Tick Populations and Molecular Analysis of Anaplasma Species in Ticks from the Republic of Korea

Abstract

The present study was performed to survey the dominant tick populations and molecularly determine the pathogenic agents of anaplasmosis in ticks from Gyeongsang, Republic of Korea. A total of 3825 questing ticks were collected by the flagging method from 12 sites near animal farms in Gyeongsang from March to October 2021. A molecular genomic study was performed with ticks stored in 70% ethanol to detect Anaplasma genes by the previously described method. The monthly incidence of ticks varied by developmental stages, i.e., nymphs, adults, and larvae, and each of their populations peaked in May, March, and October, respectively. The predominant tick species were Haemaphysalis longicornis, Haemaphysalis sp., Haemaphysalis flava, Ixodes nipponensis, and Amblyomma testudinarium in order. To determine the Anaplasma infection rate, collected ticks were pooled into 395 groups. The minimum infection rate (MIR) of Anaplasma was 0.7% (27 pools). That of A. phagocytophilum was highest (23 pools, MIR 0.6%), followed by A. phagocytophilum-like Anaplasma spp. clade B (2 pools, MIR 0.1%), A. bovis (1 pool, MIR 0.1%), and A. capra (1 pool, MIR 0.1%), respectively. In this study, five species of ticks, including unidentified Haemaphysalis species, were collected in 12 survey sites in Gyeongsang, but their prevalence was somewhat different according to the tick species and survey sites. Further, the incidence rate (6.8%) of 4 Anaplasma spp. was not as high in tick pools. However, the results of this study may offer a basis for future epidemiological research and risk assessment of tick-borne diseases.

1. Introduction

Numerous emerging tick-borne diseases were present in ticks, humans, and animals before they were recognized as the causal agents of clinical illnesses [1]. Numerous factors, such as tick incidence, human activity, duration of tick attachment, climatic and geographic factors, and the biological stage, affect the ability of ticks to attach to humans and transmit pathogens [2]. Owing to the gradual changes in temperature in the Republic of Korea from a temperate to a subtropical region, the Korean Peninsula may soon experience increases in tick populations. Ticks depend on environmental factors to survive, and climate change provides conducive conditions [3].

Diseases associated with Anaplasma species have affected the health and production of animals for more than a century and are currently posing a serious threat to livestock [4]. Ticks transmit Anaplasma in nature, and there are numerous vertebrate hosts and infection sources for ticks, humans, and animals [4]. The sporozoan parasites of the genus Anaplasma have been taxonomically known as several verified species, i.e., A. phagocytophilum, A. marginale, A. centrale, A. bovis, A. platys, A. ovis, and Candidatus Anaplasma species. These species have a somewhat different host cell tropism. The predilection site of A. phagocytophilum is neutrophils [5], A. marginale, A. centrale, and A. ovis prefer erythrocytes [6], A. bovis and A. platys specifically parasitize in monocytes [7] and platelets [8], respectively. A recently recognized Anaplasma species, Anaplasma capra, may infect endothelial cells [9]. Additionally, it is crucial to distinguish between pathogenic A. phagocytophilum and closely related A. phagocytophilum-like Anaplasma spp. (APL), which are currently thought to be nonpathogenic and do not cause clinical symptoms in infected animals [10].

Numerous Anaplasma spp. in tick populations have been detected in the Republic of Korea, such as A. capra and A. bovis from ticks parasitizing water deer (Hydropotes inermis argyropus) [11]; A. capra, A. bovis, APL clade A, and APL clade B from ticks parasitizing cattle [12]; A. bovis from ticks parasitizing native Korean goats [13]; and A. phagocytophilum and A. platys from small wild-caught mammals or by dragging/flagging [14]. In other countries, several Anaplasma spp. have also been identified in tick populations, such as A. marginale, A. platys, and A. capra from ticks parasitizing cattle and goats in China [15]; A. phagocytophilum by flagging in Austria [16]; and A. bovis by flagging in Canada [17].

To predict the origin of infections and offer risk assessments for tick-borne diseases, the present study was performed to study the prevalence of tick populations and the incidence rates and risk factors for pathogenic Anaplasma species in ticks, which were collected from 12 sites near animal farms in Gyeongsang (six in Gyeongnam and six in Gyeongbuk), Republic of Korea.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Ethical Approval

Approval from Kyungpook National University’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee was not required for the present study, which was conducted in 2021. The collected samples from questing ticks in the environment in this study did not cause hazard to any animals. The collected ticks did not include endangered species. Specific approval for each collection site was not needed because the sites were not located within national parks or protected regions.

