Detection of Tick-Borne Pathogens in Ticks from Cattle in Western Highlands of Cameroon
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 7, 2026

Feeding of Ticks on Animals for Transmission and Xenodiagnosis in Lyme Disease Research
Published on: August 31, 2013
Yannick Ngnindji-Youdje1,2,3, Adama Zan Diarra1,2, Michel Lontsi-Demano3
1Aix Marseille Univ, IRD, AP-HM, SSA, VITROME, 13005 Marseille, France.
Abstract:
This study aimed to detect and identify microorganisms in ticks collected in the Western Highlands of Cameroon. Quantitative real-time and standard PCR assays, coupled with sequencing, were used. A total of 944 ticks collected from cattle in five distinct sites in Cameroon were selected for the analyses. They belonged to five genera (Amblyomma, Hyalomma, Rhipicephalus, Haemaphysalis, and Ixodes) and twelve species. Real-time PCR revealed that 23% (n = 218) of the ticks were positive for Rickettsia spp., 15% (n = 141) for bacteria of the Anaplasmataceae family, 3% (n = 29) for Piroplasmida, 0.5% (n = 5) for Coxiella burnetii, 0.4% (n = 4) for Borrelia spp., and 0.2% (n = 2) for Bartonella spp. The co-infection rate (3.4%, n = 32) involved mainly Rickettsia spp. and Anaplasmataceae. Of the Rickettsia spp. positive ticks, the targeted PCR and sequencing yielded Rickettsia africae (78.9%), Rickettsia aeschlimannii (6.4%), Rickettsia massiliae (7.8%), Candidatus Rickettsia barbariae (0.9%), and Rickettsia sp. (0.9%). Anaplasmataceae included Anaplasma marginale (4.3%), Anaplasma platys (1.4%), Anaplasma centrale (0.7%), Ehrlichia ruminantium (0.7%), Wolbachia sp., Candidatus Ehrlichia rustica (13.5%), Candidatus Ehrlichia urmitei (7%), and an uncultured Ehrlichia sp. (4.2%). Borrelia theileri was identified in one Rhipicephalus microplus tick. Unfortunately, Piroplasmida could not be identified to the species level. This study demonstrates that in Cameroon, ticks harbour a wide variety of microorganisms and present a risk of zoonotic diseases.

