Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 4, Number 2—June 1998

Rickettsial Pathogens and Their Arthropod Vectors

Abdu F. Azad*Comments to Author  and Charles B. Beard†
Author affiliations: *University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; †Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Main Article

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).

Main Article

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.