Hubbry Logo
TularemiaTularemiaMain
Open search
Tularemia
Community hub
Tularemia
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Tularemia
Tularemia
Tularemia
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Tularemia
Other namesTularaemia, Pahvant Valley plague,[1] rabbit fever,[1] deer fly fever, Ohara's fever[2]
A tularemia lesion on the back of the right hand
SpecialtyInfectious disease
SymptomsFever, skin ulcer, large lymph nodes[3]
Causesbacterium Francisella tularensis (spread by ticks, deer flies, contact with infected animals)[4]
Diagnostic methodBlood tests, microbial culture[5]
PreventionInsect repellent, wearing long pants, rapidly removing ticks, not disturbing dead animals[6]
MedicationAminoglycosides (Streptomycin, Gentamicin), doxycycline, ciprofloxacin[5]
PrognosisGenerally good with treatment[4]
Frequency~200 cases per year (US)[7]

Tularemia, also known as rabbit fever, is an infectious disease caused by the bacterium Francisella tularensis.[4] Symptoms may include fever, skin ulcers, and enlarged lymph nodes.[3] Occasionally, a form that results in pneumonia or a throat and nasal sinus infection may occur.[3]

The bacterium is typically spread by ticks, deer flies, or contact with infected animals.[4] It may also be spread by drinking contaminated water or breathing in contaminated dust.[4] It does not spread directly between people.[8] Diagnosis is by blood tests or cultures of the infected site.[5][9]

Prevention includes the use of insect repellent and long pants, rapidly removing ticks, and not disturbing dead animals.[6] Treatment is typically with the antibiotic streptomycin.[9] Gentamicin, doxycycline, or ciprofloxacin may also be used.[5]

Between the 1970s and 2015, around 200 cases were reported in the United States each year.[7] Males are affected more often than females.[7] It occurs most frequently in the young and the middle-aged.[7] In the United States, most cases occur in the summer.[7] The disease is named after Tulare County, California, where the disease was discovered in 1911.[10] Several other animals, such as rabbits, may also be infected.[4]

Signs and symptoms

[edit]

Depending on the site of infection, tularemia has six characteristic clinical variants: ulceroglandular (the most common type representing 75% of all forms), glandular, oropharyngeal, pneumonic, oculoglandular, and typhoidal.[11]

The incubation period for tularemia is 1 to 14 days; most human infections become apparent after three to five days.[12] In most susceptible mammals, the clinical signs include fever, lethargy, loss of appetite, signs of sepsis, and possibly death. Nonhuman mammals rarely develop the skin lesions seen in people. Subclinical infections are common, and animals often develop specific antibodies to the organism. Fever is moderate or very high, and tularemia bacilli can be isolated from blood cultures at this stage. The face and eyes redden and become inflamed. Inflammation spreads to the lymph nodes, which enlarge and may suppurate (mimicking bubonic plague). A high fever accompanies lymph node involvement.[13]

Cause

[edit]

Tularemia is caused by the bacterium Francisella tularensis which is typically spread by ticks, deer flies, and contact with infected animals.[4]

Bacteria

[edit]
Chocolate agar culture showing Francisella tularensis colonies
Another culture of Francisella tularensis

The bacteria can penetrate into the body through damaged skin, mucous membranes, and inhalation. Humans are most often infected by a tick/deer fly bite or through handling an infected animal. Ingesting infected water, soil, or food can also cause infection. Hunters are at a higher risk of this disease because of the potential of inhaling the bacteria during the skinning process. It has been contracted from inhaling particles from an infected rabbit ground up in a lawnmower (see below). Tularemia is not spread directly from person to person.[14] Humans can also be infected through bioterrorism attempts.[15]

Francisella tularensis can live both within and outside the cells of the animal it infects, meaning it is a facultative intracellular bacterium.[16] It primarily infects macrophages, a type of white blood cell, and thus can evade the immune system. The course of disease involves the spread of the organism to multiple organ systems, including the lungs, liver, spleen, and lymphatic system. The course of the disease is different depending on the route of exposure. Mortality in untreated (before the antibiotic era) patients has been as high as 50% in the pneumonic and typhoidal forms of the disease, which, however, account for less than 10% of cases.[17]

Spread

[edit]

The most common way the disease is spread is via arthropod vectors. Ticks involved include Amblyomma, Dermacentor, Haemaphysalis, and Ixodes.[18] Rodents, rabbits, and hares often serve as reservoir hosts,[19] but waterborne infection accounts for 5–10% of all tularemia in the United States,[20] including from aquatic animals such as seals.[21] Tularemia can also be transmitted by biting flies, particularly the deer fly Chrysops discalis. Individual flies can remain infectious for 14 days and ticks for over two years.[citation needed] Tularemia may also be spread by direct contact with contaminated animals or material, by ingestion of poorly cooked flesh of infected animals or contaminated water, or by inhalation of contaminated dust.[22]

Diagnosis

[edit]

Pathology

[edit]

In lymph node biopsies, the typical histopathologic pattern is characterized by geographic areas of necrosis with neutrophils and necrotizing granulomas. The pattern is non-specific and similar to other infectious lymphadenopathies.[23]

The laboratory isolation of F. tularensis requires special media such as buffered charcoal yeast extract agar. It cannot be isolated in the routine culture media because of the need for sulfhydryl group donors (such as cysteine). The microbiologist must be informed when tularemia is suspected, not only to include the special media for appropriate isolation, but also to ensure that safety precautions are taken to avoid contamination of laboratory personnel. Serological tests (detection of antibodies in the serum of the patients) are available and widely used. Cross reactivity with Brucella can confuse interpretation of the results, so diagnosis should not rely only on serology. Molecular methods such as PCR are available in reference laboratories.[citation needed]

Prevention

[edit]

There are no safe, available, approved vaccines against tularemia. However, vaccination research and development continue, with live attenuated vaccines being the most thoroughly researched and most likely candidate for approval.[24] Sub-unit vaccine candidates, such as killed-whole cell vaccines, are also under investigation, however research has not reached a state of public use.[24]

Optimal preventative practices include limiting direct exposure when handling potentially infected animals by wearing gloves and face masks (importantly, when skinning deceased animals).[25]

Treatment

[edit]

If infection occurs or is suspected, treatment is generally with the antibiotics streptomycin or gentamicin.[25] Doxycycline was previously used.[26] Gentamicin may be easier to obtain than streptomycin.[26] There is also tentative evidence to support the use of quinolone antibiotics.[26]

Prognosis

[edit]

Since the discovery of antibiotics, the rate of death associated with tularemia has decreased from 60% to less than 4%.[25]

Epidemiology

[edit]

Tularemia is most common in the Northern Hemisphere, including North America and parts of Europe and Asia.[25] It occurs between 30° and 71° north latitude.[25]

In the United States, although records show that tularemia was never particularly common, incidence rates continued to drop over the course of the 20th century. Between 1990 and 2000, the rate dropped to less than 1 per one million, meaning the disease is extremely rare in the United States today.[27]

In Europe, tularemia is generally rare, though outbreaks with hundreds of cases occur every few years in neighboring Finland and Sweden.[28] In Sweden over a period from 1984 to 2012 a total of 4,830 cases of tularemia occurred (most of the infections were acquired within the country). About 1.86 cases per 100,000 persons occur each year with higher rates in those between 55 and 70.[29]

Outbreaks

[edit]

In the 14th century BC, a disease believed to probably be Tularemia spread throughout the Hittite Empire, known as the Hittite plague, and its use in repelling an invasion was the first use of biological warfare recorded.

