This study expands our knowledge of the distribution of R. helvetica infection in ticks, foxes, dogs, and human patients within a geographical region by employing a newly developed sensitive real-time TaqMan PCR assay. We concentrated on the investigation of humans and Canidae, because both are known to develop disease when infected with SFG rickettsiae. Despite the fact that R. helvetica was frequently detectable in Ixodes ticks, none of the 1,156 blood samples tested positive. Nonetheless, ticks collected from animals, and particularly from cats, were more frequently positive than those collected from vegetation. With one exception, all identified rickettsiae were assumed to be R. helvetica. In addition, R. monacensis, which to our knowledge had not been previously detected in Switzerland, was identified according to the sequencing results.
The real-time TaqMan PCR assay developed in this study amplifies a fragment of the 23S rRNA gene of
R. helvetica. A recently described assay for the
R. helvetica 23S gene (
32) could not be used in the present study because the oligonucleotide sequences and the run conditions were not compatible with a standard TaqMan assay on our ABI real-time cyclers. Our newly designed PCR system did not amplify endosymbionts; the latter is of major concern in the development of diagnostic PCR assays for rickettsial and related agents. The assay was found to be more sensitive for the detection of
R. helvetica than a previously described real-time TaqMan assay that detects the
gltA gene of rickettsiae of the spotted fever and typhus groups (
36). This observation may be explained by the higher specificity of the primers and probe for
R. helvetica in the newly designed assay compared to the more generic published assay (
36). The latter assay was demonstrated to have three mismatches in the target sequence (
36), which may lead to a reduced efficiency (
15) and in turn to a lower sensitivity of the assay. Thus, for the most sensitive detection of
R. helvetica the 23S rRNA gene assay should be used, because with the
gltA assay, the prevalence of
R. helvetica could be underestimated.
The CT difference between the two assays (23S RNA gene and gltA) could be used as a marker for the presence of R. helvetica compared to other Rickettsia species. Samples with lower CT values for the 23S rRNA gene than for the gltA gene were identified as R. helvetica (n = 16) by sequencing. Remarkably, the one sample with a higher CT value in the 23S rRNA assay was a Rickettsia species that had not been previously reported in Switzerland. Therefore, although the 23S rRNA gene PCR assay was designed to specifically amplify only R. helvetica, other rickettsiae, in particular uncharacterized strains, may also be amplified; however, the efficiency at which this would be expected to occur would probably be low. We suggest using the above-mentioned method of comparison of CT values resulting from the two TaqMan PCR assays (23S and gltA) for screening purposes and further confirmation of discordant samples by sequencing. The estimated prevalence of R. helvetica in approximately 2,000 analyzed ticks was between 10% and 40%. This was confirmed by sequence analyses, and R. helvetica was the only detected rickettsial agent, with the exception of one positive tick pool sample that revealed a different Rickettsia species. Its sequence was most closely related to those reported from ticks from Portugal (EF501756.1; Rickettsia sp. strain PoTiR6dt), Slovakia (AF141906.1; Rickettsia sp. strain IRS4), and Germany (DQ100163.1; R. monacensis). This observation is in accordance with other results recently obtained in Germany: R. monacensis was isolated and characterized from I. ricinus ticks collected in Upper Palatine in southeastern Germany. The Rickettsia species was identified by sequencing the genes gltA, rompA, and rompB. Based on the data obtained, an identity of >99% between R. monacensis and Rickettsia strains IRS3 and IRS4 was observed (R. Wölfel, personal communication). The results show that R. monacensis has a much larger area of distribution than previously believed. Furthermore, molecular characterization indicates that R. monacensis and the Rickettsia strains IRS3 and IRS4 belong to a single species.
