| Literature DB >> 36090172 |
Aoife N Galvin1, Pranav S Pandit2, Simon G English3, Rachel C Quock1, Ruta R Bandivadekar3, Rita R Colwell4, Barbara W Robinson4, Holly B Ernest5, Mollie H Brown3, Ravinder N M Sehgal1, Lisa A Tell3.
Abstract
Avian pox is a common avian virus that in its cutaneous form can cause characteristic lesions on a bird's dermal surfaces. Detection of avian pox in free-ranging birds historically relied on observations of visual lesions and/or histopathology, both which can underestimate avian pox prevalence. We compared traditional visual observation methods for avian pox with molecular methods that utilize minimally invasive samples (blood, toenail clipping, feathers, and dermal swabs) in an ecologically important group of birds, hummingbirds. Specifically, avian pox prevalence in several species of hummingbirds were examined across multiple locations using three different methods: (1) visual inspection of hummingbirds for pox-like lesions from a long-term banding data set, (2) qPCR assay of samples from hummingbird carcasses from wildlife rehabilitation centers, and (3) qPCR assay of samples from live-caught hummingbirds. A stark difference in prevalences among these three methods was identified, with an avian pox prevalence of 1.5% from banding data, 20.4% from hummingbird carcasses, and 32.5% from live-caught hummingbirds in California. This difference in detection rates underlines the necessity of a molecular method to survey for avian pox, and this study establishes one such method that could be applied to other wild bird species. Across all three methods, Anna's hummingbirds harbored significantly higher avian pox prevalence than other species examined, as did males compared with females and birds caught in Southern California compared with Northern California. After hatch-year hummingbirds also harbored higher avian pox prevalences than hatch-year hummingbirds in the California banding data set and the carcass data set. This is the first study to estimate the prevalence of avian pox in hummingbirds and address the ecology of this hummingbird-specific strain of avian pox virus, providing vital information to inform future studies on this charismatic and ecologically important group of birds.Entities:
Keywords: Trochilidae; avian pox; disease ecology; prevalence; virus
Year: 2022 PMID: 36090172 PMCID: PMC9450938 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2022.924854
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Vet Sci ISSN: 2297-1769
Pox prevalence among California hummingbirds.
|
| |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Age + | 1,840 | 0.0 | 1.0 | (Intercept) | −6.26 | 0.51 | −7.45 | −5.39 | <0.001 |
| Sex + | HY | −1.83 | 0.20 | −2.24 | −1.45 | <0.001 | |||
| Genus + | Male | 0.82 | 0.17 | 0.50 | 1.16 | <0.001 | |||
| Locality |
| 2.24 | 0.51 | 1.38 | 3.42 | <0.001 | |||
|
| −0.26 | 0.73 | −1.74 | 1.21 | 0.72 | ||||
| Southern | 1.06 | 0.23 | 0.58 | 1.50 | <0.001 | ||||
| Age + | 1,854 | 14.5 | 0.0 | (Intercept) | −6.27 | 0.51 | −7.46 | −5.39 | <0.001 |
| Sex + | HY | −1.86 | 0.20 | −2.27 | −1.49 | <0.001 | |||
| Genus | Male | 0.84 | 0.17 | 0.52 | 1.18 | <0.001 | |||
|
| 2.31 | 0.51 | 1.45 | 3.49 | <0.001 | ||||
|
| 0.34 | 0.71 | −1.11 | 1.78 | 0.63 | ||||
| Age + | 1,864 | 24.2 | 0.0 | (Intercept) | −5.83 | 0.50 | −7.00 | −4.98 | <0.001 |
| Genus + | HY | −1.76 | 0.20 | −2.17 | −1.38 | <0.001 | |||
| Locality |
| 2.35 | 0.51 | 1.49 | 3.53 | <0.001 | |||
|
| −0.27 | 0.72 | −1.75 | 1.20 | 0.71 | ||||
| Southern | 1.11 | 0.23 | 0.63 | 1.55 | <0.001 | ||||
| Sex + | 1,918 | 78.4 | 0.0 | (Intercept) | −4.40 | 0.15 | −4.71 | −4.12 | <0.001 |
| Age + | Male | 0.99 | 0.17 | 0.66 | 1.33 | <0.001 | |||
| Locality | HY | −1.75 | 0.20 | −2.16 | −1.37 | <0.001 | |||
| Southern | 0.47 | 0.22 | 0.01 | 0.89 | 0.03 | ||||
| Genus + | 1,954 | 113.9 | 0.0 | (Intercept) | −6.48 | 0.51 | −7.67 | −5.61 | <0.001 |
| Sex + |
| 1.96 | 0.51 | 1.10 | 3.14 | <0.001 | |||
| Locality |
| −0.54 | 0.72 | −2.01 | 0.94 | 0.46 | |||
| Male | 0.67 | 0.17 | 0.35 | 1.01 | <0.001 | ||||
| Southern | 1.28 | 0.23 | 0.80 | 1.72 | <0.001 | ||||
| Age + | 1,955 | 115.3 | 0.0 | (Intercept) | −3.77 | 0.08 | −3.94 | −3.61 | <0.001 |
| Locality | HY | −1.63 | 0.20 | −2.04 | −1.26 | <0.001 | |||
| Southern | 0.50 | 0.22 | 0.04 | 0.92 | 0.02 | ||||
| Genus + | 1,969 | 129.1 | 0.0 | (Intercept) | −6.11 | 0.50 | −7.28 | −5.27 | <0.001 |
| Locality |
| 2.05 | 0.51 | 1.19 | 3.23 | <0.001 | |||
|
| −0.52 | 0.72 | −2.00 | 0.95 | 0.47 | ||||
| Southern | 1.35 | 0.23 | 0.87 | 1.78 | <0.001 | ||||
| Sex + | 2,021 | 181.7 | 0.0 | (Intercept) | −4.82 | 0.15 | −5.13 | −4.54 | <0.001 |
| Locality | Male | 0.80 | 0.17 | 0.48 | 1.14 | <0.001 | |||
| Southern | 0.66 | 0.22 | 0.21 | 1.08 | <0.001 | ||||
| Locality | 2,045 | 205.0 | 0.0 | (Intercept) | −4.29 | 0.08 | −4.44 | −4.14 | <0.001 |
| Southern | 0.71 | 0.22 | 0.25 | 1.12 | <0.001 | ||||
Prevalence data were collected from 17 Northern banding sites and two Southern banding sites over 18 years (2003 to 2020). Prevalence estimates, standard errors (SE), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) are shown for male and female (reference level) after-hatch-year (AHY) and hatch-year (HY) birds in the Archilochus genus, the Calypte genus, and the Selasphorus genus.
Figure 1Avian pox prevalence among California hummingbirds based on visual presence of pox-like lesions. Prevalence data were collected from Northern (n = 17) and Southern (n = 2) California banding sites over 18 years (2003 to 2020). Upper and lower vertical bars indicate prevalence point estimates plus and minus one standard error. Prevalence estimates are shown for after hatch-year (AHY) and hatch-year (HY) birds in the Archilochus genus, the Calypte genus, and the Selasphorus genus.
Figure 2Proportion of hummingbird carcasses by species that were detected positive for avian pox viral DNA. A bird was considered positive (Cq ≤ 35) if any sample from the bird carcass was detected positive for Avipoxvirus DNA using a quantitative polymerse chain reaction assay. Points show the prevalence and error bars represent standard error of the mean. ANHU, Anna's hummingbird; BCHU, Black-chinned Hummingbird; ALHU, Allen's Hummingbird, SEHU, Selasphorus spp. hummingbird; RTHU, Ruby-throated Hummingbird.
Proportion of sample types and sub-sample types identified positive for avian poxvirus DNA from live and carcasses of various hummingbird species caught or found in California.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||||
| Live | ALHU | Feather | Body | 25 | 0.13 | 0.02 | 192 |
| ANHU | Blood | FTA | 15 | 0.11 | 0.03 | 133 | |
| Blood | Lysis buffer | 9 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 379 | ||
| Feather | Body | 385 | 0.6 | 0.02 | 646 | ||
| BCHU | Feather | Body | 24 | 0.14 | 0.03 | 167 | |
| Carcass | ALHU | Feather | Body | 10 | 0.11 | 0.03 | 90 |
| Non-lesion swab | Beak | 5 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 90 | ||
| ANHU | Blood | Nobuto | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
| Blood | FTA | 3 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 6 | ||
| Feather | Wing | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | ||
| Feather | Body | 25 | 0.44 | 0.07 | 57 | ||
| Feather | Tail | 29 | 0.13 | 0.02 | 228 | ||
| Lesion swab | Eye | 5 | 1 | 0 | 5 | ||
| Lesion swab | Keel | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Lesion swab | Leg | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Lesion swab | Toe | 16 | 1 | 0 | 16 | ||
| Lesion swab | Wing | 7 | 1 | 0 | 7 | ||
| Lesion swab | Beak | 19 | 0.95 | 0.05 | 20 | ||
| Non-lesion swab | Eye | 24 | 0.36 | 0.06 | 66 | ||
| Non-lesion swab | Toe | 20 | 0.31 | 0.06 | 64 | ||
| Non-lesion swab | Beak | 12 | 0.23 | 0.06 | 53 | ||
| Tissue | Keel | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | ||
| Tissue | Wing | 5 | 0.83 | 0.15 | 6 | ||
| Tissue | Beak | 19 | 0.29 | 0.06 | 65 | ||
| Tissue | Muscle | 19 | 0.27 | 0.05 | 70 | ||
| Tissue | Eye | 19 | 0.27 | 0.05 | 71 | ||
| Toenail | Toe | 35 | 0.15 | 0.02 | 234 | ||
| BCHU | Feather | Tail | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
| SEHU | Lesion swab | Toe | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
| Lesion swab | Muscle | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Non-lesion swab | Beak | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Non-lesion swab | Toe | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Toenail | Toe | 1 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 18 |
Molecular testing was performed using a quantitative polymerase chain reaction assay.
ANHU, Anna's Hummingbird; BCHU, Black-chinned Hummingbird; SEHU, Selasphorus spp. hummingbird; FTA, Whatman Flinders Technology Associates cards.
Figure 3Proportion of live birds by species that were detected positive for Avipoxvirus DNA. A bird was considered positive (Cq ≤ 35) if any sample from the bird was detected positive for Avipoxvirus DNA using a quantitative polymerse chain reaction assay. Points show the prevalence and error bars represent standard error of the mean. ANHU, Anna's Hummingbird; BCHU, Black-chinned Hummingbird; ALHU, Allen's Hummingbird.
Figure 4Boxplots showing distribution of Cq values for various sample types obtained from hummingbird carcasses that were visually positive for pox-like lesions vs. carcasses that were visually negative for pox-like lesions (* Mann Whitney U P-value <0.05; ***, visually negative birds not observed). Samples were tested for Avipoxvirus DNA using a quantitative polymerase chain reaction assay.
Figure 5Pairwise comparison of Cq values for blood and feather samples from live hummingbirds caught in California that were classified positive for at least one of these two sample types. A bird was considered positive (Cq ≤ 35) if any sample was detected positive for Avipoxvirus DNA using a quantitative polymerase chain reaction assay. (A) histogram showing distributions of Cq values for blood and feather (body and retrices) samples (B) scatter plot showing correlation between blood and feather qPCR Cq values.