From May to October 2000, an outbreak of tularemia in Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, resulted in one fatality, and brought the interest of the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as a potential investigative ground for aerosolised Francisella tularensis. For a time, Martha's Vineyard was identified as the only place in the world where documented cases of tularemia resulted from lawn mowing.[30] However, in May 2015[31] a resident of Lafayette, Colorado, died from aerosolised F. tularensis, which was also connected to lawn mowing, highlighting this new vector of risk.

An outbreak of tularemia occurred in Kosovo in 1999–2000.[32]

In 2004, three researchers at Boston Medical Center, in Massachusetts, were accidentally infected with F. tularensis, after apparently failing to follow safety procedures.[33]

In 2005, small amounts of F. tularensis were detected in the National Mall area of Washington, D.C., the morning after an antiwar demonstration on September 24, 2005. Biohazard sensors were triggered at six locations surrounding the Mall. While thousands of people were potentially exposed, no infections were reported. The detected bacteria likely originated from a natural source, not from a bioterror attempt.[34]

In 2005, an outbreak occurred in Germany amongst participants in a hare hunt. About 27 people came into contact with contaminated blood and meat after the hunt. Ten of the exposed, aged 11 to 73, developed tularemia. One of these died due to complications caused by chronic heart disease.[35]

Tularemia is endemic in the Gori region of the Eurasian country of Georgia. The last outbreak was in 2006.[36] The disease is also endemic on the uninhabited Pakri Islands off the northern coast of Estonia. Used for bombing practice by Soviet forces, chemical and bacteriological weapons may have been dropped on these islands.[37]

In July 2007, an outbreak was reported in the Spanish autonomous region of Castile and León and traced to the plague of voles infesting the region. Another outbreak had taken place ten years before in the same area.[38]

In January 2011, researchers searching for brucellosis among feral pig populations in Texas discovered widespread tularemia infection or evidence of past infection in feral hog populations of at least two Texas counties, even though tularemia is not normally associated with pigs at all. Precautions were recommended for those who hunt, dress, or prepare feral hogs. Since feral hogs roam over large distances, concern exists that tularemia may spread or already be present in feral hogs over a wide geographic area.[39]

In November 2011, it was found in Tasmania. Reports claimed it to be the first in the Southern Hemisphere.[40] However, the causative organism was documented to have been isolated from a foot wound in the Northern Territory in 2003.[41]

In 2014, at least five cases of tularemia were reported in Colorado and at least three more cases in early 2015, including one death as a result of lawn mowing, as noted above.[31] In the summer of 2015, a popular hiking area just north of Boulder was identified as a site of animal infection, and signs were posted to warn hikers.[citation needed]

History

[edit]

The tularemia bacterium was first isolated by G.W. McCoy of the United States Public Health Service plague lab and reported in 1912.[42][43] Scientists determined that tularemia could be dangerous to humans; a human being may catch the infection after contacting an infected animal. The ailment soon became associated with hunters, cooks, and agricultural workers.[44]

Use as a biological weapon

[edit]

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) regards F. tularensis as a viable biological warfare agent, and it has been included in the biological warfare programs of the United States, Soviet Union, and Japan at various times.[45] A former Soviet biological weapons scientist, Ken Alibek, has alleged that an outbreak of tularemia among German soldiers shortly before the Battle of Stalingrad was due to the release of F. tularensis by Soviet forces. Others who have studied the pathogen "propose that an outbreak resulting from natural causes is more likely".[46][47] In the United States, practical research into using rabbit fever as a biological warfare agent took place in 1954 at Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas, an extension of the Fort Detrick program.[48] It was viewed as an attractive agent because:[citation needed]

  • it is easy to aerosolize
  • it is highly infective; between 10 and 50 bacteria are sufficient to infect victims
  • it is fast-acting: symptoms usually appear after three to five days.[12]
  • it is nonpersistent and easy to decontaminate (unlike anthrax endospores)
  • it is highly incapacitating to infected persons
  • it has comparatively low lethality (compared to anthrax), which is useful where enemy soldiers are in proximity to noncombatants, e.g., civilians

The Schu S4 strain was standardized as "Agent UL" for use in the United States M143 bursting spherical bomblet. It was a lethal biological warfare agent with an anticipated fatality rate of 40–60%. The rate of action was around three days, with a duration of action of one to three weeks (treated) and two to three months (untreated), with frequent relapses. UL was a aminoglycoside resistant strain. The aerobiological stability of UL was a major concern, being sensitive to sunlight and losing virulence over time after release. When the 425 strain was standardized as "agent JT" (an incapacitant rather than lethal agent), the Schu S4 strain's symbol was changed again to SR.[citation needed]

Both wet and dry types of F. tularensis (identified by the codes TT and ZZ) were examined during the "Red Cloud" tests, which took place from November 1966 to February 1967 in the Tanana Valley, Alaska.[49]

Other animals

[edit]

Cats and dogs can acquire the disease from the bite of a tick or flea that has fed on an infected host, such as a rabbit or rodent. For treatment of infected cats, antibiotics are the preferred treatment, including tetracycline, chloramphenicol or streptomycin. Long treatment courses may be necessary as relapses are common.[50]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Tularemia

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

Tularemia is a rare but potentially life-threatening zoonotic bacterial infection caused by Francisella tularensis, a small, aerobic, nonmotile, gram-negative coccobacillus that thrives as a facultative intracellular pathogen in a wide array of hosts including mammals, birds, amphibians, and arthropods. The pathogen exists in two main subspecies—F. tularensis subsp. tularensis (Type A, highly virulent in North America) and F. tularensis subsp. holarctica (Type B, less severe and more widespread)—with the former linked to higher mortality rates in untreated human cases. Transmission to humans occurs primarily through bites from infected ticks or deer flies, direct contact with contaminated animal carcasses or fluids (especially from rabbits and rodents), ingestion of unpasteurized milk or undercooked meat, or inhalation of aerosolized bacteria from environmental sources or laboratory accidents. Clinical presentations vary by entry portal, encompassing ulceroglandular (skin ulcer with swollen lymph nodes), glandular, oculoglandular, oropharyngeal, pneumonic (respiratory involvement), and typhoidal (systemic sepsis-like) forms, often featuring abrupt fever, chills, malaise, and localized inflammation. While incubation periods range from 1 to 14 days (typically 3–5), untreated mortality can reach 30–60% for pneumonic or typhoidal variants, though early intervention with antibiotics like streptomycin, gentamicin, or doxycycline yields excellent outcomes. F. tularensis poses unique public health challenges due to its extreme infectivity—requiring as few as 10 organisms for lethal aerosol infection—and historical weaponization efforts, classifying it as a Category A select agent with stringent biosafety requirements for handling.

Etiology

Bacterium Characteristics

is a small, Gram-negative, non-motile, aerobic coccobacillus measuring approximately 0.2–0.5 μm by 0.7–1.0 μm, exhibiting pleomorphic morphology and faint staining properties under Gram staining. It is a facultative intracellular capable of replicating within host cells. The bacterium displays fastidious growth requirements, necessitating cysteine-enriched media for cultivation, and grows poorly on standard blood agar plates, producing tiny colonies only after 48 hours or more. Growth is somewhat improved on , yielding small, gray-white, opaque colonies of 1–2 mm diameter after extended incubation. F. tularensis exhibits exceptionally high , with an infectious dose as low as 10 organisms sufficient to establish via various routes. It demonstrates environmental persistence, surviving for extended periods in , moist , and decaying animal tissues, which contributes to its ecological stability outside hosts.

