Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AEM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AEM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Methods

Noninvasive Detection of Equid Herpesviruses in Fecal Samples

Peter A. Seeber, Anisha Dayaram, Florian Sicks, Nikolaus Osterrieder, Mathias Franz, Alex D. Greenwood
Christopher A. Elkins, Editor
Peter A. Seeber
Department of Wildlife Diseases, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Peter A. Seeber
Anisha Dayaram
Department of Wildlife Diseases, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Florian Sicks
Tierpark Berlin, Berlin, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nikolaus Osterrieder
Institut für Virologie, Zentrum für Infektionsmedizin, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mathias Franz
Department of Wildlife Diseases, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Mathias Franz
Alex D. Greenwood
Department of Wildlife Diseases, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, GermanyDepartment of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Alex D. Greenwood
Christopher A. Elkins
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.02234-18
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Equid herpesviruses (EHVs) are pathogens of equid and nonequid hosts that can cause disease and fatalities in captivity and in the wild. EHVs establish latent infections but can reactivate, and most EHVs are shed via the nasal passage. Therefore, nasal swabs are generally used for EHV monitoring. However, invasive sampling of wild equids is difficult. While feces is a commonly used substrate for detecting other pathogens, to our knowledge, EHVs have never been detected in feces of naturally infected equids. We systematically tested zebra feces for EHV presence by (i) establishing nested PCR conditions for fecal DNA extracts, (ii) controlling for environmental EHV contamination, and (iii) large-scale testing on a free-ranging zebra population. A dilution minimizing inhibition while maximizing viral DNA concentrations was determined in captive Grévy’s zebra (Equus grevyi) fecal samples from individuals shedding EHV nasally. Sixteen of 42 fecal samples (38%) were EHV positive. To demonstrate that the EHV positivity was not a result of environmental contamination, rectal swabs of wild zebras were screened (n = 18 [Equus quagga and E. zebra]), and 50% were EHV positive, indicating that the source of EHV in feces is likely the intestinal mucosa and not postdefecation contamination. Out of 270 fecal samples of wild zebras, 26% were EHV positive. Quantitative PCRs showed that the amount of virus DNA in feces was not significantly smaller than that in other samples. In summary, fecal sampling facilitates large-scale screening and may be useful to noninvasively investigate phylogenetic EHV diversity in wild and domestic equids.

IMPORTANCE Equid herpesviruses (EHVs) establish latent infections, and many EHVs are shed and transmitted via nasal discharge primarily through droplet and aerosol infection. Obtaining nasal swabs and other invasive samples from wildlife is often not possible without capture and physical restraint of individuals, which are resource intensive and a health risk for the captured animals. Fecal EHV shedding has never been demonstrated for naturally infected equids. We established the conditions for fecal EHV screening, and our results suggest that testing fecal samples is an effective noninvasive approach for monitoring acute EHV shedding in equids.

INTRODUCTION

Equid herpesviruses (EHVs) are common pathogens with a prevalence of over 90% in all global equid populations (1–3) and are responsible for considerable economic losses in the equine industry (4, 5). The known EHVs belong to the family Herpesviridae and group into two of the three known Herpesviridae subfamilies, the Alphaherpesvirinae (e.g., EHV-1, EHV-4, and EHV-9) and the Gammaherpesvirinae (e.g., EHV-2, EHV-5, and EHV-7) (6). Although different viruses from both subfamilies may cause a wide variety of clinical signs during initial infection or reactivation, viruses belonging to the Alphaherpesvirinae subfamily are typically associated with more-severe outcomes (5, 7, 8). Acute EHV infection can cause clinical signs including pharyngitis, pneumonia, pyrexia, lymphadenopathy, abortion, and neuropathies due to acute myeloencephalopathy (3, 5, 9, 10). Furthermore, it has been shown that EHVs can occasionally infect a range of nonequid species in captivity, with potentially fatal outcomes (11–16).

Herpesviruses remain primarily latent in host neural and lymphoid tissues (17). Viral latency is characterized by the absence of lytic viral replication and minimal, if any, viral gene expression, despite the presence of the viral genome in the nucleus of the infected cell (17, 18). However, herpesviruses can be reactivated (17), leading to shedding of infectious virus into the environment. In equids, nasal shedding is predominant and can be accompanied by viremia; thus, testing nasal swabs and invasive samples such as blood is considered the most reliable method for monitoring EHV shedding in horses (3, 10). Sampling wild equids generally requires invasive procedures due to the necessity of physical restraint, which can cause severe stress or risk to animal health for large mammals (19, 20). Moreover, due to the considerable logistic and physical difficulties associated with the capture and immobilization of wild animals, noninvasive sampling would be a preferable method for pathogen screening. For example, for captive wild equids, the swabbing of surfaces such as feed troughs or behavioral enrichment toys has been shown to be an effective approach for surveying EHV shedding (21, 22). However, this approach may not be feasible for wild equids in a (semi)natural environment, due to the lack of surfaces to swab, the difficulty of assigning environmental samples to individuals, and the potentially low encounter rates or lack of interaction with enrichment objects in the natural environment.

