Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Brief communication
  • Open access
  • Published:

Co-exposure to Anaplasma spp., Coxiella burnetii and tick-borne encephalitis virus in sheep in southern Germany

Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica volume 65, Article number: 6 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

The intracellular bacteria Anaplasma spp. and Coxiella burnetii and the tick-borne encephalitis virus (TBEV) are tick-transmitted pathogens circulating in the southern German sheep population. Knowledge of interaction among Anaplasma spp., C. burnetii and TBEV in sheep is lacking, but together they might promote and reinforce disease progression. The current study aimed to identify co-exposure of sheep to Anaplasma spp., C. burnetii and TBEV. For this purpose, 1,406 serum samples from 36 sheep flocks located in both southern German federal states, Baden-Wuerttemberg and Bavaria, were analysed by ELISAs to determine the antibody levels of the three pathogens. Inconclusive and positive results from the TBEV ELISA were additionally confirmed by a serum neutralisation assay. The proportion of sheep with antibodies against Anaplasma spp. (47.2%), C. burnetii (3.7%) and TBEV (4.7%) differed significantly. Significantly more flocks with Anaplasma spp. seropositive sheep (91.7%) were detected than flocks with antibodies against TBEV (58.3%) and C. burnetii (41.7%), but there was no significant difference between the number of flocks which contained TBEV and C. burnetii seropositive sheep. Seropositivity against at least two pathogens was detected in 4.7% of sheep from 20 flocks. Most co-exposed sheep had antibodies against Anaplasma spp./TBEV (n = 36), followed by Anaplasma spp./C. burnetii (n = 27) and Anaplasma spp./C. burnetii/TBEV (n = 2). Only one sheep showed an immune response against C. burnetii and TBEV. Flocks with sheep being positive against more than one pathogen were widely distributed throughout southern Germany. The descriptive analysis revealed no association between the antibody response of the three pathogens at animal level. Taking the flocks as a cluster variable into account, the exposure to TBEV reduced the probability of identifying C. burnetii antibodies in sheep significantly (odds ratio 0.46; 95% confidence interval 0.24–0.85), but the reason for this is unknown. The presence of Anaplasma spp. antibodies did not influence the detection of antibodies against C. burnetii and TBEV. Studies under controlled conditions are necessary to evaluate any possible adverse impact of co-exposure to tick-borne pathogens on sheep health. This can help to clarify rare disease patterns. Research in this field may also support the One Health approach due to the zoonotic potential of Anaplasma spp., C. burnetii and TBEV.

Findings

The intracellular bacteria Coxiella burnetii, Anaplasma phagocytophilum and Anaplasma ovis, and the tick-borne encephalitis virus (TBEV, Flaviviridae) are tick-transmitted pathogens and circulate in sheep flocks in the southern German federal states, Baden-Wuerttemberg (BW) and Bavaria (BAV) [1,2,3]. These pathogens also have a zoonotic potential and can cause illness in humans, such as flu-like symptoms and neurological disorders [4,5,6,7]. The main vector of A. phagocytophilum and TBEV is Ixodes ricinus and this tick species is widely distributed throughout Germany [4, 8, 9]. C. burnetii has also been found in I. ricinus [10], but Dermacentor marginatus is considered to transmit this pathogen to sheep [11, 12]. The existence of D. marginatus is limited to certain areas in southern Germany [8]. Recently, A. ovis was identified in engorged D. marginatus from Bavarian sheep, but this does not prove its vector competence, and solid data about A. ovis vectors are still lacking [3]. The clinical signs of these tick-borne pathogens are diverse in sheep. An infection with C. burnetii can result in reproductive disorders [5]. Haemolytic anaemia is caused by A. ovis, whereas an A. phagocytophilum infection results in tick-borne fever [13]. Moreover, A. phagocytophilum is an immunosuppressive agent and negatively affects the function of neutrophils, resulting in a higher susceptibility to secondary infections [14]. TBEV infection seems to be asymptomatic, but neurological signs in sheep have been reported [2, 15]. Concurrent infections of the louping ill virus (LIV, Flaviviridae) with A. phagocytophilum promote the onset of severe LIV-associated neurological disorders [16]. Furthermore, a dual infection of A. phagocytophilum and TBEV resulted in a significantly higher TBEV antibody response compared to a consecutive infection [15]. However, knowledge of interaction among Anaplasma spp., C. burnetii and TBEV in sheep is lacking, but together they might promote and reinforce disease progression.

