Table 3.
Distribution of positive ticks amongst the sampled animals
Location | Host | n | + | (+) | Tick samples with the lowest CCHFV Ct value | CCHFV | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lowest Ct value | Tick species (lowest Ct value) | Second-lowest Ct value |
Tick species (second-lowest Ct value) | Genotype | |||||
Idini | Cattle no. 1 | 22 | 22 | 0 | 18.26 | H. rufipes | 28.62 | H. dromedarii | Africa I |
Idini | Cattle no. 2 | 30 | 1 | 8 | 19.44 | H. dromedarii | 35.22 | H. dromedarii | Africa I |
Idini | Cattle no. 3 | 22 | 5 | 9 | 19.68 | H. rufipes | 34.44 | H. dromedarii | Africa I |
Rosso | Cattle no. 4 | 21 | 7 | 3 | 28.8 | H. rufipes | 31.52 | H. rufipes | Africa III |
Idini | Cattle no. 5 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 26.66 | H. rufipes | – | – | Africa III |
Nouakchott | Camel no. 1 | 24 | 3 | 0 | 28.67 | H. dromedarii (×3) | (29.89; 29.56) | – | Africa I |
Total | 127 | 39 | 20 |
All sampled animals on which CCHFV-positive ticks were found (6/91), including weakly positive ticks, and the tick species of the most CCHFV-positive sample. The CCHFV genotype was determined by comparing the real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (127 bp) data using the BLAST tool (National Center for Biotechnology Information). For abbreviations, see Table 1
n Number of ticks, + positive ticks, (+) weakly positive ticks, ×3 (3 specimens of H. dromedarii)