| Literature DB >> 29159263 |
Ian H Mendenhall1, Maggie M Skiles2, Erica Sena Neves1, Sophie A Borthwick1, Dolyce H W Low1, Benjamin Liang1, Benjamin P Y-H Lee3, Yvonne C F Su1, Gavin J D Smith1,4.
Abstract
Bats are unique mammals that are reservoirs of high levels of virus diversity. Although several of these viruses are zoonotic, the majority are not. Astroviruses, transmitted fecal-orally, are commonly detected in a wide diversity of bat species, are prevalent at high rates and are not thought to directly infect humans. These features make astroviruses useful in examining virus evolutionary history, epidemiology in the host, and temporal shedding trends. Our study screened for the presence of astroviruses in bats in Singapore, reconstructed the phylogenetic relations of the polymerase genes and tested for population characteristics associated with infection. Of the seven species screened, astroviruses were detected in Rhinolophus lepidus and Eonycteris spelaea. The R. lepidus sequences grouped with other Rhinolophus astrovirus sequences from China and Laos, while the Eoncyteris sequences formed a distinct clade with astroviruses from Rousettus spp. in Laos and Pteropus giganteus in Bangladesh, but not with other E. spelaea sequences. Longitudinal collections of Eonycteris feces demonstrated variable shedding. Juvenile status of bats was a risk factor for astroviruses. This study highlights the diversity of astroviruses in nectivorous and insectivorous bats in Singapore and provides a predictive framework for understanding astrovirus infection in these bats. It also suggests that in addition to host phylogenetic relatedness, host ecology, such as roosting behavior, may drive co-infections, virus maintenance and spillover.Entities:
Keywords: Bat borne virus; Eonycteris spelaea; Epidemiology; Phylogenetics; Pooling prevalence; Rhinolophus lepidus; Southeast Asia
Year: 2017 PMID: 29159263 PMCID: PMC5678831 DOI: 10.1016/j.onehlt.2017.10.001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: One Health ISSN: 2352-7714
Bat baseline descriptive characteristics by outcome group.
| Bat characteristics | Astrovirus + ve | Astrovirus − ve | Total | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bat species | < 0.001 | |||
| | 30 (69.8%) | 139 (35.8%) | 169 (39.2%) | |
| | 0 (0%) | 144 (37.11%) | 144 (33.4%) | |
| | 0 (0%) | 79 (20.4%) | 79 (18.3%) | |
| | 13 (30.2%) | 23 (5.9%) | 36 (8.4%) | |
| | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.3%) | 1 (0.2%) | |
| | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.3%) | 1 (0.2%) | |
| | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.3%) | 1 (0.2%) | |
| Sex | 0.17 | |||
| Female | 15 (34.9%) | 179 (46.1%) | 194 (45%) | |
| Male | 28 (62.8%) | 203 (52.6%) | 231 (53.6%) | |
| Missing data | 1 (2.3%) | 5 (1.3%) | 6 (1.4%) | |
| Age | 0.02 | |||
| Juvenile | 14 (31.8%) | 81 (20.9%) | 95 (22%) | |
| Sub-adult/adult | 24 (54.6%) | 299 (77.3%) | 323 (74.9%) | |
| Missing data | 6 (13.6%) | 7 (1.8%) | 13 (3%) | |
| Roost location | < 0.001 | |||
| Bukit Timah | 13 (30.2%) | 100 (25.8%) | 113 (26.2%) | |
| Kent Ridge | 1 (2.3%) | 94 (24.2%) | 95 (22%) | |
| Pulau Ubin | 0 (0%) | 3 (0.8%) | 3 (0.7%) | |
| Rifle Range Road | 29 (67.4%) | 149 (38.4%) | 178 (41.3%) | |
| Dairy Farm | 0 (0%) | 23 (5.9%) | 23 (5.3%) | |
| Sian Tan Avenue | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.3%) | 1 (0.2%) | |
| Telok Blangah | 0 (0%) | 18 (4.6%) | 18 (4.2%) | |
| Body condition index | < 0.001 | |||
| Mean | 0.491 | 0.608 | 0.597 | |
| Std. dev. | 0.274 | 0.199 | 0.210 | |
| Median | 0.541 | 0.592 | 0.590 | |
| Missing data | 5 (11.4%) | 20 (5.2%) | 25 (5.8%) |
In categorical variables, the first characterization under the variable heading is the reference category.
Information in parentheses (%).
Categorical variables' p-value based on Chi-squared test (≥ 5 per cell) or Fisher's exact test (< 5 per cell). Continuous variable p-value based on Wald Z-test.
Missing data for this variable; statistical analyses based on available data.
