Literature DB >> 22607706

African swine fever virus strain Georgia 2007/1 in Ornithodoros erraticus ticks.

Adriana V Diaz, Christopher L Netherton, Linda K Dixon, Anthony J Wilson.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22607706      PMCID: PMC3358161          DOI: 10.3201/eid1806.111728

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Emerg Infect Dis        ISSN: 1080-6040            Impact factor:   6.883


× No keyword cloud information.
To the Editor: African swine fever virus (ASFV) causes a notifiable disease in domestic pigs for which no treatment or vaccine is available, resulting in a mortality rate of <100%. In 2007 ASFV was detected in the Caucasus region, first in Georgia and subsequently in Armenia, Azerbaijan, and many parts of Russia, including regions that border other countries in Europe and Asia (). Most field strains of ASFV can persistently infect Ornithodoros ticks, including the species O. erraticus in southern Europe (), and ASFV has been isolated from ticks collected >5 years after the last confirmed case in an outbreak (). These ticks can feed on alternative hosts, evade eradication attempts (such as acaricide application and flamethrowers), and survive for up to 15 years (). Although Ornithodoros species have been reported in the Caucasus region, their distribution is not well known (). It is also not known if the Georgia 2007/1 ASFV strain responsible for continuing outbreaks in the Caucasus region can replicate in ticks. Thus, we conducted a study to determine whether the Georgia 2007/1 isolate of ASFV can replicate in Ornithodoros ticks. O. erraticus ticks from Alentejo, Portugal (provided by Fernando Boinas, Universidade Técnica de Lisboa in Lisbon, Portugal) were sorted into groups of 10 adults or fifth-instar nymphs, placed into 60-mL containers covered with nylon cloth (16-cm mesh), and maintained at 85% relative humidity and 27°C for 18 months without feeding. Heparinized pig blood containing antibacterial drugs and fungicide (10 µL of streptomycin [10,000 IU/mL], 10 µL of amphotericin B [250 µg/mL], and 5 µL of neomycin [10 mg/mL 0.9% NaCl]/mL of blood) was mixed with the Georgia 2007/1 isolate () or the OUR T88/1 isolate () as a positive control to obtain virus titers of 4 log10 or 6 log10 50% hemadsorbing doses (HAD50)/mL blood. These titers were within the observed range in naturally infected pigs (), and thus simulated the field situation. Ticks were fed infected blood by using a Hemotek membrane-feeding system (Discovery Workshops, Accrington, UK). Meal reservoirs were covered with stretched Parafilm that was wiped with a thin film of uninfected blood to encourage feeding. Pots of ticks were placed on the membrane and allowed to feed for 20 minutes. Immediately after and 3, 6, 9, and 12 weeks after feeding, 10 ticks from each feeding group were killed by freezing in dry ice. After being washed with a detergent solution and phosphate-buffered saline, ticks were placed individually in tubes with 200 µL of RPMI medium (Sigma-Aldrich Company Ltd., Gillingham, UK), a 3 mm-diameter stainless steel ball (Dejay Distribution Ltd., Launceston, UK), and 1-mm silicon carbide particles (Stratech Scientific Ltd, Newmarket, UK). They were then homogenized by shaking for 5 cycles of 3 minutes at 25-Hz frequency using a TissueLyser (QIAGEN, Valencia, CA, USA). To complete a 1-mL volume, 800 µL of RPMI medium was added to the tubes after centrifuging 2× for 30 seconds at 2,000 rpm. Supernatants were transferred to fresh tubes and centrifuged for 5 minutes at 1,000 × g. Virus titers were estimated on porcine bone marrow cells () and expressed as log10 HAD50 per tick. Previous studies suggest that it takes 3–4 weeks for ticks to completely digest and clear ingested blood and that virus isolated after this period is due to viral replication (,). A general linear model, fitted via maximum likelihood, was used to assess the effects of isolate, dose, time after feeding, and interaction between isolate and time after feeding on the viral titer in the tick. Confidence intervals were calculated by profile likelihood. Results showed that the Georgia 2007/1 strain can replicate in the O. erraticus tick. We recovered virus titers of <1.8 to >9.8 log10 HAD50 per tick. Ticks that fed on blood containing 6 log10 HAD50 ASFV on average had virus titers 2.15 log10 HAD50 higher than those for ticks that fed on blood containing 4 log10 HAD50/mL. Over time, the average titer for both isolates increased at an estimated rate of 0.65 log10 HAD50/week, indicating replication. Statistical analysis suggested that immediately after feeding, ticks fed on the Georgia 2007/1 strain contained 1.36 log10 HAD50 less virus than those fed on the OUR T88/1 isolate, but we detected no statistically significant difference in the replication rates of the 2 isolates. Parameter estimates are shown in the Table and the model fit is shown in the Figure.
Table