The current study aimed to identify to which extent grazing sheep had antibodies against Anaplasma spp., C. burnetii and TBEV. For this purpose, 1,406 serum samples from 36 sheep flocks located in BW and BAV were analysed to detect antibodies against the three tick-borne pathogens. Initially, the blood samples were collected for a Q fever study, and the number of specimens required from each flock to estimate the positivity rate was calculated on the assumption of 3% expected prevalence, 95% confidence interval, 80% power and 5% precision [1]. A maximum of 44 animals per flock were sampled between November 2017 and June 2018. The blood sampling was performed in accordance with high ethical standards and approved by the federal state governments. The locations of the flocks are presented in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Location of 36 examined sheep flocks in southern Germany. Concurrent positive antibody levels against Anaplasma spp., Coxiella burnetii and tick-borne encephalitis virus were determined in individual sheep in two flocks (red). Co-exposure to two pathogens at animal level were identified in 18 sheep flocks (blue), whereas no co-exposed sheep were detected in 16 flocks (green). BW: Baden-Wuerttemberg, BAV: Bavaria

Full size image

Antibodies against Anaplasma spp., C. burnetii and TBEV were determined by three different commercial ELISAs in accordance with the manufacturers’ instructions and described in detail elsewhere [1, 17, 18]. An inhibition of ≥ 30% was assessed as positive for the Anaplasma spp. assay (Anaplasma Antibody Test Kit, cELISA v2, VMRD, Inc., Pullman, WA, USA), but this ELISA does not differentiate between antibodies against A. phagocytophilum and A. ovis. A sensitivity of 91.9% and a specificity of 86.9% were assumed according to Shabana et al. [19]. A S/P (%) > 40 for the C. burnetii ELISA was considered positive (Q Fever Antibody Test Kit, IDEXX Switzerland AG, Liebefeld, Switzerland), in accordance with the sensitivity and specificity of 100% each stated by the manufacturer. Regarding the TBEV ELISA (Immunozym® FSME IgG all Species, PROGEN Biotechnik GmbH, Heidelberg, Germany), the manufacturer specified samples with > 126 Vienna Units (VIEU)/mL as positive; values between 63 and 126 VIEU/mL were classified as inconclusive. A sensitivity of 97% and a specificity of 99% were assumed in accordance with the product information. The inconclusive and positive samples were confirmed with a serum neutralisation assay as recently described, and antibody titres of ≥ 1:40 were counted as positive [17].

The test results and their agreement were evaluated in descriptive tables. To determine the true prevalence at animal and flock level, the apparent prevalence was corrected for misclassification probabilities (sensitivity and specificity of the diagnostic tests) using the Rogan-Gladen estimator [20]. The prevalence of antibodies against more than one pathogen in the same individual or flock was also adjusted by correcting the test accuracies for parallel testing [21]. In addition, the proportion of positive antibody results of the three pathogens at animal and flock level was compared by Fisher’s exact test. Subsequently, a logistic regression that considered the antibody result of one pathogen as the outcome and the other pathogen as the risk factor as well as the flocks as a cluster variable, was performed for the binary test results at animal level. The results of the two antibody tests were analysed in a logistic regression model to detect a significant association between pathogen exposure. Odds ratios were calculated to determine the strength and direction of a possible association. The association of the test results at flock level was analysed using Fisher’s exact test. A P-value of < 0.05 was considered significant. For all calculations, the statistical software SAS (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) was used.

