| Literature DB >> 31526249 |
Ahmed Kandeil1, Joseph T Hicks2,3, Sean G Young4, Ahmed N El Taweel1, Ahmed S Kayed1, Yassmin Moatasim1, Omnia Kutkat1, Ola Bagato1, Pamela P McKenzie5, Zhipeng Cai6, Rebecca Badra7, Mohamed Kutkat8, Justin Bahl2,3, Richard J Webby5, Ghazi Kayali2,7, Mohamed A Ali1.
Abstract
Egypt is a hotspot for avian influenza virus (AIV) due to the endemicity of H5N1 and H9N2 viruses. AIVs were isolated from 329 samples collected in 2016-2018; 48% were H9N2, 37.1% were H5N8, 7.6% were H5N1, and 7.3% were co-infections with 2 of the 3 subtypes. The 32 hemagglutinin (HA) sequences of the H5N1 viruses formed a well-defined lineage within clade 2.2.1.2. The 10 HA sequences of the H5N8 viruses belonged to a subclade within 2.3.4.4. The 11 HA of H9N2 isolates showed high sequence homology with other Egyptian G1-like H9N2 viruses. The prevalence of H5N8 viruses in ducks (2.4%) was higher than in chickens (0.94%). Genetic reassortment was detected in H9N2 viruses. Antigenic analysis showed that H9N2 viruses are homogenous, antigenic drift was detected among H5N1 viruses. AI H5N8 showed higher replication rate followed by H9N2 and H5N1, respectively. H5N8 was more common in Southern Egypt, H9N2 in the Nile Delta, and H5N1 in both areas. Ducks and chickens played a significant role in transmission of H5N1 viruses. The endemicity and co-circulation of H5N1, H5N8, and H9N2 AIV coupled with the lack of a clear control strategy continues to provide avenues for further virus evolution in Egypt.Entities:
Keywords: Avian influenza; Egypt; genetic evolution; poultry; surveillance
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31526249 PMCID: PMC6758608 DOI: 10.1080/22221751.2019.1663712
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Emerg Microbes Infect ISSN: 2222-1751 Impact factor: 7.163
Epizootic data of avian influenza in Egypt.
| Variable | No. Collected Samples (%a) | No. of Influenza A-positive Samples (%b) | Subtype (%c) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H5N1 | H9N2 | H5N8 | H5N1/H9N2 | H5N8/H5N1 | H5N8/H9N2 | |||
| Cloacal | 6137 (54.8) | 121 (2.0)d | 12 (9.9) | 38 (31.4) | 62 (51.2) | 3 (2.5) | 3 (2.5) | 3 (2.5) |
| Oropharyngeal | 5073 (45.2) | 208 (4.1) | 13 (6.2) | 120 (57.7) | 60 (28.9) | 6 (2.9) | 7 (3.3) | 2 (1.0) |
| Dakahliya | 1888 (16.8) | 41 (2.2)d | 1 (2.4) | 37 (90.3) | 1 (2.4) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 2 (4.8) |
| Kalyobiya/Monofiya | 1135 (10.1) | 21 (1.8) | 3 (14.3) | 3 (14.3) | 14 (66.7) | 1 (4.7) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Sharqeia | 2049 (18.3) | 31 (1.5) | 5 (16.2) | 26 (83.8) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Fayoum/Banisouwaif | 1797 (16) | 59 (3.2) | 10 (16.9) | 18 (30.5) | 24 (40.6) | 4 (6.8) | 1 (1.7) | 2 (3.4) |
| Sohag | 880 (7.9) | 9 (1.0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 9 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Assiut | 1546 (13.8) | 73 (4.7) | 0 (0) | 50 (68.5) | 20 (27.4) | 1 (1.3) | 1 (1.3) | 1 (1.3) |
| Menia | 1915 (17.1) | 95 (4.9) | 6 (6.3) | 24 (25.2) | 54 (56.8) | 3 (3.1) | 8 (8.4) | 0 (0) |
| Chickens | 8793 (78.43) | 288 (3.3)e | 25 (8.7) | 155 (53.8) | 86 (29.9) | 9 (3.1) | 8 (2.8) | 5 (1.7) |
| Ducks | 1348 (12.02) | 35 (3.0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 33 (94.3) | 0 (0) | 2 (5.7) | 0 (0) |
| Geese | 80 (0.7) | 1 (1.2) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Pigeons | 716 (6.4) | 4 (0.6) | 0 (0) | 2 (50) | 2 (50.0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Turkeys | 165 (1.48) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Quails | 108 (0.96) | 1 (0.9) | 0 (0) | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Abattoir | 80 (0.7) | 0 (0)e | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Commercial farm | 6202 (55.3) | 145 (2.3) | 18 (12.4) | 70 (48.2) | 48 (33.1) | 5 (3.4) | 2 (1.4) | 2 (1.4) |
| Backyard flock | 2432 (21.7) | 87 (3.5) | 6 (6.9) | 19 (21.8) | 56 (64.4) | 1 (1.1) | 5 (5.7) | 0 (0) |
| Live bird market | 2496 (22.2) | 97 (3.8) | 1 (1) | 69 (71.1) | 18 (18.5) | 3 (3.1) | 3 (3.1) | 3 (3.1) |
| Healthy | 8807 (78.6) | 260 (2.9) | 13 (5) | 136 (52.3) | 92 (35.4) | 4 (1.5) | 10 (3.8) | 5 (1.9) |
| Sick | 168 (1.4) | 9 (5.3) | 5 (55.5) | 4 (44.4) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Dead | 2235 (20.0) | 60 (2.6) | 7 (11.6) | 18 (30) | 30 (50.0) | 5 (8.4) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
a% of total samples collected;
b% of samples in category;
c% subtype positive within influenza A positive samples in category;
dStatistically significant by Chi-square test;
eStatistically significant by Fisher exact test.
Figure 1.Monthly isolation rates of influenza A viruses detected in poultry, 2016–2018. Arrow indicates when H5N8 was first detected in Egyptian poultry.
Figure 2.Monthly distribution of avian influenza A viruses in Egyptian poultry, 2016–2018.
Figure 3.Phylogenetic tree of the nucleotide sequences of H5 genes of characterized from Egypt, Europe, Central Asia, the Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa, and South Asia collected between January 1, 2005 and September 2018.
Figure 4.Antigenic cartography representation of the Egyptian HPAI A(H5N1) (A) and LPAI A (H9N2) isolates (B) using a panel of monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies, respectively. The maps were generated using Antigen-Map http://sysbio.cvm.msstate.edu/AntigenMap). AIV isolates of each year are distinguished by different symbols and colours.
Figure 5.Replication rates of H5N8, H9N2, and H5N1 viruses from Egypt. Rates were assessed by comparing RNA copy numbers (top) and hemagglutination titres (bottom).
Figure 6.Niche estimates for the emergence of H5N1 in 2005–2006 (A), H9N2 in 2010–2011 (B), and H5N8 in 2015–2016 (C) in northern Egypt based on ecological niche models.
Figure 7.(A) Maximum clade credibility tree of the H5N1 avian host ancestral reconstruction, 2005–2017. Tree branches are coloured based on the highest supported avian host for the descendant node. Nodes with >0.95 posterior support for the ancestral reconstruction are indicated with a black circle (•). Asterisks (∗) indicate sequences collected for this study. (B) Fully resolved discrete trait diffusion network among H5N1 Egyptian hosts. Bands represent transition rates from a source host category (left) to a destination host category (right). The width of the band is proportional to the median transition rate. Dark bands are statistically supported (Bayes factor > 3 and posterior probability > 0.5).