Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About IAI
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Infection and Immunity
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About IAI
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Bacterial Infections

Immunity Reduces Reservoir Host Competence of Peromyscus leucopus forEhrlichia phagocytophila

Michael L. Levin, Durland Fish
Michael L. Levin
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8034
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Durland Fish
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8034
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/IAI.68.3.1514-1518.2000
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Infection with Ehrlichia phagocytophila in white-footed mice is transient and followed by a strong immune response. We investigated whether the presence of acquired immunity against E. phagocytophila precludes white-footed mice from further maintenance of this agent in nature. Mice were infected withE. phagocytophila via tick bite and challenged either 12 or 16 weeks later by Ixodes scapularis nymphs infected with the same agent. Xenodiagnostic larvae fed upon each mouse simultaneously with challenging nymphs and 1 week thereafter. Ticks were tested for the agent by PCR, and the prevalence of infection was compared to that in ticks that fed upon nonimmune control mice. Only 30% of immunized mice sustained cofeeding transmission of E. phagocytophila between simultaneously feeding infected and uninfected ticks, compared to 100% of control mice. An average of 6.3% of xenodiagnostic ticks acquired Ehrlichia from previously immunized mice when fed 1 week after the challenge, compared to 82.5% infection in the control group. Although an immune response to a single infection with E. phagocytophila in white-footed mice provided only partial protection against reinfection with the same agent, the majority of mice were rendered reservoir incompetent for at least 12 to 16 weeks. Immunity acquired by mice during I. scapularis nymphal activity in early summer may exclude a large proportion of the mouse population from maintainingE. phagocytophila during the period of larval activity later in the season.

Human granulocytic ehrlichiosis (HGE) is a recently recognized tick-borne disease caused by an obligate intracellular bacterium believed to be identical to Ehrlichia phagocytophila (9, 17, 32, 38, 41). Infection withE. phagocytophila has been reported in a variety of mammalian species including rodents, dogs, horses, deer, and humans (3, 8, 22, 47). In the eastern United States, E. phagocytophila is maintained in a natural cycle between the black-legged tick Ixodes scapularis and its vertebrate hosts (14, 43), as is Borrelia burgdorferi, the etiologic agent of Lyme disease. Small rodents, especially the white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), are important hosts for immature I. scapularis and major reservoirs forB. burgdorferi. Larval ticks acquire infection while parasitizing infected mice and then transmit it to new susceptible hosts during nymphal feeding. Mice, once infected with B. burgdorferi, remain infective for ticks for many months (16, 31). Their prolonged infectivity is essential for continuous transmission of B. burgdorferi between infected nymphs active from May to June and uninfected larvae that parasitize the same mice in August and September (19). GranulocyticEhrlichia and antibodies to E. phagocytophilahave also been found in a variety of wild rodent species, including white-footed mice (7, 11, 33, 35, 43, 45, 47). Together with laboratory experiments (15, 30, 35, 43), these findings show that the white-footed mouse is susceptible to E. phagocytophila and often exposed to infection in nature. However, its role in the natural cycle of E. phagocytophila remains unclear (30). In contrast to that with B. burgdorferi, infection with E. phagocytophila in susceptible rodents appears to be transient. Untreated C3H mice resolve an infection within 60 days (42). Laboratory mice (Mus musculus) inoculated with E. phagocytophila mount an immune response, which partially protects animals against challenge (23, 42). Such protection, if it occurs in nature, may preclude previously infected hosts from further maintenance of the agent.

Here, we show that previous exposure of white-footed mice to E. phagocytophila provides partial protection against homologous challenge, thus reducing their susceptibility to additional infection and subsequent infectivity to ticks, consequently diminishing their role in the natural maintenance of E. phagocytophila.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two-month-old mice, derived from a colony that has been maintained in our laboratory for several generations, were infected with E. phagocytophila and consequently challenged with the same agent either 12 or 16 weeks thereafter. The susceptibility of immune mice to reinfection and their subsequent infectivity for xenodiagnostic ticks were compared to the same parameters forEhrlichia-naive control mice. The strain of E. phagocytophila used in our experiments originated from I. scapularis nymphs collected at a site in Westchester County (N.Y.) where HGE is endemic (39). The agent is maintained in our laboratory in a tick-mouse cycle, where infected I. scapularis nymphs are produced by allowing uninfected larval ticks to feed upon mice previously exposed to E. phagocytophila-infected nymphs. Uninfected xenodiagnostic larvae were derived from a separate I. scapularis colony maintained for several generations in our laboratory by feeding on uninfected mice and rabbits. Host sera are routinely screened for Ehrlichiaantibodies, and representative samples of ticks from the colony are regularly tested by PCR to ensure that the colony is free of tick-borne pathogens.

