Volume 4, Number 2—June 1998
Perspective
Rickettsial Pathogens and Their Arthropod Vectors
Abdu F. Azad*
and Charles B. Beard†
and Charles B. Beard†
Table 3
Species composition of tick-borne rickettsiae isolated from hemolymph-positive Dermacentor ticksa
| Rickettsial sp | California D. occidentalis (No. isolates) | Montana D. andersoni (No. isolates) | Ohio D. variabilis (No. isolates) | Long Island D. variabilis (No. isolates) | Maryland D. variabilis (No. isolates) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R. rickettsii | 0 (0) | 9 (10) | 18 (4) | 0 (0) | 8 (2) |
| R. rhipicephali | 96 (79) | 44 (47) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| R. montana | – | 7 (8) | 59 (13) | 100 (100) | 0 (0) |
| Other SFGb | – | – | 5 (1)c | – | 88 (23)d |
| R. bellii | 4 (3) | 39 (41) | 18 (4) | 0 (0) | 4 (1) |
| Total number isolates | 82 | 106 | 22 | 100 | 26 |
aShows a compilation of various statewide surveys, comparing the species composition of SFG rickettsiae in Dermacentor spp. ticks that tested positive by immunofluorescence assay.
bSFG, spotted fever group.
cR. amblyommii.
dMouse anti-sera made against Maryland isolates reacted with WB-8-2 (unnamed SFG rickettsiae).
Page created: December 14, 2010
Page updated: December 14, 2010
Page reviewed: December 14, 2010
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.