Pseudorabies in the European Wild Boar From Eastern Germany

Müller, Thomas; Teuffert, Jürgen; Ziedler, K.; Possardt, C.; Krämer, Matthias; Staubach, C.; Conraths, Franz Josef

doi:10.7589/0090-3558-34.2.251

Cited by 45 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Most studies show that antibody prevalence in wild boars is correlated with age and that significantly higher infection rates have been found in adult wild boars than in juveniles and piglets (Pirtle et al 1989; Van der Leek et al 1993;Mü ller et al 1998a;Lari et al 2006). We obtained similar results with the highest antibody prevalence found in adults.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…Based on our study and previous ones, there is evidence that PrV infections in domestic pigs and wild swine represent epidemiologically distinct infection cycles (Mü ller et al 1998a). Nevertheless, experimental studies suggest a potential risk; thus, infected wild swine can shed sufficient virus to cause infection Mü ller et al 1998b).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

“…The PrV detection from various secretions and excretions of wild swine has suggested that oral/nasal (Tozzini et al 1982;Pirtle et al 1989;Mü ller et al 1998a) and venereal Mü ller et al 1998a;Romero et al 2001) shedding represent the two major routes of viral transmission in the free-ranging wild boar population we studied. The possibility of viral transfer through cannibalism is less clear .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 2 more Smart Citations

SEROLOGIC, MOLECULAR, AND PATHOLOGIC SURVEY OF PSEUDORABIES VIRUS INFECTION IN HUNTED WILD BOARS (SUS SCROFA) IN ITALY

Verin

Varuzza

Mazzei

et al. 2014

Journal of Wildlife Diseases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:To investigate pseudorabies-virus (PrV) -antibody and viral-DNA prevalence, we collected blood, nasal and genital swabs, and tonsillar and lymph-node tissue samples from 139 wild boars (Sus scrofa; 39 piglets, 30 juveniles, and 70 adults), during the hunting season of 2010-2011 in Tuscany, Central Italy. We performed immunohistochemistry with anti-PrV monoclonal antibodies on selected tissue samples. Forty-three of 139 (30.9%) boars were PrV-antibody positive and a 1,954-base-pair PrV-specific product was amplified from nine nasal (6.5%) and 26 genital (18.7%) swabs. Sequence analysis of PrV-positive PCR products revealed identity scores of 99-100% with Suid herpesvirus 1 strain Becker (JF797219) and confirmed the identification of PrV DNA in tested swabs. There was significantly higher antibody prevalence in adults than in juveniles and in piglets than in juveniles. The prevalence of viral DNA was significantly higher in genital swabs than in nasal specimens. The percentage of positive nasal swabs did not differ among age classes. Piglets had a higher percentage of PCR-positive genital swabs than juvenile and adult subjects (30.8% vs. 13.3% and 14.3%, respectively). Results confirmed that PrV infection is widespread in the wild boar population in the study area. The presence of anti-PrV antibodies and of the PrV virus in piglets could be related to vertical transmission of the virus. This hypothesis was also supported by a higher presence of viral genome in genital swabs than in nasal swabs. This field study supports the importance of vertical transmission of PrV, and the high prevalence of virus in genital swabs supports venereal transmission in adult feral boars.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

SEROLOGIC, MOLECULAR, AND PATHOLOGIC SURVEY OF PSEUDORABIES VIRUS INFECTION IN HUNTED WILD BOARS (SUS SCROFA) IN ITALY

Verin

Varuzza

Mazzei

et al. 2014

Journal of Wildlife Diseases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Entre las enfermedades infecciosas más frecuentemente citadas en poblaciones de cerdos silvestres se encuentran la brucelosis porcina (Al Dahouk et al, 2005;Ebani et al, 2003;Gresham et al, 2002;van der Leek et al, 1993), leptospirosis (Ebani et al, 2003;Mason et al, 1998), enfermedad de Aujeszky -EA- (Corn et al, 2004;Gresham et al, 2002;Lari et al, 2006;Müller et al, 1998;Zupancic et al, 2002), peste porcina clásica -PPC- (Kern et al, 1999;Zupancic et al, 2002) y tuberculosis (Naranjo et al, 2008;Nishi et al, 2006). Argentina está internacionalmente reconocida como país libre de fiebre aftosa (FA), peste porcina clásica (PPC), peste porcina africana (PPA) y síndro-me reproductivo y respiratorio porcino (PRRS).…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Determinación de anticuerpos contra patógenos virales y bacterianos seleccionados en la población de cerdos silvestres (Sus scrofa) de la Reserva Natural Bahía Samborombón, Argentina

