4.7 Letter

First case of rabbit haemorrhagic disease in Canada: contaminated flying insect, vs. long-term infection hypothesis

期刊

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY
卷 21, 期 5, 页码 1042-1047

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05462.x

关键词

long-term infection of rabbit; RHDV; RHDV transmission in Canada; transmission via contaminated flying insect

资金

  1. Natural Environment Research Council [CEH010021] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Following the announcement of the first case of rabbit haemorrhagic disease (RHD) in a pet rabbit, housed indoors in Canada for more than 1 year, I submitted an evidence-based explanation to ProMed explaining how RHD might have caused the death of one of the three pet rabbits. I suggested with supporting evidence, that it may have been persistently infected with rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus (RHDV) which may have reactivated to cause the fatal disease. However, in this issue, Peacock et similar to al. have proposed an alternative hypothesis for the appearance of RHD in the pet rabbit. They hypothesise that a non-identified insect or fomite might have become contaminated by a Chinese strain of RHDV somewhere in the US. This insect/fomite then flew or was windborne, from the US to Canada where it entered the house containing three pet rabbits and infected one of them. RHD is non-endemic and is rarely reported in the US, where it has only been observed in domestic European rabbits, held in rabbitries. My proposal was based on the details provided by ProMed, the veterinary report from Canada, where RHDV has never previously been identified and the epidemiological, ecological and evolutionary history of RHDV which includes serological and phylogenetic evidence that ancestral RHDV lineages circulated before 1984. The flying insect hypothesis of Peacock et similar to al. is based on circumstantial evidence and, I believe, has a lower probability of being correct than my evidence-based long-term infection proposal.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据