There was a significant difference among the results of true seroprevalence between Anaplasma spp., C. burnetii and TBEV at animal level (p < 0.05). Most sheep had antibodies against Anaplasma spp. (47.2%), followed by TBEV (4.7%) and C. burnetii (3.7%). Significantly more flocks with Anaplasma spp. seropositive sheep were detected (n = 33; 91.7%) compared to flocks being seropositive for TBEV (n = 21; 58.3%) and C. burnetii (n = 15; 41.7%) (p < 0.05), but there was no significant different between flocks which contained TBEV and C. burnetii seropositive sheep. Seropositivity against at least two pathogens was detected in 66 (4.7%) sheep from 20 flocks (55.6%). The flocks with co-exposed sheep were widely distributed throughout southern Germany. Details of sheep and flocks with antibodies against more than one of the pathogens are presented in Table 1; Fig. 1, respectively. The descriptive analysis revealed no association of the three pathogens at animal level (Table 2). Taking the flocks as a cluster variable into account, there was a significant association between presence of C. burnetii and TBEV antibodies. The exposure to TBEV reduced the probability of identifying C. burnetii antibodies in sheep by half (Table 3). The presence of Anaplasma spp. antibodies did not influence the antibody detection of C. burnetii and TBEV. Based on current knowledge, A. ovis appeared only locally in one sheep flock from northern Bavaria, but this flock did not participate in the current study [3]. Therefore, most Anaplasma spp. antibodies were possibly induced by A. phagocythophilum due to the wide dissemination in the German sheep population [3, 22, 23]. This was taken into account while interpreting the presented findings.

Table 1 Seropositivity of sheep against at least two tick-borne pathogens determined by serological assays
Full size table
Table 2 Association between antibodies against three tick-borne pathogens in sheep at animal level
Full size table
Table 3 Association between antibodies against three tick-borne pathogens in sheep at animal level with flock as a cluster variable
Full size table

The significant differences among antibody rates of Anaplasma spp., TBEV and C. burnetii at sheep level might correlate with the presence of the pathogens in ticks collected in southern Germany. Up to 8.3% of questing I. ricinus contained A. phagocytophilum [24], whereas the detection rate of TBEV ranged from 0 to 5.3% [25], and C. burnetii has been determined only in one engorged D. marginatus so far [12, 26]. Information about natural co-exposure with Anaplasma spp., C. burnetii and TBEV in sheep is extremely rare [27]. Significantly fewer sheep with C. burnetii antibodies were detected in flocks which also had sheep with antibodies against TBEV. Knowledge of interaction between both pathogens is missing, and we can only speculate about the possible reciprocal influence of both pathogens in sheep flocks. This observation needs further investigation in the future. The humoral immune response against Anaplasma spp., C. burnetii and TBEV lasts for several months in sheep [17, 28, 29]. Furthermore, co-infection with various pathogens were described for different tick species, but findings on the coincidental infection with Anaplasma spp., C. burnetii or TBEV are seldom in ticks [30,31,32]. Considering both these circumstances, we assume that natural exposure of sheep occurs through infestation of different ticks infected with one of the above-mentioned agents. In addition, infections with the pathogens might occur consecutively rather than at the same time. This is supported by previous findings of Paulsen et al. [15], who demonstrated that only a simultaneous infection of A. phagocytophilum and TBEV in lambs resulted in a significantly higher TBEV antibody response, but a consecutive infection had no influence on the antibody response of both pathogens. In the current study, the presence of Anaplasma spp. antibodies also did not influence the TBEV antibody detection at animal and flock level. Nevertheless, the number of lambs suffering from tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) seems to be on the increase in southern Germany [33], and the immunosuppressive impact of A. phagocytophilum should be investigated in lambs naturally infected with TBEV. Despite the fact that a detrimental influence was not confirmed after experimental infection with TBEV, the artificially infected lambs did not develop clinical signs of TBE [15]. Therefore, the outbreak of TBE in sheep appears to depend on as yet unknown factors.