Subspecies and Virulence Factors

Francisella tularensis comprises four recognized —tularensis, holarctica, mediastica, and novicida—differentiated primarily by genomic sequences, biochemical properties, and degrees of in mammalian hosts. The subspecies tularensis (type A) exhibits the highest , with a low infectious dose (as few as 10 organisms) sufficient to cause severe in humans and rabbits, and is predominantly associated with North American isolates. In contrast, holarctica (type B) displays attenuated , requiring higher doses for infection and causing milder infections, while mediastica and novicida are generally avirulent or weakly pathogenic in humans, though novicida can infect immunocompromised individuals. Within tularensis, phylogenetic clades A.I and A.II show gradients, with A.I strains, exemplified by the Schu S4 isolate, demonstrating superior lethality in murine models compared to A.II, linked to specific genomic deletions and insertions absent in less virulent strains. These subspecies-level differences arise from chromosomal variations, including single nucleotide polymorphisms and , which modulate and metabolic capabilities critical for . For instance, holarctica harbors insertions in regions like the ftt_0086 locus that correlate with reduced intracellular survival relative to tularensis. Central to F. tularensis across is the (FPI), a 30-40 kb genomic region present in multiple copies that encodes an atypical type VI secretion system (T6SS). This T6SS apparatus, comprising core components like VgrG, Hcp, and ClpB, enables phagosomal rupture, cytosolic translocation, and evasion of host , with mutants in FPI genes exhibiting over 1,000-fold in . Effectors secreted via T6SS, such as PdpC and PdpD, disrupt host membrane integrity and inhibit activation, facilitating rapid bacterial replication within macrophages. variations in FPI copy number and effector sequences contribute to differential T6SS efficiency, with tularensis strains deploying a more robust system. Surface structures further underpin virulence disparities, particularly through (LPS) modifications and . F. tularensis LPS features a tetra-acylated with short O-antigen chains, rendering it hypostimulatory for (TLR4) and minimizing proinflammatory cytokine release, thus promoting immune evasion. The O-antigen capsule, more prominent in holarctica (type B) strains, confers serum resistance and shields underlying LPS from complement deposition, though its absence or truncation in tularensis paradoxically enhances tissue invasiveness without compromising overall lethality. These envelope adaptations collectively delay innate immune detection, allowing subspecies-specific pathogenesis profiles.

Transmission

Vectors and Zoonotic Reservoirs

Tularemia is maintained in nature through enzootic cycles involving various mammalian reservoirs, primarily lagomorphs such as rabbits (Sylvilagus spp.) and hares (Lepus spp.), which serve as key amplifiers of . , including voles, mice, and other small mammals, also act as significant reservoirs, harboring the bacterium and facilitating its transmission within wildlife populations. Aquatic mammals like beavers and muskrats contribute to water-associated cycles, particularly in regions with contaminated freshwater habitats. Arthropod vectors play a central role in transmitting F. tularensis between animal hosts, with ticks being the most prominent in many endemic areas. , species such as the American dog tick (), Rocky Mountain wood tick (Dermacentor andersoni), and lone star tick () are primary vectors capable of acquiring and transstadially passing the bacterium during blood meals on infected hosts. Mosquitoes and tabanid flies (deer flies) serve as mechanical or biological vectors in certain outbreaks, particularly in and parts of , where they can transmit the pathogen after feeding on bacteremic animals. The bacterium exhibits environmental persistence outside vertebrate hosts, surviving for weeks in moist soil, water, and decaying animal carcasses under cool conditions, which allows for indirect maintenance in the ecosystem. This resilience in contaminated water sources and sediments underscores the potential for water-mediated amplification in aquatic reservoirs, independent of immediate arthropod involvement.

Modes of Human Infection

Humans become infected with , the causative agent of tularemia, through several distinct routes that highlight opportunities for prevention via protective measures such as gloves, insect repellents, and safe food handling. The most common pathway involves bites from infected arthropods, including ticks (e.g., species), deer flies (), and, less frequently, mosquitoes, which transmit the during blood meals. These bites often lead to localized entry, underscoring the value of tick checks and prompt removal to mitigate risk. Direct contact with infected animal tissues or fluids provides another primary route, typically occurring when hunters, trappers, or farmers handle carcasses of mammals like rabbits, hares, , or beavers through cuts, abrasions, or mucous membranes. This percutaneous exposure is preventable with and proper disposal of potentially contaminated materials. represents a gastrointestinal entry point, resulting from consumption of undercooked infected or unpasteurized products, or drinking untreated contaminated by infected animal excreta or tissues in endemic areas. Inhalation of aerosolized constitutes a respiratory route, often from disturbing contaminated soil, hay, or water during activities like mowing, , or manipulation, where as few as 10-50 organisms can initiate due to the pathogen's extreme . Laboratory-acquired cases, documented since the bacterium's isolation in 1911, frequently arise from accidental aerosol generation during culturing or needlestick injuries, emphasizing the need for biosafety level 3 containment given its classification as a . No instances of human-to-human transmission have been reported, distinguishing tularemia from contagious diseases and alleviating concerns over interpersonal spread.

Epidemiology

Global Distribution and Incidence

Tularemia is endemic primarily in the , with established natural foci in , , and parts of including , , , , and . The pathogen exhibits regional subspecies variation, with type A strains predominant in and type B strains in , influencing transmission cycles tied to local and vectors. Cases outside these areas, such as in the or , are exceedingly rare and typically linked to imported infections rather than sustained local transmission. In the United States, approximately 200–300 cases are reported annually to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, with an average of 205 cases per year from 2011 to 2022, corresponding to an incidence of 0.064 cases per 100,000 population. This represents a 56% increase compared to 2001–2010, concentrated in south-central and western states like , , , , and . Incidence is disproportionately higher among rural populations, hunters, trappers, and individuals with occupational exposure to , lagomorphs, or ticks, reflecting zoonotic risk factors tied to direct animal contact or habitat overlap. Europe reports around 800 human cases annually through surveillance networks, with Sweden and Finland accounting for the majority, alongside sporadic clusters in Central and Eastern European countries such as , , and . Demographic patterns show elevated risk in rural and forested areas, particularly among those engaged in , , or water-related activities, where exposure to contaminated or arthropod vectors is common. In , incidence remains underreported but endemic in select foci, with type B strains driving water- and tick-associated transmission; for instance, documented 85 human cases from 2000 to 2020, while and neighboring regions experience periodic upticks linked to population dynamics. Overall re-emergence patterns across hemispheres correlate with fluctuations in host densities—such as beavers, voles, and rabbits—and anthropogenic land use changes enhancing human-vector interfaces, rather than isolated climatic shifts. In the United States, tularemia incidence rose by 56% from 2011 to 2022 compared to 2001–2010, with 2,462 cases reported during the former period, primarily in south-central states like and . Annual cases typically range from 200 to 300, including 220 reported in 2024 and 15 confirmed by May 10, 2025. Localized clusters, such as five human cases and 27 animal cases in during 2024—all requiring hospitalization but none fatal—underscore sporadic outbreaks often tied to direct contact with infected or vectors like ticks and rabbits. Europe has experienced re-emergence, with 1,185 confirmed human cases across the in 2023, yielding a notification rate of 0.27 per 100,000 . Notable surges include 114 cases in Spain's region from March 2024 to January 2025, alongside a summer 2024 pulmonary outbreak in linked to environmental exposure. and report the highest burdens, contributing to an estimated 800 annual European cases, though numbers fluctuate without sustained . Post-2020 trends reflect stability at low levels globally, with increases attributable to enhanced surveillance, expanded , and greater human-wildlife interfaces rather than novel drivers. CDC updates in 2025 emphasize management of sporadic natural cases alongside preparedness for potential use, given Francisella tularensis' category A status, but data show no shift toward pandemic-scale threats. Probable case underreporting may inflate perceived rises, yet confirmed incidences remain geographically focalized and treatable with antibiotics.