Primary infections.Two groups of mice were initially infected with E. phagocytophila via exposure to infected ticks. Six mice were each infested with 10 infected I. scapularis nymphs 12 weeks prior to the challenge (experimental group I). Another 10 mice were each infested with 10 infected nymphs 16 weeks prior to the challenge (experimental group II). Infection in both groups of mice was confirmed by xenodiagnostic infestation with approximately 200 uninfected larvae 1 week-after the original nymphal infestation. Additionally, serum samples were collected from the retro-orbital sinus of each experimental mouse on the day of nymphal infestation and weekly for 4 weeks thereafter. Sera were tested for the presence of specific antibodies against E. phagocytophila by indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA).

All mice from experimental groups I and II were subjected to yet another xenodiagnostic infestation 11 and 15 weeks, respectively, after infection (7 days before the challenge) to ensure that mice had resolved the infection. Simultaneously, four tick-naive mice (control group) were also infested with xenodiagnostic larvae to verify that they were indeed free of Ehrlichia. High feeding density enhances pathogen acquisition in larval I. scapularis(29); therefore, mice were infested with approximately 300 larvae to increase the sensitivity of xenodiagnosis. Thirty engorged larvae per mouse were tested by PCR in pools of 5 for E. phagocytophila.

Challenge.All 16 previously infected mice and 4 naive control mice were each challenged by 10 nymphs infected with E. phagocytophila. The homology of challenge was ensured by using infected nymphs that had fed as larvae upon the same mice. Challenge of all mice was performed on the same day to guarantee uniformity among the challenging ticks. The prevalence of infection in the challenging nymphs was estimated to be 40%, as assessed by testing a representative sample of 20 ticks by PCR. Approximately 100 xenodiagnostic larvae fed upon each mouse simultaneously with challenging nymphs to assess the possibility and efficiency of transmission of E. phagocytophila between cofeeding ticks. Another group of approximately 100 larvae fed upon each of the 20 mice 1 week after the challenge.

Engorged nymphs and larvae were collected daily, as they detached after repletion, and kept at 22°C and 95% relative humidity. Ticks ingesting an agent with a blood meal may not be able to transmit it transstadially (15). Therefore, at this stage of the experiment, both challenging and xenodiagnostic ticks were tested after they molted to the next stage. All adult ticks that had fed as challenging nymphs, and a sample of 30 nymphs derived from xenodiagnostic larvae per mouse per infestation, were individually tested by PCR.

Additionally, blood and serum samples were collected from the retro-orbital sinus of each mouse 1 week before the challenge, on the day of challenge, and 7 days later. Blood was tested for E. phagocytophila by PCR, and serum was tested for the presence of specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies by IFA.

PCR.Mouse blood samples and ticks were tested for the presence of E. phagocytophila DNA as described before (30). Briefly, individual adult and nymphal ticks and pools of replete larvae were placed in sterile 1.5-cm3 plastic vials, deep-frozen in liquid nitrogen, ground with a sterile plastic pestle, and resuspended in 50 μl of Tris-EDTA buffer. DNA from ground ticks and blood samples were extracted using the IsoQuick nucleic acid extraction kit (ORCA Research Inc., Bothell, Wash.). Primers EHR-521 (5′-TGT AGG CGG TTC GGT AAG TTA AAG-3′) and EHR-747 (5′-GCA CTC ATC GTT TAC AGC GTG-3′) were used to amplify a 247-bp fragment of 16S ribosomal DNA from E. phagocytophila (37). The amplification products were visualized in 2% agarose gels stained with ethidium bromide.

Transmissibility test.It is possible that some positive PCR results may be due to remnants of ehrlichial DNA retained in a tick gut after feeding and not due to actual infection. To assess the viability of the pathogen acquired by ticks from immune mice, an additional sample of 25 ticks that fed as larvae upon each of the 16 immune and 4 control mice 1 week after the challenge were placed on an additional 20 naive mice. Nymphs were allowed to feed to repletion. At 7 days after the infestation, mice were bled and infested with ∼100 xenodiagnosticI. scapularis larvae to confirm the infection. Blood samples and two pools of 10 replete larvae from each mouse were tested for E. phagocytophila by PCR.