The authors are aware of the limitations of the present study. The antibody response against the three tick-borne pathogens is the result of a natural exposure in the field in the past. Therefore, it is impossible to determine the exact time of infection and the possibly related clinical impact. Moreover, we cannot rule out that false-seropositive sheep were included in the evaluation because of an estimated specificity of 86.9% [19] of the Anaplasma spp. ELISA, and a possibly reduced specificity of the C. burnetii ELISA [34]. Only the inconclusive and positive results from the TBEV ELISA were confirmed by a serum neutralisation assay, which is considered as gold standard for TBEV antibody detection [17]. This minimises the risk of sheep being tested false-seropositive for TBEV antibodies. All in all, the low numbers of co-exposures could also be the consequence of imperfect specificity of the diagnostic tests used. In the future, co-infection has to be determined by further tests such as molecular assays to detect pathogen DNA. Nevertheless, our findings contribute to the complex issue of tick-borne pathogens in sheep. Co-exposure to Anaplasma spp., C. burnetii and TBEV seems to be sporadic among grazing sheep flocks in southern Germany. The further spread of TBEV and the emerging onset of A. ovis in Germany might increase cases of co-infection [3, 4]. More targeted investigations are needed to evaluate an adverse impact of co-exposure to tick-borne pathogens on sheep health due to the fact that A. phagocytophilum influences the immune response and disease progression of concurrent flavivirus infections [15, 16]. In addition, sheep flocks can be implemented as sentinels to identify potential new risk areas of emerging zoonotic pathogens such as TBEV [17]. Therefore, further research in this field may also support the One Health approach.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

BAV:

Bavaria

BW:

Baden-Wuerttemberg

cELISA:

Competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay

ELISA:

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay

LIV:

Louping ill virus

S/P (%):

Sample/positive percentage

TBE:

Tick-borne encephalitis

TBEV:

Tick-borne encephalitis virus

VIEU:

Vienna units

References

  1. Wolf A, Prüfer TL, Schoneberg C, Campe A, Runge M, Ganter M, Bauer BU. Prevalence of Coxiella burnetii in German sheep flocks and evaluation of a novel approach to detect an infection via preputial swabs at herd-level. Epidemiol Infect. 2020;148(e75):1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Böhm B, Schade B, Bauer B, Hoffmann B, Hoffmann D, Ziegler U, Beer M, Klaus C, Weissenböck H, Böttcher J. Tick-borne encephalitis in a naturally infected sheep. BMC Vet Res. 2017;13:267.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Bauer BU, Răileanu C, Tauchmann O, Fischer S, Ambros C, Silaghi C, Ganter M. Anaplasma phagocytophilum and Anaplasma ovis - emerging pathogens in the German sheep population. Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland). 2021;10(10):1298.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hellenbrand W, Kreusch T, Böhmer MM, Wagner-Wiening C, Dobler G, Wichmann O, Altmann D. Epidemiology of tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) in Germany, 2001–2018. Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland). 2019;8(2):42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bauer BU, Runge M, Campe A, Henning K, Mertens-Scholz K, Boden K, Sobotta K, Frangoulidis D, Knittler MR, Matthiesen S, et al. Coxiella burnetii: a review focusing on infections in German sheep and goat flocks. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 2020;133:184–200.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Matei IA, Estrada-Peña A, Cutler SJ, Vayssier-Taussat M, Varela-Castro L, Potkonjak A, Zeller H, Mihalca AD. A review on the eco-epidemiology and clinical management of human granulocytic anaplasmosis and its agent in Europe. Parasit Vectors. 2019;12(1):599.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Chochlakis D, Ioannou I, Tselentis Y, Psaroulaki A. Human anaplasmosis and Anaplasma ovis variant. Emerg Infect Dis. 2010;16(6):1031.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Rubel F, Brugger K, Chitimia-Dobler L, Dautel H, Meyer-Kayser E, Kahl O. Atlas of ticks (Acari: Argasidae, Ixodidae) in Germany. Exp Appl Acarol. 2021;84(1):183–214.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Stuen S, Granquist E, Silaghi C. Anaplasma phagocytophilum - a widespread multi-host pathogen with highly adaptive strategies. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2013;3:31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Hildebrandt A, Straube E, Neubauer H, Schmoock G. Coxiella burnetii and coinfections in Ixodes ricinus ticks in central Germany. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2011;11(8):1205–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Körner S, Makert GR, Ulbert S, Pfeffer M, Mertens-Scholz K. The prevalence of Coxiella burnetii in hard ticks in Europe and their role in Q Fever transmission revisited - a systematic review. Front Vet Sci. 2021;8: 655715.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Sting R, Breitling N, Oehme R, Kimmig P. Untersuchungen zum Vorkommen von Coxiella burnetii bei Schafen und Zecken der Gattung Dermacentor in Baden-Wuerttemberg [Studies on the prevalence of Coxiella burnetii in sheep and ticks of the genus Dermacentor in Baden-Wuerttemberg]. Deut Tieraertzl Woch. 2004;111(10):390–4.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Stuen S. Haemoparasites in small ruminants in European countries: challenges and clinical relevance. Small Rumin Res. 2016;142:22–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Woldehiwet Z. Anaplasma phagocytophilum in ruminants in Europe. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2006;1078(1):446–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Paulsen KM, Granquist EG, Okstad W, Vikse R, Stiasny K, Andreassen AK, Stuen S. Experimental infection of lambs with tick-borne encephalitis virus and co-infection with Anaplasma phagocytophilum. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(12): e0226836.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Reid HW, Buxton D, Pow I, Brodie TA, Holmes PH, Urquhart GM. Response of sheep to experimental concurrent infection with tick-borne fever (Cytoecetes phagocytophila) and louping-ill virus. Res Vet Sci. 1986;41(1):56–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bauer BU, Könenkamp L, Stöter M, Wolf A, Ganter M, Steffen I, Runge M. Increasing awareness for tick-borne encephalitis virus using small ruminants as suitable sentinels: preliminary observations. One Health. 2021;12: 100227.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Rubel W, Schoneberg C, Wolf A, Ganter M, Bauer BU. Seroprevalence and risk factors of Anaplasma spp. German small ruminant flocks. Animals. 2021;11(10):2793.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Shabana II, Alhadlag NM, Zaraket H. Diagnostic tools of caprine and ovine anaplasmosis: a direct comparative study. BMC Vet Res. 2018;14(1):165–165.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Rogan WJ, Gladen B. Estimating prevalence from the results of a screening test. Am J Epidemiol. 1978;107:71–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Dohoo I, Martin W, Stryhn H. Veterinary epidemiologic research, vol. 2. Charlottetown: VER Inc.; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Scharf W, Schauer S, Freyburger F, Petrovec M, Schaarschmidt-Kiener D, Liebisch G, Runge M, Ganter M, Kehl A, Dumler JS, et al. Distinct host species correlate with Anaplasma phagocytophilum ankA gene clusters. J Clin Microbiol. 2011;49(3):790–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Rubel W, Ganter M, Bauer BU. Detection of Anaplasma phagocytophilum in ovine serum samples - a retrospective study. Ruminants. 2022;2(3):351–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Overzier E, Pfister K, Thiel C, Herb I, Mahling M, Silaghi C. Anaplasma phagocytophilum in questing Ixodes ricinus ticks: comparison of prevalences and partial 16S rRNA gene variants in urban, pasture, and natural habitats. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2013;79(5):1730–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Süss J, Schrader C, Falk U, Wohanka N. Tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) in Germany — Epidemiological data, development of risk areas and virus prevalence in field-collected ticks and in ticks removed from humans. Int J Med Microbiol. 2004;293(Suppl. 37):69–79.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Pluta S, Hartelt K, Oehme R, Mackenstedt U, Kimmig P. Prevalence of Coxiella burnetii and Rickettsia spp. in ticks and rodents in southern Germany. Ticks Tick-Borne Dis. 2010;1(3):145–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Zeman P, Januska J, Orolinova M, Stuen S, Struhar V, Jebavy L. High seroprevalence of granulocytic ehrlichiosis distinguishes sheep that were the source of an alimentary epidemic of tick-borne encephalitis. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2004;116(17):614–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Stuen S, Grøva L, Granquist EG, Sandstedt K, Olesen I, Steinshamn H. A comparative study of clinical manifestations, haematological and serological responses after experimental infection with Anaplasma phagocytophilum in two Norwegian sheep breeds. Acta Vet Scand. 2011;53(1):8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Joulié A, Rousset E, Gasqui P, Lepetitcolin E, Leblond A, Sidi-Boumedine K, Jourdain E. Coxiella burnetii circulation in a naturally infected flock of sheep: individual follow-up of antibodies in serum and milk. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2017;83:e00222-e1217.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Pilloux L, Baumgartner A, Jaton K, Lienhard R, Ackermann-Gäumann R, Beuret C, Greub G. Prevalence of Anaplasma phagocytophilum and Coxiella burnetii in Ixodes ricinus ticks in Switzerland: an underestimated epidemiologic risk. New Microbes New Infect. 2019;27:22–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Ben I, Lozynskyi I. Prevalence of Anaplasma phagocytophilum in Ixodes ricinus and Dermacentor reticulatus and coinfection with Borrelia burgdorferi and tick-borne encephalitis virus in western Ukraine. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2019;19(11):793–801.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Bonnet S, de la Fuente J, Nicollet P, Liu X, Madani N, Blanchard B, Maingourd C, Alongi A, Torina A, Fernández de Mera IG, et al. Prevalence of tick-borne pathogens in adult Dermacentor spp. ticks from nine collection sites in France. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2013;13(4):226–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Weber KB, Fast C, Eiden M, Holicki CM, König P, Skuballa J, Köhler K, Bühler M, Kupča A, Ziegler U. Tod auf der Weide - fatale zentralnervöse Erkankung in einer Schafherde [Death on the pasture—fatal central nervous disease in a sheep flock]. In: 65 Jahrestagung der DVG-Fachgruppe Pathologie: 04.-06.03.2022 2022; digital: Deutsche Veterinärmedizinische Gesellschaft e. V.; 2022: 1.