Clinical Manifestations

Disease Forms

Tularemia is classified into six principal clinical forms—ulceroglandular, glandular, oculoglandular, oropharyngeal, pneumonic, and typhoidal—primarily based on the portal of bacterial entry and the inoculum dose of . These forms reflect the pathogen's route of inoculation, with cutaneous or mucocutaneous entry typically yielding localized manifestations, while or high-dose systemic exposure results in more disseminated disease. Severity correlates with dose; lower inocula via skin often produce self-limiting regional involvement, whereas higher doses or respiratory/ingestional routes promote rapid bacteremia and multi-organ involvement. The ulceroglandular form, arising from through abrasions, bites, or contact with contaminated materials, predominates and accounts for 70-80% of cases, featuring initial replication at the entry site followed by lymphatic drainage to regional nodes. Glandular tularemia resembles ulceroglandular but lacks a discrete cutaneous , often due to deeper subcutaneous entry or minimal surface trauma, leading to isolated without evident local changes. Oculoglandular occurs via direct conjunctival exposure, such as from hand-to-eye transfer of inoculum, causing unilateral ocular involvement with preauricular or cervical nodal enlargement. Oropharyngeal tularemia develops following of contaminated , , or undercooked harboring the bacterium, with initial pharyngeal or tonsillar progressing to cervical lymphadenitis. Pneumonic tularemia primarily stems from of F. tularensis, as in scenarios or environmental aerosols, or secondarily from hematogenous dissemination; it is dose-dependent, with as few as 10 organisms sufficient for but higher loads exacerbating pulmonary and systemic spread. Typhoidal tularemia, the most severe and non-localizing form, lacks identifiable entry-site signs and arises from overwhelming systemic via or , often indistinguishable empirically from via findings of widespread granulomatous without focal portals.

Signs, Symptoms, and Complications

Tularemia manifests with an typically ranging from 1 to 14 days, though most cases become apparent after 3 to 5 days. Common initial symptoms across forms include sudden onset of fever, chills, , malaise, , myalgias, and anorexia. Clinical presentations vary by the route of and resulting form. In ulceroglandular tularemia, the most common form, a painful skin develops at the site of bacterial entry, accompanied by regional that may suppurate or become necrotic if untreated. Glandular tularemia presents similarly but without the cutaneous , featuring prominent enlargement. Oculoglandular involvement includes , eye pain, lacrimation, and preauricular or . Oropharyngeal tularemia causes exudative , , , , and occasionally cervical abscesses. Pneumonic tularemia features dry , substernal chest pain, pleuritic pain, dyspnea, and radiographically evident or pleural effusions. Typhoidal tularemia lacks localized signs, presenting as a nonspecific systemic illness with high fever, relative , and . Untreated tularemia can progress to severe complications, including , , , and multiorgan failure. Rare but serious sequelae encompass , , , , , , and . Mortality rates in untreated cases differ by form: 5-15% for ulceroglandular tularemia, but 30-60% for pneumonic or typhoidal forms due to rapid dissemination and .

Pathophysiology

Infection Mechanisms

, the causative agent of tularemia, gains entry into host tissues primarily through uptake by macrophages via . This process often involves complement receptor 3 (CR3) and other receptors such as or scavenger receptor A, leading to the formation of spacious pseudopod loops during engulfment. In cases of aerosol inhalation, the bacteria target alveolar macrophages in the lungs, initiating pulmonary infection. Following uptake, F. tularensis resides briefly in a specialized Francisella-containing (FCP) that acidifies and matures with markers like EEA1 and LAMP-1/2 but avoids full lysosomal fusion. The bacterium then escapes into the host cell within 1-4 hours post-infection, facilitated by proteins encoded in the Francisella (FPI), including IglA, IglB, and IglC, which function akin to a type VI secretion system. This escape enables evasion of degradative compartments and access to cytosolic nutrients. In the cytosol, F. tularensis undergoes extensive binary fission replication, doubling every 2-3 hours initially, regulated by factors such as MglA/SspA. As intracellular bacterial numbers increase, the host lyses, releasing progeny bacteria that infect adjacent cells locally or disseminate systemically through lymphatic vessels and the bloodstream to distant organs like the and liver. Beyond acute host infection, F. tularensis demonstrates capacity for formation in environmental niches, such as aquatic sediments, where exopolysaccharides and cell surface promote adherence and persistence, enhancing viability over months to years prior to zoonotic transmission.

Host Immune Response

Upon infection with , the causative agent of tularemia, the host's innate is initially subdued, allowing bacterial before robust occurs. The bacterium evades early recognition by macrophages and dendritic cells through rapid phagosomal escape and inhibition of , impairing production essential for bacterial killing. This delay results in minimal initial secretion of proinflammatory cytokines such as TNF-α and IL-1β, enabling intracellular replication and spread; experimental mouse models infected with the live strain (LVS) demonstrate that TNF-α-deficient mice succumb faster to sublethal doses due to unchecked growth. In severe cases, particularly with Type A strains, a late-phase hypercytokinemia emerges, characterized by excessive TNF-α, IL-1β, and other TH1 cytokines, resembling a that contributes to tissue damage rather than resolution. Adaptive immunity, particularly T-cell responses, is critical for eventual bacterial clearance in experimental models. + and + T cells, activated via IFN-γ and TNF-α production, restrict intracellular replication within ; depletion or of these cells in mice leads to chronic and higher bacterial burdens with LVS or virulent strains. IFN-γ directly activates macrophage microbicidal pathways, including production, while T-cell effector functions correlate with protection in aerosol challenge models mimicking pneumonic tularemia. Failures in T-cell priming, as seen in athymic or TCR-deficient mice, result in persistent , underscoring the adaptive arm's role in resolving primary and secondary exposures. Granuloma formation represents a key containment mechanism, coordinated by IFN-γ from hepatic NK cells in mouse LVS models, where granulomas spatially limit bacterial antigens and induce apoptosis within infected foci via iNOS expression. NK cell depletion disrupts this, leading to antigen dissemination and necrosis, while IFN-γ deficiency reduces granuloma integrity and elevates burdens by 100- to 1,000-fold. Type A strains (F. tularensis subsp. tularensis) exhibit superior evasion, more potently suppressing cytokines like TNF-α and IL-6 compared to Type B (F. tularensis subsp. holarctica), facilitating dissemination over containment; this virulence gap is evident in lower lethal doses (10-50 CFU for Type A inhalation) and weaker TLR4 signaling due to atypical LPS. In contrast, Type B induces partial responses earlier, though still insufficient for full clearance without adaptive intervention.