IFA.Mouse sera were tested for IgG antibodies reactive with the cultured isolate of E. phagocytophila in an IFA developed by Aquila Biopharmaceuticals (Worcester, Mass.). The antigen provided by Aquila Biopharmaceuticals was derived from a human promyelocyte cell culture (HL-60) infected with E. phagocytophila. Sera were initially screened at a dilution of 1:40 (30, 46). Twofold serial dilutions of reactive samples in phosphate-buffered saline (pH 7.4) up to a dilution of 1:5,120 were examined. Positive control serum was obtained in our laboratory from aP. leucopus mouse infected with the same isolate of E. phagocytophila, and infection was confirmed by PCR with blood and xenodiagnosis.

RESULTS

Primary infection.Xenodiagnostic I. scapularislarvae acquired infection from all 16 mice in experimental groups I and II when fed 1 week after the initial infestation with infected nymphs (11 and 15 weeks, respectively, prior to the challenge). Also, all 16 experimental mice seroconverted within 7 to 14 days after nymphal infestation. Sera collected from all mice on day 14 postinfection were reactive to E. phagocytophila at dilutions ≥1:640 (mode, 1:2,560). Thus, all mice in both experimental groups became infected with E. phagocytophila and developed a strong immune response.

On the day of challenge (12 weeks after the original infection), sera from all six mice in group I were reactive against E. phagocytophila at dilutions ≥1:320 (mode, 1:1,280). All 10 mice in group II also were seropositive on the day of challenge (16 weeks after the original infection) with antibody titers that were ≥1:160 (mode, 1:640). However, none of these mice had E. phagocytophila DNA in the blood that was detectable by PCR, andE. phagocytophila was not found in any of 30 xenodiagnostic ticks that fed upon each mouse 1 week before the challenge. Thus, all mice successfully resolved the infection and were not infectious for xenodiagnostic ticks prior to the challenge.

Challenge.First, we assessed the prevalence of infection among adult ticks used as challenging nymphs (Table1) and compared it to that for the same cohort prior to the challenge (40% ± 10%). Six to ten ticks from each mouse in all three groups molted to the adult stage and were available for PCR. The average prevalence of Ehrlichiainfection in ticks that fed upon four control mice (41.7% ± 5.5%) did not differ from the original prevalence of infection in challenging nymphs. The average prevalence of infection in ticks that fed upon six mice from group I at 12 weeks postinfection was only half of that in challenging nymphs (21.1% ± 4.5%). This difference was statistically significant (P = 0.0329). The average prevalence of infection in ticks that fed upon 10 mice from group II at 16 weeks postinfection (34.9% ± 5.3%) was not significantly different from that for the cohort of challenging nymphs prior to the feeding (P = 0.4850). Thus, the prevalence of infection in challenging nymphs was reduced after the nymphs fed upon mice with recently acquired immunity but not after they fed upon naive mice.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

E. phagocytophila infection in ticks that fed as challenging nymphs upon control and immune mice

Next, we measured prevalence of infection in xenodiagnostic ticks that fed simultaneously with challenging nymphs. Every mouse in the control group sustained transmission of the agent between simultaneously feeding infected nymphs and uninfected larvae, whereas only one-third of immune mice in groups I and II sustained that type of transmission (Table 2). Overall, 10.8% ± 1.6% of larval ticks acquired Ehrlichia during cofeeding on nonimmune control mice and transmitted it transstadially to the nymphal stage. Here, we report the first experimental evidence of efficient transmission of E. phagocytophila between infected and uninfected ticks during cofeeding. However, only 1.0 to 1.1% of larval ticks acquired Ehrlichia while cofeeding with infected nymphs on previously exposed mice (Table 2). The efficiency of E. phagocytophila transmission during cofeeding on immune mice differed significantly from that during cofeeding on control mice (P by analysis of variance [PANOVA] = 0.0035 and 0.0001 for groups I and II, respectively) and did not differ between the two experimental groups (PANOVA = 0.7487).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

E. phagocytophila infection in xenodiagnostic ticks that fed upon control and immune mice simultaneously with challenging nymphs

