Avian Influenza and Animal Health Risk: Conservation of Endemic Threatened Wild Birds in Sardinia Island

Delogu, Mauro; Piredda, Isabella; Pintore, Antonio; Cabras, Pierangela; Cotti, Claudia; Ghetti, Giulia; Raffini, E.; Marco, Maria Alessandra De

doi:10.1637/10174-041012-resnote.1

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Stored sera were subsequently screened by a double-antibody sandwich blocking ELISA for antibodies against influenza A virus nucleoprotein (serological ELISA) [ 23 ], and samples tested positive were further examined by HI assay for antibodies against fourteen—from H1 to H14—AIV antigenic subtypes using as antigens the viruses circulating in Italy (from the study area, when available, or from other Italian provinces); otherwise AIV reference strains were used ( Tables S1 and S2 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Serologic Evidence of Occupational Exposure to Avian Influenza Viruses at the Wildfowl/Poultry/Human Interface

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecological interactions between wild aquatic birds and outdoor-housed poultry can enhance spillover events of avian influenza viruses (AIVs) from wild reservoirs to domestic birds, thus increasing the related zoonotic risk to occupationally exposed workers. To assess serological evidence of AIV infection in workers operating in Northern Italy at the wildfowl/poultry interface or directly exposed to wildfowl, serum samples were collected between April 2005 and November 2006 from 57 bird-exposed workers (BEWs) and from 7 unexposed controls (Cs), planning three sample collections from each individual. Concurrently, AIV surveillance of 3587 reared birds identified 4 AIVs belonging to H10N7, H4N6 and H2N2 subtypes while serological analysis by hemagglutination inhibition (HI) assay showed recent infections caused by H1, H2, H4, H6, H10, H11, H12, and H13 subtypes. Human sera were analyzed for specific antibodies against AIVs belonging to antigenic subtypes from H1 to H14 by using HI and virus microneutralization (MN) assays as a screening and a confirmatory test, respectively. Overall, antibodies specific to AIV-H3, AIV-H6, AIV-H8, and AIV-H9 were found in three poultry workers (PWs) and seropositivity to AIV-11, AIV-H13—still detectable in October 2017—in one wildlife professional (WP). Furthermore, seropositivity to AIV-H2, accounting for previous exposure to the “extinct” H2N2 human influenza viruses, was found in both BEWs and Cs groups. These data further emphasize the occupational risk posed by zoonotic AIV strains and show the possible occurrence of long-lived antibody-based immunity following AIV infections in humans.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Panels of AIVs and antisera used for serological HI test in birds are shown in Table S1 . In ELISA and HI serological tests, antibody titers ≥1:8 and ≥1:16 were, respectively, considered positive [ 20 , 23 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Serologic Evidence of Occupational Exposure to Avian Influenza Viruses at the Wildfowl/Poultry/Human Interface

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(Delogu et al, 2012) evaluated the role of endemic endangered wild bird population of Sardinia (Italy) in the ecology of AIVs. The surveillance activity found positive sera samples collected from mallard and yellow-legged gull but all the endemic, rare or both species and the potential spill-over species (Accipitridae and Falconidae) tested negative for AIVs serologically and virologically.…”

Section: Surveillance Activities In Wild Birdsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of biosecurity measures and early detection systems, mitigation measures and surveillance strategies on the spread of HPAI and LPAI between farms