2.2. Tick Collection

Questing ticks were collected by the flagging method, in which the vegetation is swept with a flannel cloth [18], from 12 sites near animal farms in Gyeongsang from March to October 2021. The survey sites were administratively in Gyeongbuk (GB), Gyeongnam (GN), and Ulsan Metropolitan City (UMC), Republic of Korea. The six sites in GB were Bonghwa (BH), Chilgok (CG), Gumi (GM), Uiseong (US,), Yeongcheon (YC), and Yeongdeok (YD). The four in GN were Geochang (GC), two in Goseong (GS), and Haman (HA), and the remaining two were UMC regions (Table 1 and Figure 1). Unfed ticks were collected once per month. In the two provinces, the GS and ULS regions had two collection sites each, and each of the other eight regions was used as a collection site, totaling 12 tick collection sites close to livestock farms (cattle, deer, horse, and goat farms). The collected ticks were stored in 70% ethanol.

Tick species and developmental stages were identified based on morphological characteristics using a microscope according to taxonomic key [19]. Each identified tick was pooled according to species, developmental stage, survey period, and collection site. Adults and nymphs were classified at the species level, whereas larvae were identified to the genus level because of morphological similarities. The number of ticks in the pools was one to 10 nymphs and one to 50 larvae, and the adults were individually examined.

2.3. DNA Extraction and PCR Detection

Genomic DNA was extracted using a DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. PCR was performed using an AccuPower HotStart PCR Premix Kit (Bioneer, Daejeon, Republic of Korea). Nested PCR was performed to detect the genus Anaplasma by amplifying the 16S rRNA gene, as previously described [20] using the primer pairs EE1/EE2 and EE3/EE4, which produced an amplicon of 924–926 bp. A sample of A. phagocytophilum detected in cattle in the Republic of Korea [21] was included as a positive control, and a sample without a DNA template was used as a negative control.

2.4. Sequencing and Phylogenetic Analyses

All the PCR-positive products with EE3/EE4 primers were sent to Macrogen (Daejeon, Republic of Korea) for Sanger sequencing. The sequences obtained in the present study and previously reported in GenBank were aligned and analyzed using the multiple sequence alignment program CLUSTAL Omega (v. 1.2.1, Bioweb, Ferndale, WA, USA). Among all the long-aligned nucleotide sequences, unnecessary sequences in the front and back were deleted based on the sequences detected in this study using BioEdit (v. 7.2.5, Bioedit, Manchester, UK). Sites containing gaps or having ambiguous alignment were also removed prior to phylogenetic analysis. Phylogenetic analysis was performed using the maximum likelihood method with the Kimura two-parameter distance model in molecular evolutionary genetics analysis (v. 7.0, Mega software solutions, Madhurawadha, India). The aligned sequences of Anaplasma 16S rRNA were pairwise compared to determine homology. The stability of the obtained trees was estimated using bootstrap analysis with 1000 replicates.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

To evaluate the correlation between Anaplasma prevalence and five different tick species, data were statistically analyzed using the chi-square test using the GraphPad Prism analytical software package (v. 5.04, GraphPad Software, Inc., La Jolla, CA, USA). Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Prevalence of Ticks by the Verified Species

A total of 3825 questing ticks (1798 from GB and 2027 from GN and UMC) belonging to five species, i.e., Haemaphysalis sp., Haemaphysalis longicornis, Haemaphysalis flava, Ixodes nipponensis, and Amblyoma testudinarium, were collected from 12 survey sites (Table 2). All larvae belonging to the genus Haemaphysalis were regarded as Haemaphysalis sp. (Yamaguti) because the H. longicornis and H. flava larvae are morphologically indistinguishable. Haemaphysalis spp. and I. nipponensis were identified in both provinces, whereas A. testudinarium was only identified in the GS region of GN province.

H. longicornis was the most abundant species (n = 2405; GB 1103, GN 1302), followed by Haemaphysalis sp. (n = 1176; GB 582, GN 594), H. flava (n = 217; GB 96, GN 121), I. nipponensis (n = 22; GB 17, GN 5), and A. testudinarium (n = 5; GB 0, GN 5).

We collected 86 adult ticks (2.3%), including 34 females (0.9%) and 52 males (1.4%), 2563 nymphs (67.0%), and 1176 larvae (30.8%).

3.2. Incidence of Anaplasma Genes from Tick Pools

Among 3825 collected ticks, 395 pools were tested using PCR, and Anaplasma-positive ticks were detected in 27 pools (6.8%). The minimum infection rate (MIR) was 0.7 (Table 3).

I. nipponensis had the highest prevalence of 30.0% (6/20 pools, MIR: 27.3), followed by Haemaphysalis sp. (25.8%, 8/31 pools, MIR: 0.7) and H. longicornis (4.4%, 13/294 pools, MIR: 0.5). No Anaplasma-positive cases were reported in H. flava or A. testudinarium. The Anaplasma prevalence was significantly different in the different tick species (chi-square test, χ² = 40.73, df = 4, p < 0.0001).