Diagnosis

Clinical Evaluation

Clinical evaluation of suspected tularemia demands a high index of suspicion, as initial symptoms are often nonspecific, including abrupt onset of fever, chills, , malaise, and myalgias, which can mimic common viral or bacterial infections. A thorough exposure history is essential to raise suspicion, particularly inquiring about recent or bites, handling of potentially infected animal carcasses such as rabbits or hares during or , consumption of undercooked contaminated or unpasteurized dairy, or inhalation of aerosolized contaminated materials. Lack of recalled bite does not preclude the diagnosis, as transmission can occur through direct contact with infected tissues or environmental contamination. Risk stratification should prioritize individuals in high-exposure occupations, such as laboratory workers handling Francisella tularensis cultures, hunters, trappers, farmers, veterinarians, and landscapers, who face elevated transmission risks via cutaneous, inhalational, or gastrointestinal routes. In at-risk patients presenting with regional , painful skin ulcers (often developing 2-5 days post-exposure and progressing to a black ), or oculoglandular signs like unilateral , tularemia should be considered amid a broad that includes , , , mycobacterial infections, and for ulceroglandular forms, or atypical pneumonias and for pneumonic presentations. Over-reliance on serologic testing should be avoided in acute settings, as antibodies may not appear until 2-4 weeks post-onset, potentially delaying and treatment in severe cases; thus, clinical suspicion guides initial empiric while awaiting confirmatory tests. Frequent initial misdiagnosis underscores the need for awareness of tularemia's protean manifestations and prompt evaluation in endemic areas or exposed cohorts to mitigate progression to complications like or .

Laboratory Confirmation

Laboratory confirmation of tularemia primarily relies on direct detection methods such as culture isolation or molecular assays targeting Francisella tularensis nucleic acids, due to the organism's fastidious nature and high infectivity requiring Biosafety Level 3 (BSL-3) containment for manipulation. Culture of F. tularensis from clinical specimens like , tissue, or exudates demands cysteine-supplemented media, such as heart agar with 9% or -enriched glucose , where small, opaque colonies appear after 2-4 days of incubation at 35-37°C in 5% CO₂. Growth is slow and inhibited on standard media without , yielding positive cultures in fewer than 10% of cases overall, though success improves with early, uncontaminated samples and antibiotic-supplemented media for contaminated specimens. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays provide rapid, sensitive detection, often targeting the fopA gene encoding outer membrane protein A, enabling single-cell identification without viable organism recovery and suitable for BSL-2 or lower settings if precautions are followed. Real-time PCR multitarget panels, including fopA and other genes like pdpD, distinguish F. tularensis and detect DNA in diverse samples, with nested PCR enhancing sensitivity for low-burden infections. Post-2020 advances include iron-enriched media accelerating growth for faster PCR confirmation and novel immunoassays leveraging anti-FopA antibodies for point-of-care detection, though PCR remains the gold standard for early acute-phase diagnosis over . Serological tests, such as the microagglutination assay (), serve for retrospective confirmation by detecting IgM and IgG antibodies, typically requiring paired acute and convalescent sera collected at least 14 days post-onset for a fourfold rise or single high (≥1:160). outperforms tube by detecting agglutinins 3-9 days earlier but is limited in early due to delayed , cross-reactivity with , and reduced utility in vaccinated individuals or those on antibiotics. While supportive, alone cannot confirm acute cases without clinical correlation, emphasizing the priority of culture or PCR for definitive laboratory diagnosis.

Treatment

Antimicrobial Regimens

Tularemia is effectively treated with antibiotics targeting , which remains highly susceptible to aminoglycosides, fluoroquinolones, and tetracyclines, with resistance exceedingly rare among clinical isolates from the (tested susceptible in 278 isolates across eight drugs, 2009–2018). The 2025 CDC guidelines recommend first-line regimens based on severity, patient age, and exposure context, drawing from human case series, animal models (e.g., efficacy in New Zealand white rabbits for gentamicin and ), and limited randomized data. Treatment failure and relapse rates are low (under 5% in reviewed series) with appropriate agents and durations but rise with shortened courses or bacteriostatic drugs like tetracyclines used alone in severe cases. For severe tularemia (e.g., pneumonic or septicemic forms), intravenous aminoglycosides such as gentamicin (5 mg/kg/day in 1–3 divided doses, adjusted for renal function) are preferred, with (15 mg/kg/day in 2 doses) as an alternative; durations are 10–14 days, transitioning to oral therapy if improving. Fluoroquinolones like (400 mg IV every 12 hours) serve as alternatives for severe cases intolerant to aminoglycosides, supported by showing comparable survival to . Mild to moderate cases (e.g., ulceroglandular) can be managed outpatient with oral (100 mg twice daily) or (500 mg twice daily), though requires 14–21 days to minimize relapse risk due to its bacteriostatic action.
Regimen TypeAgent and Dosage (Adults)DurationNotes
Severe (IV preferred)Gentamicin 5 mg/kg/day IV (divided)10–14 daysPreferred; monitor levels, renal function. Switch to oral if stable.
Severe alternativeCiprofloxacin 400 mg IV q12h10–14 daysFor aminoglycoside intolerance; efficacy from animal/human data.
Mild/Moderate (oral)Doxycycline 100 mg PO BID14–21 daysBacteriostatic; higher relapse if <14 days.
Mild/Moderate alternativeCiprofloxacin 500 mg PO BID10–14 daysBactericidal; shorter course viable.
In bioterrorism scenarios, where engineered resistance is a concern, initial combines two classes (e.g., gentamicin plus ) pending susceptibility testing, per 2025 CDC updates emphasizing rapid aerosol-disseminated risks. Pediatric dosing mirrors adults (e.g., gentamicin 5–7.5 mg/kg/day; 15 mg/kg BID, max 1 g/day), avoiding under age 8 unless benefits outweigh risks. , occurring in up to 10–20% with inadequate duration, manifests 1–3 weeks post-treatment and requires re-treatment with the same or alternative agent.

Post-Exposure Prophylaxis

Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for tularemia entails antibiotic administration immediately following confirmed or suspected exposure to to avert infection, distinct from therapeutic regimens for active disease. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends initiating PEP as soon as possible, ideally within 24 hours of exposure, particularly for inhalational or laboratory incidents. For adults, preferred options include (100 mg orally twice daily) or (500 mg orally twice daily), each continued for 14 days; levofloxacin (500 mg orally once daily) serves as an alternative fluoroquinolone. These antibiotics target the bacterium's susceptibility profile, with F. tularensis exhibiting minimum inhibitory concentrations typically below 0.5 μg/mL for both agents . Animal models, including mice and cynomolgus macaques challenged with aerosolized F. tularensis Schu S4, demonstrate prophylaxis exceeding 90% survival when dosed promptly post-exposure, though bacterial clearance may vary between and . In one murine study, achieved 100% survival post-PEP, compared to 60% with , highlighting potential differences in post-treatment persistence. Human efficacy data remain limited, lacking randomized trials; recommendations stem from extrapolation of treatment outcomes in ~200 reported cases, small prophylaxis series in laboratory settings, and modeling rather than direct PEP studies. PEP integrates into broader protocols for category A agents like tularemia, emphasizing rapid deployment in mass exposure scenarios such as release, with monitoring for adverse effects like from or tendon risks from fluoroquinolones. For pediatric or pregnant patients, dosing adjustments or alternatives like (10 mg/kg orally once daily for 7 days) are advised to minimize risks. Completion of the full course is critical, as premature termination may allow disease progression in vulnerable individuals.

