4.2 Article

Co-infection by alveolate parasites and frog virus 3-like ranavirus during an amphibian larval mortality event in Florida, USA

期刊

DISEASES OF AQUATIC ORGANISMS
卷 105, 期 2, 页码 89-99

出版社

INTER-RESEARCH
DOI: 10.3354/dao02625

关键词

Alveolate parasite; Ranavirus; Frog virus 3; Amphibian mortality; Bullfrog; Southern leopard frog; Gopher frog; Tadpole

资金

  1. State Wildlife Grant [T-22]
  2. US Fish and Wildlife Service

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A multispecies amphibian larval mortality event, primarily affecting American bullfrogs Lithobates catesbeianus, was investigated during April 2011 at the Mike Roess Gold Head Branch State Park, Clay County, Florida, USA. Freshly dead and moribund tadpoles had hemorrhagic lesions around the vent and on the ventral body surface, with some exhibiting a swollen abdomen. Bullfrogs (100%), southern leopard frogs L. sphenocephalus (33.3%), and gopher frogs L. capito (100%) were infected by alveolate parasites. The intensity of infection in bullfrog livers was high. Tadpoles were evaluated for frog virus 3 (FV3) by histology and PCR. For those southern leopard frog tadpoles (n = 2) whose livers had not been obscured by alveolate spore infection, neither a pathologic response nor intracytoplasmic inclusions typically associated with clinical infections of FV3-like ranavirus were noted. Sequencing of a portion (496 bp) of the viral major capsid protein gene confirmed FV3-like virus in bullfrogs (n = 1, plus n = 6 pooled) and southern leopard frogs (n = 1, plus n = 4 pooled). In July 2011, young-of-the-year bullfrog tadpoles (n = 7) were negative for alveolate parasites, but 1 gopher frog tadpole was positive. To our knowledge, this is the first confirmed mortality event for amphibians in Florida associated with FV3-like virus, but the extent to which the virus played a primary role is uncertain. Larval mortality was most likely caused by a combination of alveolate parasite infections, FV3-like ranavirus, and undetermined etiological factors.

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

4.2
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