The GB and GN provinces showed 5.7% (11/192 pools, MIR: 0.6) and 7.9% (16/203 pools, MIR: 0.8) positive pools, respectively. Among them, the ULS (13.5%, 5/37 pools, MIR: 1.1), GM (10.8%, 4/37 pools, MIR: 1.4), CG (10.5%, 4/38 pools, MIR: 1.1), and GC (9.5%, 2/21 pools, MIR: 0.7) regions had a higher prevalence than that of other regions.

The prevalence of nymphs, adult females and males, and larva stages were 5.2% (13/278 pools, MIR: 0.5), 8.8% (3/34 pools, MIR: 8.8), 5.8% (3/52 pools, MIR: 5.8), and 25.8% (8/31 pools, MIR: 0.7), respectively.

The number of adult females and males, nymphs, and larvae was highest in June (32.4%, 11/34), March (40.4%, 21/52), May (29.4%, 753/2563), and October (36.6%, 430/1176), respectively (Figure 2a). Temporally, the highest peak in tick incidence was observed in May (20.2%, 771/3825), when nymphs were highly prevalent; a second peak was observed in August (15.3%, 584/3825) when larvae were beginning to be prevalent.

The largest number of positive tick pools was observed in July (25.9%, 7/27, MIR: 0.18) and March (18.5%, 5/27, MIR: 0.13) (Figure 2b).

3.3. Molecular and Phylogenetic Analyses

Phylogenetic analysis revealed that Anaplasma spp. identified in the present study were A. phagocytophilum, APL clade B, A. bovis, and A. capra (Table 4 and Figure 3). Of the 27 positive pools, the A. phagocytophilum incidence was the highest (23 pools, 85.2%), followed by APL clade B (2 pools, 7.5%), A. bovis (1 pool, 3.7%), and A. capra (1 pool, 3.7%).

The two representative sequences of A. phagocytophilum 16S rRNA sequences in the present study shared 99.3% identity with each other. They were also 98.3–100% identical to the 16S rRNA sequences of previously reported A. phagocytophilum isolates. We determined that the two sequences of the APL clade B 16S rRNA sequences shared 99.7% identity with each other and 98.8–100% identity with the 16S rRNA sequences of previously reported APL clade B isolates. One A. capra sequence in the present study shared 99.5–99.8% identity with the 16S rRNA sequences of previously reported A. capra isolates. Similarly, one A. bovis 16S rRNA sequence shared 99.5–99.8% identity with other A. bovis isolates. Among the sequences obtained in the present study, representative sequences used in the phylogenetic analysis were submitted to the GenBank database (accession numbers: OP535541–OP535545).

4. Discussion

In this study, more than five species, including unidentified Haemaphysalis sp., were collected from 12 survey sites in Gyeongsang, Republic of Korea. Among them, H. longicornis (62.9%) was most prevalent, and Haemaphysalis sp. (30.8%), H. flava (5.7%), I. nipponensis (0.6%), and A. testudinarium (0.1%) followed in descending order. These findings were more or less similar with those of Seo et al. [22]. They reported the tick prevalence among H. longicornis (56.7%), Haemaphysalis sp. (40.5%), H. flava (1.7%), I. nipponensis (0.1%), and A. testudinarium (0.3%) from a nationwide survey in the Republic of Korea, respectively.

Questing ticks near animal farms were surveyed monthly between March and October 2021. We evaluated the geographical distribution of tick species and found that most ticks were collected in the HA (13.2%), GS (2 sites with an average of 10.1%), and CG (9.5%) regions. Compared with other regions, the HA and GS regions are located at low latitudes in the Republic of Korea with higher temperatures and more precipitation, which are ideal conditions for tick survival [23]; thus, these regions had a higher distribution of tick populations than that in other regions. Haemaphysalis spp. were widely distributed in the surveyed regions, and I. nipponensis was distributed in five regions (four in GB and one in GN). However, A. testudinarium was only distributed in the GS region, located at the lowest latitude in the surveyed regions. Therefore, ecological and environmental factors may impact the regional variations in tick distribution.

Ticks spend most of their lives in the natural environment, except when feeding; hence, environmental factors impact their biology. Changes in the environment and season, particularly humidity and temperature, affect tick development, survival, distribution, and, subsequently, the tick-borne disease risk [24]. According to a previous study, peaks in adult, nymph, and larval tick populations were generally observed from June to August, May to June, and August to September in the Republic of Korea [18,22], consistent with the findings of the present study, in which the highest peaks in nymphs, adults, and larval populations were observed in May, March, and October, respectively.

