New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

New Clues to What Makes Lyme Disease Tick

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The tick-borne bacteria responsible for Lyme disease, Borrelia burgdorfi is a wily invader. It causes an array of vague symptoms, or sometimes none at all, making diagnosis difficult. Yet if left untreated, the disease can lead to serious inflammation of the nervous system, heart and joints. The newly approved Lyme vaccine protects 75 to 80 percent of people exposed to infected ticks, but recent research suggests that the effects may not last over the long term, and some doubts have been raised over its safety. So with an eye toward developing better vaccines, researchers at the University of North Carolina and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention decided to further probe the biology of B. burgdorfi transmission. Their findings, published yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, reveal that the microbe is even sneakier than scientists thought.

"Previous studies showed there were certain surface proteins that were expressed in the tick gut and others that were expressed in the host, and that a switch occurred en route from the tick to the host," team member Aravinda M. de Silva notes. "This paper shows us that things are a lot more complicated." On closer examination of the surface protein expression, the researchers made a key observation: during feeding, the tick actually transmits a highly variable population of B. burgdorfi into the host. In contrast, when the tick isn't feeding, the population is fairly homogeneous. What this means, says de Silva, is that "the bacteria essentially adapts during the transmission process to maximize the chance of infecting the host." Intriguingly, the fact that the tick spits so many different "flavors" of B. burgdorfi into the host seems to explain an observation made several years ago, de Silva muses: lyme bacteria delivered by ticks evade the host's immune response more successfully than do cultured bacteria injected into animals.

The team suggests that future efforts to develop better vaccines could focus either on antigens produced within the tick before the bacteria population diversifies or on surface proteins common to all of the otherwise variable bacteria.

Kate Wong is an award-winning science writer and was formerly senior editor for features at Scientific American, where she focused on evolution, ecology, anthropology, archaeology, paleontology and animal behavior. She is fascinated by human origins, which she has covered for nearly 30 years. Recently she has become obsessed with birds. Her reporting has taken her to caves in France and Croatia that Neandertals once called home to the shores of Kenya’s Lake Turkana in search of the oldest stone tools in the world, as well as to Madagascar on an expedition to unearth ancient mammals and dinosaurs, the icy waters of Antarctica, where humpback whales feast on krill, and a “Big Day” race around the state of Connecticut to find as many bird species as possible in 24 hours. Wong is co-author, with Donald Johanson, of Lucy’s Legacy: The Quest for Human Origins. She holds a bachelor of science degree in biological anthropology and zoology from the University of Michigan. Follow her on Bluesky @katewong.bsky.social

More by Kate Wong

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe