Marburg virus nucleic acid was found in 12 bats, antibodies were found in 2 species of these bats, but no live virus was isolated.

Large-scale vaccination of animals might have influenced virus evolution.

The Egyptian fruit bat, Rousettus aegyptiacus, is currently regarded as a potential reservoir host for Marburg virus (MARV). However, the modes of transmission, the level of viral replication, tissue tropism and viral shedding pattern remains to be described. Captive-bred R. aegyptiacus, including adult males, females and pups were exposed to MARV by different inoculation routes. Blood, tissues, feces and urine from 9 bats inoculated by combination of nasal and oral routes were all negative for the virus and ELISA IgG antibody could not be demonstrated for up to 21 days post inoculation (p.i.). In 21 bats inoculated by a combination of intraperitoneal/subcutaneous route, viremia and the presence of MARV in different tissues was detected on days 2–9 p.i., and IgG antibody on days 9–21 p.i. In 3 bats inoculated subcutaneously, viremia was detected on days 5 and 8 (termination of experiment), with virus isolation from different organs. MARV could not be detected in urine, feces or oral swabs in any of the 3 experimental groups. However, it was detected in tissues which might contribute to horizontal or vertical transmission, e.g. lung, intestines, kidney, bladder, salivary glands, and female reproductive tract. Viremia lasting at least 5 days could also facilitate MARV mechanical transmission by blood sucking arthropods and infections of susceptible vertebrate hosts by direct contact with infected blood. All bats were clinically normal and no gross pathology was identified on post mortem examination. This work confirms the susceptibility of R. aegyptiacus to infection with MARV irrespective of sex and age and contributes to establishing a bat-filovirus experimental model. Further studies are required to uncover the mode of MARV transmission, and to investigate the putative role of R. aegyptiacus as a reservoir host.

Abstract. In mid-September 2000, Rift Valley fever (RVF) virus was diagnosed as the cause of infection in humans and livestock in Jizan Region, Saudi Arabia. This is the first time that this arbovirus has been found outside Africa and Madagascar. Collections of mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) were therefore undertaken (from 25 September to 10 October) at eight sites during the epidemic to obtain mosquitoes for attempted RVF virus isolation. Among 23 699 mosquito females tested, isolations of RVF virus were made from six of 15 428 Culex (Culex) tritaeniorhynchus Giles and from seven of 8091 Aedes vexans arabiensis Patton. Minimum mosquito infection rates per 1000 at sites with infected mosquitoes were 0.3±13.8 Cx. tritaeniorhynchus and 1.94±9.03 Ae. v. arabiensis. Viral activity moved northwards as collecting was in progress and collectors`caught up' with the virus at the two most northerly sites on the last two trapping evenings. Other species occurred in small numbers and were identified but not tested. Both Cx. tritaeniorhynchus and Ae. v. arabiensis were susceptible to RVF virus and transmitted between hamsters, and an additional quantitative test with Cx. tritaeniorhynchus showed that 71±73% of mosquitoes became infected after ingesting 6.9±7.9 log 10 FFU/mL of virus; transmission rates were 10% (post-infection day 14) and 26% (postinfection day 20). It was concluded that both species were vectors on grounds of abundance, distribution, preference for humans and sheep, the virus isolations and vector competence tests.

Egyptian fruit bats (Rousettus aegyptiacus) were inoculated subcutaneously (n = 22) with Marburg virus (MARV). No deaths, overt signs of morbidity, or gross lesions was identified, but microscopic pathological changes were seen in the liver of infected bats. The virus was detected in 15 different tissues and plasma but only sporadically in mucosal swab samples, urine, and fecal samples. Neither seroconversion nor viremia could be demonstrated in any of the in-contact susceptible bats (n = 14) up to 42 days after exposure to infected bats. In bats rechallenged (n = 4) on day 48 after infection, there was no viremia, and the virus could not be isolated from any of the tissues tested. This study confirmed that infection profiles are consistent with MARV replication in a reservoir host but failed to demonstrate MARV transmission through direct physical contact or indirectly via air. Bats develop strong protective immunity after infection with MARV.