Mulatti

Dorotea

Vieira

et al. 2017

EFSA Supporting Publications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An extensive literature review was performed to provide insights on the effect of biosecurity and control measures on the risk of introduction and spread of avian influenza in the domestic poultry sector, whether there are gaps in surveillance on wild birds, and to investigate the trigger thresholds for early detection activities through passive surveillance. A total of 1390 articles were retrieved from on-line databases, including Thomson-Reuters Web of Knowledge, PubMed, Ovid and Medline. After removing duplicates 788 studies were screened, and 194 papers were fully read to evaluate whether they could provide reliable information. Twenty-seven papers were considered relevant for assessing the effect of biosecurity and control measures, 7 were included in the assessment of early detection thresholds, and 66 provided information on surveillance gaps in wild birds. Due to the different types of studies included in the review, it resulted impossible to make direct comparison between the results obtained in the articles, as many of them did not report quantitative assessments of the effects of interest. Instead of a formal comparison between studies, the results were reported to provide recommendations on the research questions, also supplying evidences obtained through quantitative analysis and mathematical modeling. Nevertheless it was possible to assess the likely effects of control measures such as pre-emptive culling of farms nearby infected premises, ring vaccination and compartmentalization. Insights on early detection measures provided useful information to reconsider the passive surveillance thresholds to be accounted for to avoid the undetected circulation of avian influenza. The reporting of surveillance on wild birds allowed to identify species to be integrated within the commonly considered target species, and procedures to optimize activities by focusing on defined areas and temporal periods, in the context of a fine tuned Risk Based Surveillance plan. © IZSVe, 2016Key words: avian influenza, biosecurity, surveillance, early detection, introduction, spread Disclaimer: The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as authors. This task has been carried out exclusively by the authors in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the authors, awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.Suggested citation: Mulatti P, Dorotea T, Vieira JT, Bonfanti Lebana, Marangon S, 2016. Effect of biosecurity measures and early detection systems, mitigation measures and surveillance strategies on the spread of HPAI and LPAI between farms. EFSA supporting publication 2016:EN-1142....

show abstract

Surveillance of Influenza Viruses in Waterfowl Used As Decoys in Andalusia, Spain

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A longitudinal study was carried out to determine the seroprevalence of avian influenza viruses (AIVs) in waterfowl used as decoys in Andalusia, southern Spain. A total of 2319 aquatic birds from 193 flocks were analyzed before and after the hunting season 2011–2012. In the first sampling, 403 out of 2319 (18.0%, CI95%: 15.8–19.0) decoys showed antibodies against AIVs by ELISA. The AI seroprevalence was significantly higher in geese (21.0%) than in ducks (11.7%) (P<0.001). Besides, the spatial distribution of AIVs was not homogeneous as significant differences among regions were observed. The prevalence of antibodies against AIVs subtypes H5 and H7 were 1.1% and 0.3%, respectively, using hemagglutination inhibition test (HI). The overall and H5 seroprevalences slightly increased after the hunting period (to 19.2% and 1.4%, respectively), while the H7 seroprevalence remained at the same level (0.3%). The proportion of flocks infected by AIVs was 65.3%, while 11.2% and 4.9% of flocks were positive for H5 and H7, respectively. Viral shedding was not detected in any of the 47 samples positive by both ELISA and HI, tested by RRT-PCR. The individual incidence after the hunting season was 3.4%. The fact that 57 animals seroconverted, 15 of which were confirmed by HI (12 H5 and 3 H7), was indication of contact with AIVs during the hunting period. The results indicate that waterfowl used as decoys are frequently exposed to AIVs and may be potentially useful as sentinels for AIVs monitoring. The seroprevalence detected and the seropositivity against AIVs H5 and H7, suggest that decoys can act as reservoirs of AIVs, which may be of animal and public health concern.

show abstract

Avian Influenza and Animal Health Risk: Conservation of Endemic Threatened Wild Birds in Sardinia Island

Cited by 4 publications

References 25 publications

Serologic Evidence of Occupational Exposure to Avian Influenza Viruses at the Wildfowl/Poultry/Human Interface

Serologic Evidence of Occupational Exposure to Avian Influenza Viruses at the Wildfowl/Poultry/Human Interface

Effect of biosecurity measures and early detection systems, mitigation measures and surveillance strategies on the spread of HPAI and LPAI between farms

Surveillance of Influenza Viruses in Waterfowl Used As Decoys in Andalusia, Spain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About