Serious tick-borne infections – considering the strengths and weaknesses of currently used laboratory diagnostic methods

Česká verze

Authors: B. Macúchová ^1,2 ; V. Boštíková ¹ ; H. Bílková Fránková ²
Authors place of work: Katedra epidemiologie, Vojenská lékařská fakulta, Univerzita Obrany, Hradec Králové ¹; Laboratoř klinické mikrobiologie, Laboratoře AGEL, a. s., Ostrava-Vítkovice ²
Published in the journal: Epidemiol. Mikrobiol. Imunol. 75, 2026, č. 2, s. 89-98
Category: Souhrnná sdělení
doi: https://doi.org/10.61568/emi/11-6717/20260323/143212

Summary

The laboratory diagnosis of tick-borne infections is a major interdisciplinary issue, closely linked not only to advances in molecular biological methods but also to changes in ecosystems and biodiversity caused by climatic and anthropogenic factors. These factors significantly influence the epidemiological situation both globally and in the Czech Republic, where a marked increase in the incidence of serious tick-borne infections has been observed in recent years. Current diagnostic approaches combine indirect serological methods (e.g., ELISA, Western blot, and immunofluorescence assays) with direct molecular techniques such as PCR and RT-PCR. The choice of an appropriate method depends on the clinical stage of the disease, timing of sample collection, and the type of biological material used. Insufficient sensitivity in the early phases of infection and poorly timed sampling can lead to false-negative results. Despite the availability of a wide range of laboratory tools, the proportion of undiagnosed cases remains high, complicating not only clinical decision-making and treatment but also the assessment of the true prevalence of these infections and the planning of targeted epidemiological measures.

Keywords:

infectious diseases – Epidemiology – Ticks – Borrelia burgdorferi – Tick-borne encephalitis – Lyme borreliosis – Ixodes ricinus – Anaplasma phagocytophilum – Ehrlichia chaffeensis – direct and indirect laboratory diagnostic methods

Zdroje

1. Johnson N. Ticks: biology, ecology, and diseases. London; San Diego (CA): Academic Press; 2023 : 25–45.

2. Madison-Antenucci L, Kramer LD, Gebhardt LL et al. Emerging tick-borne diseases. Clin Microbiol Rev., 2020;33(2):e00083–18. DOI:10.1128/CMR.00083-18.

3. Eisen L. Pathogen transmission in relation to duration of attachment by Ixodes scapularis ticks. Ticks Tick Borne Dis., 2018;9(3):535–542. DOI:10.1016/j.ttbdis.2018.01.002.

4. Sonenshine DE, Roe RM. Biology of ticks. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2014 : 150–182.

5. Suppan J, Engel B, Marchetti-Deschmann M et al. Tick attachment cement –⁠ reviewing the mysteries of a biological skin plug system. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc., 2018;93(2):1056–1076. DOI:10.1111/brv.12384.

6. Státní zdravotní ústav. Tabulka počty onemocnění 2015–2024 v České republice –⁠ aktualizace ke dni 2. května 2025 [online]. Praha: Státní zdravotní ústav; 2025 [cit. 2025-05-02]. Dostupné na www: https://szu.gov.cz/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ Tabulka_pocty_onemocneni_2015-2024_CR_aktualizace_2.5.2025.pdf

7. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Tick-borne diseases –⁠ annual epidemiological report for 2022 [online]. Stockholm: ECDC; 2024 [cit. 2025-07-06]. Dostupné na www: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/tick-borne -⁠ -diseases-annual-epidemiological-report-2022.

8. Afzelius A. Erythema migrans. Acta Derm Venereol., 1910;1 : 120 –⁠ 125.

9. Steere AC, Malawista SE, Snydman DR et al. Lyme arthritis: an epidemic of oligoarticular arthritis in children and adults in three Connecticut communities. Arthritis Rheum., 1977;20(1):7 –⁠ 17.

10. Burgdorfer W, Barbour AG, Hayes SF et al. Lyme disease –⁠ a tick -⁠ -borne spirochetosis? Science, 1982;216(4552):1317–1319.

