4.1 Article

Cross-protection between epizootic hemorrhagic disease virus serotypes 1 and 2 in white-tailed deer

Journal

JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE DISEASES
Volume 38, Issue 4, Pages 720-728

Publisher

WILDLIFE DISEASE ASSOC, INC
DOI: 10.7589/0090-3558-38.4.720

Keywords

cross-protection; epizootic hemorrhagic disease; epizootic hemorrhagic disease virus; hemorrhagic disease; HID; Odocoileus virginianus; white-tailed deer

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Viruses in the epizootic hemorrhagic disease (EHD) serogroup are the most frequent cause of hemorrhagic disease in the southeastern United States, but nothing is known about cross-protection between the two EHD serotypes (EHDV-1 and EHDV-2) present in this region. We experimentally tested whether deer surviving EHDV-2 infection would be protected against subsequent infection with EHDV-1, and used field data to examine the possibility of reciprocal cross-protection. Eleven white-tailed deer fawns (Odocoileus virginianus) were experimentally infected with EHDV-2 and later challenged With EHDV-1. Two EHDV-2-naive fawns also were infected with EHDV-1. Deer were monitored via physical examination, complete blood counts, clotting profiles, viral isolation, and serology, and each animal was assigned a quantitative clinical disease severity score based on presence of certain physical and clinical parameters. Infection of naive controls with EHDV-1 caused severe clinical disease and death of both fawns, whereas deer previously infected with EHDV-2 exhibited no or minimal signs of disease. Thus, infection with EHDV-2 conferred protection against disease caused by subsequent EHDV-1 infection. Although prior EHDV-2 exposure protected deer from severe clinical disease, it did not prevent infection nor viremia indicating they could still act as virus amplifying hosts. These experimental infections suggest that EHDV-1 and 2 may exist in a state of mutual permissiveness.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available