We performed molecular detection and phylogenetic analysis of Anaplasma (6.8%) in ticks. Normally, Anaplasma spp. are more prevalent in adult ticks than those in nymphs and larvae because adults have a higher probability of coming into contact with an Anaplasma-infected host. In the present study, nymphs (48.2%) were more prevalent in Anaplasma infections than adults (22.2%) and larvae (29.6%). Temporally, the number of positive tick pools in adults was highest in July. The number of positive tick pools in nymphs was highest in July. Infected larval ticks were detected between August and October. The MIR of Anaplasma in ticks was relatively high in March (0.13) and July (0.18), probably due to the high risk of Anaplasma infection in those months. Therefore, caution is needed when engaging in outdoor activities around this period.

In the present study, H. longicornis (13 pools, three female adults, and 10 nymphs) was the most prevalent tick species host to Anaplasma, followed by I. nipponensis (six pools, three male adults, and three nymphs), and Haemaphysalis spp. (eight pools and eight larvae). The prevalence of Anaplasma was significantly different among the tick species (p < 0.0001). However, H. flava and A. testudinarium were not the main vector for Anaplasma spp. As the detection of Anaplasma in ticks does not indicate the capacity of the ticks to act as competent vectors, further studies are needed to establish whether these species are Anaplasma vectors. Tick-borne diseases are transmitted through transstadial or transovarial routes. In the present study, 31 pools (1176 larvae) were tested for Anaplasma spp., and eight pools (MIR: 0.7) were positive. Thus, the larvae generally transmitted Anaplasma transovarially (25.8%). Further studies are needed to determine whether adult ticks can transovarially transmit the Anaplasma species.

Molecular analyses in previous studies have detected several Anaplasma spp. in various hosts in the Republic of Korea, including A. capra (2.9%, 5/173 pools) and A. bovis (2.3%, 4/173 pools) from ticks parasitizing water deer (Hydropotes inermis argyropus) [11]; A. capra (4.7%, 27/576), A. bovis (2.3%, 13/576), APL clade A (1.4%, 11/576), and APL clade B (0.5%, 3/576) from ticks parasitizing cattle [12]; A. bovis (2.5%, 1/40 pools) from ticks parasitizing native Korean goats [13]; A. capra (0.4%, 5/1219) and A. bovis (1.0%, 12/1219) from cattle [21]; A. phagocytophilum (2.1%, 16/764) and APL clade A (2.6%, 20/764) from cattle [25]; A. phagocytophilum (2.6%, 13/510) from dogs [26]; A. phagocytophilum (0.2%, 1/627) from horses [27]; A. phagocytophilum (1.8%, 31/1696) and A. bovis (1.7%, 29/1696) from horses [28]; and A. phagocytophilum in patients and biting ticks [29]. Analyses of the nucleotide sequences from a variety of genes have been used to report the genetic diversity of the genus Anaplasma [4]. For example, 16S rRNA gene analysis are well supported by comparable groESL clades, as well as biological and antigenic features. The groESL sequences provide support for the divisions shown by the 16S rRNA gene sequences and provide evidence of polymorphisms that may be accidental or may show subtleties of evolutionary selection. Therefore, the current analysis of the 16S rRNA gene may be supported by additional sequence analyses of conserved and semi-conserved genes (such as gltA), whole genome analysis, and analysis of new strains [30]. Because only the 16S rRNA gene was used in this study, there are limitations to the molecular identification of Anaplasma species. In the present study, we detected four Anaplasma species from questing ticks by amplifying the 16S rRNA gene, including A. phagocytophilum (0.6% MIR), APL clade B (0.1% MIR), A. capra (0.1% MIR), and A. bovis (0.1% MIR). Among them, A. phagocytophilum (85.2%) was the most prevalent; seven Haemaphysalis spp. larvae, one H. longicornis adult, nine H. longicornis nymphs, three I. nipponensis adults, and three I. nipponensis nymphs were detected. A. phagocytophilum is a serious zoonotic pathogen in humans and animals [29]. A. capra was detected in one adult H. longicornis. In 2018, A. capra was detected for the first time in Korean cattle in the GN province [21]. A. capra is a potential zoonotic pathogen from ticks parasitizing animals in the Republic of Korea. However, it remains unclear whether A. capra is pathogenic to humans and animals; therefore, additional research is needed to clarify the pathogenicity of this emerging Anaplasma species. A. bovis (one H. longicornis adult) and APL clade B (one H. longicornis nymph and one Haemaphysalis spp. larva) were also detected but were not considered zoonotic pathogens. Further studies are needed to determine the pathogenicity of the Anaplasma species.