Noninvasive pathogen monitoring from feces has been used successfully in wildlife (23–26). However, EHV monitoring has relied mostly on nasal or nasopharyngeal swabs given that nasal secretions are expected to contain herpesviruses during lytic reactivation. To our knowledge, EHVs have never been systematically examined from fecal samples of naturally infected equids, with limited evidence for fecal shedding from experimentally infected foals (27).

In the present study, we evaluated feces as a source for noninvasive EHV monitoring in wild equids by (i) establishing the optimal EHV PCR conditions for fecal DNA extracts, (ii) examining rectal swabs to confirm that fecal EHV DNA originated from the gastrointestinal tract, and (iii) testing the approach on free-ranging zebras. Fecal samples of captive Grévy’s zebras (Equus grevyi) were screened for EHV after opportunistic sampling subsequent to a stressful event which had caused nasal EHV shedding as determined from trough swabbing. EHV screening conditions were determined from these samples to apply to a free-ranging population. The results are described in the context of the effectiveness of fecal samples for noninvasive EHV monitoring.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

From fecal samples of captive Grévy’s zebras, PCR using 1.4 μl of undiluted DNA extract produced 3 positive samples, out of 42, and PCR with 0.8 μl of undiluted DNA extract produced 2 positive samples (Table 1). Using DNA standardized to a concentration of 25 ng/μl, 12 of the 42 samples were positive, 1 of which was detected previously, whereas 4 previously positive samples were negative. In total, 16 fecal samples (38%) from captive Grévy’s zebras tested EHV positive, but different amounts of input DNA produced substantial variation in EHV detectability among samples. This may be an effect of PCR-inhibiting substances common in feces (e.g., bile salts, plant secondary metabolites, and complex sugars) (28). Thus, EHV screening from fecal samples may need to be performed at different dilutions in order to obtain the optimal ratio of target DNA to PCR inhibitors, which likely differs among samples. Comparing fecal sampling with feed trough swabs (cumulative result of both concentrations), the same number of positive samples was found with either method (n = 16), although not all sample pairs matched with regard to the day of sampling. This incongruence is likely due to (i) false-negative results, which can be expected with both noninvasive sampling methods, and (ii) a fecal gut passage time of 1 to 2 days (29). For example, infectious particles in feces may originate from swallowed nasal secretions, appearing in feces only with a delay.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

EHV-positive and -negative samplesa

Of 18 rectal swabs taken from free-ranging Namibian zebras, 9 (50%) were EHV positive. DNA extracts at 25 ng/μl produced the same number of or more positive results (n = 8) than the PCRs using 0.8 μl or 1.4 μl of a nonstandardized DNA extract (n = 6 and 8 positive results, respectively) (Table 2). Using other sample types (nasal swabs, blood, or tissue), a total of 14 animals were EHV positive (78%). In fecal samples from free-ranging zebras in the Serengeti National Park (n = 270), EHV DNA was detected in 69 samples (26%), using DNA extracts at a concentration of 25 ng/μl.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2

EHV-positive and -negative PCR results of samples from wild plains zebras and mountain zebras in Namibia from PCRs using different amounts of input DNA of rectal swab DNA extracts and EHVs detected in other substratesa

All recovered EHVs from rectal swabs of wild zebras and from all samples of captive Grévy’s zebras were gammaherpesviruses. For captive zebras, we exclusively detected EHVs most closely related to EHV-7 (92 to 99% identity). In Namibian zebras, the EHVs most closely matched the GenBank entries for EHV-2, asinine herpesvirus 5 (AsHV-5), EHV-5, EHV-7, wild ass herpesvirus (WAH), and Equus zebra herpesvirus (ZHV) (88 to 99% identity) (Table 2). In three cases, the viruses identified in fecal samples did not match those found in other sample types of the same individual (Table 2). Of the 69 PCR products amplified from Serengeti plains zebras, 1 alphaherpesvirus (EHV-1) and 68 gammaherpesviruses (most closely related to EHV-2 [n = 1], EHV-5 [n = 29], AsHV-5 [n = 31], ZHV [n = 6], and EHV-7 [n = 1]) were identified. That almost exclusively gammaherpesviruses were found is in agreement with the absence of clinical signs of disease observed in any of the zebras, as viruses of this subfamily are often reactivated subclinically in equids (3, 9). Pairwise distances between all gammaherpesviruses ranged from 0% to 20% and showed considerable among-virus diversity (see Fig. S1 in the supplemental material). However, due to the short sequence lengths and few phylogenetically informative sites, phylogenetic relationships of EHVs would need to be established by sequencing of fragments substantially larger than those produced here. Sequence data are available from the Mendeley data repository (https://doi.org/10.17632/jm673jrwn3.1).

