Multiple species of canine Rhipicephalus complex detected in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple species of brown dog ticks have been described in the United States and the Caribbean: Rhipicephalus sanguineus sensu stricto (s.s.), also referred to as temperate lineage; R. linnaei (=tropical lineage); and R. rutilus (=southeastern Europe lineage) However, Rhipicephalus spp. are rarely recovered from dogs in Canada. To identify canine Rhipicephalus spp. in Canada and determine the influence of travel history on infestation, ticks morphologically identified as brown dog ticks (n = 93) collected from dogs (n = 13) in British Columbia, Ontario, and Québec, Canada were submitted with information regarding each dog's geographic location and travel history. Nucleic acid was extracted from available individual ticks (n = 86) and PCR was used to amplify sequences of a 12S rRNA mitochondrial gene fragment. Sequences were compared to published reference sequences of known species and a phylogenetic tree constructed. Twenty-three ticks (26.7%) consistent with R. linnaei were identified on seven dogs, including dogs from British Columbia and Ontario, with a median infestation intensity of 2 ticks/dog (mean = 3.3 ticks/dog). Sixty-one ticks (70.9%) consistent with R. sanguineus s.s. were found on two dogs from Québec and Ontario (median = 30.5 ticks/dog; mean = 30.5 ticks/dog). One dog from Ontario was infested with R. rutilus (n = 2) (2.3%). Species could not be determined for ticks from three dogs from Ontario and Québec. Most infested dogs (10/13; 76.9%) had a recent (< 1 month) international travel history. These data confirm that multiple species of canine Rhipicephalus are occasionally found in Canada and suggest introduction following travel is likely responsible for these infestations. Further analysis will allow for greater understanding of the range and diversity of canine Rhipicephalus spp. in North America and may reveal risk factors for infestation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".