Our study reveals the geographical and temporal distribution of several tick species and their Anaplasma infections. In this study, five species of ticks including unidentified Haemaphysalis species were collected in 12 survey sites of Gyeongsang, but their prevalence was somewhat different according to the tick species and survey sites. As mentioned above, four different Anaplasma species were previously detected in several animals, humans, and animal blood-feeding ticks. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to investigate the presence of A. phagocytophilum, APL clade B, A. bovis, and A. capra in questing unfed ticks in an environment near animal farms in the Republic of Korea. Further, the incidence rate (6.8%) of four Anaplasma spp. was not as high in tick pools. However, the results of this study may offer a basis for future epidemiological research and risk assessment of tick-borne diseases. Further studies in larger regions with livestock, ticks, and wild animals are also needed to understand biology of tick-pathogen infections and to prevent the transmission of tick-borne diseases and establish effective control strategies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.S.C., S.-H.L., S.S. and D.K.; formal analysis, S.B., K.-T.K., M.J. and S.-K.L.; investigation, M.-G.S., H.L., B.A., K.A. and S.-H.L.; data curation, K.-Y.E.; writing—original draft preparation, M.-G.S. and H.L.; writing—review and editing, M.-G.S., S.B., K.-T.K., M.J., S.-K.L., O.-D.K. and D.K.; supervision, D.K.; funding acquisition, Y.S.C. and D.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Data Availability Statement

Data supporting the conclusions of this article are included within the article. The newly generated sequences were submitted to the GenBank database under the accession numbers OP535541–OP535545. The datasets used and/or analyzed during the present study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1. Map of 12 survey sites in Gyeongsang, Republic of Korea, showing six [Bonghwa (BH), Chilgok (CG), Gumi (GM), Uiseong (US), Yeongcheon (YC), and Yeongdeok (YD)] in Gyeongbuk (GB), four [Geochang (GC), two in Goseong (GS) and Haman (HA)] in Gyeongnam (GN), and two in Ulsan Metropolitan City (UMC).

Figure 2. (a) Temporal distribution of the total (nymphs, adults [males and females], and larvae) population of ticks. (b) The number of positive tick pools and minimum infection rate (MIR) of Anaplasma-infected ticks collected in the Republic of Korea. MIR = (number of positive pools of ticks/total number of ticks tested × 100).

Figure 3. Phylogenetic tree of Anaplasma spp. based on sequences of the 16S rRNA gene. The tree was constructed using the maximum likelihood method with the Kimura two-parameter distance model. Black arrows show the sequences analyzed in the present study. GenBank accession numbers of other sequences presented with the sequence name. Anaplasma sp. * deposited in the GenBank as A. phagocytophilum. Numbers on the branches correspond to mean bootstrap support at 1000 replicates. The scale and the scale bar show phylogenetic distance. A and B, two clades of Anaplasma phagocytophilum-like Anaplasma spp.

Table 1

Tick collection sites in the Republic of Korea.

Region		GPS Coordinates
Gyeongbuk (GB)	Bonghwa (BH)	36°53′35.55″ N 128°38′44.47″ E
	Chilgok (CG)	36°00′58.62″ N 128°29′09.54″ E
	Gumi (GM)	36°19′41.85″ N 128°16′32.10″ E
	Uiseong (US)	36°25′57.05″ N 128°44′44.82″ E
	Yeongcheon (YC)	35°50′44.46″ N 128°59′02.38″ E
	Yeongdeok (YD)	36°20′16.97″ N 129°21′57.81″ E
Gyeongnam (GN)	Geochang (GC)	35°47′35.23″ N 127°57′50.43″ E
	Goseong (GS)	35°00′04.13″ N 128°16′17.48″ E
	Goseong (GS)	35°00′06.78″ N 128°15′17.83″ E
	Haman (HA)	35°20′13.90″ N 128°34′06.50″ E
Ulsan Metropolitan City (UMC)		35°30′51.46″ N 129°10′03.78″ E
		35°32′18.93″ N 129°10′18.64″ E

Table 2

Distribution of tick species according to the region and developmental stage in the Republic of Korea.

Species	Stage	No. of Ticks Collected by Region 1										Total
		GB						GN			UMC
		BH	CG	GM	US	YC	YD	GC	GS	HA
Haemaphysalis sp.	Larva	100	112	120	150	60	40	150	154	90	200	1176
Haemaphysalis longicornis	Nymph	201	234	181	170	145	150	130	510	371	258	2350
	Adult (M) 2	3	2	1	3	1	1	1	7	3	1	23
	Adult (F) 2	2	1	2	3	1	2	3	7	7	4	32
	Subtotal	206	237	184	176	147	153	134	524	381	263	2405
Haemaphysalis flava	Nymph	44	8	7	8	8	8	0	89	24	2	198
	Adult (M)	1	1	4	0	5	1	0	1	5	0	18
	Adult (F)	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1
	Subtotal	46	9	11	8	13	9	0	90	29	2	217
Ixodes nipponensis	Larva	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Nymph	0	2	3	3	1	0	0	0	2	0	11
	Adult (M)	0	3	3	0	2	0	0	0	3	0	11
	Adult (F)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Subtotal	0	5	6	3	3	0	0	0	5	0	22
Amblyomma testudinarium	Larva	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Nymph	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	4	0	0	4
	Adult (M)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Adult (F)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
	Subtotal	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	5	0	0	5
Total		352	363	321	337	223	202	284	773	505	465	3825

¹ Among 10 regions, the six survey sites in Gyeongbuk (GB) were Bonghwa (BH), Chilgok (CG), Gumi (GM), Uiseong (US), Yeongcheon (YC), and Yeongdeok (YD); the four survey sites in Gyeongnam (GN) were Geochang (GC), two in Goseong (GS), and Haman (HA); and the two survey sites were Ulsan Metropolitan City (UMC). ² M, male; F, female.