Fig. 1Photographs of Rhinolophus lepidus (Blyth's horseshoe bat) and Eonycteris spelaea (Cave nectar bat).
Fig. 2Temporal variation in the infection rate of astrovirus detected in the feces collected from an Eonycteris spelaea colony using a hemi-nested PCR detecting the RNA-dependent reverse polymerase gene.
Pooled prevalence estimates using frequentist and Bayesian methods with a Gibbs sampler compared to individual prevalence rates.
| Collection date | Number of Pools | Number of positive pools | Minimum infection rate | Estimated individual prevalence (% CL: 2.5–97.5) | Standard error | Individual samples screened | Individual samples PCR positive | Individual sample prevalence | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequentist estimation of pooled prevalence with fixed pool size and perfect test | 12-Apr-11 | 35 | 15 | 8.6% | 10.6% (0.059;0.170) | 0.026 | 48 | 40 | 83.3% |
| 28-Apr-11 | 16 | 11 | 13.8% | 20.8% (0.101;0.357) | 0.059 | 48 | 32 | 66.7% | |
| 12-May-11 | 10 | 6 | 12% | 16.7% (0.059; 0.344) | 0.064 | – | – | – | |
| 25-May-11 | 10 | 6 | 12% | 16.7% (0.059; 0.344) | 0.064 | – | – | – | |
| 13-Jun-11 | 10 | 3 | 6% | 6.9% (0.014; 0.191) | 0.039 | – | – | – | |
| 1-Jul-11 | 10 | 5 | 10% | 12.9% (0.041; 0.285) | 0.055 | – | – | – | |
| 14-Jul-11 | 10 | 10 | 20% | – | – | – | – | – | |
| 27-Jul-11 | 10 | 10 | 20% | – | – | – | – | – | |
| 8-Aug-11 | 10 | 8 | 16% | 27.5% (0.111; 0.521) | 0.092 | – | – | – | |
| 22-Aug-11 | 10 | 9 | 18% | 36.9% (0.149; 0.698) | 0.120 | – | – | – | |
| 9-Sep-11 | 10 | 10 | 20% | – | – | – | – | – | |
| 21-Sep-11 | 10 | 9 | 18% | 36.9% (0.149; 0.698) | 0.120 | – | – | – | |
| 5-Oct-11 | 10 | 6 | 12% | 16.7% (0.059; 0.344) | 0.064 | 48 | 21 | 43.8% | |
| 21-Oct-11 | 10 | 9 | 18% | 36.9% (0.149; 0.698) | 0.120 | – | – | – | |
| 2-Nov-11 | 10 | 4 | 8% | 9.7% (0.0256; 0.235) | 0.047 | – | – | – | |
| 30-Nov-11 | 10 | 6 | 12% | 16.7% (0.059; 0.344) | 0.064 | – | – | – | |
| 1-Jan-12 | 10 | 8 | 16% | 27.5% (0.111; 0.521) | 0.092 | – | – | – | |
| 31-Jan-12 | 10 | 5 | 10% | 12.9% (0.041; 0.285) | 0.055 | 25 | 0 | 0% | |
| 2-Mar-12 | 10 | 4 | 8% | 9.7% (0.0256; 0.235) | 0.047 | – | – | – | |
| Total | 221 | 144 | 13% | 19% (0.161; 0.222) | 0.015 | 169 | 93 | 55% | |
| Pooled prevalence with a Bayesian approach and a Gibbs sampler | Minimum Prevalence | Estimated Mean Prevalence | Standard deviation | ||||||
| Total | 221 | 144 | 15.3% | 23.8% (0.189; 0.340) | 0.040 | ||||
Fig. 3Maximum likelihood phylogeny of the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) region of global astrovirues. Red branches denote novel bat astrovirus generated from this study, whereas the grey branches represent bat astrovirus collected from other geographical regions. The coloured branches denote different host species. Bootstrap values > 50% are indicated at major nodes. The scale bar represents the nucleotide substitutions per site. The insert on the right shows the details of astrovirus strains in Clade 1 and 2. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Risk of astrovirus infection according to bat age and bat species.
| Unadjusted | Adjusted | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | P | OR | 95% CI | P | |
| Bat age | ||||||
| Juvenile | 1 [Reference] | 1 [Reference] | ||||
| Adult | 0.46 | 0.22–0.90 | 0.02 | 0.59 | 0.26–1.34 | 0.20 |
| Bat species | ||||||
| 1 [Reference] | 1 [Reference] | |||||
| 2.61 | 1.19–5.75 | 0.02 | 3.41 | 1.35–8.60 | 0.01 | |
Abbreviations: OR, Odds Ratio; 95% CI, 95% Confidence Interval; P, P-value.
Remaining bat species categories dropped due to perfect prediction of failure.