1. Background
2. Objectives
3. Methods
3.1. Study Area and Sampling
3.2. RNA Extraction, RT-PCR and Sequencing
3.3. Phylogenetic Analysis Based on Complete S-Gene
3.4. Nucleocapsid Protein Structure and Pairwise Identity Score
4. Results
| Livestock | No. | Infestation No. | District |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cow | 8 | 3 | E |
| Goat | 8 | 3 | E |
| Cow | 12 | 2 | J |
| Camel | 10 | 6 | H |
| Sheep | 40 | 7 | R |
| Goat | 17 | 5 | R |
| Total | 95 | 26 | N A |
Abbreviations: E, Eqbalyeh; J, Jazan; H, Hasan Abad; R, Reza Abad.
aIn total, 95 female livestock were studied to check if they were infected with ticks. In total, 26 of 95 livestock (27.4%) were infected.
| Districts/Tick Species | Rh. sanguineus | Hy. marginatum | Hy. anatolicum | Hy. asiaticum | Hy. schulzei | Hy. dromedarii | Hy. sp. | Total | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reza Abad | 43 | 1 | - | 2 | - | - | 3 | 49 | 52.69 |
| Hasan Abad | - | - | 3 | - | 2 | 20 | 25 | 26.88 | |
| Jazan | - | - | 11 | - | - | - | 11 | 11.83 | |
| Eqbalyeh | 1 | 5 | - | 1 | - | - | 1 | 8 | 8.60 |
| Total | 44 | 6 | 14 | 3 | 2 | 20 | 4 | 93 | 100 |
4.1. Tick Species
| No. | Host | Sample Location | Genus/Species | No. Collected Ticks | No. Infection to CCHFV | GenBank Accession No | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | M | Total | F | M | Total | |||||
| 1 | Sheep | R | Hy. asiaticum | 1 | 1 | 2 | - | - | - | - |
| Rh. sanguineus | 2 | - | 2 | - | - | - | - | |||
| 2 | Camel | H | Hy. dromedarii | 2 | 3 | 5 | 1 | - | 1 | KU707898 |
| Hy. schulzei | 1 | - | 1 | - | - | - | - | |||
| 3 | Camel | H | Hy. schulzei | 1 | - | 1 | - | - | - | - |
| 4 | Camel | H | Hy. dromedarii | 4 | 5 | 9 | - | - | - | - |
| 5 | Sheep | R | Rh. sanguineus | 4 | - | 4 | - | - | - | - |
| 6 | Goat | R | Hy. dromedarii | 1 | - | 1 | - | 1 | 1 | KU707900 |
| 7 | Camel | H | Hy. anatolicum | - | 3 | 3 | - | - | - | - |
| 8 | Sheep | R | Rh. sanguineus | 3 | 2 | 5 | 1 | - | 1 | KU707901 |
| 9 | Camel | H | Hy. dromedarii | 2 | 1 | 3 | - | - | - | - |
| 10 | Sheep | R | Hy. sp. | 1 | - | 1 | - | - | - | - |
| 11 | Sheep | R | Rh. sanguineus | 6 | 3 | 9 | - | - | - | - |
| 12 | Sheep | R | Rh. sanguineus | 4 | 2 | 6 | - | - | - | - |
| 13 | Goat | R | Rh. sanguineus | - | 2 | 2 | - | - | - | - |
| 14 | Sheep | R | Hy. marginatum | - | 1 | 1 | - | - | - | - |
| Rh. sanguineus | 5 | 1 | 6 | - | - | - | - | |||
| 15 | Goat | R | Rh. sanguineus | 1 | 3 | 4 | - | - | - | - |
| 16 | Cow | J | Hy. anatolicum | 3 | 3 | 6 | 1 | - | 1 | KU707899 |
| 17 | Goat | R | Hy. sp. | 1 | - | 1 | - | - | - | - |
| Rh. sanguineus | 3 | - | 3 | - | - | - | - | |||
| 18 | Goat | R | Rh. sanguineus | 2 | - | 2 | - | - | - | - |
| 19 | Cow | J | Hy. anatolicum | 2 | 3 | 5 | - | - | - | - |
| 20 | Cow | E | Hy. marginatum | - | 1 | 1 | - | - | - | - |
| 21 | Cow | E | Rh. sanguineus | - | 1 | 1 | - | - | - | - |
| 22 | Camel | H | Hy. dromedarii | 2 | 1 | 3 | - | - | - | - |
| 23 | Cow | E | Hy. marginatum | - | 2 | 2 | - | - | - | - |
| Hy. asiaticum | - | 1 | 1 | - | - | - | - | |||
| 24 | Goat | E | Hy. sp. | 1 | - | 1 | - | - | - | - |
| 25 | Goat | E | Hy marginatum | - | 1 | 1 | - | - | - | - |
| 26 | Goat | E | Hy. marginatum | - | 1 | 1 | - | - | - | - |
| Total | 26 livestock | 4 districts | 6 species | 52 | 41 | 93 | 3 | 1 | 4 | - |
Abbreviations: E, Eqbalyeh, H, Hasan Abad; J, Jazan; R, Reza Abad.
aIn total, 52 and 41 female and male ticks respectively were collected from infected livestock. PCR was carried out on all of tick samples and finally the RT-PCR results revealed that 32 female and 24 male collected ticks were infected with CCHFV.
4.2. Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever Virus Prevalence in the Tick Populations
4.3. Phylogenetic Analysis of Full-Length S-gene Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic Fever Virus Strains
4.4. Structural Comparison of Iranian Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever Virus N-Proteins and Identity Matrix
Each colored cell represents the percentage identity score between 2 sequences (one indicated horizontally to the left and the other vertically at the bottom). A color key indicates the correspondence between pairwise identities and the colors displayed in the matrix. High genetic identity (100%) is indicated (dark red color). In contrast, genetically distant sequences are also coded (blue color)



