Ticks and Tick-Borne Pathogens Associated with Feral Swine in Edwards Plateau and Gulf Prairies and Marshes Ecoregions of Texas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feral swine (Sus scrofa domesticus) are spreading across North America at an alarming rate. Four Canadian provinces and 39 states within the continental United States now report standing populations of feral pigs. Estimates place the number of feral hogs in Texas >2M, accounting for more than half of the United States population. It is known that feral swine impact local ecology following establishment, with regard to shifts in local flora and fauna. \n \nThe overall objective of this research was to investigate the role of feral swine in tick-borne pathogen transmission in Texas. The underpinning objectives were to establish host records for tick species parasitizing feral swine, determine the species assemblages associated with feral swine among different ecoregions of Texas, determine by immunoassay to which tick-borne bacteria feral pigs were being exposed, and detect the DNA of tick-borne bacteria by polymerase chain reaction assay in the event of poor or early immune response by the host. \n \nFeral pigs (N=432) were harvested from June 2008 to June 2010 using box and corral traps and by aerial gunning. Seven species of ticks, Amblyomma americanum, A. cajennense, A. maculatum, Dermacentor albipictus, D. halli, and D. variabilis; and Ixodes scapularis, were collected. Immature stages of A. cajennense and A. americanum were collected as well. All classes of feral pigs, gender by age, were infested with ticks. \n \nSerum was collected through a multi-organizational effort from 2006 to 2010 and tested by ELISA for previous exposure to tick-borne pathogens in the genera Rickettsia and Ehrlichia (N=888) and Borrelia (N=849). Prevalence percentages by immunoassay were 27.59 percent, 13.18 percent and 2.12 percent for Rickettsia, Ehrlichia, and Borrelia, respectively. Samples positive by ELISA for exposure to Borrelia were further screened by Western Blot for exposure to Borrelia turicatae. The results were equivocal in most cases. Blood samples (N=233) were collected from 2008 to 2010 and analyzed by polymerase chain reaction for the detection of the DNA of these same three genera of bacteria. Two of the samples were positive by PCR for the presence of Borrelia DNA. \n \nTexas feral swine are serving as hosts for at least seven species of ticks and are interacting with tick-borne pathogen transmissions cycles in Texas.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".