Carpinetti¹,

Castresana²,

Rojas³

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Los cerdos silvestres (Sus scrofa) descienden de cruzamientos entre cerdos domésticos liberados durante la colonización con jabalíes salvajes euroasiáticos, liberados con propósitos cinegéticos. Son invasivos y su coexistencia con especies domésticas implica riesgos sanitarios. Argentina es considerada libre de fiebre aftosa (FA), peste porcina clásica (PPC) y africana (PPA) y síndrome reproductivo y respiratorio porcino (PRRS). La enfermedad de Aujeszky (EA) y la leptospirosis son endémicas en ciertas áreas del país. El objetivo fue evaluar la presencia de ciertas enfermedades zoonóticas y/o de importancia para la producción animal y la conservación de la biodiversidad en cerdos silvestres de la Bahía de Samborombón. Se capturaron 118 animales. Se tomaron muestras de suero, tonsilas, músculo, intestino delgado, linfonódulos, entre otras. Se estudió la presencia de anticuerpos contra Brucella spp., coronavirus respiratorio porcino, virus de la estomatitis vesicular, de la FA, de la gastroenteritis transmisible porcina (TGEV), de la PPC, PPA, EA, PRRS y Leptospira spp. Se realizaron análisis bacteriológicos para Mycobacterium spp. Los resultados ratificaron la ausencia de las enfermedades exóticas e indicaron que 36 % de los animales presentó anticuerpos contra Leptospira interrogans serovar pomona y 62,5 % contra el virus de la EA. Estos resultados remarcan la importancia del monitoreo de la interfase productiva/silvestre en función de la salud pública, producción animal y conservación de la biodiversidad.

show abstract

“…In the last decade, however, resources for studying wildlife diseases increased after the identification of wildlife species as actors in the epidemiology of important livestock diseases, such as Aujeszky's disease (Müller et al 1998), bluetongue ) and bovine tuberculosis (bTB; Naranjo et al 2008), and more recently after realizing the importance of diseases in Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus) conservation (Millán et al 2009). Risk factors for the appearance of wildlife reservoirs are commonly the spillover from domestic livestock in combination with anthropogenic activities such as translocation of wildlife, supplemental feeding of wildlife and wildlife populations reaching densities beyond normal habitat carrying capacities (Gortazar et al 2006;Palmer 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Six recommendations for improving monitoring of diseases shared with wildlife: examples regarding mycobacterial infections in Spain

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Monitoring is needed to identify changes in disease occurrence and to measure the impact of intervention. Using mycobacterial diseases as an example, we discuss herein the pros and cons of the current Spanish Wildlife Disease Surveillance Scheme providing suggestions for monitoring relevant diseases shared with wildlife in other regions facing similar challenges. Six points should be considered. This includes: (1) making sure the disease is properly monitored in the relevant domestic animals or even in humans; (2) also making sure that background information on wildlife population ecology is available to maximize the benefits of the monitoring effort; (3) selecting the appropriate wildlife hosts for monitoring, while being flexible enough to incorporate new ones if research suggests their participation; (4) selecting the appropriate methods for diagnosis and for time and space trend analysis; (5) deciding which parameters to target for monitoring; and finally (6) establishing a reasonable sampling effort and a suitable sampling stratification to ensure detecting changes over time and changes in response to management actions. Wildlife disease monitoring produces knowledge that benefits at least three different agencies, namely, animal health, public health and conservation, and these should combine efforts and resources. Setting up stable, comprehensive and accurate schemes at different spatial scales should become a priority. Resources are always a limiting factor, but experience shows that combined, cross-collaborative efforts allow establishing acceptable schemes with a low enough cost to be sustainable over time. These six steps for monitoring relevant shared diseases can be adapted to many other geographical settings and different disease situations.

show abstract

Pseudorabies in the European Wild Boar From Eastern Germany

Cited by 45 publications

References 0 publications

SEROLOGIC, MOLECULAR, AND PATHOLOGIC SURVEY OF PSEUDORABIES VIRUS INFECTION IN HUNTED WILD BOARS (SUS SCROFA) IN ITALY

SEROLOGIC, MOLECULAR, AND PATHOLOGIC SURVEY OF PSEUDORABIES VIRUS INFECTION IN HUNTED WILD BOARS (SUS SCROFA) IN ITALY

Determinación de anticuerpos contra patógenos virales y bacterianos seleccionados en la población de cerdos silvestres (Sus scrofa) de la Reserva Natural Bahía Samborombón, Argentina

Six recommendations for improving monitoring of diseases shared with wildlife: examples regarding mycobacterial infections in Spain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About