4.6 Article

Absence of MERS-CoV antibodies in feral camels in Australia: Implications for the pathogen's origin and spread

期刊

ONE HEALTH
卷 1, 期 -, 页码 76-82

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.onehlt.2015.10.003

关键词

Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS); Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS); Coronavirus (CoV); Camels; Bats; Serological surveillance

资金

  1. CSIRO
  2. CD-PHRG grant [CDPHRG/0006/2014]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) infections continue to be a serious emerging disease problem internationally with well over 1000 cases and a major outbreak outside of the Middle East region. While the hypothesis that dromedary camels are the likely major source of MERS-CoV infection in humans is gaining acceptance, conjecture continues over the original natural reservoir host(s) and specifically the role of bats in the emergence of the virus. Dromedary camels were imported to Australia, principally between 1880 and 1907 and have since become a large feral population inhabiting extensive parts of the continent. Here we report that during a focussed surveillance study, no serological evidence was found for the presence of MERS-CoV in the camels in the Australian population. This finding presents various hypotheses about the timing of the emergence and spread of MERS-CoV throughout populations of camels in Africa and Asia, which can be partially resolved by testing sera from camels from the original source region, which we have inferred was mainly northwestern Paldstan. In addition, we identify bat species which overlap (or neighbour) the range of the Australian camel population with a higher likelihood of carrying CoVs of the same lineage as MERS-CoV. Both of these proposed follow-on studies are examples of proactive surveillance, a concept that has particular relevance to a One Health approach to emerging zoonotic diseases with a complex epidemiology and aetiology. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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

4.6
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