EHV-1 was quantitated by quantitative PCR (qPCR) (Table 3). The EHV-2 qPCR generated positive results for 1 out of 2 EHV-2-positive samples, and the EHV-5 qPCR produced 8 positive results out of 29 samples previously identified as EHV-5 positive and none in samples identified as AsHV-5 positive (n = 11). The highest genome copy number was found in a nasal swab (51,836 copies/μl DNA extract), followed by rectal swabs and fecal samples (n = 2 each; averages of 4,364 and 2,273 viral genome copies, respectively). Blood and tissue samples (n = 4) produced the lowest copy numbers (on average 112 genome copies/μl each). No significant difference in genome copy numbers was found among sample types using a Kruskal-Wallis test (P = 0.41). The overall lower success rate of the qPCRs than the nested generic herpesvirus PCR is likely due to the nonnested approach and primer specificity for reference EHV sequences, which may fail to amplify when similarity decreases, e.g., as low as 88% (Table 2).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 3

Results for samples previously screened for EHV by EHV-1, EHV-2, and EHV-5 qPCRs

Conventional glycoprotein B (gB) PCR produced fragments of the expected size in 8 out of 28 samples (2 nasal swabs, 3 rectal swabs, and 3 tissue samples). Fecal samples, however, produced only unspecific bands in this PCR; thus, a nested PCR approach would likely produce better results from feces. Furthermore, only viruses previously identified as EHV-2 or EHV-5 produced amplicons, whereas samples containing viruses more closely related to AsHV-5 or ZHV did not. This suggests considerable genetic divergence between EHV-5 and AsHV-5, which likely prevented the qPCR from amplifying AsHV-5 DNA.

EHVs are major pathogens of both domestic and wild equids which can cause severe diseases in equids and nonequids alike. Therefore, monitoring of viral shedding is crucial in a wide variety of settings ranging from domestic horse facilities to zoos. Noninvasive methods to assess pathogen loads have become an increasingly important tool in wildlife research, given the considerable advantages compared to invasive sampling, including the avoidance of the stress of capture and immobilization and the associated logistic efforts and health risks (30). This applies to wildlife both in situ and in captivity. In the captive environment, fecal sampling has the considerable advantage that individual sampling is possible even when animals are not housed separately. Moreover, for wildlife, in situ fecal sampling may be the method of choice for noninvasive monitoring of EHV shedding when invasive procedures are impractical or impossible. Our results demonstrate that fecal sampling is a promising approach for monitoring EHV shedding in wild equids.

The drawback of fecal EHV screening is a potentially higher rate of false-negative results than with invasively obtained samples (including nasal swabs) due to potentially smaller amounts of target DNA and higher concentrations of PCR-inhibiting substances (28). Furthermore, viruses shed in wildlife feces may be insufficiently well characterized to be detected using domestic horse-based assays. However, for wild equid species, obtaining large numbers of invasive samples may be prohibitive such that noninvasive methods may provide a tradeoff between false-negative results with much higher sample numbers and high costs and effort coupled with small sample numbers for invasive collections. Various different EHVs could be retrieved from fecal samples, including those which have been reported relatively rarely in previous studies (e.g., EHV-7, WAH, and ZHV) (31). The use of feces for EHV screening facilitates sampling on a larger scale, which may be useful for investigating the phylogenetic diversity of EHVs in wild and domestic equids. Furthermore, as more viral genomes become available from wildlife, the diagnostics will continue to improve.

Transmission of EHV is assumed to mainly occur directly among animals via nasal discharge (3, 10). However, it has been shown that EHVs can remain infectious in the environment for a considerable length of time (32). Thus, EHV transmission via feces may play a role in pathogen transmission, as equids frequently sniff the feces of conspecifics, and coprophagy may also occur, which could facilitate pathogen spread (33, 34). It remains to be investigated whether EHVs are shed into the intestinal tract or if virus material is swallowed with nasal mucus and passes through the digestive system, which may affect its infectivity after defecation. In the present study, the virus taxa differed between nasal and fecal sampling in three individuals, which may suggest that EHVs found in feces originate from within the intestines rather than from swallowing nasal secretions. Further studies are needed to investigate the diversity and shedding patterns of different viruses within individuals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Captive zebras.Fecal samples from captive Grévy’s zebras (n = 4) were collected on a daily basis for 14 consecutive days in July 2017 at Tierpark Berlin, Germany. One of the zebras had been moved to Tierpark Berlin, Germany, from Zoo Mulhouse, France. The move was shown to be associated with nasal EHV shedding in the transported animal and two of the resident zebras (22). Zebras were kept in an outdoor enclosure for most of the day but were separated into individually assigned stalls each day for several hours for feeding of pelleted grain. Individual fecal samples were collected from day 1 to day 14 after translocation. To control for an unequal distribution of EHV DNA in the samples, material from several boluses was pooled. In addition, swabs were collected (dipped in phosphate-buffered saline) from each zebra’s feed trough for screening of nasal EHV shedding (21). Feed troughs were cleaned after swabbing. Fecal samples and swabs were stored frozen until DNA extraction. No clinical signs of acute viral infection, such as excessive nasal or ocular discharge, lethargy, or conjunctivitis, were observed in any of the captive zebras during this study.

