4.1 Article

Reptarenaviruses in apparently healthy snakes in an Australian zoological collection

期刊

AUSTRALIAN VETERINARY JOURNAL
卷 97, 期 4, 页码 93-102

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/avj.12792

关键词

alethinophid 1 reptarenavirus; boid inclusion body disease-associated viruses; reptiles

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundInclusion body disease (IBD) is a disease of snakes with a global distribution and has recently been shown to be caused by reptarenaviruses. Testing for this group of viruses in asymptomatic snakes allows the association between infection and disease to be further elucidated. MethodsA reptarenavirus was detected by RT-PCR in a reticulated python (Malayopython reticulatus) from an Australian zoological collection that was open-mouth breathing and had erythematous oral mucosa. Another 27 pythons, 4 elapids, 2 colubrids and 2 boas from this collection were then screened. From these animals, swabs, whole blood and/or tissue were tested for reptarenaviruses by RT-PCR. Additionally, blood films from 10 snakes were examined by light microscopy for the presence of inclusion bodies. The majority of samples were collected over a 484-day period. ResultsA total of 8 animals were RT-PCR-positive (8/36=22.2%): 6 were pythons, 1 was a corn snake (Pantherophis guttatus) and 1 was a Madagascar tree boa (Sanzinia madagascariensis). From them, 57 samples were collected, but only one from each animal was RT-PCR-positive (8/57=14.0%). From all 36 animals in this study, 8/182 samples were RT-PCR-positive (4.4%). Inclusion bodies were not recognised in any of the blood films. Only the reticulated python showed signs of illness, which improved without any further intervention. All other RT-PCR-positive snakes were apparently healthy throughout the duration of the study. ConclusionThis study showed a weak association between the presence of reptarenaviruses and disease. Testing serially collected swab and whole-blood samples increased the number of animals in which reptarenaviruses were detected.

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

4.1
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