One week after the challenge, ehrlichial DNA was detected by PCR in the blood of all 4 control mice but only in 2 of 6 mice challenged 12 weeks postinfection and in 3 of 10 mice challenged 16 weeks postinfection. Xenodiagnostic ticks fed 1 week after the challenge acquired E. phagocytophila from each of 4 mice in the control group, from 5 of 6 mice in group I, and from 7 of 10 mice in group II (Table3). The average prevalences of infection in xenodiagnostic ticks that fed upon immune mice (6.0 and 6.7% in groups I and II, respectively) were significantly lower than that in ticks that fed at the same time upon control mice (82.5%) (PANOVA ≪ 0.001) and did not differ between the two experimental groups (PANOVA = 0.7258) (Table 3).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

E. phagocytophila infection in xenodiagnostic ticks that fed upon control and immunized mice 1 week after the challenge

Transmissibility test.When nymphs that fed as larvae upon each of 20 challenged mice were placed on 20 naive mice, 14 of the naive mice became infected with E. phagocytophila, as confirmed by both PCR with blood and xenodiagnosis. Nymphs from each of four control mice successfully transmitted E. phagocytophilato new animals, as did ticks from 4 of 6 mice challenged at 12 weeks postinfection and from 6 of 10 mice challenged at 16 weeks postinfection. This provided direct evidence that a positive PCR result for molted xenodiagnostic ticks was indicative of a viable agent and not just remnants of DNA.

DISCUSSION

Infection with E. phagocytophila causes a disease affecting both humans and domestic animals. The ability of susceptible hosts to mount protective immunity in response to ehrlichial infection and the scope and duration of protection are important for understanding of epidemiology and epizootiology of the disease as well as for the development of protective strategies. Results of our experiment indicate that an infection with E. phagocytophilain white-footed mice renders only partial protection against reinfection. Five of 6 mice were reinfected 12 weeks after the initial infection, and 7 of 10 mice were reinfected when challenged at 16 weeks. Although reactivation of a persistent infection is theoretically possible, it is unlikely, as the agent was not detected in mice by either massive xenodiagnostic infestation or PCR with blood prior to the challenge. Also, chronic or latent infection has not been described and does not seem to occur in mice, horses, sheep, or cattle experimentally infected with E. phagocytophila(6).

Humans, cattle, sheep, horses, and mice mount humoral immune responses to infection with E. phagocytophila within 2 weeks, and antibodies continue to be detected for many months, but their significance in protective immunity is not clearly established (6, 20, 24, 28, 46, 48). Partial protection from homologous challenge after natural or experimental infection with E. phagocytophila has been reported for sheep (40, 49), goats (40), hoses (2, 36), cattle (44), and laboratory mice (42). However, this protection seems to be incomplete. The duration of protective immunity also appears to be variable. Some animals may be reinfected with Ehrlichia in a few months, while others may resist reinfection for over a year (49). Stamp and Watt (40) reported that goats were protected from reinfection with E. phagocytophila for a year, while Hudson (26) found that the immunity to this pathogen is short-lived in cattle. Reinfection with E. phagocytophila has been reported in a human case 2 years after successful treatment of HGE (25).

Thus, a single infection with E. phagocytophila does not necessarily provide long-term protection against reinfection. Our results indicate that white-footed mice that have been infected in early summer, during the peak of nymphal activity, may again become partially susceptible to the same agent by the time of larval activity at the end of summer and early in the fall. If infected, a few nymphs that are active in August and September can transmit the infection to previously immune mice. Acquired immunity against E. phagocytophila does not affect tick feeding and molting success. However, this acquired immunity appears to disrupt further maintenance of E. phagocytophila.

A proportion of infected nymphs seem to lose E. phagocytophila after feeding on immune mice. A decrease in the prevalence of infection between flat nymphal and adult ticks occurred only for ticks that fed upon immune mice, and it was more apparent in ticks that fed upon mice at 12 weeks postinfection than in ticks that fed at 16 weeks. The mechanisms and locations of the interaction between host Igs and an intracellular parasite such as E. phagocytophila inside a tick are unclear. Unlike B. burgdorferi, which resides primarily in the midgut of an unfed tick and thus is easily accessible to host-derived antibodies ingested by a tick during blood feeding (13, 18), E. phagocytophila is not restricted to the midgut. It develops a generalized infection in a variety of internal organs in the vector, including the salivary glands (12).

