Are Dromedary Camels Susceptible or Non-Susceptible to ...€¦ · Inoculated camels: NO clinical...
Transcript of Are Dromedary Camels Susceptible or Non-Susceptible to ...€¦ · Inoculated camels: NO clinical...
222
SA September 2005
Are Dromedary Camels Susceptibleor Non-Susceptible to
Foot-and-Mouth Disease Serotype O
Soren Alexandersen
Danish Institute for Food and Veterinary Research
Department of Virology, Lindholm
DK-4771 Kalvehave, Denmark
FMDWIDE HOST RANGE
Cattle, sheep, goats and pigs
African & water buffalo
Kudu, impala, warthog, deer
Some other animals, includingcamels, may possibly be infected
Man extremely seldom, mild and transient
223
Are Dromedary Camels Susceptible or
Non-Susceptible to Foot-and-Mouth Disease Serotype O
Experiment 1• Virus: FMDV O UAE 542-99 (WRL O UAE 7/99) isolated in Dubai from
minor epithelial lesions from Arabian gazelles. Used as 5th BHK passage
• Animals: 2 dromedary camels and 2 heifers inoculated subepidermo-lingually with 107.6 TCID50
• Results:Heifers: Clinical disease (relatively mild), viraemia and virus detected in swabs and probangs and development of antibodies
Camels: NO clinical disease, NO viraemia, NO virus detected in swabsand probangs and NO development of antibodies
• Conclusion: no signs of infection in dromedary camels with this inoculum
Experiment 2
Inoculated
InoculatedContact
Contact
Camel Experiment 2
224
Experiment 2• Virus: FMDV O UAE 542-99 (WRL 7/99) as in experiment 1, but prepared
from secondary vesicular epithelium from a heifer in experiment 1, i.e. used as 1st cattle passage
• Animals: 5 dromedary camels (3 naive and 2 from experiment 1)inoculated subepidermo-lingually with 107.8 TCID50, 5 naive dromedary camels as direct contacts and 4 sheep as contacts. Also had 2 sheep kept seperately and inoculated in the coronary band as ”positive controls”.
• Results:”Positive control sheep” : Clinical disease (relatively mild), viraemiaand development of antibodies. Typical for FMD in sheep.Contact Camels and contact sheep: NO clinical disease, NO viraemia, and NO development of antibodiesInoculated camels: NO clinical disease, but 1/3 naive camels had a one day increase in temperature and developed a viraemia and subsequently antibodies to FMDV. The 2 previously exposed camels from Exp. 1 developed antibodies to FMDV
• Conclusion: 1 out of 3 inoculated naive camels developed a viraemia but did not transmit infection to contact camels or sheep
Experiment 2 - continued
• Sequencing of virus: Sequenced nearly the complete genome (the L-fragment)
of FMDV from the serum of camel 34 at pid 3 (after a single passage in bovine thyroid cells), the inoculum from the heifer and the original 5th BKK inoculum.
The virus from the camel is identical to the input virus from the heifer.
Interestingly, this virus (from the heifer and from camel 34) is slightly different
from the original inoculum, i.e. the 5th BHK passage.
The original 5th BHK passage had 8 sequence differences in the L fragment when compared to the two in vivo viruses. Of the 8 differences, 3 were non-coding
(2 differences in 2C and 1 difference in 3D).
Of the 5 coding differences, 1 is in VP-3 (aa # 158 proline to serine); 2 differences are in VP-1 (aa #13 alanine to threonine and aa # 144 alanine to valine); and 2
differences in 3A at amino acid # 104 (glycine to asparagine) and #129 (alanine to threonine).
May potentially have to do with BHK cell culture and subsequent in vivo adaptation
as the VP-3 change may reflect on heparan sulphate binding, the VP-1 changes(in particular at aa# 144 just before the RGD motif) may change receptor interaction
and the 3A changes may also have to do with adaptation to host cells.
