Aims:  Filoviruses are associated with high morbidity and lethality rates in humans, are capable of human‐to‐human transmission, via infected material such as blood, and are believed to have low infectious doses for humans. Filoviruses are able to infect via the respiratory route and are lethal at very low doses in experimental animal models, but there is minimal information on how well the filoviruses survive within aerosol particles. There is also little known about how well filoviruses survive in liquids or on solid surfaces which is important in management of patients or samples that have been exposed to filoviruses. Methods and Results:  Filoviruses were tested for their ability to survive in different liquids and on different solid substrates at different temperatures. The decay rates of filoviruses in a dynamic aerosol were also determined. Conclusions:  Our study has shown that Lake Victoria marburgvirus (MARV) and Zaire ebolavirus (ZEBOV) can survive for long periods in different liquid media and can also be recovered from plastic and glass surfaces at low temperatures for over 3 weeks. The decay rates of ZEBOV and Reston ebolavirus (REBOV) plus MARV within a dynamic aerosol were calculated. ZEBOV and MARV had similar decay rates, whilst REBOV showed significantly better survival within an aerosol. Significance and Impact of the Study:  Data on the survival of two ebolaviruses are presented for the first time. Extended data on the survival of MARV are presented. Data from this study extend the knowledge on the survival of filoviruses under different conditions and provide a basis with which to inform risk assessments and manage exposure to filoviruses.

No abstract

Rapid inactivation of Ebola virus (EBOV) is crucial for high-throughput testing of clinical samples in low-. In response to this outbreak, the international community has deployed an increasing number of Ebola diagnostic laboratories into the main West African countries affected (Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone). Rapid diagnosis of EVD in humans is critical in the management of this disease in outbreak situations, as it allows prompt isolation and the chance to provide the best supportive care to patients, which helps reduce the overall infection rate and break the transmission chain.The preferred clinical sample for testing for Ebola virus (EBOV), an enveloped negative-sense single-strand RNA virus, is EDTA-blood, serum, or plasma with the primary diagnostic technology being real-time PCR (2). Other sample types, such as swabs or urine, may also be received by a laboratory. EBOV is designated in the United Kingdom by the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) as a hazard group 4 pathogen that must be handled under containment level (CL) 4 standards (biosafety level 4 [BSL4] in other countries). As such stringent laboratory infrastructure and containment procedures are required to handle viable EBOV material, only a few laboratories in Europe and elsewhere are suitably equipped (3). Within the timelines and budgets available, it has been impractical to create this laboratory infrastructure in West Africa, and therefore diagnostic laboratories have relied on methods that rapidly inactivate EBOV prior to routine processing and testing of samples by PCR.Laboratory methods of EBOV inactivation include gamma irradiation (4), nanoemulsion (5), photoinducible alkylating agents (6), and UV radiation (7), but these methods are primarily used for research purposes and may not be practicable in an outbreak situation that is likely to involve a high number of samples but reduced capability for handling and manipulation. In this context, any inactivation method must also be compatible with the EBOV PCR diagnostic approach.The CDC recommends Triton X-100 and heat treatment for 1 h for diagnostic samples containing hemorrhagic fever viruses (8), and this method has been adopted by many laboratories for handling of samples that may contain EBOV (9). Heating (alone or with acetic acid) for 1 h at 60°C has also been shown to reduce the titer of EBOV (10). Other guidelines can be nonspecific, specifying only the need for inactivation but not suggesting how (11) or suggesting generic use of denaturing/lysis buffers and/or heat (12). In the United Kingdom, the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens guidelines state that samples from confirmed cases may be processed in a containment level 2 laboratory using routine autoanalyzers if a containment level 4 laboratory is not available and provided specific procedures are followed (13). Within these guidelines, which encompass the application of multiple clinical tests, there is no specific requirement to inactivate EBOV (or other viral hemorrhagic fever agents) within a sa...

Normal immunocompetent mice are not susceptible to non-adapted filoviruses. There are therefore two strategies available to establish a murine model of filovirus infection: adaptation of the virus to the host or the use of genetically modified mice that are susceptible to the virus. A number of knockout (KO) strains of mice with defects in either their adaptive or innate immunity are susceptible to non-adapted filoviruses. In this study, A129 α/β -/- interferon receptor-deficient KO mice, strain A129 IFN-α/β -/-, were used to determine the lethality of a range of filoviruses, including Lake Victoria marburgvirus (MARV), Zaire ebolavirus (ZEBOV), Sudan ebolavirus (SEBOV), Reston ebolavirus (REBOV) and Côte d'Ivoire ebolavirus (CIEBOV), administered by using intraperitoneal (IP) or aerosol routes of infection. One hundred percent mortality was observed in all groups of KO mice that were administered with a range of challenge doses of MARV and ZEBOV by either IP or aerosol routes. Mean time to death for both routes was dose-dependent and ranged from 5.4 to 7.4 days in the IP injection challenge, and from 10.2 to 13 days in the aerosol challenge. The lethal dose (50 % tissue culture infective dose, TCID(50)) of ZEBOV for KO mice was <1 TCID(50) ml(-1) when administered by either the IP or aerosol route of infection; for MARV the lethal dose was <1 TCID(50) ml(-1) by the IP route of infection and <10 TCID(50) ml(-1) by the aerosol route. In contrast, there was no mortality after infection with SEBOV or REBOV by either IP or aerosol routes of infection; all the mice lost weight (~15 % loss of group mean body weight with SEBOV and ~7 % with REBOV) but recovered to their original weights by day 14 post-challenge. There was no mortality in mice administered with CIEBOV via the IP route of infection and no clinical signs of infection were observed. The progression of disease was faster following infection with ZEBOV than with MARV but ultimately both viruses caused widespread infection with high titres of the infectious viruses in multiple organs. Histopathological observations were consistent with other animal models and showed widespread organ damage. This study suggests that MARV and ZEBOV are more virulent when administered via the IP route rather than by aerosol infection, although both are highly virulent by either route. The KO mouse may provide a useful model to test potential antiviral therapeutics against wild-type filoviruses.

No abstract