This study was approved by the Internal Committee for Ethics and Animal Welfare of the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research (approval no. 2016-09-04). All protocols adhered to the laws and guidelines of Namibia and Germany, respectively. Permission to conduct research in Namibia was granted by the Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET) (permit no. 2094/2016). Permission to export sample material from Namibia was granted by an MET export permit (no. 105336), and samples were transported to Germany in full compliance with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) (permit no. 108448) and in compliance with the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources. Permission to conduct research in Tanzania was granted by the Tanzania Commission of Science and Technology and the Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI) (permit no. 2094/2016). Permission to export sample material from Tanzania was granted by a TAWIRI export permit (reference no. TWRI/RS-85/VOL.IV/86/128).

Swabs and tissue samples of wild zebras.Fecal samples may potentially be contaminated by nasal exudate when animals that are actively shedding virus sniff defecation piles of their conspecifics. Thus, to exclude potential environmental contamination, rectal swabs were collected. Rectal and nasal swabs (Mini-UTM kit; Copan Diagnostics Inc., Murrieta, CA) and blood samples (12 ml in EDTA) of free-ranging mountain zebras (n = 11) and plains zebras (n = 7) in Etosha National Park and Khomas region, Namibia, were collected after immobilization (35). Furthermore, swabs, blood, and tissue samples from mountain zebras which had been hunted for meat production were collected (stored in RNAlater). All samples were stored frozen until DNA extraction. No clinical signs were observed in any of the zebras.

Fecal samples of wild zebras.In order to determine the occurrence of fecal shedding of EHV in an undisturbed population of zebras on a larger scale, we collected fecal samples from free-ranging plains zebras (n = 270) in the Serengeti National Park, Tanzania, during the months of January to March, May to July, and October 2016 (36). Samples were collected opportunistically immediately after defecation, with care being taken to avoid soil contamination. To control for an unequal distribution of virus DNA in the boluses, material was collected from several remote parts of each bolus and then pooled and thoroughly mixed. Samples were stored in RNAlater (Sigma-Aldrich, Taufkirchen, Germany) in the field and frozen for shipment and further storage until DNA extraction.

EHV screening.DNA was extracted by using commercially available kits (NucleoSpin tissue kit [Macherey-Nagel, Düren, Germany] for all swabs and tissue samples and NucleoSpin soil kit [Macherey-Nagel] for feces) according to the manufacturer’s instructions, using 400 to 500 mg feces. DNA extracts were eluted in a volume of 100 μl, and the total DNA concentration was measured on an Agilent 2200 TapeStation (Agilent Technologies, Waldbronn, Germany), using genomic screen tapes. Concentrations ranged from 26.4 to 85.7 ng/μl. We made every effort to avoid contamination, including separate UV-illuminated hoods for extraction and PCR setup.

A nested PCR for herpesviruses targeting the DNA polymerase gene was performed as described previously (21), with a total reaction mixture volume of 22 μl. To reduce PCR inhibition (by, e.g., fecal bile salts and complex sugars), 0.6 μl of bovine serum albumin (BSA) was added per reaction for all sample types and concentrations. DNA extracts of feces of captive zebras and of rectal swabs from wild zebras were PCR screened using three different amounts of input DNA: (i) 1.4 μl of undiluted DNA extracts, (ii) 0.8 μl of undiluted DNA extracts, and (iii) 1.4 μl of DNA extracts standardized to a concentration of 25 ng/μl. The nasal swabs, tissues, blood, and feed trough swabs were screened with 1.4 and 0.8 μl of undiluted DNA extracts. Fecal samples of Serengeti plains zebras were screened using 1.4 μl of DNA extracts standardized to a concentration of 25 ng/μl. PCR products were visualized on a 1.5% agarose gel. Bands of the expected product size (225 bp) were excised from the gel and purified using a commercial kit (NucleoSpin gel and PCR cleanup; Macherey-Nagel), according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Purified PCR products were Sanger sequenced by LGC Genomics GmbH, Berlin, Germany. Virus sequences were queried against GenBank (37) using BLAST.

Quantitative PCR for detection of EHV-1, EHV-2, and EHV-5.To determine the quantity of EHV present in DNA extracts of swabs, tissue, and fecal samples, qPCR was carried out. The qPCR was performed on a randomly selected subset of samples that had previously tested positive by conventional nested PCR screening (n = 12 fecal samples, n = 8 rectal swabs, n = 11 nasal swabs, and n = 12 blood and tissue samples). All qPCRs for EHV-1, -2, and -5 were TaqMan based, and the reaction mixtures contained their given primers, probes, 10 μl of the SensiFAST Probe Lo-ROX DNA polymerase (Bioline, Germany), and 5 μl of the DNA extract standardized to a concentration of 25 ng/μl. All qPCRs were carried out in 96-well microtiter plates using the 7500 Fast real-time PCR system (Applied Biosystems, CA, USA) under the following cycling conditions: 95°C for 2 min, followed by 40 cycles of 95°C for 3 to 10 s and 60°C for 30 s and a final hold at 60°C for 1 min. Each sample was run in triplicate.