Daily Temperature of FMD treated and control camels
34,0
34,5
35,0
35,5
36,0
36,5
37,0
37,5
38,0
38,5
39,0
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Days PI
Tem
per
ature
Camel 26 (Control)
Camel 27 (Control)
Camel 28 (Control)
Camel 29 (Control)
Camel 31 (Control)
Camel 30 (Treated)
Camel 32 (Treated)
Camel 33 (Treated)
Camel 34 (Treated)
Camel 35 (Treated)
225
Camel Exp. 2 Viraemia
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 10 14 21 28
Days
Lo
g10 v
iru
s o
r R
NA
per
ml
532v
537v
34v
532r
537r
34r
Dect. lim. V
Dect. lim. R
Camel Exp. 2 Antibodies
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 10 14 21 28
Days
Tit
re
532ae
537ae
34ae
30ae
33ae
532av
537av
34av
30av
33av
226
Future experiments
• As experiment 2 has indicated that FMDV serotype O under certain
circumstances infect camels (caused viraemia, antibodies and elevated
body temperature in 1 out of 3 camels) when using a fully virulent serotype
O isolate, it may also be worthwhile to continue these experiments to get better statistical data.
Next use 10 naive camels directly inoculated with the heifer 144 type
O inoculum - have no contact camels as experiment 2 indicated that
contact spread is of no significance.
• Continue the experiments using FMDV serotype A as this is the other
serotype that has been found in the area in or around UAE.An isolate from the region (A SAU 22/92 original epi suspension) from
infected cattle material has been agreed upon among Ulli Wernery, Soren
Alexandersen and Nigel Ferris/David Paton at the FMD-WRL in Pirbright.
• Clearly, the preliminary results from experiment 2 suggest that there is
much more experimental work to do in order to conclude on the relative,
but low, susceptibility of dromedary camels to infection with FMDV.
Camel Exp. 2 Antibodies
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 10 14 21 28
Days
Tit
re
34ae
30ae
33ae
34av
30av
33av
Dect. lim. (50%)
227
Thanks to Ulli Wernery, Renate Wernery, Peter Nagy, Jutka Juhasz, Anita Varga and Winni Schiele at
CVRL, Dubai, colleagues and staff at
Pirbright Laboratory and at DFVF-Lindholm, and
Gitte Alexandersen, Barup, Denmark
Research supported by DFVF as well as by
HH General Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum
THE END
SUMMARYExperiment 1
5th BHK passage FMDV O UAE 7/99 inoculum
2 dromedary camels and 2 heifers inoculated in the tongue with 107.6 TCID50
Heifers: Clinical disease (relatively mild) and virus and antibody detected
Camels: NO clinical disease, NO viraemia, NO virus detected and NO
development of antibodies
Conclusion: no signs of infection in dromedary camels with this inoculum
SUMMARYExperiment 2FMDV O 7/99 as in experiment 1, but prepared from secondary vesicular epithelium from heifer in experiment 1, i.e. used as 1st cattle passage
5 dromedary camels (3 naive and 2 from experiment 1) inoculated in the tongue with 107.8 TCID50, 5 naive dromedary camels and 4 sheep as contacts.2 inoculated sheep kept seperately (”positive controls” got typical disease, viraemia and development of antibodies).
Contact Camels and contact sheep: NO clinical disease, NO viraemia, and NO development of antibodies
Inoculated camels: NO clinical disease, but 1/3 naive camels had a one day increase in temperature and developed a viraemia and antibodies. The 2 previously exposed camels from Exp. 1 developed antibodies
Original 5th BHK virus had 8 sequence differences in the L fragment compared to the two in vivo viruses. Of 8 differences, 5 were coding differences; 1 in VP-3; 2 in VP-1 and 2 differences in 3A.
Conclusion: 1 out of 3 inoculated naive camels developed a viraemia but did not transmit infection to contact camels or sheep