![]() |
|||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|||||||||||
|
![]() |
EID
Home | Ahead of Print | Past
Issues | EID Search | Contact
Us | Announcements | Suggested
Citation | Submit Manuscript
Volume 11, Number 12, December 2005 Francisella tularensis in the United StatesJason Farlow,* David M. Wagner,* Meghan Dukerich,* Miles Stanley,*
May Chu,† Kristy Kubota,† Jeannine Petersen,† and Paul Keim* |
|
|
![]() |
|
Back to article | |
Figure 6. Spatial distribution of 125 Francisella tularensis isolates for which information on originating county was available. Locations (colored circles) correspond to county centroids. More than 1 subspecies was isolated from some counties in California (Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Cruz) and Wyoming (Natrona) (see Figures 1–3). In some cases, a single circle may represent instances where >1 sample of a given subspecies or genotypic group was isolated from a single county. Two isolates with county information, 1 from northern British Columbia and 1 from Alaska, are not shown. |
|
|
|
![]() |
EID Home | Top of Page | Ahead-of-Print | Past Issues | Suggested Citation | EID Search | Contact Us | Accessibility | Privacy Policy Notice | CDC Home | CDC Search | Health Topics A-Z |
![]() |
![]() |
This page last reviewed November 14, 2005 |
![]() |
![]() |
Emerging
Infectious Diseases Journal |
![]() |