4.7 Article

Systematic, active surveillance for Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus in camels in Egypt

Journal

EMERGING MICROBES & INFECTIONS
Volume 6, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1038/emi.2016.130

Keywords

camel; Egypt; Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus; surveillance

Funding

  1. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services [HHSN272201400006C]
  2. American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities (ALSAC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) causes severe human infections and dromedary camels are considered an intermediary host. The dynamics of natural infection in camels are not well understood. Through systematic surveillance in Egypt, nasal, rectal, milk, urine and serum samples were collected from camels between June 2014 and February 2016. Locations included quarantines, markets, abattoirs, free-roaming herds and farmed breeding herds. The overall seroprevalence was 71% and RNA detection rate was 15%. Imported camels had higher seroprevalence (90% vs 61%) and higher RT-PCR detection rates (21% vs 12%) than locally raised camels. Juveniles had lower seroprevalence than adults (37% vs 82%) but similar RT-PCR detection rates (16% vs 15%). An outbreak in a breeding herd, showed that antibodies rapidly wane, that camels become re-infected, and that outbreaks in a herd are sustained for an extended time. Maternal antibodies titers were very low in calves regardless of the antibody titers of the mothers. Our results support the hypothesis that camels are a reservoir for MERS-CoV and that camel trade is an important route of introducing the virus into importing countries. Findings related to waning antibodies and re-infection have implications for camel vaccine development, disease management and zoonotic threat.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available