragraph:
"Till" should be "Until". Ok.
The paragraph is almost entirely about
babesioses
worldwide, yet the last sentence briefly mentions
Borrelia and does not flow at all. Borreliosis should be its own section, with a discussion on both Lyme borreliosis and relapsing fever variants. Perhaps the authors could mention the role that soft ticks play in relapsing fever, particularly since this is a problem in Latin America. This has been modified. We discussed also relapsing fever.
6th paragraph:
If the purpose of this paper is to focus on Latin America and the paucity of work on ticks and
tickborne
disease relative to other parts of the world, there should be more focus on Latin America. The discussion of other countries detracts from this message. The only exception is in the context of potential TTBD flow between these countries via trade, human or animal migration, and
impacts
of climate change. We have improved this aspect and more focused on Latin America.
Further, there is a sudden switch mid-paragraph to tickborne viruses (TBV). Is the purpose of mentioning TBV to say that TBV exist in Latin America, but no one has looked hard enough? There are a few review articles that may provide support for this, but I suggest that as it is here, there is no context and it feels like it was just added after-the-fact. We have corrected this.
Replace “vectorized” with “transmitted”. Note “Transmit” = verb, “vector” = noun. "Vectorized” isn’t really a word, or at least not commonly used North American medical entomology. Corrected.
7th paragraph: I'm unclear on the purpose of this paragraph. Is it to highlight the advances in diagnostics that make it possible to detect TBD? If so, how does this support the overall theme of this article? We restructured the paragraph.
The last sentence of the 7th paragraph is not clear and has several errors. "Etiological agents of the group of Rickettsial, including those in the
genusesAnaplasma,
Neorickettsia,
Ehrlichia, and
Rickettsia, are relevant and often vector-borne organisms of canines and felines, but also of bovine,
live-stock
and other animals, which appears to be a wide range of hosts". Could this be moved somewhere else to make a transition or taken out completely? Corrected.
“group of “Rickettsial” should be either “rickettsial pathogens in the…” OR “Etiological agents in the Order Rickettsiales”. Corrected.
"live-stock" should be "livestock". Done.
“
Genuses
” should be “
genera
". Done.
The Order Rickettsiales is an Order and not italicized. Admittedly this order's taxonomy is problematic, but if you are going to refer to it, don't italicize it. Ok.
Table 1:
Your table is entitled “Examples of selected tick-borne diseases in Latin America,” yet contains tick species mostly localized to North America (
D.
andersoni
, D.
variabilis
, D.
occidentalis
, I.
pacificus
, and
I.
scapularis
). There was a review by Esteve-Gassent et al (2014)
1 that suggests that some of these species could
potentially spill over the Mexico-USA border and therefore these species could potentially warrant further study. Your use of this table, however, does not provide any context and feels out-of-place and irrelevant. We have extensively changed the table.
There have been several articles detailing known hard and soft tick species and their epidemiological significance from many different Latin American countries (e.g. Rivera-Páez in 2018 gives updates to Colombian Ixodidae
2; Mastropaolo 2014 reviewed both hard and soft ticks of Bolivia
3; Lopes in 2016 of Belize
4, and Witter in 2016 from wild animals of Brazil
5, just to name a few). There have also been reviews on tick species found in the Caribbean, Cuba, and Mexico. If you can obtain it, a valuable and comprehensive resource is “The Hard Ticks of the World (Acari: Ixodida: Ixodidae)”, by Guglielmone et al (2014)
6, which contains summaries of all known hard tick species worldwide, including host associations and geographic distributions. We have corrected that.
Conclusion: I am afraid I don't see the relevance of this conclusion section to the rest of the article. What you need is to tie together what you have written and make a conclusion.
What is your conclusion? Do we need more surveillance? More research? Better diagnostics? Better identification approaches? We included those considerations.
What are you trying to state that leads to your final concluding statement that this is "just the tip of the iceberg"? To say there is not enough data is sort of vague. More data is always better, but I myself have at least 100 references for literature on TTBD from Central and South America, and my list is not extensive. I would posit that you may need to rethink the purpose of your article. To state that there insufficient work on this topic in Latin America borders on insulting those who have spent careers working on these exact topics. Now we have considered that and discussed in the Conclusions.
There is an element that you have not discussed: the lack of infrastructure and/or funding to support continued vector surveillance studies. Are there reports comparing the estimated costs of these types of studies (surveillance as well as diagnostics)? If so, how does that compare to the estimated proportion of the national budgets that are specifically earmarked for vector-borne surveillance and public health efforts, and what part of that is allotted toward TTBD research? Perhaps this would strengthen your case for a call to action. We mentioned all of that now and tried to make a more deep call for action.
Title and content of this work do not fit together.
What about the taxonomical issues stated at the end of the abstract? It is not discussed in the paper.
For a review, it is not very comprehensive and does not focus on Latin America. The structure of the manuscript is not logical, starting with
Rickettsia, continue with
Ehrlichia, coming back to
Rickettsia. There is too much content about the USA for a short review referring to Latin America.
In the table, there are a number of tick-borne diseases which do not occur in Latin America E.g. Colorado tick fever, Heartland virus diseases or Powassan encephalitis. It is not acceptable to simply transfer data from USA to Latin America.
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.