3.2 Implications for human health
In the light of reported evidence by Traavik and Brunvold, (1978), where the isolated Runde coronavirus agent from virus families that have RNA genomes, it is conceivable that this RNA virus may have “proofreading” systems deficiency than DNA viruses, and therefore it may be more inclined to develop and maintain genome mutations (Graepel et al., 2017). Thus, it would be reasonable to assume that this RNA virus is more likely to emerge, and for it to be capable to replicate in the cytoplasm is the best speculator of cross-species transmission from animals (for example, the above mentioned seabirds, bats and pangolins) to humans (Pulliam & Dushoff, 2009). Therefore, it is critical to consider this assumption since, bat ticks can also bite humans and they are capable to transmit viruses between bats and human (Socolovschi, Kernif, Raoult & Parola, 2012; Jaenson et al., 1994). The epidemiological importance for the transmission of diseases to humans from bats and bat associated ticks has become a major concern, although limited by lack of detailed information about bat ticks pathogen association and distribution (Loftis et al. 2005).  However, growing urbanisation and bats adaptation to urban habitats has raised the chances for contact between domestic animals and humans with bat associated ticks and bats (Hornok et al., 2016; Krauel & LeBuhn, 2016). Moreover, Guglielmone et al. (2014) reported ten different types of tick species feeding on pangolins also feeding on unlikely animal hosts. Some of the pangolin’s ticks have been reported to bite humans (Estrada-Pena & Jongejan, 1999; Parola et al., 2013; Durden, Merker, & Beati, 2008; Burridge, 2001; Audy, Nadchatram, & Lim, 1960). Limited reports of seabird tick bites to humans have been recognized (Gylfe et al., 1999; Duneau et al., 2008; Dietrich et al., 2010).
However, the fact that there are few reported cases of tick bites (ticks associated with seabird, bat and pangolin); it does not suggest that tick bites to humans do not occur. This can be due to unreported cases and undeveloped illness by the bitten person. Besides, areas where seabird, bat and pangolin ticks co-occur with other tick species that are significant vectors of animal and human pathogens signify likely contact areas for pathogen transmission. Anthroponotic factors related to the modern lifestyle can facilitate the emerging of tick-borne viruses. Today, we persistently recognize and obliged to deal with new cases of emerging viruses including tick-borne viral diseases (e.g. Wang et al. (2019), reported a new segmented virus associated with human febrile illness and ticks in China). Moreover, due to anthroponotic factors, it is not surprising that the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 has been tentatively related with a seafood market in Wuhan, China, where the trading of wild animals may be the cause of zoonotic infection (Lu et al., 2020; Cohen, 2020). This assumption can be true since different kinds of mammalian species were purchase before SARS-CoV-2 outbreak at the Huanan seafood market as mentioned by Cohen (2020). Malayan pangolins (Manis javanica ) smuggled into Southern China, are the only mammals except for Rhinolophus affinis bat (sampled from Yunnan in the year 2013) recognized to be affected by a SARS-CoV-2 related coronavirus (Lam et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2020). This current finding by Lam et al. (2020), cannot be ignored, since the sampled pangolins independently acquired SARS-CoV-2 related viruses from bats or different animal host. However, their position as intermediate host in the development of human SARS-CoV-2 is still unclear. There is a clear dearth of consensus among researchers about the occurrence of coronaviruses, together with those associated to SARS-CoV-2, in different kinds of wild mammals found in Asia (Wang et al., 2005; Liu, Chen, & Chen, 2019; Wang et al., 2017). These are the most relevant findings and perhaps also the most significant, since, different tick species can be associated with both mammals (bats and pangolins), and they may also harbour coronavirus as proven by Traavik, Meel and Kjeldsberg (1977), Traavik and Mehl (1975) and Saikku et al., 1980.
All these above-mentioned findings are thought-provoking, and it could be hypothesized that ticks may possibly transmit SARS-CoV-2 to humans via different ways.