  34. Lurier T, Rousset E, Gasqui P, Sala C, Claustre C, Abrial D, Dufour P, de Crémoux R, Gache K, Delignette-Muller ML, et al. Evaluation using latent class models of the diagnostic performances of three ELISA tests commercialized for the serological diagnosis of Coxiella burnetii infection in domestic ruminants. Vet Res. 2021;52(1):56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Annika Wolf for her excellent technical support and Frances Sherwood-Brock for proofreading the manuscript for correct English.

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This study was supported by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) under Grant 01KI1726B and Grant 01KI1719 as part of the Zoonotic Infectious Diseases Research Network, and Lower Saxony State Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety under Grant P54-34. This Open Access publication was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) − 491094227 “Open Access Publication Costs” and the University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinic for Swine and Small Ruminants, Forensic Medicine and Ambulatory Service, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Bischofsholer Damm 15, 30173, Hannover, Germany

    Benjamin Ulrich Bauer, Melanie Schneider, Wiebke Rubel & Martin Ganter

  2. Food and Veterinary Institute Braunschweig/Hannover, Lower Saxony State Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety (LAVES), Eintrachtweg 17, 30173, Hannover, Germany

    Martin Runge

  3. Institute for Biochemistry and Research Center for Emerging Infections and Zoonoses, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Bünteweg 17, 30559, Hannover, Germany

    Laura Könenkamp & Imke Steffen

  4. Department of Biometry, Epidemiology and Information Processing, WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training Health at the Human-Animal-Environment Interface, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Bünteweg 2, 30559, Hannover, Germany

    Clara Schoneberg

Authors
  1. Benjamin Ulrich Bauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martin Runge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Melanie Schneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Laura Könenkamp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Imke Steffen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Wiebke Rubel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Martin Ganter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Clara Schoneberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Study conception and design were carried out by BUB, MR, MG and CS. Manuscript preparation was carried out by BUB and CS. Laboratory work was performed by MS, LK, IS and WR. Samples were collected by BUB. CS performed the statistical analysis. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin Ulrich Bauer.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was conducted in accordance with German Animal Welfare Legislation and the EU Directive 2010/63/EU for animal experiments. Blood sample collection was approved by the federal state governments of Baden-Wuerttemberg (AZ 35-9185.82/0351, AZ 35-9185.82/D-18/01, AZ 35- 9185.82/A-1/18, AZ 35/9185.82/Ganter 18.01.2018) and Bavaria (RUF-55.2.2-2532-2-651-5, ROB-55.2- 2532.Vet_03-18-10). All animals were handled in accordance with high ethical standards and national legislation.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bauer, B.U., Runge, M., Schneider, M. et al. Co-exposure to Anaplasma spp., Coxiella burnetii and tick-borne encephalitis virus in sheep in southern Germany. Acta Vet Scand 65, 6 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13028-022-00659-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13028-022-00659-6

Keywords

Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica

ISSN: 1751-0147