Long-term persistent infection of swine monocytes/macrophages with African swine fever virus

Carrillo, C.; Borca, Manuel V.; Afonso, Claudio L.; Onisk, Dale V.; Rock, Daniel L.

doi:10.1128/jvi.68.1.580-583.1994

Cited by 46 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(8 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Long-term infection with the Caucasian isolate of wild boar and pigs could not been observed in the experimental set-up, due to the high fatality rate (Blome et al, 2013), in contrast with the observations made on the Mediterranean isolates (Wilkinson 1984;Carrillo, Borca et al 1994).…”

Section: Detection Of Antibodiesmentioning

confidence: 74%

Scientific Opinion on African swine fever

2014

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The risk for endemicity of ASF in the eastern neighbouring countries of the EU and spread of ASFV to unaffected areas was updated until 31/01/2014. The assessment was based on a literature review and expert knowledge elicitation. The risk that ASF is endemic in Georgia, Armenia and the Russian Federation has increased from moderate to high, particularly due to challenges in outbreak control in the backyard production sector. The risk that ASFV will spread further into unaffected areas from these countries, mainly through movement of contaminated pork, infected pigs or contaminated vehicles, has remained high. In Ukraine and Belarus, the risk for ASF endemicity was considered moderate. Although only few outbreaks have been reported, which have been stamped out, only limited activities are ongoing to facilitate early detection of secondary spread. Further, there is a continuous risk of ASFV re-introduction from the Russian Federation, due to transboundary movements of people, pork or infected wild boar. The number of backyard farms is greatest in the west of Ukraine and westwards spread of ASFV could result in an infected area near the EU border, difficult to control. In Georgia, Armenia and the Russian Federation, the risk for endemicity of ASF in the wild boar population is considered moderate, mainly due to spill-over from the domestic pig population, whereas in Ukraine and Belarus this was considered to be low. In those areas in the Russian Federation where wild boar density is high, this risk may be higher. Intensive hunting pressure in affected wild boar populations may increase the risk for spread, possibly with severe implications across international borders. The risk for different matrices to be infected/contaminated and maintain infectious ASFV at the moment of transportation into the EU was assessed and ranged from very high for frozen meat, to very low for crops. SUMMARYFollowing a request from the European Commission, EFSA"s Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW Panel) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on African swine fever and to update the significance of the occurrence and risk of endemicity of ASF in the countries neighbouring the EU (Term of Reference 1, ToR1). Secondly, the AHAW Panel was asked to rank the possible pathways of introduction of ASFV into the EU on the basis of their level of risk, with a view to enhance preparedness and prevention (ToR2).To address the first ToR, an update was provided on the ASF situation in the eastern neighbouring countries of the EU since the last Scientific Opinion on African swine fever of the EFSA Panel on Animal health and Welfare (EFSA AHAW Panel, 2010a). To do so, an extensive literature review was carried out, describing the geographic distribution of ASFV, the epidemiological features of the outbreaks and challenges for ASFV prevention and control in the eastern neighbouring countries of the EU. The literature review also screened if new information has become available about the appearance of clinical signs and the detection of a...

show abstract

Section: Detection Of Antibodiesmentioning

confidence: 74%

Scientific Opinion on African swine fever

2014

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A typical strategy for most highly pathogenic viruses to cause severe pathology is to incite M1-associated inflammation, which not only promotes viral spreading via increased lymphocyte flux (including the infected monocytic cells), but also causes massive cell death of MΦs through direct infection. This has been demonstrated in diseases such as SARS [44][45][46], pandemic influenza [36][37][38], ASFV [55,56] and high-pathogenic PRRSV [64,65,71] (Table 1). As shown in these highlypathogenic viruses, infections cause as much as 50% MΦ depletion through apoptosis and necrosis, which are mostly M1-like status cells with a higher antiviral/inflammatory activity but short lifespans [44][45][46]73,75].…”

Section: Viral Infections Affect the Progression Of Macrophage Polarimentioning

confidence: 88%

“…Due to the pleiotropic function of IL-10-mediated signaling in immunosuppression and cell differentiation (both T regulatory cells and M2c cells), viruses evolving these mechanisms are likely capable of masking host antiviral responses and causing persistent and systemic infections [83][84][85][86][87]. Porcine macrophages infected by classical swine fever virus (CSFV) showed an increase in the M2-marker arginase-1 (ARG-1) but a decrease in nitric oxide production, indicating a M2-prone polarization [55]. In this respect, we and others have shown that PRRSV infection in macrophages stimulated IL-10 production, and cells of all M2 statuses.…”