For EHV-1 qPCR, we amplified a 106-bp sequence of the glycoprotein B (gB) gene (GenBank accession no. M36298), as previously described (38). The reaction mixture contained 100 nM the fluorogenic TaqMan probe FAM (6-carboxyfluorescein)-TGA GAC CGA AGA TCT CCT CCA CCG A-BHQ1 (black hole quencher 1) and 450 nM forward primer 5′-CAT ACG TCC CTG TCC GAC AGA T-3′ and reverse primer 5′-GGT ACT CGG CCT TTG ACG AA-3′. EHV-1 DNA was quantified by regression to the slope of the curve from serial dilutions of isolated DNA from EHV-1 strain Ab4 cloned as a bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) (39). EHV-2 qPCR amplified a 174-bp sequence of the gB gene (GenBank accession no. NP_042604); the protocol was adapted from methods reported previously (40). The EHV-2 reaction mixture contained 100 nM the fluorogenic TaqMan probe FAM-TGA CAT ACC CAC CCT ACA CAC CAT AG-BHQ1 and 200 nM forward primer 5′-AGG ACT ACT ACT ATG TCA G-3′ and reverse primer 5′-ATG GTC TCG ATG TCA AAC AC-3′. The EHV-2 DNA was then quantitated by regression to the slope of a standard curve from serial dilutions of the 174-bp EHV-2 gBlock gene fragment generated from the gB gene of EHV-2. For EHV-5 qPCR, we amplified a 297-bp sequence of the gB gene (GenBank accession no. NC_026421.1); the protocol was adapted from methods described previously (41). For the EHV-5 reaction, 100 nM the fluorogenic TaqMan probe FAM-TCC ATC CAC GAT GGC AGG GA-BHQ1 and 200 nM forward primer 5′-ATG AAC CTG ACA GAT GTG CC-3′ and reverse primer 5′-CAC GTT CAC TAT CAC GTC GC-3′ were used. The EHV-5 DNA was then quantitated by regression to the slope of a standard curve from serial dilutions of the 297-bp EHV-2 gBlock gene fragment generated from the gB gene of EHV-5.

Glycoprotein B PCR.Several samples were characterized as AsHV-5/EHV-5 by sequencing but could not be detected by EHV-5 qPCR. In order to determine potential phylogenetic diversity between EHV-5 and these viruses, a gB fragment was amplified from a subset of samples. Primers were designed to amplify a 641-bp fragment of the gB gene of EHV-2 and EHV-5 and to include the region complementary to the qPCR probe (forward primer 5′-CAC CAG CGT CAT GAG CGC CA-3′ and reverse primer 5′-AAC ACC CCG CTG GCC ACG TT-3′) and were used under the following PCR conditions: an initial denaturation step at 95°C for 2 min, followed by 35 cycles of 95°C for 20 s, 63°C for 20 s, and 72°C for 40 s and a final elongation step at 72°C for 2 min. Purified PCR products were Sanger sequenced.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was supported by a grant from the Leibniz Gemeinschaft (SAW-2015-IZW-1 440) and the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research.

We thank the animal keepers of Tierpark Berlin for their assistance with sample collection. We thank the Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET), Namibia; the Tanzania Commission of Science and Technology; and the Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI) for their research permissions. For assistance with sample collection in Namibia, we thank Carl-Heinz Moeller and Cheri Morkel.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 13 September 2018.
    • Accepted 9 November 2018.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 16 November 2018.
  • Supplemental material for this article may be found at https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02234-18.

  • Copyright © 2019 American Society for Microbiology.

