Table 1 Count and prevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato genospecies found in human-biting ticks per region. Prevalence are in percentage and 95% confidence interval are between brackets. n: total number of analyzed ticks in each region. Region: ARA: Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes; BFC: Bourgogne-Franche-Comté; BRE: Bretagne; CVL: Centre-Val de Loire; GES: Grand-Est; IDF: Île-de-France; NOR: Normandie; NAQ: Nouvelle-Aquitaine; OCC: Occitanie; PDL: Pays-de-la-Loire.

From: Spatial modeling of Borrelia genospecies in human-biting ticks from the French citizen science programme CiTIQUE

Borrelia genospecies

Regions

ARA

n = 166

BFC

n = 157

BRE

n = 224

CVL

n = 149

GES

n = 298

HDF

n = 159

IDF

n = 156

NOR

n = 150

NAQ

n = 174

OCC

n = 148

PDL

n = 166

PAC

n = 59

Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato

28; 16.9% (11.5–23.4)

30; 19.1% (13.3–26.1)

26; 11.6% (7.7–16.5)

29; 19.5% (13.4–26.7)

60; 20.1%

(15.7–25.1)

20; 12.6%

(7.9–18.8)

21; 13.5%

(8.5–19.8)

12; 8%

(4.2–13.6)

29; 16.7%

(11.5–23.1)

18; 12.2%

(7.4–18.5)

17; 10.2%

(6.1–15.9)

1; 1.7%

(0-9.1)

Borrelia afzelii

16; 9.6% (5.6–15.2)

19; 12.1% (7.4–18.3)

5; 2.2%

(0.7–5.1)

11; 7.4% (3.7–12.8)

31; 10.4%

(7.2–14.4)

12; 7.5%

(4-12.8)

5; 3.2%

(1-7.3)

3; 2%

(0.4–5.7)

12; 6.9%

(3.6–11.7)

13; 8.8%

(4.8–14.6)

8; 4.8%

(2.1–9.3)

1; 1.7%

(0-9.1)

Borrelia garinii

7; 4.2%

(1.7–8.5)

3; 1.9%

(0.4–5.5)

15; 6.7% (3.8–10.8)

11; 7.4% (3.7–12.8)

16; 5.4%

(3.1–8.6)

3; 1.9%

(0.4–5.4)

6; 3.8%

(1.4–8.2)

7; 4.7%

(1.9–9.4)

8; 4.6%

(2-8.9)

1; 0.7%

(0-3.7)

3; 1.8%

(0.4–5.2)

0; 0%

(0-6.1)

Borrelia valaisiana

3; 1.8%

(0.4–5.2)

3; 1.9%

(0.4–5.5)

3; 1.3%

(0.3–3.9)

5; 3.4% (1.1–7.7)

7; 2.3%

(0.9–4.8)

2; 1.3%

(0.2–4.5)

5; 3.2%

(1-7.3)

1; 0.7%

(0-3.7)

3; 1.7%

(0.4-5)

4; 2.7%

(0.7–6.8)

1; 0.6%

(0-3.3)

0; 0%

(0-6.1)

Borrelia burgdorferi sensu stricto

1; 0.6%

(0-3.3)

3; 1.9%

(0.4–5.5)

3; 1.3%

(0.3–3.9)

1; 0.7% (0-3.7)

4; 1.3%

(0.4–3.4)

2; 1.3%

(0.2–4.5)

2; 1.3%

(0.2–4.6)

1; 0.7%

(0-3.7)

4; 2.3%

(0.6–5.8)

0; 0%

(0-2.5)

4; 2.4%

(0.7–6.1)

0; 0%

(0-6.1)

Borrelia lusitaniae

1; 0.6%

(0-3.3)

0; 0%

(0-2.3)

0; 0%

(0-1.6)

1; 0.7% (0-3.7)

0; 0%

(0-1.2)

0; 0%

(0-2.3)

1; 0.6%

(0-3.5)

0; 0%

(0-2.4)

1; 0.6%

(0-3.2)

0; 0%

(0-2.5)

1; 0.6%

(0-3.3)

0; 0%

(0-6.1)

Borrelia spielmanii

0; 0%

(0-2.2)

2; 1.3%

(0.2–4.5)

0; 0%

(0-1.6)

0; 0%

(0-2.4)

2; 0.7%

(0.1–2.4)

1; 0.6%

(0-3.5)

2; 1.3%

(0.2–4.6)

0; 0%

(0-2.4)

1; 0.6%

(0-3.2)

0; 0%

(0-2.5)

0; 0%

(0-2.2)

0; 0%

(0-6.1)

  1. I. ricinus ticks were collected across the continental French territory, and Bbsl was detected in all NUTS-1 regions. However, the spatial distribution of infected ticks, was uneven (Fig. 1; Table 1, Supplemental Fig. 1) Durand et al.25 identified four regional group, of which the high prevalence group including Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (ARA), Bourgogne-Franche-Comté (BFC), Centre-Val de Loire (CVL), and Grand Est (GES) had a higher number of infected sample relative to sampling effort compared the other regional groups (OR = 1.62, p = 0.004; OR = 2.27, p < 0.001; and OR = 13.98, p = 0.045, respectively).
Back to article page