Section: Viral Infections Affect the Progression Of Macrophage Polarimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Primarily and persistently infected tissuemonocytes/MΦs and fibroblasts in multiple tissues Massive M1 polarization served as a modulator of the viral pathogenesis including pulmonary edema, hemorrhage, and lymphoid depletion that characterize the disease [55,56] PCV2 (ssDNA, Cirvoviridae) Monocyte/MΦ lineage cells, including alveolar MΦs, are the major target cells Acute infection reduced alveolar MΦs phagocytosis and microbicidal capability; and persistence increased inflammatory and pro-apoptotic responses, which led to lymphopenia and immunosuppression [57,58] FMDV ((+)ssRNA, picornaviridae)…”

Section: Sars-cov ((+)Ssrna Coronaviridae)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Macrophage Polarization in Virus-Host Interactions

Sang

Miller

Blecha

2015

J Clin Cell Immunol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Macrophage involvement in viral infections and antiviral states is common. However, this involvement has not been well-studied in the paradigm of macrophage polarization, which typically has been categorized by the dichotomy of classical (M1) and alternative (M2) statuses. Recent studies have revealed the complexity of macrophage polarization in response to various cellular mediators and exogenous stimuli by adopting a multipolar view to revisit the differential process of macrophages, especially those re-polarized during viral infections. Here, through examination of viral infections targeting macrophages/monocytic cells, we focus on the direct involvement of macrophage polarization during viral infections. Type I and type III interferons (IFNs) are critical in regulation of viral pathogenesis and host antiviral infection; thus, we propose to incorporate IFN-mediated antiviral states into the framework of macrophage polarization. This view is supported by the multifunctional properties of type I IFNs, which potentially elicit and regulate both M1- and M2-polarization in addition to inducing the antiviral state, and by the discoveries of viral mechanisms to adapt and modulate macrophage polarization. Indeed, several recent studies have demonstrated effective prevention of viral diseases through manipulation of macrophage immune statuses.

show abstract

“…Experimental infections also showed that virus can be isolated from lymph tissues from pigs up to 6 months after infection (Wilkinson, 1984). In another study, ASFV DNA was detected in peripheral blood mononuclear leukocytes at more than 500 days post-infection by a PCR assay (Carrillo et al, 1994). Even if virus shedding may not occur from pigs infected for long periods, virus in tissues may still pose a threat for transmission of ASF if uncooked meat from apparently healthy carrier pigs is fed to uninfected pigs.…”

Section: Transmission Observed In Other Regions and Experimental Infementioning

confidence: 98%

Scientific Opinion on African Swine Fever

Bøtner¹,

Peña

Mannelli

et al. 2010

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The risk that African Swine Fever virus (ASFV) remains endemic in the Trans Caucasian Countries (TCC) and the Russian Federation (RF) is moderate, while the risk of its spread in these regions is high. The resulting risk of introduction from these regions into the EU is moderate most likely through food waste. The risk of ASFV remaining endemic in wild boar and the consequent introduction into the EU was considered low in the TCC and moderate in the RF, mainly due to the higher population density in the RF and the connected wild boar populations to the EU from the RF. Within the EU, mainly domestic pigs in the free range (FR) and the limited biosecurity sector (LB) are likely to be exposed to ASFV via swill feeding, with low risk. Once infected, the risk of spread from the LB and FR sectors prior detection is high, mainly due to movement of pigs, people and vehicles and moderate from the High Biosecurity (HB) sector. The risk of endemicity in domestic pigs is considered negligible in HB and low in LB since the implementation of control measures are effective. The risk of endemicity in the FR sector is moderate due to wild boar contact, noncompliance with animal movement ban and difficult access to all individual pigs. The risk of ASFV becoming endemic in the wild boar population in the EU is moderate, in particular in areas with connected wild boar populations. Because of their long life, ticks of the O. erraticus complex can be important in maintaining local foci of ASFV, where pigs are kept under traditional systems. Ticks do not, play an active role in the geographical spread of the virus. Wild boar have never been found infested because they do not rest inside burrows potentially infested by ticks.

show abstract

Long-term persistent infection of swine monocytes/macrophages with African swine fever virus

Cited by 46 publications

References 16 publications

Scientific Opinion on African swine fever

Scientific Opinion on African swine fever

Macrophage Polarization in Virus-Host Interactions

Scientific Opinion on African Swine Fever

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About