All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Ataseven VS,
    2. Dağalp SB,
    3. Güzel M,
    4. Başaran Z,
    5. Tan MT,
    6. Geraghty B
    . 2009. Prevalence of equine herpesvirus-1 and equine herpesvirus-4 infections in equidae species in Turkey as determined by ELISA and multiplex nested PCR. Res Vet Sci 86:339–344. doi:10.1016/j.rvsc.2008.06.001.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Ehlers B,
    2. Borchers K,
    3. Grund C,
    4. Frölich K,
    5. Ludwig H,
    6. Buhk HJ
    . 1999. Detection of new DNA polymerase genes of known and potentially novel herpesviruses by PCR with degenerate and deoxyinosine-substituted primers. Virus Genes 18:211–220. doi:10.1023/A:1008064118057.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. 3.↵
    1. Marenzoni M,
    2. Stefanetti V,
    3. Danzetta ML,
    4. Timoney PJ
    . 2015. Gammaherpesvirus infections in equids: a review. Vet Med (Auckl) 6:91–101. doi:10.2147/VMRR.S39473.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. 4.↵
    1. Lunn DP,
    2. Davis-Poynter N,
    3. Flaminio MJBF,
    4. Horohov DW,
    5. Osterrieder K,
    6. Pusterla N,
    7. Townsend HGG
    . 2009. Equine herpesvirus-1 consensus statement. J Vet Intern Med 23:450–461. doi:10.1111/j.1939-1676.2009.0304.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    1. Dunowska M
    . 2014. A review of equid herpesvirus 1 for the veterinary practitioner. Part A: clinical presentation, diagnosis and treatment. N Z Vet J 62:171–178. doi:10.1080/00480169.2014.899945.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. 6.↵
    1. Davison AJ
    . 2010. Herpesvirus systematics. Vet Microbiol 143:52–69. doi:10.1016/j.vetmic.2010.02.014.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Ma G,
    2. Azab W,
    3. Osterrieder N
    . 2013. Equine herpesviruses type 1 (EHV-1) and 4 (EHV-4)—masters of co-evolution and a constant threat to equids and beyond. Vet Microbiol 167:123–134. doi:10.1016/j.vetmic.2013.06.018.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Hartley CA,
    2. Dynon KJ,
    3. Mekuria ZH,
    4. El-Hage CM,
    5. Holloway SA,
    6. Gilkerson JR
    . 2013. Equine gammaherpesviruses: perfect parasites? Vet Microbiol 167:86–92. doi:10.1016/j.vetmic.2013.05.031.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Fortier G,
    2. van Erck E,
    3. Pronost S,
    4. Lekeux P,
    5. Thiry E
    . 2010. Equine gammaherpesviruses: pathogenesis, epidemiology and diagnosis. Vet J 186:148–156. doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.08.017.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. 10.↵
    1. Dunowska M
    . 2014. A review of equid herpesvirus 1 for the veterinary practitioner. Part B: pathogenesis and epidemiology. N Z Vet J 62:179–188. doi:10.1080/00480169.2014.899946.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Abdelgawad A,
    2. Azab W,
    3. Damiani AM,
    4. Baumgartner K,
    5. Will H,
    6. Osterrieder N,
    7. Greenwood AD
    . 2014. Zebra-borne equine herpesvirus type 1 (EHV-1) infection in non-African captive mammals. Vet Microbiol 169:102–106. doi:10.1016/j.vetmic.2013.12.011.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. 12.↵
    1. Greenwood AD,
    2. Tsangaras K,
    3. Ho SYW,
    4. Szentiks CA,
    5. Nikolin VM,
    6. Ma G,
    7. Damiani A,
    8. East ML,
    9. Lawrenz A,
    10. Hofer H,
    11. Osterrieder N
    . 2012. A potentially fatal mix of herpes in zoos. Curr Biol 22:1727–1731. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2012.07.035.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Donovan TA,
    2. Schrenzel MD,
    3. Tucker T,
    4. Pessier AP,
    5. Bicknese B,
    6. Busch MDM,
    7. Wise AG,
    8. Maes R,
    9. Kiupel M,
    10. McKnight C,
    11. Nordhausen RW
    . 2009. Meningoencephalitis in a polar bear caused by equine herpesvirus 9 (EHV-9). Vet Pathol 46:1138–1143. doi:10.1354/vp.09-VP-0007-D-CR.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Wohlsein P,
    2. Lehmbecker A,
    3. Spitzbarth I,
    4. Algermissen D,
    5. Baumgärtner W,
    6. Böer M,
    7. Kummrow M,
    8. Haas L,
    9. Grummer B
    . 2011. Fatal epizootic equine herpesvirus 1 infections in new and unnatural hosts. Vet Microbiol 149:456–460. doi:10.1016/j.vetmic.2010.11.024.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Schrenzel MD,
    2. Tucker TA,
    3. Donovan TA,
    4. Busch MDM,
    5. Wise AG,
    6. Maes RK,
    7. Kiupel M
    . 2008. New hosts for equine herpesvirus 9. Emerg Infect Dis 14:1616–1619. doi:10.3201/eid1410.080703.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. 16.↵
    1. Azab W,
    2. Dayaram A,
    3. Greenwood AD,
    4. Osterrieder N
    . 2018. How host specific are herpesviruses? Lessons from herpesviruses infecting wild and endangered mammals. Annu Rev Virol 5:53–68. doi:10.1146/annurev-virology-092917-043227.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. 17.↵
    1. White DW,
    2. Beard RS,
    3. Barton ES