Host Igs, including IgG antibodies, ingested by the tick during blood feeding are able to cross the gut wall and retain their immunological properties in tick hemolymph. This phenomenon has been demonstrated for several species of ixodid and argasid ticks (1, 4, 5, 10, 21, 34). However, vaccine-derived antibodies ingested byDermacentor andersoni with a blood meal did not appear to affect the development of Anaplasma marginale in previously infected ticks in two trials, and there was no significant effect of tick exposure to host antibodies on the development of salivary gland infection or transmission of A. marginale by ticks (27). Our data indicate that E. phagocytophila is affected to some degree by host immune mechanisms and that feeding on immune animals decreases the efficiency of transstadial transmission of E. phagocytophila in ticks (Table 1).

Also, acquired immunity against E. phagocytophilasignificantly diminishes the efficiency of transmission of the agent from infected nymphs to cofeeding larvae. Our experiment provides direct evidence for successful transmission of E. phagocytophila between simultaneously feeding infected and uninfected ticks on nonimmune hosts (Table 2). This particular route of transmission may play an important part in a persistent circulation of the agent in nature, especially considering the relatively short duration of infectiousness in mice compared to that of B. burgdorferi. Therefore, a 90% decrease in the efficiency of cofeeding transmission in immune mice would significantly reduce their reservoir competence for E. phagocytophila. Third, mice that had become reinfected with E. phagocytophila in spite of acquired immunity remained much less infectious for larval ticks (Table 3).

In our experiment, 12 of 16 immune mice produced infected xenodiagnostic ticks when infested 7 days after the challenge; however only 5 of them tested positive by PCR performed on blood samples collected at the same time. Apparently, PCR did not detect ehrlichial DNA in the blood samples from several immune mice that were still infectious for xenodiagnostic ticks. In contrast, all control mice were tested positive by both PCR with blood and xenodiagnosis. This incongruity between results of PCR with blood and xenodiagnosis indicates that the number of ehrlichiae in the blood of immune mice was below the PCR sensitivity level and lower than the number in control nonimmune mice. Similarly, morulae were not detected and the agent was not cultured from the blood of reinfected laboratory mice (42), indicating that the number of ehrlichiae in immunized animals was markedly reduced compared with the number in control mice due to the effect of a specific antibody. Thus, a lower prevalence of infection in xenodiagnostic ticks that fed upon immune mice may be also due to low levels of bacteremia in immune mice.

Whether the decreased infectivity of immune mice is due to low bacteremia or to inefficient transstadial transmission in ticks, mice infected with E. phagocytophila a second time are at least 90% less infectious for ticks than are mice infected for the first time. Thus, white-footed mice once exposed to E. phagocytophila, though susceptible to reinfection, have greatly diminished ability to sustain natural transmission of the agent for at least 3 to 4 months. Our field observations in Connecticut have shown that up to 50 to 60% of a population of P. leucopus may carry antibodies against E. phagocytophila during summer (30). Together with the results of the present study, these findings imply that a large proportion of a population of white-footed mice are exposed to E. phagocytophila early in summer during the activity period of nymphal I. scapularis but become reservoir incompetent for this agent by the time of larval activity 2 to 3 months later in the season. Therefore, other host species ofI. scapularis are likely be involved in the maintenance ofE. phagocytophila in nature (30).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was sponsored by grants from the G. Harold and Leila Y. Mathers Charitable Foundation and USDA cooperative agreement 58-1265-5023.

Notes

Editor: D. L. Burns

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 18 August 1999.
    • Returned for modification 22 September 1999.
    • Accepted 15 December 1999.
  • Copyright © 2000 American Society for Microbiology

