| Literature DB >> 32501444 |
Hongying Li1,2, Emma Mendelsohn1, Chen Zong3, Wei Zhang4, Emily Hagan1, Ning Wang4, Shiyue Li4, Hong Yan5, Huimin Huang5, Guangjian Zhu1, Noam Ross1, Aleksei Chmura1, Philip Terry6, Mark Fielder2, Maureen Miller7, Zhengli Shi4, Peter Daszak1.
Abstract
Human interaction with animals has been implicated as a primary risk factor for several high impact zoonoses, including many bat-origin viral diseases. However the animal-to-human spillover events that lead to emerging diseases are rarely observed or clinically examined, and the link between specific interactions and spillover risk is poorly understood. To investigate this phenomenon, we conducted biological-behavioral surveillance among rural residents in Yunnan, Guangxi, and Guangdong districts of Southern China, where we have identified a number of SARS-related coronaviruses in bats. Serum samples were tested for four bat-borne coronaviruses using newly developed enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA). Survey data were used to characterize associations between human-animal contact and bat coronavirus spillover risk. A total of 1,596 residents were enrolled in the study from 2015 to 2017. Nine participants (0.6%) tested positive for bat coronaviruses. 265 (17%) participants reported severe acute respiratory infections (SARI) and/or influenza-like illness (ILI) symptoms in the past year, which were associated with poultry, carnivore, rodent/shrew, or bat contact, with variability by family income and district of residence. This study provides serological evidence of bat coronavirus spillover in rural communities in Southern China. The low seroprevalence observed in this study suggests that bat coronavirus spillover is a rare event. Nonetheless, this study highlights associations between human-animal interaction and zoonotic spillover risk. These findings can be used to support targeted biological behavioral surveillance in high-risk geographic areas in order to reduce the risk of zoonotic disease emergence.Entities:
Keywords: Bat coronavirus; Disease emergence; Human-animal interaction; Rural community; Southern China
Year: 2019 PMID: 32501444 PMCID: PMC7148670 DOI: 10.1016/j.bsheal.2019.10.004
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biosaf Health ISSN: 2590-0536
Demographics of study participants.
| Variable | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| N | Valid % | ||
| Female | 968 | 61.5 | |
| (n= 1,574) | Male | 605 | 38.4 |
| Other | 1 | 0.1 | |
| Under 18 years | 71 | 4.5 | |
| (n=1,582) | 18 to 44 years | 420 | 26.5 |
| 45 to 64 years | 780 | 49.3 | |
| Age 65 or older | 311 | 19.7 | |
| Guang Dong | 420 | 26.5 | |
| (n=1,585) | Guang Xi | 412 | 26.0 |
| Yun Nan | 753 | 47.5 | |
| < 1 month | 4 | 0.3 | |
| (n=1,568) | 1 month – 1 year | 12 | 0.8 |
| 1 year – 5 years | 26 | 1.7 | |
| > 5 years | 1,526 | 97.3 | |
| < | 271 | 17.3 | |
| 1001-10000 yuan | 1067 | 68.2 | |
| >10000 yuan | 227 | 14.5 | |
| Extraction of minerals, gas, oil, timber (n=1,566) | 5 | 0.3 | |
| Crop production (n=1,569) | 1,196 | 76.2 | |
| Wildlife restaurant business (n=1,564) | 5 | 0.3 | |
| Wild/exotic animal trade/market business (n=1,566) | 8 | 0.5 | |
| Rancher/farmer animal production business (n=1,566) | 27 | 1.7 | |
| Meat processing, slaughterhouse, abattoir (n=1,567) | 8 | 0.5 | |
| Zoo/sanctuary animal health care (n=1,565) | 1 | 0.1 | |
| Protected area worker (n=1,567) | 7 | 0.4 | |
| Hunter/trapper/fisher (n=1,565) | 3 | 0.2 | |
| Forager/gatherer/non-timber forest product collector (n=1,566) | 4 | 0.3 | |
| Migrant laborer (n=1,567) | 144 | 9.2 | |
| Nurse, doctor, healer, community health worker (n=1567) | 7 | 0.4 | |
| Construction (n=1,564) | 41 | 2.6 | |
| Other (n=1,568) | 293 | 18.7 | |
| None | 428 | 27.3 | |
| (n=1,570) | Primary School | 632 | 40.3 |
| Secondary school/Polytechnic school | 479 | 30.5 | |
| College/university/professional | 31 | 2.0 | |
| No | 73 | 4.7 | |
| Yes | 95.3 | ||
Notes: Total counts differ due to missing responses.
Figure 1Animal contact by taxa and activities. Values and shading represent the survey population; red numbers in the upper-right corners of the cells indicate the number of seropositive individuals with the given contact.
Figure 2Most salient predictors of self-reported ILI and/or SARI symptoms in the last year (s = bootstrap support; n = count positive out of 1,585 respondents). Bootstrap support values ≥ 0.6 are demonstrated here, meaning they were identified as associated with the outcome for 60% or more of the bootstrap iterations. Odds ratios >1 (orange) are positively associated with the outcome, and odds ratios <1 (purple) are negatively associated with the outcome.