    . 2012. Immune modulation during latent herpesvirus infection. Immunol Rev 245:189–208. doi:10.1111/j.1600-065X.2011.01074.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Reese TA
    . 2016. Coinfections: another variable in the herpesvirus latency-reactivation dynamic. J Virol 90:5534–5537. doi:10.1128/JVI.01865-15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Arnemo JM,
    2. Ahlqvist P,
    3. Andersen R,
    4. Berntsen F,
    5. Ericsson G,
    6. Odden J,
    7. Brunberg S,
    8. Segerström P,
    9. Swenson JE
    . 2006. Risk of capture-related mortality in large free-ranging mammals: experiences from Scandinavia. Wildlife Biol 12:109–113. doi:10.2981/0909-6396(2006)12[109:ROCMIL]2.0.CO;2.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. 20.↵
    1. Dickens MJ,
    2. Delehanty DJ,
    3. Romero M
    . 2010. Stress: an inevitable component of animal translocation. Biol Conserv 143:1329–1341. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.02.032.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. 21.↵
    1. Seeber PA,
    2. Soilemetzidou SE,
    3. East ML,
    4. Walzer C,
    5. Greenwood AD
    . 2017. Equine behavioral enrichment toys as tools for non-invasive recovery of viral and host DNA. Zoo Biol 36:341–344. doi:10.1002/zoo.21380.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. 22.↵
    1. Seeber PA,
    2. Quintard B,
    3. Sicks F,
    4. Dehnhard M,
    5. Greenwood AD,
    6. Franz M
    . 2018. Environmental stressors may cause equine herpesvirus reactivation in captive Grévy’s zebras (Equus grevyi). PeerJ 6:e5422. doi:10.7717/peerj.5422.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. 23.↵
    1. Zheng X,
    2. Qiu M,
    3. Chen S,
    4. Xiao J,
    5. Ma L,
    6. Liu S,
    7. Zhou J,
    8. Zhang Q,
    9. Li X,
    10. Chen Z,
    11. Wu Y,
    12. Chen H,
    13. Jiang L,
    14. Xiong Y,
    15. Ma S,
    16. Zhong X,
    17. Huo S,
    18. Ge J,
    19. Cen S,
    20. Chen Q
    . 2016. High prevalence and diversity of viruses of the subfamily Gammaherpesvirinae, family Herpesviridae, in fecal specimens from bats of different species in southern China. Arch Virol 161:135–140. doi:10.1007/s00705-015-2614-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. 24.↵
    1. Kang HM,
    2. Jeong OM,
    3. Kim MC,
    4. Kwon JS,
    5. Paek MR,
    6. Choi JG,
    7. Lee EK,
    8. Kim YJ,
    9. Kwon JH,
    10. Lee YJ
    . 2010. Surveillance of avian influenza virus in wild bird fecal samples from South Korea, 2003–2008. J Wildl Dis 46:878–888. doi:10.7589/0090-3558-46.3.878.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. 25.↵
    1. Seimon TA,
    2. Olson SH,
    3. Lee KJ,
    4. Rosen G,
    5. Ondzie A,
    6. Cameron K,
    7. Reed P,
    8. Anthony SJ,
    9. Joly DO,
    10. Karesh WB,
    11. McAloose D,
    12. Lipkin WI
    . 2015. Adenovirus and herpesvirus diversity in free-ranging great apes in the Sangha region of the Republic of Congo. PLoS One 10:e0118543. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0118543.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  26. 26.↵
    1. Li L,
    2. Kapoor A,
    3. Slikas B,
    4. Bamidele OS,
    5. Wang C,
    6. Shaukat S,
    7. Masroor MA,
    8. Wilson ML,
    9. Ndjango J-BN,
    10. Peeters M,
    11. Gross-Camp ND,
    12. Muller MN,
    13. Hahn BH,
    14. Wolfe ND,
    15. Triki H,
    16. Bartkus J,
    17. Zaidi SZ,
    18. Delwart E
    . 2010. Multiple diverse circoviruses infect farm animals and are commonly found in human and chimpanzee feces. J Virol 84:1674–1682. doi:10.1128/JVI.02109-09.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Patel JR,
    2. Edington N,
    3. Mumford JA
    . 1982. Variation in cellular tropism between isolates of equine herpesvirus-1 in foals. Arch Virol 74:41–51. doi:10.1007/BF01320781.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  28. 28.↵
    1. Wilson IG
    . 1997. Inhibition and facilitation of nucleic acid amplification. Appl Environ Microbiol 63:3741–3751.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. Steuer P,
    2. Südekum K-H,
    3. Müller DWH,
    4. Franz R,
    5. Kaandorp J,
    6. Clauss M,
    7. Hummel J
    . 2011. Is there an influence of body mass on digesta mean retention time in herbivores? A comparative study on ungulates. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 160:355–364. doi:10.1016/j.cbpa.2011.07.005.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  30. 30.↵
    1. Artois M,
    2. Bengis R,
    3. Delahay RJ,
    4. Duchêne M-J,
    5. Duff JP,
    6. Ferroglio E,
    7. Gortazar C,
    8. Hutchings MR,
    9. Kock RA,
    10. Leighton FA,
    11. Mörner T,
    12. Smith GC
    . 2009. Wildlife disease surveillance and monitoring, p 187–213. In Delahay RJ, Smith GC, Hutchings MR (ed), Management of disease in wild mammals. Springer Japan, Tokyo, Japan.
  31. 31.↵
    1. Bell SA,
    2. Pusterla N,
    3. Balasuriya UBR,
    4. Mapes SM,
    5. Nyberg NL,
    6. MacLachlan NJ