General linear model of the effects of different parameters on the titer of ASFV in experimentally infected Ornithodoros erraticus ticks*

ParameterMaximum likelihood estimator (95% CI)
Constant1.4985 (0.7084 to 2.2610)†
ASFV strain–1.3620 (–2.4007 to –0.3482)†
Dose2.1538 (1.5889 to 2.7316)†
Time after feeding (effect per week)0.6494 (0.5546 to 0.7481)†
Isolate–time interaction–0.0025 (–0.1400 to 0.1363)‡

*Ticks were fed pig blood with 4 log10 or 6 log10 HAD50/mL ASFV strain Georgia 2007/1 or strain OURT88/1. ASFV, African swine fever virus; HAD50, 50% hemadsorbing doses.
†Statistically significant, p<0.01.
‡Not significant (p>0.05).

Figure

Predicted regression for each isolate–dose combination is shown. A) Ticks fed on African swine fever virus (ASFV) strain OUR T88/1 at 4 log10 50% hemadsorbing doses (HAD50)/mL. B) Ticks fed on ASFV strain OUR T88/1 at 6 log10 HAD50/mL. C) Ticks fed on ASFV strain Georgia 2007/1 at 4 log10 HAD50/mL. D) Ticks fed on ASFV strain Georgia 2007/1 at 6 log10 HAD50/mL. Crosses indicate experimental results, and solid line indicates model prediction. Dashed horizontal lines show the limits of the tissue culture sensitivity (lower limit 1.8 log10 HAD50 and upper limit 9.8 log10 HAD50).

*Ticks were fed pig blood with 4 log10 or 6 log10 HAD50/mL ASFV strain Georgia 2007/1 or strain OURT88/1. ASFV, African swine fever virus; HAD50, 50% hemadsorbing doses.
†Statistically significant, p<0.01.
‡Not significant (p>0.05). Predicted regression for each isolate–dose combination is shown. A) Ticks fed on African swine fever virus (ASFV) strain OUR T88/1 at 4 log10 50% hemadsorbing doses (HAD50)/mL. B) Ticks fed on ASFV strain OUR T88/1 at 6 log10 HAD50/mL. C) Ticks fed on ASFV strain Georgia 2007/1 at 4 log10 HAD50/mL. D) Ticks fed on ASFV strain Georgia 2007/1 at 6 log10 HAD50/mL. Crosses indicate experimental results, and solid line indicates model prediction. Dashed horizontal lines show the limits of the tissue culture sensitivity (lower limit 1.8 log10 HAD50 and upper limit 9.8 log10 HAD50). The whole-tick titers reported in this study are consistent with those from previous studies (,). However, >9 weeks after the ticks fed, we observed higher titers than those reported (), and many results showed >9.8 log10 HAD50 per tick. The TissueLyser may have been more effective at releasing ASFV from tick tissues than previously used methods. Our results suggest that virus replication within the ticks began by 3 weeks after feeding on infected blood; this timing is consistent with that in previous studies (,,). We observed high viral titers for >12 weeks after infection. Previous studies showed that ASFV can persist at high titers for 20 weeks after infection (). We demonstrated that ASFV Georgia 2007/1 isolate can replicate efficiently in ticks. This finding highlights the importance of clarifying the distribution of Ornithodoros species ticks in the Russian Federation and Caucasus region and the relationship of these ticks to species susceptible to ASFV.
  8 in total

1.  Hemadsorption and cytopathic effect produced by African Swine Fever virus in swine bone marrow and buffy coat cultures.

Authors:  W A MALMQUIST; D HAY
Journal:  Am J Vet Res       Date:  1960-01       Impact factor: 1.156

2.  African swine fever virus infection in the argasid host, Ornithodoros porcinus porcinus.

Authors:  S B Kleiboeker; T G Burrage; G A Scoles; D Fish; D L Rock
Journal:  J Virol       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 5.103

3.  African swine fever virus replication in the midgut epithelium is required for infection of Ornithodoros ticks.

Authors:  S B Kleiboeker; G A Scoles; T G Burrage; J Sur
Journal:  J Virol       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 5.103

4.  The CD2v protein enhances African swine fever virus replication in the tick vector, Ornithodoros erraticus.

Authors:  Rebecca J Rowlands; Margarida M Duarte; Fernando Boinas; Geoff Hutchings; Linda K Dixon
Journal:  Virology       Date:  2009-09-02       Impact factor: 3.616

5.  Kinetics of African swine fever virus infection in Ornithodoros erraticus ticks.

Authors:  Afonso P Basto; Rebecca J Nix; Fernando Boinas; Susana Mendes; Maria J Silva; Clara Cartaxeiro; Raquel S Portugal; Alexandre Leitão; Linda K Dixon; Carlos Martins
Journal:  J Gen Virol       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 3.891

6.  Development of a nested PCR and its internal control for the detection of African swine fever virus (ASFV) in Ornithodoros erraticus.