11. İşler H, Özdemir M. Diseases transmitted by ticks (infectious diseases and microbiology). New York: Nova Science Publishers; 2022 : 10–35.

12. Telford SR 3rd et al. Borrelia miyamotoi disease. Clin Lab Med., 2015;35(4):867–882. doi:10.1016/j.cll.2015.08.002.

13. Guillamet J. et al. Relapsing fever caused by Borrelia lonestari. Emerg Infect Dis., 2023;29(2):441–444. DOI:10.3201/ eid2902.221281.

14. Heyman P, Cochez C, Hofhuis A. et al. A clear and present danger: tick-borne diseases in Europe. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther., 2010;8(1):33–50. DOI:10.1586/eri.09.118.

15. Pospíšilová K, Heydari S, Gessner A et al. Tracking of Borrelia afzelii transmission from infected Ixodes ricinus nymphs to mice. Infect Immun., 2019;87(6):e00896–18. DOI:10.1128/IAI.00896 -⁠ 18.

16. Moore A, Nelson C, Molins C et al. Current guidelines, common clinical pitfalls, and future directions for laboratory diagnosis of Lyme disease, United States. Emerg Infect Dis., 2016;22(7):1169 –⁠ 1177. DOI:10.3201/eid2207.151694.

17. Rauer S, Kastenbauer S, Fingerle V. et al. Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment in neurology –⁠ Lyme neuroborreliosis. Ger Med Sci., 2020;18:Doc03. DOI:10.3205/000279.

18. Sanchez-Vicente S, Tokarz R. Tick-borne co-infections: challenges in molecular and serologic diagnoses. Pathogens, 2023;12(11):1371. DOI:10.3390/pathogens12111371.

19. TDL Pathology. Borrelia antibodies (Lyme disease) [online]. [cit. 2026-03-08]. Dostupné na www: https://www.tdlpathology. com/specialties/immunology/borrelia-antibodies-lyme-disease-borrelia-burgdorferi-update/.

20. TestLine Clinical Diagnostics s.r.o. Microblot array Borrelia IgG [online]. Brno: TestLine; [cit. 2025-07-07]. Available in https:// www.testlinecd.cz/microblot-array-borrelia-igg.

21. Tan X, Lin YP, Pereira MJ. et al. VlsE, the nexus for antigenic variation of the Lyme disease spirochete, also mediates early bacterial attachment to the host microvasculature under shear force. PLoS Pathog. 2022;18(5):e1010511. DOI:10.1371/journal. ppat.1010511.

22. Caine JA, Lin YP, Kessler JR. et al. Borrelia burgdorferi outer surface protein C (OspC) binds complement component C4b and confers bloodstream survival. Cell Microbiol., 2017;19(12):e12786. DOI:10.1111/cmi.12786.

23. Reiber H. Flow rate of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) –⁠ a concept common to normal blood –CSF barrier function and to dysfunction in neurological diseases. J Neurol Sci., 1994;122(2):189 –⁠ 203.

24. Talagrand-Reboul E, Raffetin A, Zachary P. et al. Immunoserological diagnosis of human borrelioses: current knowledge and perspectives. Front Cell Infect Microbiol., 2020;10 : 241. doi:10.3389/fcimb.2020.00241.

25. Remy MM, Schöbi N, Kottanattu L. et al. Cerebrospinal fluid CXCL13 as a diagnostic marker of neuroborreliosis in children: a retrospective case-control study. J Neuroinflammation., 2017;14(1):173. doi:10.1186/s12974-017-0948-9.

26. EUROIMMUN AG. CXCL13 ELISA (EQ 6811) [online]. Lübeck: EUROIMMUN; 2015 [cit. 2026-03-08]. Dostupné na www: https:// www.euroimmun.com/documents/Indications/Infections/CSF -⁠ -diagnostics/EQ_6811_D_UK_A.pdf.

27. Janetzki S, Rueger M, Dillenbeck T. Stepping up ELISpot: multi -⁠ -level analysis in FluoroSpot assays. Cells, 2014;3(4):1102–1115. doi:10.3390/cells3041102.