Table 3

Anaplasma prevalence in ticks based on tick species, developmental stage, and region.

Species	Stage	Tested Tick (Pool) 2	No. Positive Tick Pool/Tick Pool Tested in a Region 1										Total	MIR 3	p-Value 4
			GB						GN			UMC
			BH	CG	GM	US	YC	YD	GC	GS	HA
Haemaphysalis sp.	Larva	1176 (31)	0/3	1/3	1/3	0/3	0/2	0/2	2/4	2/4	0/2	2/5	8/31	0.7	<0.0001
Haemaphysalis longicornis	Nymph	2350 (239)	0/21	2/24	0/19	2/17	0/15	1/15	0/13	1/51	1/38	3/26	10/239	0.4
	Adult (M) 5	23 (23)	0/3	0/2	0/1	0/3	0/1	0/1	0/1	0/7	0/3	0/1	0/23	0
	Adult (F) 5	32 (32)	0/2	0/1	1/2	0/3	0/1	0/2	0/3	1/7	1/7	0/4	3/32	9.4
	Subtotal	2405 (294)	0/26	2/27	1/22	2/23	0/17	1/18	0/17	2/65	2/48	3/31	13/294	0.5
Haemaphysalis flava	Nymph	198 (28)	0/5	0/2	0/3	0/1	0/2	0/1	0	0/10	0/3	0/1	0/28	0
	Adult (M)	18 (18)	0/1	0/1	0/4	0	0/5	0/1	0	0/1	0/5	0	0/18	0
	Adult (F)	1 (1)	0/1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0/1	0
	Subtotal	217 (47)	0/7	0/3	0/7	0/1	0/7	0/2	0	0/11	0/8	0/1	0/47	0
Ixodes nipponensis	Larva	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Nymph	11 (9)	0	0/2	2/2	0/3	0/1	0	0	0	1/1	0	3/9	27.3
	Adult (M)	11 (11)	0	1/3	0/3	0	0/2	0	0	0	2/3	0	3/11	27.3
	Adult (F)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Subtotal	22 (20)	0	1/5	2/5	0/3	0/3	0	0	0	3/4	0	6/20	27.3
Amblyomma testudinarium	Larva	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Nymph	4 (2)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0/2	0	0	0/2	0
	Adult (M)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Adult (F)	1 (1)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0/1	0	0	0/1	0
	Subtotal	5 (3)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0/3	0	0	0/3	0
Total		3825 (395)	0/36	4/38	4/37	2/30	0/29	1/22	2/21	4/83	5/62	5/37	27/395	0.7

¹ Among 10 regions, six survey sites were in Gyeongbuk (GB) were Bonghwa (BH), Chilgok (CG), Gumi (GM), Uiseong (US), Yeongcheon (YC), and Yeongdeok (YD); four survey sites were in Gyeongnam (GN) were Geochang (GC), two in Goseong (GS), and Haman (HA); and two survey sites were in Ulsan Metropolitan City (UMC). ² Adult ticks were not pooled. ³ MIR, minimum infection rate (number of positive pools of ticks total number of ticks tested × 100). ⁴ Significant (p < 0.05) correlation with infection. ⁵ M, male; F, female.

Table 4

The minimum infection rate of Anaplasma species in the Republic of Korea.

Species	No. of Positive Tick Pool/MIR 2
	Larva	Nymph	Adult	Total
	(n = 1176)	(n = 2563)	(n = 86)	(n = 3825)
Anaplasma phagocytophilum	7/0.6	12/0.5	4/4.7	23/0.6
APL 1 clade B	1/0.1	1/0.1	0	2/0.1
Anaplasma capra	0	0	1/1.2	1/0.1
Anaplasma bovis	0	0	1/1.2	1/0.1
Total	8/0.7	13/0.5	6/7.0	27/0.7

¹ APL, Anaplasma phagocytophilum-like Anaplasma spp. ² MIR, minimum infection rate (number of positive pools of ticks total number of ticks tested × 100).