Authors:  A P Basto; R S Portugal; R J Nix; C Cartaxeiro; F Boinas; L K Dixon; A Leitão; C Martins
Journal:  Arch Virol       Date:  2005-11-17       Impact factor: 2.574

7.  The persistence of African swine fever virus in field-infected Ornithodoros erraticus during the ASF endemic period in Portugal.

Authors:  Fernando S Boinas; Anthony J Wilson; Geoff H Hutchings; Carlos Martins; Linda J Dixon
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-05-31       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  African swine fever virus isolate, Georgia, 2007.

Authors:  Rebecca J Rowlands; Vincent Michaud; Livio Heath; Geoff Hutchings; Chris Oura; Wilna Vosloo; Rahana Dwarka; Tinatin Onashvili; Emmanuel Albina; Linda K Dixon
Journal:  Emerg Infect Dis       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 6.883

  8 in total
  9 in total

Review 1.  Transmission routes of African swine fever virus to domestic pigs: current knowledge and future research directions.

Authors:  Claire Guinat; Andrey Gogin; Sandra Blome; Guenther Keil; Reiko Pollin; Dirk U Pfeiffer; Linda Dixon
Journal:  Vet Rec       Date:  2016-03-12       Impact factor: 2.695

2.  Comparative vector competence of the Afrotropical soft tick Ornithodoros moubata and Palearctic species, O. erraticus and O. verrucosus, for African swine fever virus strains circulating in Eurasia.

Authors:  Rémi Pereira de Oliveira; Evelyne Hutet; Frédéric Paboeuf; Maxime Duhayon; Fernando Boinas; Adalberto Perez de Leon; Serhii Filatov; Laurence Vial; Marie-Frédérique Le Potier
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-11-27       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 3.  African Swine Fever Virus: An Emerging DNA Arbovirus.

Authors:  Natasha N Gaudreault; Daniel W Madden; William C Wilson; Jessie D Trujillo; Juergen A Richt
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2020-05-13

4.  Differential vector competence of Ornithodoros soft ticks for African swine fever virus: What if it involves more than just crossing organic barriers in ticks?

Authors:  Rémi Pereira De Oliveira; Evelyne Hutet; Renaud Lancelot; Frédéric Paboeuf; Maxime Duhayon; Fernando Boinas; Adalberto A Pérez de León; Serhii Filatov; Marie-Frédérique Le Potier; Laurence Vial
Journal:  Parasit Vectors       Date:  2020-12-09       Impact factor: 3.876

5.  Detection of African Swine Fever Virus in Ornithodoros Tick Species Associated with Indigenous and Extralimital Warthog Populations in South Africa.

Authors:  Anthony F Craig; Mathilde L Schade-Weskott; Thapelo Rametse; Livio Heath; Gideon J P Kriel; Lin-Mari de Klerk-Lorist; Louis van Schalkwyk; Jessie D Trujillo; Jan E Crafford; Juergen A Richt; Robert Swanepoel
Journal:  Viruses       Date:  2022-07-26       Impact factor: 5.818

6.  Experimental Infection of Ornithodoros erraticus sensu stricto with Two Portuguese African Swine Fever Virus Strains. Study of Factors Involved in the Dynamics of Infection in Ticks.

Authors:  Rita Ribeiro; Joachim Otte; Sara Madeira; Geoff H Hutchings; Fernando Boinas
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-09-14       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Current status of African swine fever virus in a population of wild boar in eastern Poland (2014-2015).

Authors:  Grzegorz Woźniakowski; Edyta Kozak; Andrzej Kowalczyk; Magdalena Łyjak; Małgorzata Pomorska-Mól; Krzysztof Niemczuk; Zygmunt Pejsak
Journal:  Arch Virol       Date:  2015-10-26       Impact factor: 2.574

8.  Sensitivity of African swine fever virus to type I interferon is linked to genes within multigene families 360 and 505.

Authors:  Josephine P Golding; Lynnette Goatley; Steve Goodbourn; Linda K Dixon; Geraldine Taylor; Christopher L Netherton
Journal:  Virology       Date:  2016-04-01       Impact factor: 3.616

Review 9.  Putative Role of Arthropod Vectors in African Swine Fever Virus Transmission in Relation to Their Bio-Ecological Properties.

Authors:  Sarah I Bonnet; Emilie Bouhsira; Nick De Regge; Johanna Fite; Florence Etoré; Mutien-Marie Garigliany; Ferran Jori; Laetitia Lempereur; Marie-Frédérique Le Potier; Elsa Quillery; Claude Saegerman; Timothée Vergne; Laurence Vial
Journal:  Viruses       Date:  2020-07-20       Impact factor: 5.048

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.