Prevention

Personal and Environmental Measures

Personal protective measures against arthropod vectors include applying EPA-registered insect repellents containing DEET, picaridin, IR3535, oil of lemon eucalyptus, or para-menthane-diol to exposed skin, and treating clothing, gear, and tents with 0.5% permethrin to repel ticks and deer flies, which transmit Francisella tularensis via bites. Wearing long-sleeved shirts, long pants tucked into socks or boots, and light-colored clothing aids in early detection and removal of attached ticks; daily checks of skin, scalp, and clothing after outdoor activities in endemic areas, followed by prompt tick extraction using fine-tipped tweezers grasping the tick mouthparts close to the skin and pulling steadily with steady pressure, reduces inoculation risk from regurgitated bacteria. Showering soon after returning indoors further lowers secondary exposure from detached vectors. To minimize direct contact with infected animals or contaminated materials, individuals handling , carcasses, or sick animals—such as hunters, trappers, or farmers—should wear impermeable gloves, masks, and protective clothing, burying or incinerating carcasses appropriately and decontaminating tools with a 10% solution or phenolic disinfectants effective against the . must be cooked thoroughly to an internal temperature of at least 71°C (160°F) to inactivate F. tularensis, which persists in undercooked tissues; skinning and field-dressing should occur outdoors away from living areas to prevent or . Avoiding mowing or landscaping near visible animal carcasses prevents disturbance of contaminated dust or soil harboring viable for weeks in moist environments. In endemic regions, consuming untreated poses risks, as F. tularensis survives in aquatic environments; boiling water for at least one minute or using filters certified to remove (e.g., 0.2-micron pore size) is advised for drinking, cooking, or brushing teeth. Environmental at the personal or property level involves applying acaricides like to vegetation around dwellings and removing habitats to reduce and host populations, though community-wide efforts are more effective for sustained suppression. Occupational safeguards for laboratory personnel and veterinary workers, who face elevated risks from aerosolized cultures or infected specimens, mandate biosafety level 2 (BSL-2) protocols: handling in certified class II biosafety cabinets, using gloves, gowns, , and N95 respirators during procedures, with immediate spill decontamination using 10% bleach or autoclaving waste. Veterinary staff treating potentially exposed animals should don full (PPE) including gloves, face shields, and disposable coveralls, alerting diagnostic labs to suspected tularemia for enhanced precautions, as occupational infections have occurred in up to 7% of surveyed veterinarians in high-risk areas.

Vaccine Development and Challenges

The live attenuated vaccine strain (LVS), developed in the United States during the 1950s from a Soviet precursor originating in the 1930s, has served as the benchmark for tularemia efforts despite providing only partial , estimated at approximately 50% against pneumonic forms and higher against cutaneous exposure in human use. Administered investigatively to high-risk personnel since the , LVS induces cellular immunity but retains residual , particularly in immunodeficient models like mice, leading to inconsistent and safety concerns that have precluded FDA licensure. Key challenges in vaccine development stem from F. tularensis's intracellular lifestyle, which demands robust T-cell mediated responses for clearance, complicating the of live strains to eliminate pathogenicity without eroding . Inactivated or subunit , while safer, often fail to elicit sufficient durable protection against challenges, as evidenced by historical trials showing inadequate cross-strain . No has achieved FDA approval as of 2025, reflecting persistent gaps in balancing , broad-spectrum , and reproducibility across challenge routes. Recent preclinical advancements include ATI-1701, a novel live attenuated strain from Appili Therapeutics, which demonstrated 100% survival in multiple animal models, including nonhuman primates, following aerosolized F. tularensis challenge exceeding 500 median lethal doses, with single-dose protection persisting up to one year post-vaccination. Subunit candidates targeting antigens like FopA and OmpA remain in early stages, aiming to circumvent live vaccine risks but facing similar hurdles in achieving correlate-of-protection thresholds observed in LVS. These efforts underscore ongoing difficulties in translating animal efficacy to human licensure without overattenuation compromising immune priming.

Prognosis

Mortality and Recovery Factors

With appropriate antibiotic treatment, such as or gentamicin, the mortality rate for tularemia is typically less than 2%, though it can reach 2-3% for infections caused by the more virulent Francisella tularensis subspecies tularensis (type A). Untreated cases exhibit significantly higher mortality, ranging from 5-15% overall, with rates escalating to 30-60% in pneumonic or typhoidal forms due to rapid systemic dissemination and . Delays in initiating therapy, particularly beyond the first week of symptoms in severe forms like pneumonic or typhoidal tularemia, substantially elevate fatality risks by allowing unchecked bacterial replication and progression to or multi-organ involvement. Prognosis varies markedly by clinical : ulceroglandular and oropharyngeal forms, which constitute the majority of cases, yield treated mortality rates near 1% or lower, whereas typhoidal (systemic, non-localizing) and pneumonic variants carry inherently poorer outcomes even with intervention, historically approaching 24% in some type A outbreaks without prompt care. Host factors critically influence recovery; advanced age and —such as renal impairment, elevated , or —increase susceptibility to severe bacteremia and treatment failure, with odds ratios for poor outcomes rising with comorbidity indices. Pathogen also plays a causal role, as type A strains predominate in North American cases with higher lethality compared to the less aggressive type B strains endemic in and Asia. Empirical evidence from case series and outbreaks underscores the of rapid response: in a review of 224 streptomycin-treated patients, 97% achieved full recovery, with fatalities confined to those presenting late or with overwhelming . Similarly, modern U.S. data from 2011-2022 report overall case-fatality rates below 2% amid widespread access, contrasting sharply with pre-antibiotic era mortality exceeding 30% for inhalational exposures. These outcomes affirm that timely and directly mitigate bacterial load and inflammatory cascades, overriding factors in most instances.

Long-Term Effects

In survivors of tularemia treated with appropriate antimicrobials, long-term sequelae are uncommon, occurring in a minority of cases based on data from 2006 to 2019, where residual symptoms included suppurating , , and . Persistent asthenia, manifesting as ongoing , has been reported in isolated instances among treated patients followed post-discharge. Neurological residuals are rare but may persist following severe forms such as or neuroinvasive infection; documented examples include in a small number of cases, potentially linked to disseminated affecting . No supports a chronic carrier state in humans, with absence of documented person-to-person transmission indicating clearance of post-resolution. In the pre-antibiotic era, untreated tularemia carried higher risks of prolonged complications among survivors, including chronic organ involvement, though specific longitudinal data are limited; modern antimicrobial regimens have markedly reduced such outcomes, with or chronicity confined to rare, undiagnosed or delayed-treatment scenarios like longstanding respiratory infection.

History

Discovery and Early Research

The disease now known as tularemia was first recognized in 1911 during investigations into a plague-like epizootic among ground squirrels in Tulare County, California. Researchers George W. McCoy and Charles W. Chapin of the U.S. Public Health Service isolated a novel bacterium, initially named Bacterium tularense, from the infected squirrels after experimental transmission to guinea pigs produced similar symptoms. This discovery occurred amid efforts to curb bubonic plague spread from rodents, highlighting the bacterium's distinct pathology despite superficial resemblances to Yersinia pestis. Human cases predated formal identification but were not initially linked to the pathogen. Sporadic illnesses resembling "rabbit fever" had been reported among hunters and butchers handling wild in the early 1900s, with symptoms including fever, ulceration, and . In 1909–1911, outbreaks of "deer-fly fever" in involved vector-borne transmission from infected animals, but the remained unclear until Edward Francis, a U.S. Public Health Service , connected these to B. tularense through serological and experimental studies in 1919. 30218-0/pdf) Francis confirmed zoonotic transmission by inoculating guinea pigs with blood from human patients, reproducing the disease and isolating the bacterium from lesions. In 1921, Francis formally named the human infection "tularemia," deriving the term from tularense to denote its origins while emphasizing its distinctiveness from animal plague.30218-0/pdf) Early research established rabbits as key reservoirs, with models demonstrating via dermal, respiratory, and gastrointestinal routes, underscoring the pathogen's versatility. These findings, based on autopsies, cultures, and animal inoculations, differentiated tularemia from other fevers and laid groundwork for understanding its , though isolation challenges persisted due to the bacterium's fastidious growth requirements.

