Preliminary Survey of Ectoparasites and Associated Pathogens from Norway Rats in New York City

Frye, Matthew; Firth, Cadhla; Bhat, Meera; Firth, Matthew A.; Che, Xiaoyu; Lee, D.; Williams, Simon H.; Lipkin, W. Ian

doi:10.1093/jme/tjv014

Cited by 37 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, many rodents host fleas which can bite other taxa and have been found to host many genotypes of Bartonella that have originated in rodents and infected other species such as humans (e.g. 32,33). Considerations of the host specificity of the vector species may be very important for determining the risk for disease spillover and indeed public health officials recommend avoidance of potential vectors as the most important measure for prevention of bartonellosis (9).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global fingerprint of humans on the distribution ofBartonellabacteria in mammals

Frank

Hadly

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

18As humans alter habitats and move themselves and their commensal animals around the 19 globe they change the disease risk for themselves, their commensal animals and wildlife. 20Bartonella bacteria are prevalent in many mammalian taxa, responsible for numerous human 21 infections and presumed to be an important emerging group of zoonoses. Understanding how this 22 genus has evolved and passed between host taxa in the past can reveal not only how current 23 patterns were established but identify potential mechanisms for future cross-species 24 transmission. We analyzed patterns of Bartonella transmission and likely sources of spillover 25 using the largest collection of Bartonella gltA genotypes assembled, 860 unique genotypes of 26 Bartonella globally. We provide support for the hypothesis that this pathogenic genus originated 27 as an environmental bacterium before becoming an insect commensal and finally vertebrate 28 pathogen. We show that rodents and domestic animals serve as the reservoirs or at least key 29 proximate host for most Bartonella genotypes in humans. We also find evidence of exchange of 30Bartonella between domestic animals and wildlife and between domestic animals, likely due to 31 increased contact between all groups. Bartonella is a useful infection for tracing potential 32 zoonoses and demonstrates another major impact of humans on the planet. Care should be taken 33 to avoid contact between humans, domestic animals and wildlife to protect the health of all. 34 35 Introduction 36

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global fingerprint of humans on the distribution ofBartonellabacteria in mammals

Frank

Hadly

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A study from an urban center in Southern California shows that the population of fleas on rodents and backyard wildlife has increased significantly since 1967 (Krueger et al 2016). A study of rat ectoparasites in New York City found the number of fleas on Norway rats to be higher than previously recorded (Frye et al 2015).…”

Section: Impacts To California and Californiansmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…However, little is known about the ecology of wild commensal rodents and the pathogens they can vector in urban, residential communities. Recent studies of urban commensal rodents in Vancouver and New York City, report the presence of pathogens like Leptospira and Bartonella in commensal rodent populations (Frye et al 2015, Himsworth et al 2015, McVea et al 2018). The Vancouver Rat study has found evidence of E. coli in 62.7% of urban rats tested.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A California without Rodenticides: Challenges for Commensal Rodent Management in the Future

Quinn¹,

Kenmuir²,

Krueger³

2018

vertebrate_pest_conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rodenticides are an essential tool in the integrated pest management (IPM) of infestations of commensal rodents. With the introduction of Assembly Bill 2422 California Natural Predator Protection Act, the State of California is potentially facing a future with serious restrictions on the use of anticoagulant rodenticides to manage commensal rodents in urban areas. Assembly Bill 2422 has been proposed to protect predators from rodenticide poisoning and seeks to significantly restrict the application of first and second generation anticoagulant rodenticides for use in many urban and no-urban areas of California. Exclusion and cultural practices, such as landscape management and sanitation, are important and successful tools for managing rodent populations. However, quick and efficient control of commensal rodent infestations often necessitates the use of rodenticides. While rodenticide is an important tool, exposure of wildlife to anticoagulant rodenticides has been evident for many years in the state of California. When rodents are consumed by predators, second generation anticoagulant rodenticides can be detected as residues in the livers of predators. Many species of animals are documented as having succumbed to rodenticide toxicosis, however the effects of chronic, sub-lethal exposure to predators are not well understood. This paper will discuss the current and proposed changes to rodenticide legislation in California, impacts of the legislation on communities across California, and gaps in research preventing the adoption of evidence-based best management strategies for rodent control. In order to improve the success of commensal rodent control programs in California, effective strategies for rodent management must be developed.

show abstract

“…The cost of parts used in the construction is relatively low (<$75) and would be much smaller if mass produced. Though, this expense, even at its most expensive point, could be justified against the overall benefit of highly-variable animal models in the research laboratory (Stryjek and Pisula, 2008), the potential for reduced risk of disease in the wild (Firth et al, 2014;Frye et al, 2015), and the billion-dollar worldwide industry of rodent control (Parsons et al, 2015).…”

Section: Placementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Psychologists and neuroscientists who use rat models in the laboratory or in the field, may trap wild rats, or even create new strains of outbred laboratory rats to increase variability in their study populations (Stryjek and Pisula, 2008). Epidemiologists and public health officials may trap rodents as part of surveillance programs to determine if, or when, potential pathogens are entering the population (Firth et al, 2014;Frye et al, 2015;Parsons et al, 2015Parsons et al, , 2016.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unbiased Sampling for Rodents and Other Small Mammals: How to Overcome Neophobia Through Use of an Electronic-Triggered Live Trap—A Preliminary Test

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Live-trapping of urban rodents and other small mammals poses several challenges for researchers and pest control professionals (PMPs). Most traps are novel to the natural environment and elicit neophobic, or trap-shy, behaviors. Thus, animals captured in traditional traps may either be the least risk-averse, or most desperate. Consequently, individuals of the lowest social ranks, those in poorest health, and the slowest learners are more likely to be captured. This is problematic for research because non-random samples may lead to over-generalization and false conclusions. To address these problems, we developed an inconspicuous, hanging live-trap prototype. In addition to being hard to detect, the trap enables setting several parameters of animal movement and detection before the trap is triggered. The neophobic reaction could then be significantly reduced because animals do not need to enter any trap-like objectsinstead they move and feed on a familiar surface. At a time predefined by the user, the triggering mechanism drops a transparent cover over the animal, preventing it from fleeing and enabling either transport to the laboratory, mark-and-release or disposal. Here, we report our initial purpose, design and preliminary results. Animals triggered the trap 34 times during our 1-month preliminary assessment. During this time, 32 individuals were captured (25 Norway rats and 7 house mice) for a 94% catch rate. Video surveillance revealed no obvious signs of non-random sampling as all trapped rats were representative of a broad range of sizes and ages. There were no signs of low social status (e.g., scar markings, parasitism, or poor health). Importantly, we found a low latency following capture, as released animals showed no instances of increased exploratory or cautious behaviors such as rearing or sniffing, near the hidden traps. More monitoring of this design is needed before future conclusions can be drawn. However, these results should encourage a full range of experimental trials from neuroscientists, urban ecologists, pest control professionals (PMPs) and conservationists who seek randomized samples or who work with trap-shy species.

show abstract

Preliminary Survey of Ectoparasites and Associated Pathogens from Norway Rats in New York City

Cited by 37 publications

References 54 publications

Global fingerprint of humans on the distribution ofBartonellabacteria in mammals

Global fingerprint of humans on the distribution ofBartonellabacteria in mammals

A California without Rodenticides: Challenges for Commensal Rodent Management in the Future

Unbiased Sampling for Rodents and Other Small Mammals: How to Overcome Neophobia Through Use of an Electronic-Triggered Live Trap—A Preliminary Test

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About