Estrada-Peña A, D'Amico G, Palomar A M, Dupraz M, Fonville M, Heylen D, Habela M A, Hornok S, Lempereur L, Madder M, Núncio M S, Otranto D, Pfaffle M, Plantard O, Santos-Silva M M, Sprong H, Vatansever Z, Vial L, Mihalca A D
Department of Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Miguel Servet 177, 50013, Zaragoza, Spain.
University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca, Department of Parasitology and Parasitic Diseases, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2017 Jun;8(4):540-546. doi: 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2017.03.001. Epub 2017 Mar 8.
This study reports the results of a comparative test of identification of ticks occurring in Western Europe and Northern Africa. A total of 14 laboratories were voluntarily enrolled in the test. Each participant received between 22 and 25 specimens of adult and nymphal ticks of 11 species: Dermacentor marginatus, D. reticulatus, Haemaphysalis punctata, Hyalomma lusitanicum, Hy. marginatum, Ixodes ricinus, I. hexagonus, Rhipicephalus annulatus, R. bursa, R. rossicus, and/or R. sanguineus s.l. Ticks were morphologically identified by three of the co-authors and the identification confirmed by a fourth co-author who used molecular methods based on several genes. Then ticks were randomly selected and blindly distributed among participants, together with a questionnaire. Only specimens collected while questing and, if possible, in the same survey, were circulated. Because of the random nature of the test, a participant could receive several specimens of the same species. Species in the different genera had variable misidentification rates (MR) of 7% (Dermacentor), 14% (Ixodes), 19% (Haemaphysalis), 36% (Hyalomma), and 54% (Rhipicephalus). Within genera, the MR was also variable ranging from 5.4% for I. ricinus or 7.4% for D. marginatus or D. reticulatus to 100% for R. rossicus. The test provided a total misidentification rate of 29.6% of the species of ticks. There are no significant differences in MR according to the sex of the tick. Participants were requested to perform a second round of identifications on the same set of ticks, using only purposely prepared keys (without illustrations), circulated to the enrolled participants, including 2 species of the genus Dermacentor, 8 of Haemaphysalis, 10 of Hyalomma, 23 of Ixodes, and 6 of Rhipicephalus. The average MR in the second round was 28%: 0% (Dermacentor), 33% (Haemaphysalis), 30% (Hyalomma) 18% (Ixodes), and 50% (Rhipicephalus). Species which are not reported in the countries of a participating laboratory had always highest MR, i.e. purely Mediterranean species had highest MR by laboratories in Central and Northern Europe. Participants expressed their concerns about a correct identification for almost 50% of the ticks of the genera Hyalomma and Rhipicephalus. The results revealed less than total confidence in identifying the most prominent species of ticks in the Western Palearctic, and underpin the need for reference libraries for specialists involved in this task. Results also showed that a combination of certain genes may adequately identify the target species of ticks.
本研究报告了对西欧和北非地区蜱虫进行鉴定的对比测试结果。共有14个实验室自愿参与了该测试。每位参与者收到了11种成年和若虫蜱虫的22至25个标本,这些蜱虫分别是:边缘革蜱、网纹革蜱、微小牛蜱、卢氏璃眼蜱、边缘璃眼蜱、蓖麻硬蜱、六角硬蜱、环形硬蜱、柏氏硬蜱、罗斯硬蜱和/or血红扇头蜱(狭义)。蜱虫由三位共同作者进行形态学鉴定,第四位共同作者使用基于多个基因的分子方法对鉴定结果进行确认。然后随机挑选蜱虫并在参与者中进行盲法分发,同时发放一份问卷。仅分发在宿主上采集到的标本,并且如果可能的话,是在同一次调查中采集的。由于测试的随机性,参与者可能会收到同一物种的多个标本。不同属的物种错误鉴定率(MR)各不相同,分别为7%(革蜱属)、14%(硬蜱属)、19%(血蜱属)、36%(璃眼蜱属)和54%(扇头蜱属)。在属内,错误鉴定率也有所不同,蓖麻硬蜱为5.4%,边缘革蜱或网纹革蜱为7.4%,而罗斯硬蜱为100%。该测试中蜱虫物种的总错误鉴定率为29.6%。根据蜱虫的性别,错误鉴定率没有显著差异。要求参与者使用专门准备的(无插图)检索表,对同一组蜱虫进行第二轮鉴定,检索表分发给参与的参与者,其中包括2种革蜱属蜱虫、8种血蜱属蜱虫、10种璃眼蜱属蜱虫、23种硬蜱属蜱虫和6种扇头蜱属蜱虫。第二轮的平均错误鉴定率为28%:革蜱属为0%,血蜱属为33%,璃眼蜱属为30%,硬蜱属为18%,扇头蜱属为50%。参与实验室所在国家未报告的物种的错误鉴定率总是最高,即纯地中海物种在中欧和北欧实验室的错误鉴定率最高。参与者对近50%的璃眼蜱属和扇头蜱属蜱虫的正确鉴定表示担忧。结果表明,在鉴定西古北区最主要的蜱虫物种方面,信心并非十足,这突出了为从事这项任务的专家建立参考文库的必要性。结果还表明,某些基因的组合可能足以鉴定目标蜱虫物种。