Key Scientific Milestones

In 1944, became the first effective treatment for tularemia, dramatically reducing mortality from over 60% in untreated pneumonic and typhoidal forms to near zero in responsive cases, following its initial isolation from griseus in 1943.30218-0/fulltext) This aminoglycoside's success prompted its adoption as the standard therapy by the late 1940s, with clinical reports confirming rapid defervescence and lesion resolution in oculoglandular and glandular presentations. Subsequent trials in the validated gentamicin as a viable alternative, expanding treatment options amid concerns over 's . Vaccine development advanced concurrently, with the live attenuated strain (LVS) derived from a F. tularensis subsp. holarctica (Type B) isolate through in the in 1946, enabling mass immunization campaigns that protected millions until the 1960s. Transferred to the , LVS underwent trials in the 1950s–1960s, demonstrating 50–80% efficacy against subcutaneous and challenges in volunteers, though inconsistent protection against highly virulent Type A strains and reactogenicity limited its licensure to investigational use. Genomic sequencing in the revolutionized understanding of F. tularensis and differentiation, with the complete of subsp. tularensis strain Schu S4 published in 2007, revealing ~1.9 million base pairs and key virulence genes like those in the Francisella . This enabled molecular tools for distinguishing subsp. tularensis (Type A, highly virulent in ) from subsp. holarctica (Type B, less lethal and global), via single polymorphisms and multilocus variable-number tandem-repeat analysis, improving epidemiological tracking. In October 2025, CDC guidelines updated to prioritize oral (100 mg twice daily for 14 days) or over intramuscular for most scenarios, based on systematic reviews showing comparable efficacy and reduced invasiveness.

Biodefense Implications

Weaponization Programs

The developed Francisella tularensis as part of its offensive biological weapons program during , conducting aerosol dissemination tests at sites including to assess its feasibility for airborne delivery, given the bacterium's stability in aerosols and low infectious dose of 10–50 organisms. The program expanded post-war, producing weaponized quantities of the agent for potential use in munitions, but emphasized technical viability over deployment. Japan's Imperial Army, through , researched tularemia as a bioweapon during and 1940s, experimenting with and contamination methods on prisoners to evaluate and under field conditions. The initiated early studies on F. tularensis in military laboratories during the same era, focusing on its cultivation and dissemination potential, with parallel efforts yielding attenuated strains for alongside weaponizable virulent variants. Post-war, Soviet research intensified, producing vaccine-resistant strains by the 1970s–1980s through genetic manipulation and selection, enhancing resistance to both live vaccines and antibiotics for sustained weapon efficacy. The U.S. offensive program was terminated unilaterally by President on November 25, 1969, via National Security Decision Memorandum 35, destroying stockpiles in adherence to emerging international norms ahead of the 1972 , shifting focus to defensive research. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) designates F. tularensis a Category A agent due to its high transmissibility via (requiring minimal inoculum for mass casualties), environmental persistence, and relative simplicity of large-scale production from natural isolates.

Allegations of Use and Controversies

During the from August 1942 to February 1943, an outbreak of tularemia affected thousands of soldiers on both Soviet and Axis sides, prompting allegations of deliberate Soviet deployment as a biological weapon against German forces. , a former Soviet bioweapons scientist who defected in 1992, claimed in his 1999 memoir Biohazard that the intentionally released to exploit its incapacitating effects amid harsh winter conditions, contributing to over 10,000 reported cases in the region. However, epidemiological analysis indicates the epidemic aligned with natural patterns: Soviet records documented approximately 10,000 tularemia cases nationwide in 1941, with a major outbreak in the Rostov region—adjacent to Stalingrad—recording 14,000 infections as early as January 1942, predating the intense phase of the battle. Wartime factors such as , , and disrupted likely amplified a rodent-borne epizootic, rather than aerosolized dissemination, as no genetic or dispersal evidence supports artificial introduction. Claims of tularemia affecting Croatian prisoners of war in 1942, purportedly linked to Axis captivity or deliberate exposure, remain unverified and lack primary documentation beyond anecdotal reports in postwar accounts. Similarly, speculation tying tularemia to the 1979 Sverdlovsk incident—a confirmed accidental release of from a Soviet facility killing at least 66 —has no substantiation; official investigations and defector testimonies attribute the event solely to , with tularemia absent from victim autopsies or plume modeling. No peer-reviewed studies or declassified intelligence confirm operational use of tularemia in any conflict, distinguishing it from researched weaponization efforts. These allegations, often amplified in popular accounts, underscore the challenge of distinguishing biowarfare from amplified natural zoonoses in resource-scarce war zones, where empirical —such as pre-existing enzootic foci and —favor environmental causation over intentional acts. Absent forensic markers like strain anomalies or delivery artifacts, such claims rely on circumstantial inference, prioritizing vigilance in for preparedness rather than presuming covert deployment without corroboration.

Animal and Ecological Aspects

Affected Species

Tularemia, caused by , exhibits a broad host range among mammals, with lagomorphs such as rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) and hares (Lepus spp.) demonstrating high susceptibility; these species frequently develop septicemia and die in large numbers during epizootics. , including microtine species like voles, as well as mice, squirrels, beavers, and muskrats, serve as primary reservoirs and show variable susceptibility, often experiencing severe, rapidly fatal infections that contribute to natural amplification cycles. Carnivores in the wild, such as foxes and coyotes, display lower and more variable susceptibility, with infections typically subclinical or mild unless involving high bacterial loads. Among domestic animals, cats are highly susceptible, commonly acquiring the bacterium through bites or ingestion of infected wild prey like or lagomorphs, resulting in acute febrile illness, , and occasionally fatal outcomes without prompt treatment. Dogs can contract tularemia via similar routes but generally exhibit milder, self-limiting disease, though severe cases with or have been documented. Livestock infections remain rare, affecting species like sheep, pigs, and horses sporadically; such cases are reportable to veterinary authorities due to potential zoonotic risks and economic impacts, with sheep showing greater vulnerability than other bovines or equines. In experimental settings, laboratory animals including mice (Mus musculus) and guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus) are routinely infected to model tularemia , as these replicate the severe observed in natural highly susceptible hosts.

Wildlife and Ecosystem Impacts

Tularemia epizootics frequently cause substantial mortality in lagomorph populations, particularly rabbits and , which serve as amplifying hosts for . During outbreaks, infected individuals exhibit lethargy, reduced mobility, and rapid death, leading to localized population crashes; for instance, in Iberian hare (Lepus granatensis) populations, common vole outbreaks have been linked to amplified tularemia transmission that hinders post-epizootic recovery by sustaining environmental bacterial loads. Similarly, a 2011 epizootic in European brown (Lepus europaeus) in resulted in confirmed infections across a limited geographic area, underscoring risks to hare densities without evidence of total eradication. , including voles and muskrats, also experience high fatalities, with die-offs numbering in the thousands during peak events, though long-term population trajectories vary regionally—such as a severe decline in European hare numbers from 1993 to 2022 in some areas, not always correlated with reduced disease prevalence. These host die-offs can indirectly affect predators reliant on lagomorphs and , potentially leading to temporary food shortages or increased disease exposure for species like foxes and , which show serological evidence of F. tularensis and may act as sentinels. However, empirical on sustained predator declines remain limited, as tularemia impacts are often sporadic and overshadowed by broader ecological fluctuations like prey cycles. In natural ecosystems, the bacterium persists through terrestrial and aquatic cycles involving arthropod vectors and environmental reservoirs, maintaining enzootic levels without systematically disrupting ; lagomorph populations typically rebound absent ongoing perturbations, reflecting F. tularensis as an endemic regulator rather than a novel threat. monitoring, including carcass and predator , aids in tracking cycles but has not demonstrated consistent long-term losses attributable to tularemia alone.