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Ackerman S.,
    2. Clare F. B.,
    3. McGill T. W.,
    4. Sonenshine D. E.
    Passage of host serum components, including antibody, across the digestive tract of Dermacentor variabilis (Say).J. Parasitol.671981737740
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. 2.↵
    1. Barlough J. E.,
    2. Madigan J. E.,
    3. DeRock E.,
    4. Dumler J. S.,
    5. Bakken J. S.
    Protection against Ehrlichia equi is conferred by prior infection with the human granulocytotropic ehrlichia (HGE agent).J. Clin. Microbiol.33199533333334
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Belongia E. A.,
    2. Reed K. D.,
    3. Mitchell P. D.,
    4. Kolbert C. P.,
    5. Persing D. H.,
    6. Gill J. S.,
    7. Kazmierczak J. J.
    Prevalence of granulocytic ehrlichia infection among white-tailed deer in Wisconsin.J. Clin. Microbiol.35199714651468
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Ben-Yakir D.
    Quantitative studies of host immunoglobulin G in the hemolymph of ticks (Acari).J. Med. Entomol.261989243246
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Brossard M. R. O.
    Passage of hemolysins through the mid gut epithelium of female Ixodes ricinus fed on rabbits infested or reinfested with ticks.Experientia401984561563
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Brun-Hansen H.,
    2. Gronstol H.,
    3. Hardeng F.
    Experimental infection with Ehrlichia phagocytophila in cattle.Zentbl. Vetmed. Reihe B451998193203
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    1. Bunnell J. E.,
    2. Dumler J. S.,
    3. Childs J. E.,
    4. Glass G. E.
    Retrospective serosurvey for human granulocytic ehrlichiosis agent in urban white-footed mice from Maryland.J. Wildl. Dis.341998179181
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  8. 8.↵
    1. Chang Y. F.,
    2. Novosel V.,
    3. Dubovi E.,
    4. Wong S. J.,
    5. Chu F. K.,
    6. Chang C. F.,
    7. Del Piero F.,
    8. Shin S.,
    9. Lein D. H.
    Experimental infection of the human granulocytic ehrlichiosis agent in horses.Vet. Parasitol.781998137145
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Chen S.-M.,
    2. Dumler J. S.,
    3. Bakken J. S.,
    4. Walker D. H.
    Identification of a granulocytotropic Ehrlichia species as the etiologic agent of human disease.J. Clin. Microbiol.321994589595
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Chinzei Y.,
    2. Minoura H.
    Host immunoglobulin G titre and antibody activity in haemolymph of the tick, Ornithodoros moubata.Med. Vet. Entomol.11987409416
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Daniels T. J.,
    2. Falco R. C.,
    3. Schwartz I.,
    4. Varde S.,
    5. Robbins R. G.
    Deer ticks (Ixodes scapularis) and the agents of Lyme disease and human granulocytic ehrlichiosis in a New York City park.Emerg. Infect. Dis.31997353355
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. 12.↵
    1. Das S.,
    2. Deponte K.,
    3. Marcantonio N. L.,
    4. Ijdo J. W.,
    5. Hodzic E.,
    6. Katavolos P.,
    7. Barthold S. W.,
    8. Telford S. R. III,
    9. Kantor F. S.,
    10. Fikrig E.
    Granulocytic ehrlichiosis in tick-immune guinea pigs.Infect. Immun.66199818031805
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. de Silva A. M.,
    2. Telford S. R. III,
    3. Brunet L. R.,
    4. Barthold S. W.,
    5. Fikrig E.
    Borrelia burgdorferi OspA is an arthropod-specific transmission-blocking Lyme disease vaccine.J. Exp. Med.1831996271275
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Des Vignes F.,
    2. Fish D.
    Transmission of the agent of human granulocytic ehrlichiosis by host-seeking Ixodes scapularis (Acari:Ixodidae) in southern New York State.J. Med. Entomol.341997379382
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. 15.↵
    1. Des Vignes F.,
    2. Levin M. L.,
    3. Fish D.
    Comparative vector competence of Dermacentor variabilis and Ixodes scapularis (Acari:Ixodidae) for the agent of human granulocytic ehrlichiosis.J. Med. Entomol.361999182185
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Donahue J. G.,
    2. Piesman J.,
    3. Spielman A.
    Reservoir competence of white-footed mice for Lyme disease spirochetes.Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg.3619879296
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Dumler J. S.,
    2. Asanovich K. M.,
    3. Bakken J. S.,
    4. Richter P.,
    5. Kimsey R.,
    6. Madigan J. E.
    Serologic cross-reactions among Ehrlichia equi, Ehrlichia phagocytophila, and human granulocytic Ehrlichia.J. Clin. Microbiol.33199510981103
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Fikrig E.,
    2. Telford S. R. III,
    3. Barthold S. W.,
    4. Kantor F. S.,
    5. Spielman A.,
    6. Flavell R. A.