References

1. Baneth, G. Tick-borne infections of animals and humans: A common ground. Int. J. Parasitol.; 2014; 44, pp. 591-596. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpara.2014.03.011] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24846527]

2. Parola, P.; Raoult, D. Ticks and tickborne bacterial diseases in humans: An emerging infectious threat. Clin. Infect. Dis.; 2001; 32, pp. 897-928. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/319347] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11247714]

3. Kim-Jeon, M.D.; Jegal, S.; Jun, H.; Jung, H.; Park, S.H.; Ahn, S.K.; Lee, J.; Gong, Y.W.; Joo, K.; Kwon, M.J. et al. Four year surveillance of the vector hard ticks for sfts, Ganghwa-do, Republic of Korea. Korean J. Parasitol.; 2019; 57, pp. 691-698. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3347/kjp.2019.57.6.691]

4. Battilani, M.; De Arcangeli, S.; Balboni, A.; Dondi, F. Genetic diversity and molecular epidemiology of Anaplasma. Infect. Genet. Evol.; 2017; 49, pp. 195-211. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2017.01.021]

5. Woldehiwet, Z. The natural history of Anaplasma phagocytophilum. Vet. Parasitol.; 2010; 167, pp. 108-122. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2009.09.013]

6. Munderloh, U.G.; Lynch, M.J.; Herron, M.J.; Palmer, A.T.; Kurtti, T.J.; Nelson, R.D.; Goodman, J.L. Infection of endothelial cells with Anaplasma marginale and A. phagocytophilum. Vet. Microbiol.; 2004; 101, pp. 53-64. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2004.02.011] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15201033]

7. Sreekumar, C.; Anandan, R.; Balasundaram, S.; Rajavelu, G. Morphology and staining characteristics of Ehrlichia bovis. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis.; 1996; 19, pp. 79-83. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0147-9571(95)00011-9]

8. Uilenberg, G.; van Vorstenbosch, C.J.; Perié, N.M. Blood parasites of sheep in the Netherlands. I. Anaplasma mesaeterum sp.n. (Rickettsiales, Anaplasmataceae). Vet. Q.; 1979; 1, pp. 14-22. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01652176.1979.9693716]

9. Li, H.; Zheng, Y.C.; Ma, L.; Jia, N.; Jiang, B.G.; Jiang, R.R.; Huo, Q.B.; Wang, Y.W.; Liu, H.B.; Chu, Y.L. et al. Human infection with a novel tick-borne Anaplasma species in China: A surveillance study. Lancet Infect. Dis.; 2015; 15, pp. 663-670. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(15)70051-4]

10. Ben Said, M.; Belkahia, H.; El Mabrouk, N.; Saidani, M.; Ben Hassen, M.; Alberti, A.; Zobba, R.; Bouattour, S.; Bouattour, A.; Messadi, L. Molecular typing and diagnosis of Anaplasma spp. closely related to Anaplasma phagocytophilum in ruminants from Tunisia. Ticks Tick Borne Dis.; 2017; 8, pp. 412-422. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ttbdis.2017.01.005]

11. Seo, M.G.; Kwon, O.D.; Kwak, D. Molecular detection of Rickettsia raoultii, Rickettsia tamurae, and associated pathogens from ticks parasitizing water deer (Hydropotes inermis argyropus) in South Korea. Ticks Tick Borne Dis.; 2021; 12, 101712. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ttbdis.2021.101712] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33819743]

12. Seo, M.G.; Kwon, O.D.; Kwak, D. Genotypic analysis of piroplasms and associated pathogens from ticks infesting cattle in Korea. Microorganisms; 2020; 8, 728. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8050728] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32414173]

13. Seo, M.G.; Kwon, O.D.; Kwak, D. Molecular and phylogenetic analysis of tick-borne pathogens in ticks parasitizing native Korean goats (Capra hircus coreanae) in South Korea. Pathogens; 2020; 9, 71. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pathogens9020071]

14. Kim, C.M.; Yi, Y.H.; Yu, D.H.; Lee, M.J.; Cho, M.R.; Desai, A.R.; Shringi, S.; Klein, T.A.; Kim, H.C.; Song, J.W. et al. Tick-borne rickettsial pathogens in ticks and small mammals in Korea. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.; 2006; 72, pp. 5766-5776. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00431-06]

15. Lu, M.; Tian, J.; Pan, X.; Qin, X.; Wang, W.; Chen, J.; Guo, W.; Li, K. Identification of Rickettsia spp., Anaplasma spp., and an Ehrlichia canis-like agent in Rhipicephalus microplus from Southwest and South-Central China. Ticks Tick Borne Dis.; 2022; 13, 101884. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ttbdis.2021.101884]

16. Glatz, M.; Müllegger, R.R.; Maurer, F.; Fingerle, V.; Achermann, Y.; Wilske, B.; Bloemberg, G.V. Detection of Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis, Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato genospecies and Anaplasma phagocytophilum in a tick population from Austria. Ticks Tick Borne Dis.; 2014; 5, pp. 139-144. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ttbdis.2013.10.006] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24345313]

