Adenovirus infection in savanna chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii) in the Issa Valley, Tanzania

Dadáková, Eva; Brožová, Kristýna; Piel, Alex K.; Stewart, Fiona; Modrý, David; Celer, V.; Hrazdilová, Kristýna

doi:10.1007/s00705-017-3576-x

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the fact that many studies focused on PRRS immunoprophylaxis have already been published and many procedures are implemented in the agricultural industry, a universal model does not yet exist (46)(47)(48)(49)(50)(51)(52)(53)(54)(55)(56)(57)(58)(59)(60). The use of live attenuated vaccines is generally preferred as was also confirmed in our field study (61).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 60%

Dynamics and Differences in Systemic and Local Immune Responses After Vaccination With Inactivated and Live Commercial Vaccines and Subsequent Subclinical Infection With PRRS Virus

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goals of our study were to compare the immune response to different killed and modified live vaccines against PRRS virus and to monitor the antibody production and the cell mediated immunity both at the systemic and local level. In the experiment, we immunized four groups of piglets with two commercial inactivated (A1—Progressis, A2—Suivac) and two modified live vaccines (B3—Amervac, B4—Porcilis). Twenty-one days after the final vaccination, all piglets, including the control non-immunized group (C5), were i.n., infected with the Lelystad strain of PRRS virus. The serum antibody response (IgM and IgG) was the strongest in group A1 followed by two MLV (B3 and B4) groups. Locally, we demonstrated the highest level of IgG antibodies in bronchoalveolar lavages (BALF), and saliva in group A1, whereas low IgA antibody responses in BALF and feces were detected in all groups. We have found virus neutralization antibody at DPV 21 (days post vaccination) and higher levels in all groups including the control at DPI 21 (days post infection). Positive antigen specific cell-mediated response in lymphocyte transformation test (LTT) was observed in groups B3 and B4 at DPV 7 and in group B4 at DPV 21 and in all intervals after infection. The IFN-γ producing lymphocytes after antigen stimulation were found in CD4 − CD8 + and CD4 + CD8 + subsets of all immunized groups 7 days after infection. After infection, there were obvious differences in virus excretion. The virus was detected in all groups of piglets in serum, saliva, and occasionally in feces at DPI 3. Significantly lower virus load was found in groups A1 and B3 at DPI 21. Negative samples appeared at DPI 21 in B3 group in saliva. It can be concluded that antibodies after immunization and infection, and the virus after infection can be detected in all the compartments monitored. Immunization with inactivated vaccine A1—Progressis induces high levels of antibodies produced both systemically and locally. Immunization with MLV-vaccines (Amervac and Porcilis) produces sufficient antibody levels and also cell-mediated immunity. After infection virus secretion gradually decreases in group B3, indicating tendency to induce sterile immunity.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 60%

Dynamics and Differences in Systemic and Local Immune Responses After Vaccination With Inactivated and Live Commercial Vaccines and Subsequent Subclinical Infection With PRRS Virus

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Captive gorillas in zoos had a much higher prevalence of shedding (36%-100%) [13]. The results in our Senegalese chimpanzee study population (54.2%) were higher than in the Cameroon/Democratic Republic of Congo study (40%) [13] and in another population of savannah-dwelling chimpanzees from the Issa Valley in Tanzania (37%) [35], and they were lower than the reported rate of 68% in the Republic of Congo [31]. These differences seem to be marginal and could be due to differences in sample collection and conservation conditions, study region, seasonality or degree of anthropogenic disturbance of the habitat, but they are less likely to be due to laboratory differences, since all the studies used the same PCR assay [13].…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 53%

Adenovirus Infections in African Humans and Wild Non-Human Primates: Great Diversity and Cross-Species Transmission

Medkour

Amona

Akiana

et al. 2020

Viruses

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-human primates (NHPs) are known hosts for adenoviruses (AdVs), so there is the possibility of the zoonotic or cross-species transmission of AdVs. As with humans, AdV infections in animals can cause diseases that range from asymptomatic to fatal. The aim of this study was to investigate the occurrence and diversity of AdVs in: (i) fecal samples of apes and monkeys from different African countries (Republic of Congo, Senegal, Djibouti and Algeria), (ii) stool of humans living near gorillas in the Republic of Congo, in order to explore the potential zoonotic risks. Samples were screened by real-time and standard PCRs, followed by the sequencing of the partial DNA polymerase gene in order to identify the AdV species. The prevalence was 3.3 folds higher in NHPs than in humans. More than 1/3 (35.8%) of the NHPs and 1/10 (10.5%) of the humans excreted AdVs in their feces. The positive rate was high in great apes (46%), with a maximum of 54.2% in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and 35.9% in gorillas (Gorilla gorilla), followed by monkeys (25.6%), with 27.5% in Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus) and 23.1% in baboons (seven Papio papio and six Papio hamadryas). No green monkeys (Chlorocebus sabaeus) were found to be positive for AdVs. The AdVs detected in NHPs were members of Human mastadenovirus E (HAdV-E), HAdV-C or HAdV-B, and those in the humans belonged to HAdV-C or HAdV-D. HAdV-C members were detected in both gorillas and humans, with evidence of zoonotic transmission since phylogenetic analysis revealed that gorilla AdVs belonging to HAdV-C were genetically identical to strains detected in humans who had been living around gorillas, and, inversely, a HAdV-C member HAdV type was detected in gorillas. This confirms the gorilla-to-human transmission of adenovirus. which has been reported previously. In addition, HAdV-E members, the most often detected here, are widely distributed among NHP species regardless of their origin, i.e., HAdV-E members seem to lack host specificity. Virus isolation was successful from a human sample and the strain of the Mbo024 genome, of 35 kb, that was identified as belonging to HAdV-D, exhibited close identity to HAdV-D members for all genes. This study provides information on the AdVs that infect African NHPs and the human populations living nearby, with an evident zoonotic transmission. It is likely that AdVs crossed the species barrier between different NHP species (especially HAdV-E members), between NHPs and humans (especially HAdV-C), but also between humans, NHPs and other animal species.