    Elimination of Borrelia burgdorferi from vector ticks feeding on OspA-immunized mice.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA89199254185421
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Fish D.
    Environmental risk and prevention of Lyme disease.Am. J. Med.9819952S8S
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Foggie A.
    Studies on the infectious agent of tick-borne fever in sheep.J. Pathol. Bacteriol.631951115
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  21. 21.↵
    1. Fujisaki K.,
    2. Kamio T.,
    3. Kitaoka S.
    Passage of host serum components, including antibodies specific for Theileria sergenti, across the digestive tract of argasid and ixodid ticks.Ann. Trop. Med. Parasitol.781984449450
    OpenUrlPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Greig B.,
    2. Asanovich K. M.,
    3. Armstrong P. J.,
    4. Dumler J. S.
    Geographic, clinical, serologic, and molecular evidence of granulocytic ehrlichiosis, a likely zoonotic disease, in Minnesota and Wisconsin dogs.J. Clin. Microbiol.3419964448
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Hodzic E.,
    2. Fish D.,
    3. De Silva A. M.,
    4. Maretzki C. M.,
    5. Feng S.,
    6. Barthold S. W.
    Acquisition and transmission of the agent of human granulocytic ehrlichiosis by Ixodes scapularis ticks.J. Clin. Microbiol.36199835743578
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Hodzic E.,
    2. Ijdo J. W.,
    3. Feng S.,
    4. Katavolos P.,
    5. Sun W.,
    6. Maretzki C. H.,
    7. Fish D.,
    8. Fikrig E.,
    9. Telford S. R. III,
    10. Barthold S. W.
    Granulocytic ehrlichiosis in the laboratory mouse.J. Infect. Dis.1771998737745
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. 25.↵
    1. Horowitz H. W.,
    2. Aguero-Rosenfeld M.,
    3. Dumler J. S.,
    4. McKena D. F.,
    5. Hsieh T. C.,
    6. Wu J.,
    7. Schwartz I.,
    8. Wormser G. P.
    Reinfection with the agent of human granulocytic ehrlichiosis.Ann. Intern. Med.1291998461463
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  26. 26.↵
    1. Hudson J. R.
    The recognition of tick-borne fever as a disease in catle.Br. Vet. J.1061950317
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    1. Kocan K. M.,
    2. Blouin E. F.,
    3. Palmer G. H.,
    4. Eriks I. S.,
    5. Edwards W. L.,
    6. Claypool P. L.
    Preliminary studies on the effect of Anaplasma marginale antibodies ingested by Dermacentor andersoni ticks (Acari:Ixodidae) with their blood meal on infections in salivary glands.Exp. Appl. Acarol.201996297311
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Larsen H. J.,
    2. Overnes G.,
    3. Waldeland H.,
    4. Johansen G. M.
    Immunosuppression in sheep experimentally infected with Ehrlichia phagocytophila.Res. Vet. Sci.561994216224
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  29. 29.↵
    1. Levin M.,
    2. Papero M.,
    3. Fish D.
    Feeding density influences acquisition of Borrelia burgdorferi in larval Ixodes scapularis (Acari:Ixodidae).J. Med. Entomol.341997569572
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Levin M. L.,
    2. des Vignes F.,
    3. Fish D.
    Disparity in the natural cycles of Borrelia burgdorferi and the agent of human granulocytic ehrlichiosis.Emerg. Infect. Dis.51999204208
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  31. 31.↵
    1. Levine J. F.,
    2. Wilson M. L.,
    3. Spielman A.
    Mice as reservoirs of the Lyme disease spirochete.Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg.341985355360
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Madigan J. E.,
    2. Barlough J. E.,
    3. Dumler J. S.,
    4. Schankman N. S.,
    5. DeRock E.
    Equine granulocytic ehrlichiosis in Connecticut caused by an agent resembling the human granulocytotropic ehrlichia.J. Clin. Microbiol.341996434435
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    1. Magnarelli L. A.,
    2. Anderson J. F.,
    3. Stafford K. C. III,
    4. Dumler J. S.
    Antibodies to multiple tick-borne pathogens of babesiosis, ehrlichiosis, and Lyme disease in white-footed mice.J. Wildl. Dis.331997466473
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  34. 34.↵
    1. Mbogo S. K.,
    2. Osir E. O.,
    3. Mongi A. O.
    Host immunoglobulin G in the haemolymph of the brown ear tick, Rhipicephalus appendiculatus (Neumann, 1901).Insect Sci. Appl.131992481485
    OpenUrl
  35. 35.↵
    1. Nicholson W. L.,
    2. Muir S.,
    3. Sumner J. W.,
    4. Childs J. E.
    Serologic evidence of infection with Ehrlichia spp. in wild rodents (Muridae: Sigmodontinae) in the United States.J. Clin. Microbiol.361998695700
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. 36.↵
    1. Nyindo M. B.,
    2. Ristic M.,
    3. Lewis G. E. Jr.,
    4. Huxsoll D. L.,
    5. Stephenson E. H.