17. Chilton, N.B.; Dergousoff, S.J.; Lysyk, T.J. Prevalence of Anaplasma bovis in Canadian populations of the rocky mountain wood tick, Dermacentor andersoni. Ticks Tick Borne Dis.; 2018; 9, pp. 1528-1531. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ttbdis.2018.07.003]

18. Jung, M.; Kho, J.-W.; Lee, W.-G.; Roh, J.Y.; Lee, D.-H. Seasonal occurrence of Haemaphysalis longicornis (Acari: Ixodidae) and Haemaphysalis flava, vectors of severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome (SFTS) in South Korea. J. Med. Entomol.; 2019; 56, pp. 1139-1144. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jme/tjz033]

19. Yamaguti, N.; Tipton, V.J.; Keegan, H.L.; Toshioka, S. Ticks of Japan, Korea, and the Ryukyu Islands. Brigh. Young Univ. Sci. Bull. Biol. Ser.; 1971; 15, 1.

20. Barlough, J.E.; Madigan, J.E.; DeRock, E.; Bigornia, L. Nested polymerase chain reaction for detection of Ehrlichia equi genomic DNA in horses and ticks (Ixodes pacificus). Vet. Parasitol.; 1996; 63, pp. 319-329. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-4017(95)00904-3]

21. Seo, M.G.; Ouh, I.O.; Lee, H.; Geraldino, P.J.L.; Rhee, M.H.; Kwon, O.D.; Kwak, D. Differential identification of Anaplasma in cattle and potential of cattle to serve as reservoirs of Anaplasma capra, an emerging tick-borne zoonotic pathogen. Vet. Microbiol.; 2018; 226, pp. 15-22. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2018.10.008]

22. Seo, M.G.; Noh, B.E.; Lee, H.S.; Kim, T.K.; Song, B.G.; Lee, H.I. Nationwide temporal and geographical distribution of tick populations and phylogenetic analysis of severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome virus in ticks in Korea, 2020. Microorganisms; 2021; 9, 1630. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9081630] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34442708]

23. Velusamy, R.; Rani, N.; Ponnudurai, G.; Harikrishnan, T.J.; Anna, T.; Arunachalam, K.; Senthilvel, K.; Anbarasi, P. Influence of season, age and breed on prevalence of haemoprotozoan diseases in cattle of Tamil Nadu, India. Vet. World; 2014; 7, pp. 574-578. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2014.574-578]

24. Gilbert, L. The impacts of climate change on ticks and tick-borne disease risk. Annu. Rev. Entomol.; 2021; 66, pp. 373-388. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-052720-094533]

25. Seo, M.G.; Ouh, I.O.; Kwon, O.D.; Kwak, D. Molecular detection of Anaplasma phagocytophilum-like Anaplasma spp. and pathogenic A. Phagocytophilum in cattle from South Korea. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol.; 2018; 126, pp. 23-30. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2018.04.012] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29653174]

26. Seo, M.G.; Kwon, O.D.; Kwak, D. Molecular detection and phylogenetic analysis of canine tick-borne pathogens from Korea. Ticks Tick Borne Dis.; 2020; 11, 101357. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ttbdis.2019.101357] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31839473]

27. Seo, M.G.; Ouh, I.O.; Choi, E.; Kwon, O.D.; Kwak, D. Molecular detection and phylogenetic analysis of Anaplasma phagocytophilum in horses in Korea. Korean J. Parasitol.; 2018; 56, pp. 559-565. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3347/kjp.2018.56.6.559]

28. Seo, M.-G.; Ouh, I.-O.; Kwak, D. Detection and genotypic analysis of Anaplasma bovis and A. phagocytophilum in horse blood and lung tissue. Int. J. Mol. Sci.; 2023; 24, 3239. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms24043239]

29. Lee, S.H.; Shin, N.R.; Kim, C.M.; Park, S.; Yun, N.R.; Kim, D.M.; Jung, D.S. First identification of Anaplasma phagocytophilum in both a biting tick Ixodes nipponensis and a patient in Korea: A case report. BMC Infect. Dis.; 2020; 20, 826. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-020-05522-5]

30. Dumler, J.S.; Barbet, A.F.; Bekker, C.P.; Dasch, G.A.; Palmer, G.H.; Ray, S.C.; Rikihisa, Y.; Rurangirwa, F.R. Reorganization of genera in the families Rickettsiaceae and Anaplasmataceae in the order Rickettsiales: Unification of some species of Ehrlichia with Anaplasma, Cowdria with Ehrlichia and Ehrlichia with Neorickettsia, descriptions of six new species combinations and designation of Ehrlichia equi and ‘HGE agent’ as subjective synonyms of Ehrlichia phagocytophila. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol.; 2001; 51, pp. 2145-2165. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1099/00207713-51-6-2145]