Sympatric <i>Ixodes trianguliceps</i> and <i>Ixodes ricinus</i> Ticks Feeding on Field Voles ( <i>Microtus agrestis</i> ): Potential for Increased Risk of <i>Anaplasma phagocytophilum</i> in the United Kingdom?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance of wild rodents as reservoirs of zoonotic tick-borne pathogens is considered low in the United Kingdom because, in studies to date, those parasitized by exophilic Ixodes ricinus ticks carry almost exclusively larvae and thus have a minor role in transmission cycles. In a cross-sectional study, 11 (6.7%) of 163 field voles (Microtus agrestis) captured at field sites in Northern England were PCR-positive for Anaplasma phagocytophilum. The voles were found to act as hosts for both larval and nymphal I. ricinus and all stages of the nidicolous tick I. trianguliceps, and eight individuals were infested with ticks of both species at the same time. Two of 158 larval and one of 13 nymphal I. ricinus, as well as one of 14 larval and one of 15 nymphal I. trianguliceps collected from the rodents were PCR-positive. These findings suggest that habitats where field voles are abundant in the United Kingdom may pose a risk of A. phagocytophilum infection because (i) field voles, the most abundant terrestrial mammal in the United Kingdom, may be a competent reservoir; (ii) the field voles are hosts for both nymphal and larval ixodid ticks so they could support endemic cycles of A. phagocytophilum; and (iii) they are hosts for nidicolous I. trianguliceps, which may alone maintain endemic cycles, and exophilic I. ricinus ticks, which could act as a bridge vector and transmit infections to humans and domesticated animals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".