Survey for zoonotic pathogens in Norway rat populations from Europe

Heuser, Elisa; Fischer, Stefan; Ryll, René; Mayer‐Scholl, Anne; Hoffmann, Donata; Spahr, Carina; Imholt, Christian; Alfa, Dewi Murni; Fröhlich, Andreas; Lüschow, Dörte; Johne, Reimar; Ehlers, Bernhard; Eßbauer, Sandra; Nöckler, Karsten; Ulrich, Rainer G.

doi:10.1002/ps.4339

Cited by 41 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 72 publications

(148 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For the current study, spleen DNA samples originated from 602 rats collected for previous studies: 528 Norway rats were collected during pest control measures in Denmark ( n = 11), Germany ( n = 307), Hungary ( n = 18), Switzerland ( n = 29), Czech Republic ( n = 58), Slovenia ( n = 2), Belgium ( n = 60) and Austria ( n = 43); and 74 black rats were collected in Spain ( n = 43), Italy ( n = 16) and Slovenia ( n = 15) (Table ) . The sites from Germany were previously divided into areas belonging to the north (federal states of Hamburg, Mecklenburg‐Western Pomerania, Lower Saxony), east and central (federal states of Berlin, Brandenburg, Saxony, Saxony‐Anhalt), west (federal state of North Rhine‐Westphalia) and south (federal state of Baden‐Wuerttemberg) . The origin of samples deriving from zoos in Germany ( n = 125), which were named consecutively zoo A–F, was blinded (a single rat originated from an additional zoo not named consecutively) as published previously …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Altogether, 420 kidney and 421 spleen samples of 426 rats have already been tested before for RnorPyV 1 DNA and Leptospira spp. DNA, respectively …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The age‐class of the rats was estimated based on the animals' body weight (juvenile, < 200 g; adult, ≥ 200 g) . Habitat has been classified previously based on human population density . Briefly, census data (resolution 1 km 2 ) were used to derive registered human inhabitants at the immediate point of capture.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Norway rats are known to harbour many different zoonotic agents such as Yersinia pestis, Bartonella spp., Leptospira spp. and Coxiella burnetii , but also pathogens with no or unknown zoonotic potential . Norway rats are better studied in Europe and thus better known to carry zoonotic pathogens in comparison with black rats; however, it is likely that both species harbour and distribute a similar panel of pathogens.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Norway and black rats in Europe: potential reservoirs for zoonotic arthropod‐borne pathogens?

Obiegala

Heuser

Ryll

et al. 2019

Pest Management Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) and black rats (R. rattus) are known to be cosmopolitan reservoirs for zoonotic agents. Nevertheless, little is known about prevalence and distribution of arthropod‐borne pathogens in rats from Europe. Therefore, this survey focused on the detection of arthropod‐borne pathogens. Spleen‐derived DNA samples were available from 528 Norway rats and 74 black rats collected in several European countries. Further, these samples were processed by polymerase chain reaction for the detection of zoonotic pathogens such as Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis (CNM), Babesia spp. and Bartonella spp. eventually followed by sequencing. RESULTS Babesia spp. was not detected. Four Norway rat samples were positive for A. phagocytophilum DNA and two for CNM. In 50 rat samples, Bartonella spp. DNA was detected (8.1%; 95% Confidence interval (CI) 6.2–10.61). Whereas B. tribocorum (n = 45) and B. grahamii (n = 1) were carried exclusively in Norway rats from Central Europe (Belgium, Germany), B. coopersplainsensis (n = 4) was detected only in black rats from southern European countries (Spain, Italy). CONCLUSIONS Pathogenic Bartonella spp. DNA was found in black and Norway rats from Germany, Italy, Spain and Belgium for the first time. Bartonellae were found focally in zoos suggesting Norway rats as a possible reservoir for B. tribocorum and black rats as a reservoir for B. coopersplainsensis in Europe. These findings should raise awareness of pathogenic Bartonella spp. in Norway rats, especially in terms of pest management control in zoos. Norway and black rats seem not to be predominantly involved in the life cycle of the other examined arthropod‐borne pathogens in Europe. © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Altogether, 420 kidney and 421 spleen samples of 426 rats have already been tested before for RnorPyV 1 DNA and Leptospira spp. DNA, respectively …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Norway and black rats in Europe: potential reservoirs for zoonotic arthropod‐borne pathogens?

Obiegala

Heuser

Ryll

et al. 2019

Pest Management Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mammalian invasions in Europe are likely to have been responsible for the transport of pathogens responsible for salmonellosis, toxoplasmosis, and leptospirosis (Hulme ), and for the dissemination of the plague across continents via rodent introductions (Gage & Kosoy ). Genetic tools are becoming pivotal in disease management in wildlife (DeCandia et al ): PCR is currently used to verify morphological identification of pathogens and parasites (Bagrade et al ), and genetic tools can be used as detection methods when there are difficulties in recreating optimal cell growing conditions to test for prevalence levels (Heuser et al ).…”

Section: Negative Impactsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genetic tools in the management of invasive mammals: recent trends and future perspectives

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Invasive non‐native species are now considered to be one of the greatest threats to biodiversity worldwide. Therefore, efficient and cost‐effective management of species invasions requires robust knowledge of their demography, ecology and impacts, and genetic‐based techniques are becoming more widely adopted in acquiring such knowledge. We focus on the use of genetic tools in the applied management of mammalian invasions globally, as well as on their inherent advantages and disadvantages. We cover tools that are used in: 1) detecting and monitoring mammalian invaders; 2) identifying origins and invasive pathways; 3) assessing and quantifying the negative impacts of invaders; and 4) population management and potential eradication of invasive mammals. We highlight changes in sequencing technologies, including how the use of techniques such as Sanger sequencing and microsatellite genotyping, for monitoring and tracing invasive pathways respectively, are now giving way to the use of high‐throughput sequencing methods. These include the emergence of environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding for the early detection of invasive mammals, and single nucleotide polymorphisms or whole genomes to trace the sources of invasive populations. We are now moving towards trials of genome‐editing techniques and gene drives to control or eradicate invasive rodents. Genetic tools can provide vital information that may not be accessible with non‐genetic methods, for the implementation of conservation policies (e.g. early detection using systematic eDNA surveillance, the identification of novel pathogens). However, the lack of clear communication of novel genetic methods and results (including transparency and reproducibility) to relevant stakeholders can be prohibitive in translating these findings to appropriate management actions. Geneticists should engage early with stakeholders to co‐design experiments in relation to management goals for invasive mammals.

show abstract