References

  1. https://www.cdc.gov/tularemia/about/index.html
  2. https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/cmr.15.4.631-646.2002
  3. https://www.cdc.gov/tularemia/causes/index.html
  4. https://www.cdc.gov/tularemia/signs-symptoms/index.html
  5. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/74/rr/rr7402a1.htm
  6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430905/
  7. https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/78/Supplement_1/S1/7593852
  8. https://reach.cdc.gov/sites/default/files/job-aids-resources/F_tularensis_ID_Flowchart_508_Branded.pdf
  9. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/francisella-tularensis
  10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10281130/
  11. https://www.health.ny.gov/guidance/oph/wadsworth/francisella_tularensis.pdf
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6691783/
  13. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-51502-z
  14. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2394750/
  15. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16448801/
  16. https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2334-14-67
  17. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0010205
  18. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/8/10/1515
  19. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7098747/
  20. https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/iai.01116-10
  21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10653695/
  22. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2010.00136/full
  23. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-29745-4
  24. https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/iai.00579-20
  25. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21505594.2016.1278336
  26. https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/iai.01640-13
  27. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cellular-and-infection-microbiology/articles/10.3389/fcimb.2015.00094/full
  28. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7018499/
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4173753/
  30. https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-021-06004-y
  31. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/31/4/24-0414_article
  32. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6517804/
  33. https://ldh.la.gov/assets/oph/Center-PHCH/Center-CH/infectious-epi/BT/btmanual/Tularemia.pdf
  34. https://www.cdc.gov/tularemia/prevention/index.html
  35. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/wr/mm735152a1.htm
  36. https://www.cdc.gov/tularemia/hcp/laboratory-exposure/index.html
  37. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11086863/
  38. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01652176.2023.2277753
  39. https://www.cdc.gov/tularemia/data-research/index.html
  40. https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/tularaemia/facts
  41. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9506979/
  42. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12223-020-00827-z
  43. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/epidemiology/articles/10.3389/fepid.2024.1291690/full
  44. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12173719/
  45. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/74/wr/mm7413a3.htm
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12452351/
  47. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10732219/
  48. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/tularemia/cdc-surveillance-data-show-increase-us-tularemia-incidence
  49. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9417589/
  50. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7521936/
  51. https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/230923-overview
  52. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC126859/
  53. https://ndc.services.cdc.gov/case-definitions/tularemia-2017/
  54. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1954888/
  55. https://www.cdc.gov/Mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5407a3.htm
  56. https://www.cdc.gov/tularemia/hcp/clinical-signs/index.html
  57. https://dhs.saccounty.gov/PUB/Documents/PUB_ZTularemia.pdf
  58. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3109322/
  59. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2010.00138/full
  60. https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/iai.00043-08
  61. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1286457913002062
  62. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-48697-x
  63. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8104992/
  64. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8707036/
  65. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2446713/
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5898179/
  67. https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/iai.00745-07
  68. https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/230923-clinical
  69. https://doh.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2025-08/420-082-Guideline-Tularemia.pdf
  70. https://www.cdc.gov/tularemia/hcp/diagnosis-testing/index.html
  71. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-07/documents/cdc-ftularemia.pdf
  72. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC427758/
  73. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/29/6/22-1395_article
  74. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8615448/
  75. https://www.ajtmh.org/view/journals/tpmd/54/4/article-p364.pdf
  76. https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jcm.41.12.5492-5499.2003
  77. https://bmcmicrobiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12866-020-01748-0
  78. https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.02415-22
  79. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11368854/
  80. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2229367/
  81. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC268183/
  82. https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2334-14-234
  83. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10190678/
  84. https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/78/Supplement_1/S4/7593859
  85. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41026652/
  86. https://www.cdc.gov/tularemia/hcp/clinical-care/index.html
  87. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5386985/
  88. https://www.jwatch.org/na59318/2025/10/21/new-guidance-tularemia-treatment-and-postexposure
  89. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/tularemia/cdc-issues-new-guidance-prevention-treatment-sporadic-bioterrorist-deployed-tularemia
  90. https://epocrates.com/online/article/cdc-updates-tularemia-treatment-and-prophylaxis-guidance
  91. https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/230923-medication
  92. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11494439/
  93. https://iitri.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/F.Tularensis-Poster-Handout_ASM-2014.pdf
  94. https://www.azdhs.gov/documents/preparedness/epidemiology-disease-control/investigation-manual/vectorborne/tularemia-protocol.pdf
  95. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/deh/pests/tularemia.html
  96. https://avmajournals.avma.org/view/journals/javma/263/5/javma.24.11.0725.xml
  97. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/tularemia-vaccine
  98. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6vb3k2kq
  99. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cellular-and-infection-microbiology/articles/10.3389/fcimb.2018.00154/full
  100. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3623498/
  101. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11095077/
  102. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bacteriology/articles/10.3389/fbrio.2023.1289461/full
  103. https://globalbiodefense.com/2025/08/11/appili-therapeutics-reports-strong-preclinical-protection-from-ati-1701-tularemia-vaccine/
  104. https://www.bioworld.com/articles/723109-ati-1701-confers-protection-from-airborne-emf-tularensis-em
  105. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X25008205
  106. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1348323/full
  107. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa011374
  108. https://epi.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/tularemia_plan.pdf
  109. https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/78/Supplement_1/S29/7593858
  110. https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/78/Supplement_1/S38/7593861
  111. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6247a5.htm
  112. https://publications.aap.org/redbook/book/755/chapter/14083360/Tularemia
  113. https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/78/Supplement_1/S15/7593851
  114. https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/7/11/ofaa440/5908812
  115. https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/78/Supplement_1/S55/7593860
  116. https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/tularemia/
  117. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891552008000214
  118. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10828931/
  119. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30146078/
  120. https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1297/report.pdf
  121. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4570449/
  122. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK555886/
  123. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/295125
  124. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7948556/
  125. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3132883/
  126. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0000352
  127. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1112057/
  128. https://www.atsu.edu/faculty/chamberlain/bioterror/history.htm
  129. https://ph.health.mil/cdt/cphe-cdt-tularemia-ref.pdf
  130. https://historyofvaccines.org/vaccines-101/ethical-issues-and-vaccines/biological-weapons-bioterrorism-and-vaccines/
  131. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/138996
  132. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11747706_Tularemia_Biological_Warfare_and_the_Battle_for_Stalingrad_1942-1943
  133. https://search.proquest.com/openview/2cc244c31a5be591e1b88c4e61c5dfb6/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=7561
  134. https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article-pdf/166/10/837/24216296/milmed-166-10-837.pdf
  135. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0409603.pdf
  136. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7973702/
  137. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242160520_Alibek_Tularaemia_and_The_Battle_of_Stalingrad
  138. https://www.cfsph.iastate.edu/Factsheets/pdfs/tularemia.pdf
  139. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/Chapter-3.1.22-Tularemia.docx
  140. https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/animal-health-and-welfare/animal-health/tularemia-animals
  141. https://www.nj.gov/health/cd/documents/casedef/tularemia_ascd.pdf
  142. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-30651-7
  143. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51525883_Outbreak_of_tularaemia_in_brown_hares_Lepus_europaeus_in_France_January_to_March_2011
  144. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37589998/
  145. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6813645/
  146. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8300880/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.