    Immune response of ponies to experimental infection with Ehrlichia equi.Am. J. Vet. Res.3919781518
    OpenUrlPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Pancholi P.,
    2. Kolbert C. P.,
    3. Mitchell P. D.,
    4. Reed K. D. Jr.,
    5. Dumler J. S.,
    6. Bakken J. S.,
    7. Telford S. R. III,
    8. Persing D. H.
    Ixodes dammini as a potential vector of human granulocytic ehrlichiosis.J. Infect. Dis.172199510071012
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  38. 38.↵
    1. Pusterla N.,
    2. Huder J. B.,
    3. Feige K.,
    4. Lutz H.
    Identification of a granulocytic ehrlichia strain isolated from a horse in Switzerland and comparison with other rickettsiae of the Ehrlichia phagocytophila genogroup.J. Clin. Microbiol.36199820352037
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. 39.↵
    1. Schwartz I.,
    2. Fish D.,
    3. Daniels T. J.
    Prevalence of the rickettsial agent of human granulocytic ehrlichiosis in ticks from a hyperendemic focus of Lyme disease.N. Engl. J. Med.33719974950
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  40. 40.↵
    1. Stamp J.,
    2. Watt J.
    Tick-borne fever as a cause of abortion in sheep.Vet. Rec.621950465468
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Sumner J. W.,
    2. Nicholson W. L.,
    3. Massung R. F.
    PCR amplification and comparison of nucleotide sequences from the groESL heat shock operon of Ehrlichia species.J. Clin. Microbiol.35199720872092
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. 42.↵
    1. Sun W.,
    2. Ijdo J. W.,
    3. Telford S. R.,
    4. Hodzic E.,
    5. Zhang Y.,
    6. Barthold S. W.,
    7. Fikrig E.,
    8. Telford S. R. III.
    Immunization against the agent of human granulocytic ehrlichiosis in a murine model.J. Clin. Investig.100199730143018
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  43. 43.↵
    1. Telford S. R. III,
    2. Dawson J. E.,
    3. Katavolos P.,
    4. Warner C. K.,
    5. Kolbert C. P.,
    6. Persing D. H.
    Perpetuation of the agent of human granulocytic ehrlichiosis in a deer tick-rodent cycle.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA93199662096214
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    1. Tuomi J.
    Experimental studies on bovine tick-borne fever. 1. Clinical and haematological data, some properties of the causative agent, and homologous immunity.Acta Pathol. Microbiol. Scand.701967429445
    OpenUrlPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Tyzzer E. E.
    Cytoecetes microti n. gen. n. sp.: a parasite developing in granulocytes and infection in small rodents.Parasitology301938242257
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  46. 46.↵
    1. Van Andel A. E.,
    2. Magnarelli L. A.,
    3. Heimer R.,
    4. Wilson M. L.
    Development and duration of antibody response against Ehrlichia equi in horses.J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc.212199819101914
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  47. 47.↵
    1. Walls J. J.,
    2. Greig B.,
    3. Neitzel D. F.,
    4. Dumler J. S.
    Natural infection of small mammal species in Minnesota with the agent of human granulocytic ehrlichiosis.J. Clin. Microbiol.351997853855
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. 48.↵
    1. Woldehiwet Z.
    Tick-borne fever: a review.Vet. Res. Commun.61983163175
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  49. 49.↵
    1. Woldehiwet Z.,
    2. Scott G. R.
    Immunological studies on tick-borne fever in sheep.J. Comp. Pathol.921982457467
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Immunity Reduces Reservoir Host Competence of Peromyscus leucopus forEhrlichia phagocytophila
Michael L. Levin, Durland Fish
Infection and Immunity Mar 2000, 68 (3) 1514-1518; DOI: 10.1128/IAI.68.3.1514-1518.2000

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Infection and Immunity article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Immunity Reduces Reservoir Host Competence of Peromyscus leucopus forEhrlichia phagocytophila
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Infection and Immunity
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Infection and Immunity.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Immunity Reduces Reservoir Host Competence of Peromyscus leucopus forEhrlichia phagocytophila
Michael L. Levin, Durland Fish
Infection and Immunity Mar 2000, 68 (3) 1514-1518; DOI: 10.1128/IAI.68.3.1514-1518.2000
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • Notes
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

Disease Reservoirs
Ehrlichiosis

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About IAI
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #IAIjournal

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0019-9567; Online ISSN: 1098-5522