show abstract

“…Sequencing using BioEdit and comparison using BLAST24.Wang et al [47]USA, 2018Nasal swabs from human subjects with influenza like illness who were living in close proximity to dense poultry and swine farming operations were examined for evidence of panspecies adenoviruses. No evidence of zoonotic adenoviruses was found.Molecular: PCR targeting hexon gene25.Dadáková et al [48]Tanzania, 2018Fecal samples from unhabituated eastern chimpanzees demonstrated HAdV-B, -C and -E strains; however, all were distinct from human, even gorilla and bonobo clusters, indicating strict host specificity of the virusesPhylogenetic: PCR targeting DPOL gene partial DPOL and/or hexon sequencing; ClustalW amino acid alignment; BLAST analysis and hexon-based phylogenetic analysisaa = amino acid; Abs = antibodies; AdV = adenovirus; AdV-2 = adenovirus serotype 2; AdV-C1 = adenovirus species C serotype 1; AdV-C6 = adenovirus species C serotype 6; AdV-C68 = adenovirus species C serotype 68; BaAdV = baboon adenovirus; BaAdV -1, -2, -3, and -4 = baboon adenoviruses serotypes 1, 2, 3 and 4; BLAST = Basic Local Alignment Search Tool; CAR = Central African Republic; CELO = chicken embryo lethal orphan; DBP = DNA-binding protein; DPOL = DNA polymerase gene; DRC = Democratic Republic of the Congo; HAdV = human adenovirus; HAdV-2 = human adenovirus serotype 2; HAdV-3 = human adenovirus serotype 3; HAdV-4 = human adenovirus serotype 4; HAdV-41 = human adenovirus serotype 41; HAdV-52 = human adenovirus serotype 52; HAdV-B = human adenovirus species B; HAdV-B7 = human adenovirus species B serotype 7; HAdV-B16 = human adenovirus species B serotype 16; HAdV-B21 = human adenovirus species B serotype 21; HAdV-B50 human adenovirus species B serotype 50; HAdV-C = human adenovirus species C; HAdV -E = human adenovirus species E; HAdV-E4 = human adenovirus species E serotype 4; HAdV-F = human adenovirus species F; HAdV-G = human adenovirus species G; ILI = influenza-like-illness; ITR = inverted terminal repeat; MAFFT = multiple alignment using fast Fourier transform; MEGA4 = Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis version 4.0; PCR = polymerase chain reaction; pTP = terminal protein precursor; SAdV = simian adenovirus; SAdV-E25 = simian adenovirus species E serotype 25; TMAdV = titi monkey adenovirus.*Note that Dehghan et al [40] was published after the systematic review search, but has been included in this table due to relevance to the review.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are adenoviruses zoonotic? A systematic review of the evidence

Borkenhagen

Fieldhouse

Seto

et al. 2019

Emerging Microbes & Infections

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adenoviruses (AdVs) are major contributors to clinical illnesses. Novel human and animal AdVs continue to be identified and characterized. Comparative analyses using bioinformatic methods and Omics-based technologies allow insights into how these human pathogens have emerged and their potential for host cross-species transmission. Systematic review of literature published across ProQuest, Pubmed, and Web of Science databases for evidence of adenoviral zoonotic potential identified 589 citations. After removing duplicates, 327 citations were screened for relevance; of which, 74 articles received full-text reviews. Among these, 24 were included here, of which 16 demonstrated evidence of zoonotic transmission of AdVs. These documented instances of AdV crossing host species barriers between humans and non-human primate, bat, feline, swine, canine, ovine, and caprine. Eight studies sought to but did not find evidence of zoonosis. The findings demonstrate substantial evidence suggesting AdVs have previously and will continue crossing host species barriers. These have human health consequences both in terms of novel pathogen emergence and epidemic outbreaks, and of appropriate and safe use of nonhuman adenoviruses for therapeutics. As routine human clinical diagnostics may miss a novel cross-species adenovirus infection in humans, next generation sequencing or panspecies molecular diagnostics may be necessary to detect such incursions.

show abstract

Adenovirus infection in savanna chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii) in the Issa Valley, Tanzania

Cited by 6 publications

References 27 publications

Dynamics and Differences in Systemic and Local Immune Responses After Vaccination With Inactivated and Live Commercial Vaccines and Subsequent Subclinical Infection With PRRS Virus

Dynamics and Differences in Systemic and Local Immune Responses After Vaccination With Inactivated and Live Commercial Vaccines and Subsequent Subclinical Infection With PRRS Virus

Adenovirus Infections in African Humans and Wild Non-Human Primates: Great Diversity and Cross-Species Transmission

Are adenoviruses zoonotic? A systematic review of the evidence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About