PDF《DISPATCHES》

4 wild boar, for example, Balantidium coli, detected by histopathologic ex- amination (data not shown), might have been an additional factor causing the diarrhea (10). Nevertheless, similar to the lack of clinical signs reported for pigs infected with a PPRV-LII strain (6), the

2 pigs in trial

3 showed only mild clinical signs. Contact transmission of PPRV from intranasally in- fected pigs to

1 contact goat and

1 pig was noted (trial 1). This pig was refractory to intranasal infection but was infected by contact at a similar time as one of the goats. Furthermore, PPRV was transmitted from intranasally infected goats to contact pigs (trial 3) (Table). Hence, in contrast to the findings of Nawathe and Taylor (6), who reported contact transmission of a PPRV-LII strain from experimentally infected goats to contact pigs but not vice versa, our transmission trials demonstrated that a complete interspecies transmission cycle of a PPRV-LIV strain be- tween goats and pigs, and possibly also intraspecies trans- mission between pigs, can be maintained. The virulence of Neglected Hosts of Small Ruminant Morbillivirus

2334 Emerging Infectious Diseases ? www.cdc.gov/eid ?Vol. 24, No. 12, December

2018 DISPATCHES Author affiliation: Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, GreifswaldCInsel Riems, Germany DOI: https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2412.180507

1 Current affiliation: University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Hannover, Germany. Neglected Hosts of Small Ruminant Morbillivirus the PPRV lineage or strain is possibly a factor influencing the susceptibility to PPRV infection and the probability of PPRV transmission (9,11). From

2 of

4 wild boar (trial 2), PPRV was isolated from a few fecal swab samples but was not transmitted to the contact goats or pigs. Unexpectedly, none of the in- tranasally infected sheep transmitted PPRV to any of the contact sheep. The considerable differences in transmis- sion efficiency between goats and the other Artiodactyls can be explained by higher PPRV loads excreted by goats (Figure 1). Statistically significantly higher PPRV RNA loads over time were found in PPRV-infected goats than in suids and sheep. Peak viral loads in goat samples were up to

1 log step (PCR) and 2.5 log steps (virus isolation) higher (9.3 *

107 copies/mL;

106.0 TCID50 [50% tissue cul- ture infective dose]/mL) than in pig and wild boar samples (1.5 *

107 copies/mL;

103.5 TCID50 /mL). Of note, peak viral loads in sheep (104 TCID50 /mL) were only slightly higher than those in pigs and wild boar, which may explain why none of the sheep transmitted PPRV to the contact Emerging Infectious Diseases ? www.cdc.gov/eid ? Vol. 24, No. 12, December

2018

2335 Table. Design and outcomes of PPRV transmission trials, Germany* Trial no.? Trial No. inoculated animals No. contact controls Outcomes Seroconversion, total no. by species Excretion of PPRV RNA, total no. by species Excretion of infectious PPRV, total no. by species Contact transmission (no. contact-infected/total no. in contact)

1 P-GP 3P? 2G, 1P? 3P,? 2G 3P,? 2G 1P, 2G Yes (1/2G;

§ 1/1P?)

2 W-GP 4W 2G, 2P 4W 4W 2W No (0/2G;

0/2P)

3 G-P 2G 2P 2G, 2P 2G, 2P 2G Yes (2/2P) 4? S-S 5S 5S 5S 5S 5S No (0/5S) *P, pig;

PPRV, small ruminant morbillivirus (formerly called peste des petits ruminants virus);

W, wild boar;

G, goat;

GP, goats and pigs;

S, sheep. ?For trials 1C3, animals were experimentally infected by intranasal inoculation with PPRV strain Kurdistan/2011 for independent transmission trials conducted in the containment facility of the Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Isle of Riems, Germany. Contact control animals were added