The investigation of tick populations may be used as an epidemiological tool to determine the importance of an infectious agent in a specific area. A high percentage of
I. ricinus ticks collected from vegetation were found to be PCR positive for
R. helvetica. Interestingly, the estimated prevalence was higher in ticks collected from animals than in ticks collected from vegetation. Our results are in agreement with a study from Denmark by Nielsen and coworkers (
18), in which the presence of
R. helvetica was highest in adult ticks collected from dogs and roe deer. These findings may indicate that large mammals act as reservoir hosts for
R. helvetica, an assumption which is further supported by a study from Inokuma and coworkers (
10). Those authors analyzed blood samples collected from sika deer in Japan and found that 8 out of 102 animals were PCR positive for
R. helvetica. Since deer are often infested with high numbers of ticks, they can be an important reservoir for tick-borne pathogens. Remarkably, in the present study, more of the ticks from cats than from dogs were PCR positive for
R. helvetica. For all the ticks collected from cats, the
CT values were lower in the 23S rRNA PCR assay than the
gltA assay. From an ongoing study, we know that
Rickettsia felis, which could potentially be found in feline samples but has not been detected in Switzerland as yet, had a higher
CT value in the 23S rRNA assay than in the
gltA assay (S. Hornok, personal communication). Based on this information, we assume that the high prevalence of
R. helvetica observed in ticks from cats was not due to
R. felis, and therefore, cats may actually be a reservoir for
R. helvetica. In a study from Africa (
17), up to 34% of the included cats were found to be seropositive for
R. conorii, another member of the SFG rickettsiae that is transmitted by
Rhipicephalus sanguineus. Those authors concluded that cats can be used as indicators for the presence of these organisms (
17).
Due to the high abundance and the broad host range of
I. ricinus and the high prevalence of
R. helvetica in this tick species, the likelihood of transmission of the agent to tick-exposed individuals should be high. Nonetheless, all the blood samples from different mammals, including wild animals (foxes) and human patients, tested PCR negative. Several reasons have to be considered to explain this unexpected result. First, the sensitivity of our PCR assay may not have been sufficient. Rickettsia loads may be very low, as has been shown for
Rickettsia rickettsii in rickettsemic patients (
5,
11,
12). However, this seems very unlikely, given that the lower detection limit of the applied PCR assay was one copy per reaction and as little as 100 copies/ml blood could still be detected in a spike experiment. In addition, the NA extracted from blood samples did not inhibit the PCRs, in contrast to the NA from some tick samples. A second explanation could be a very focal distribution of
R. helvetica, leading to high geographical variations in prevalence. This also seems unlikely, because in the present study, the majority of ticks and blood samples originated from the same region (Canton of Zurich). A third explanation could be a seasonal occurrence of rickettsemia associated with the seasonal fluctuation of the tick vector
I. ricinus; we aimed to avoid this potential source of bias by collecting canine blood samples throughout the year. The lack of detection of
R. helvetica in blood samples could also have resulted from a short-lived bacteremia. This has been demonstrated for other rickettsiae, such as
R. rickettsii, which were detectable for up to only 10 days after experimental infection of dogs (
12,
23). Thus, infection may indeed have taken place, but the time point of the blood collection may not have been optimal for detection of infection. However, if bacteremia is short-lived in large mammals, the likelihood that they are a major reservoir for
R. helvetica is low.
Nonetheless, despite the fact that all the blood samples tested PCR negative, the pathogenic potential of
R. helvetica in animals should not be overlooked. For comparison, the 1,880 ticks collected from vegetation in the Canton of Zurich were analyzed not only for
R. helvetica but also for TBEV, the infectious agent that causes encephalitis in humans and
Canidae. The exposure risk of
R. helvetica was found to be 13 times higher (prevalence, 11.7%) than that of TBEV (prevalence, 0.9%). Therefore, we anticipate that
R. helvetica infections may also occur in Swiss individuals, as has been demonstrated in other countries with a high prevalence of
R. helvetica in
I. ricinus ticks (
8,
18). Further studies are necessary to clarify this issue. The ability of our newly developed real-time PCR assay to detect even very low copy numbers and the specific nature of our assay make it a valuable tool for further evaluation of the importance of
R. helvetica infections.