4.7 Article

Transmission and pathogenicity of encephalomyocarditis virus (EMCV) among rats

期刊

VETERINARY RESEARCH
卷 35, 期 1, 页码 113-122

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1051/vetres:2003044

关键词

encephallomyocarditis virus; rats; pathogenicity; transmission; R-0

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Due to the probable role played by rodents as a reservoir for the transmission of the EMC virus to pigs, the experiment reported here was performed in order to assess the transmission rate of EMCV within a rat population. Twenty-five eight-week-old Wistar rats housed in individual plastic cages were experimentally infected either with a Greek myocardial EMCV strain (5 rats with a 0.2x10(6) TCID50 dose per rat and 10 rats with a 0.5x104(-5) TCID50 dose per rat, oronasally) or a Belgian myocardial EMCV strain (10 rats with a 0.5x10(4.5) TCID50 dose per rat, oronasally). Two to five days later, each inoculated rat was moved to a new clean cage and coupled with a contact rat to compare the pathogenicity of the two strains and to estimate the basic reproduction ratio R-0, indicating the level of EMCV transmission. During the experiments, faecal virus excretion was measured as well as the serological response against EMCV. After euthanasia, virus isolation was attempted from different rat tissues. Neither strains produced mortality, nor clinical signs and only low titres of neutralising antibodies were found. All contact rats, however, Iwere infected and the virus was isolated from their faeces and from various tissues. Both 10-pair experiments,revealed a point estimate for the R-0 of infinity (95%-CI for both the Greek and Belgian EMCV strains=4.48-infinity), as did the 5-pair experiment with a higher dose of the Greek strain (95%-CI=1.93-infinity). Combining the results front the two 10-pair experiments resulted in an estimate for R-0 of infinity (95%-CI: 9.87-infinity). These results indicate that the EMC virus can spread very easily within a rat population by horizontal rat-to-rat transmission (R(0)much greater than1).

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