28. Donoso-Mantke O, Karan LS, Růžek D. Tick-borne encephalitis virus: a general overview. In: Růžek D, editor. Flavivirus encephalitis. Rijeka: InTech; 2011 : 143–164. doi:10.5772/20866.

29. Holzmann H. Diagnosis of tick-borne encephalitis. Vaccine, 2003;21(Suppl 1):S36–S40. doi:10.1016/S0264-410X(02)00819-8.

30. Dumpis U, Crook D, Oksi J. Tick-borne encephalitis. Clin Infect Dis., 1999;28(4):882–890. doi:10.1086/515195.

31. Lipowski D, Szułowska K, Pancer K. et al. A cluster of fatal tick -⁠ -borne encephalitis virus infection in organ transplant setting. J Infect Dis., 2017;215(6):896–901. doi:10.1093/infdis/jix040.

32. Růžek S, Matějčková I, Hönig V et al. Genetic variability of tick -⁠ -borne encephalitis virus in Europe and Russia: genetic heterogeneity and spatial distribution of virus subtypes. PLoS Negl Trop Dis., 2017;11(11):e0006062. DOI:10.1371/journal.pntd.0006062.

33. Bogovic P, Strle F. Tick-borne encephalitis: a review of epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and management. World J Clin Cases, 2015;3(5):430–441. doi:10.12998/wjcc.v3.i5.430.

34. Czupryna P, Moniuszko A, Pancewicz SA. et al. Evaluation of serological methods for tick-borne encephalitis diagnosis. Przegl Epidemiol., 2017;71(1):47–55.

35. Veje M, Skogberg K, Janzon A. et al. Diagnosing tick-borne encephalitis: a re-evaluation of clinical and laboratory findings to propose a new case definition for Europe reporting. Euro Surveill., 2018;23(7):17–00579. doi:10.2807/1560-7917. ES.2018.23.7.17-00579.

36. Reusken CBEM, Boonstra M, Rugebregt S. et al. An evaluation of serological methods to diagnose tick-borne encephalitis from serum and cerebrospinal fluid. J Clin Virol., 2019;120 : 78–83. DOI:10.1016/j.jcv.2019.09.009.

37. Vilibic-Cavlek T, Barbic L, Stevanovic V. et al. IgG avidity: an important serologic marker for the diagnosis of tick-borne encephalitis virus infection. Pol J Microbiol., 2016;65(1):119–121. doi:10.5604/17331331.1197285.

38. Litzba N, Schmidt-Chanasit J, Ellerbrok H. et al. Evaluation of different serological diagnostic methods for tick-borne encephalitis virus: enzyme-linked immunosorbent, immunofluorescence, and neutralization assay. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis., 2014;14(2):149–159. doi:10.1089/vbz.2012.1287.

39. Stuen S. Anaplasma phagocytophilum –⁠ a widespread multi -⁠ -host pathogen with many faces. BMC Res Notes, 2013;6 : 399. DOI:10.1186/1756-0500-6-399.

40. Guzman N, Yarrarapu SNS, Beidas SO. Anaplasma phagocytophilum [online]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2023 [cit. 2025-07-06]. Dostupné na www: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK513341/.

41. Snowden J, Bartman M, Kong EL. et al. Ehrlichiosis [online]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2023 [cit. 2025-07-06]. Dostupné na www: https://www.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK441966/

42. Ismail N, Bloch KC, McBride JW. Human ehrlichiosis and anaplasmosis. Clin Lab Med. 2010;30(1):261–292. DOI:10.1016/j. cll.2009.10.004.

43. Wildová O. Proočkovanost proti klíšťové encefalitidě v České republice v roce 2024 [online]. Medicina.cz; 2025 [cit. 2025-07 -⁠ 06]. Dostupné na www: https://medicina.cz/clanky/16012/34/ Pocet-pripadu-klistove-encefalitidy-v-roce-2024-stoupl-o-32 -⁠ pruzkum.