Stefania Porcelli, Pierre Lucien Deshuillers, Sara Moutailler, Anne-Claire Lagrée
{"title":"Meta-analysis of tick-borne and other pathogens: Co-infection or co-detection? That is the question","authors":"Stefania Porcelli, Pierre Lucien Deshuillers, Sara Moutailler, Anne-Claire Lagrée","doi":"10.1016/j.crpvbd.2024.100219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This literature-based review aims to distinguish studies describing co-infection with tick-borne pathogens from those describing co-detection or co-exposure scenarios. The review analyzed 426 papers and identified only 20 with direct evidence of co-infection in humans and animals, highlighting the need for accurate terminology and proposing definitions for co-infection, co-exposure and co-detection. Current diagnostic methods - including serology and molecular techniques - have limitations in accurately identifying real co-infections, often leading to misinterpretation. The review highlights the importance of developing laboratory models to better understand tick-borne pathogen interactions, and advocates improved diagnostic strategies for tick screening by testing their RNA for co-infections. Moreover, the establishment of additional animal models for pathogen co-infection will help develop our understanding of selection pressures for various traits of tick-borne pathogens (such as virulence and transmissibility) over time. This comprehensive analysis provides insights into the complexity of tick-borne pathogen co-infections and calls for precise diagnostic terms to improve the clarity and effectiveness of future research.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":94311,"journal":{"name":"Current research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667114X24000505","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PARASITOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This literature-based review aims to distinguish studies describing co-infection with tick-borne pathogens from those describing co-detection or co-exposure scenarios. The review analyzed 426 papers and identified only 20 with direct evidence of co-infection in humans and animals, highlighting the need for accurate terminology and proposing definitions for co-infection, co-exposure and co-detection. Current diagnostic methods - including serology and molecular techniques - have limitations in accurately identifying real co-infections, often leading to misinterpretation. The review highlights the importance of developing laboratory models to better understand tick-borne pathogen interactions, and advocates improved diagnostic strategies for tick screening by testing their RNA for co-infections. Moreover, the establishment of additional animal models for pathogen co-infection will help develop our understanding of selection pressures for various traits of tick-borne pathogens (such as virulence and transmissibility) over time. This comprehensive analysis provides insights into the complexity of tick-borne pathogen co-infections and calls for precise diagnostic terms to improve the clarity and effectiveness of future research.