Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Brown dog ticks and camel ticks in Riyadh show low disease risk
By Chandra, Shona et al.·Published in Folia parasitologica·2019·Sydney School of Veterinary Science, United Kingdom·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Rhipicephalus sanguineus sensu lato from dogs and dromedary camels in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: low prevalence of vector-borne pathogens in dogs detected using multiplexed tandem PCR panel.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of free-roaming dogs in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, were found to have a low number of brown dog ticks, which are known to carry diseases. Out of 186 ticks collected from both dogs and camels, only a small percentage were identified as the brown dog tick, while most were a different type called Hyalomma. Testing of dog blood showed that only a few dogs had signs of tick-borne infections, with a prevalence of less than 6%. This suggests that the low number of brown dog ticks in the area may help keep the risk of tick-borne diseases low for dogs in Saudi Arabia.
People also search for: dog ticks in Saudi Arabia · brown dog tick symptoms · canine vector-borne diseases · how to treat dog tick bites · Hyalomma ticks in dogs
Abstract
Despite the global distribution of the brown dog tick, Rhipicephalus sanguineus (Latreille, 1806) sensu lato (s.l.), limited information exists about their identity from the Arabian Peninsula. Ticks from free roaming urban dogs and dromedary camels in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia were morphologically identified, confirmed with scanning electron microscopy and characterised at mitochondrial DNA (cox1, 12S rDNA and 16S rDNA). A total of 186 ticks were collected from 65 free roaming dogs (n = 73) and 84 dromedary camels (n = 113). Morphologically, 5.9% (11/186) were R. sanguineus s.l. and Hyalomma spp. (93.5%, 174/186). From within R. sanguineus s.l., the presence of Rhipicephalus cf. camicasi Morel, Mouchet et Rodhain, 1976 (1 dog, 2 camels) and Rhipicephalus turanicus Pomerantsev, 1936 (1 camel) is reported. The examined R. cf. camicasi form a sister group to R. sanguineus s.l. tropical lineage at all DNA markers. Dogs were parasitised by Hyalomma dromedarii Koch, 1844 (n = 59), Hyalomma impeltatum Schulze et Schlottke, 1930 (n = 1), Hyalomma excavatum Koch, 1844 (n = 2), Hyalomma turanicum Pomerantsev, 1946 (n = 1) and Hyalomma rufipes Koch,1844 (n = 1). DNA from dog blood (n = 53) from Riyadh confirmed a low prevalence of canine vector-borne pathogens that does not exceed 5.7% for Babesia spp., Mycoplasma spp., Anaplasma platys, Hepatozoon canis and Ehrlichia canis using multiplexed tandem PCR (MT-PCR) and diagnostic PCR. Low prevalence of R. sanguineus s.l. on dogs likely contributed to the low level of canine vector-borne pathogens in Saudi Arabia. We demonstrate that dogs in the central Arabian Peninsula are more commonly parasitised by Hyalomma spp. than R. sanguineus s.l.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31332102/