@article{SchmidtSaxenhoferDrewesetal.2016,
  author    = {Schmidt, Sabrina and Saxenhofer, Moritz and Drewes, Stephan and Schlegel, Mathias and Wanka, Konrad M. and Frank, Raphael and Klimpel, Sven and von Blanckenhagen, Felix and Maaz, Denny and Herden, Christiane and Freise, Jona and Wolf, Ronny and Stubbe, Michael and Borkenhagen, Peter and Ansorge, Hermann and Eccard, Jana and Lang, Johannes and Jourdain, Elsa and Jacob, Jens and Marianneau, Philippe and Heckel, Gerald and Ulrich, Rainer G{\"u}nter},
  title     = {High genetic structuring of Tula hantavirus},
  series = {Archives of virology},
  volume    = {161},
  journal   = {Archives of virology},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {Wien},
  issn      = {0304-8608},
  doi       = {10.1007/s00705-016-2762-6},
  pages     = {1135 -- 1149},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Tula virus (TULV) is a vole-associated hantavirus with low or no pathogenicity to humans. In the present study, 686 common voles (Microtus arvalis), 249 field voles (Microtus agrestis) and 30 water voles (Arvicola spec.) were collected at 79 sites in Germany, Luxembourg and France and screened by RT-PCR and TULV-IgG ELISA. TULV-specific RNA and/or antibodies were detected at 43 of the sites, demonstrating a geographically widespread distribution of the virus in the studied area. The TULV prevalence in common voles (16.7 \%) was higher than that in field voles (9.2 \%) and water voles (10.0 \%). Time series data at ten trapping sites showed evidence of a lasting presence of TULV RNA within common vole populations for up to 34 months, although usually at low prevalence. Phylogenetic analysis demonstrated a strong genetic structuring of TULV sequences according to geography and independent of the rodent species, confirming the common vole as the preferential host, with spillover infections to co-occurring field and water voles. TULV phylogenetic clades showed a general association with evolutionary lineages in the common vole as assessed by mitochondrial DNA sequences on a large geographical scale, but with local-scale discrepancies in the contact areas.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{SchefflerDolchAriunboldetal.2012,
  author    = {Scheffler, Ingo and Dolch, Dietrich and Ariunbold, Jargalsaikhan and Stubbe, Michael and Abraham, Andreas and Thiele, Klaus},
  title     = {Ectoparasites of bats in Mongolia : Part 2 (Ischnopsyllidae, Nycteribiidae, Cimicidae and Acari)},
  issn      = {0440-1298},
  year      = {2012},
  abstract  = {This study analyses ectoparasites found on Mongolian bats between 2008 and 2011. We examined 12 different bat species, with a total of 23 ectoparasite species present. Apart from reporting distributions, we also discuss specific host-parasite relationships. Owing to recent taxonomic changes splitting the Myotis mystacinus-group into several new taxa, their corresponding ectoparasite fauna could also be addressed in detail. Introducing ectoparasitic insects at length elsewhere (SCHEFFLER et al., 2010), this paper focuses on the analysis of parasitic Acari. Additional findings for Spinturnicidae (wing mites) and Macronyssidae broadened the spectrum of known parasites. Altogether, the knowledge of bat ectoparasites from Mongolia remains very sketchy. Based on different examples, we discuss current taxonomic problems regarding the species status of parasites, and suggest avenues for future research.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{DolchBatsaikhanThieleetal.2007,
  author    = {Dolch, D. and Batsaikhan, Nyamsuren and Thiele, K. and Burger, F. and Scheffler, Ingo and Kiefer, A. and Mayer, Frank and Samjaa, R. and Stubbe, Annegret and Stubbe, Michael and Krall, L. and Steinhauser, D.},
  title     = {Contributions to the chiroptera of Mongolia with first evidences on species communities and ecological niches},
  issn      = {0440-1298},
  year      = {2007},
  language  = {en}
}