    . 2008. Isolation of a gammaherpesvirus similar to asinine herpesvirus-2 (AHV-2) from a mule and a survey of mules and donkeys for AHV-2 infection by real-time PCR. Vet Microbiol 130:176–183. doi:10.1016/j.vetmic.2007.12.013.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Dayaram A,
    2. Franz M,
    3. Schattschneider A,
    4. Damiani AM,
    5. Bischofberger S,
    6. Osterrieder N,
    7. Greenwood AD
    . 2017. Long term stability and infectivity of herpesviruses in water. Sci Rep 7:46559. doi:10.1038/srep46559.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  33. 33.↵
    1. Boyd LE
    . 1988. Time budgets of adult Przewalski horses: effects of sex, reproductive status and enclosure. Appl Anim Behav Sci 21:19–39. doi:10.1016/0168-1591(88)90099-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. 34.↵
    1. Crowell-Davis SL,
    2. Houpt KA
    . 1985. Coprophagy by foals: effect of age and possible functions. Equine Vet J 17:17–19. doi:10.1111/j.2042-3306.1985.tb02030.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Costantini D,
    2. Seeber PA,
    3. Soilemetzidou S-E,
    4. Azab W,
    5. Bohner J,
    6. Buuveibaatar B,
    7. Czirják GÁ,
    8. East ML,
    9. Greunz EM,
    10. Kaczensky P,
    11. Lamglait B,
    12. Melzheimer J,
    13. Uiseb K,
    14. Ortega A,
    15. Osterrieder N,
    16. Sandgreen D-M,
    17. Simon M,
    18. Walzer C,
    19. Greenwood AD
    . 2018. Physiological costs of infection: herpesvirus replication is linked to blood oxidative stress in equids. Sci Rep 8:10347. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-28688-0.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  36. 36.↵
    1. Seeber PA,
    2. Franz M,
    3. Dehnhard M,
    4. Ganswindt A,
    5. Greenwood AD,
    6. East ML
    . 2018. Plains zebra (Equus quagga) adrenocortical activity increases during times of large aggregations in the Serengeti ecosystem. Horm Behav 102:1–9. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2018.04.005.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. 37.↵
    1. Benson DA,
    2. Karsch-Mizrachi I,
    3. Lipman DJ,
    4. Ostell J,
    5. Sayers EW
    . 2009. GenBank. Nucleic Acids Res 37:D26–D31. doi:10.1093/nar/gkn723.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  38. 38.↵
    1. Hussey SB,
    2. Clark R,
    3. Lunn KF,
    4. Breathnach C,
    5. Soboll G,
    6. Whalley JM,
    7. Lunn DP
    . 2006. Detection and quantification of equine herpesvirus-1 viremia and nasal shedding by real-time polymerase chain reaction. J Vet Diagn Invest 18:335–342. doi:10.1177/104063870601800403.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  39. 39.↵
    1. Goodman LB,
    2. Loregian A,
    3. Perkins GA,
    4. Nugent J,
    5. Buckles EL,
    6. Mercorelli B,
    7. Kydd JH,
    8. Palù G,
    9. Smith KC,
    10. Osterrieder N,
    11. Davis-Poynter N
    . 2007. A point mutation in a herpesvirus polymerase determines neuropathogenicity. PLoS Pathog 3:e160. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.0030160.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Dunowska M,
    2. Howe L,
    3. Hanlon D,
    4. Stevenson M
    . 2011. Kinetics of equid herpesvirus type 2 infections in a group of thoroughbred foals. Vet Microbiol 152:176–180. doi:10.1016/j.vetmic.2011.04.017.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Dynon K,
    2. Varrasso A,
    3. Ficorilli N,
    4. Holloway S,
    5. Reubel G,
    6. Li F,
    7. Hartley C,
    8. Studdert M,
    9. Drummer H
    . 2001. Identification of equine herpesvirus 3 (equine coital exanthema virus), equine gammaherpesviruses 2 and 5, equine adenoviruses 1 and 2, equine arteritis virus and equine rhinitis A virus by polymerase chain reaction. Aust Vet J 79:695–702. doi:10.1111/j.1751-0813.2001.tb10674.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Noninvasive Detection of Equid Herpesviruses in Fecal Samples
Peter A. Seeber, Anisha Dayaram, Florian Sicks, Nikolaus Osterrieder, Mathias Franz, Alex D. Greenwood
Applied and Environmental Microbiology Jan 2019, 85 (3) e02234-18; DOI: 10.1128/AEM.02234-18

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Applied and Environmental Microbiology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Noninvasive Detection of Equid Herpesviruses in Fecal Samples
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Applied and Environmental Microbiology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Applied and Environmental Microbiology.
Share
Noninvasive Detection of Equid Herpesviruses in Fecal Samples
Peter A. Seeber, Anisha Dayaram, Florian Sicks, Nikolaus Osterrieder, Mathias Franz, Alex D. Greenwood
Applied and Environmental Microbiology Jan 2019, 85 (3) e02234-18; DOI: 10.1128/AEM.02234-18
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

Equus grevyi
Equus quagga
Equus zebra
indirect sampling
viral DNA
wildlife disease monitoring

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About AEM
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #AppEnvMicro

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

Copyright © 2019 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

 

Print ISSN: 0099-2240; Online ISSN: 1098-5336