: Bats in the EU have been associated with several zoonotic viral pathogens of significance to both human and animal health. Virus discovery continues to expand the existing understating of virus classification, and the increased interest in bats globally as reservoirs or carriers of zoonotic agents has fuelled the continued detection and characterisation of new lyssaviruses and other viral zoonoses. Although the transmission of lyssaviruses from bat species to humans or terrestrial species appears rare, interest in these viruses remains, through their ability to cause the invariably fatal encephalitis—rabies. The association of bats with other viral zoonoses is also of great interest. Much of the EU is free of terrestrial rabies, but several bat species harbor lyssaviruses that remain a risk to human and animal health. Whilst the rabies virus is the main cause of rabies globally, novel related viruses continue to be discovered, predominantly in bat populations, that are of interest purely through their classification within the lyssavirus genus alongside the rabies virus. Although the rabies virus is principally transmitted from the bite of infected dogs, these related lyssaviruses are primarily transmitted to humans and terrestrial carnivores by bats. Even though reports of zoonotic viruses from bats within the EU are rare, to protect human and animal health, it is important characterise novel bat viruses for several reasons, namely: (i) to investigate the mechanisms for the maintenance, potential routes of transmission, and resulting clinical signs, if any, in their natural hosts; (ii) to investigate the ability of existing vaccines, where available, to protect against these viruses; (iii) to evaluate the potential for spill over and onward transmission of viral pathogens in novel terrestrial hosts. This review is an update on the current situation regarding zoonotic virus discovery within bats in the EU, and provides details of potential future mechanisms to control the threat from these deadly pathogens.

BackgroundEcological models of health suggest that to effectively prevent chronic disease, community food environments must support healthy eating behaviors. However, disparities in access to healthy foods persist in the United States.Community ContextThe Farm Fresh Market (FFM) was a fruit and vegetable market that sold low-cost fresh produce in Cobb County, Georgia in 2014.MethodsThis case study describes the development of the FFM through a community engagement process and presents evaluation results from the project’s pilot implementation. Community engagement strategies included forming a community advisory board, conducting a needs assessment, and contracting with a community-based organization to implement the FFM. OutcomeIn the pilot year, the FFM served an average of 28.7 customers and generated an average of $140.20 in produce sales per market day. Most returning customers lived in the local community and reported a range of socioeconomic backgrounds. Most returning customers strongly agreed that the FFM made it easier (69.0%) and less expensive (79.0%) for them to buy fresh fruits and vegetables, reported that they ate more vegetables (65.0%) and fruit (55.0%) as a result of the FFM, and reported that they were very satisfied with the FFM overall (92.0%).InterpretationResults from this community case study underscore the importance of engaging communities in the development of community food environment interventions. Results also suggest that the FFM initiative was a feasible and acceptable way to respond to the community-identified public health priority of increasing access to healthy foods.

Previous challenge studies performed at Ohio State University involved a transport-stress model where the study animals were dosed with Sarcocystis neurona sporocysts on the day of arrival. This study was to test a second transportation of horses after oral inoculation with S. neurona sporocysts. Horses were assigned randomly to groups: group 1, transported 4 days after inoculation (DAI); group 2, at 11 DAI; group 3, at 18 DAI; and group 4, horses were not transported a second time (controls). An overall neurologic score was determined on the basis of a standard numbering system used by veterinarians. All scores are out of 5, which is the most severely affected animal. The mean score for the group 1 horses was 2.42; group 2 horses was 2.5; group 3 horses was 2.75; and group 4 horses was 3.25. Because the group 4 horses did not have a second transport, they were compared with all other groups. Statistically different scores were present between group 4 and groups 1 and 2. There was no difference in the time of seroconversion between groups. There was a difference between the time of onset of first clinical signs between groups 1 and 4. This difference was likely because of the different examination days. Differences in housing and handling were likely the reason for the differences in severity of clinical signs. This model results in consistent, significant clinical signs in all horses at approximately the same time period after inoculation but was most severe in horses that did not experience a second transport.

SARS-CoV-2 virus was first detected in late 2019 and circulated globally, causing COVID-19, which is characterised by sub-clinical to severe disease in humans. Here, we investigate the serological antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection during acute and convalescent infection using a cohort of (i) COVID-19 patients admitted to hospital, (ii) healthy individuals who had experienced ‘COVID-19 like-illness’, and (iii) a cohort of healthy individuals prior to the emergence of SARS-CoV-2. We compare SARS-CoV-2 specific antibody detection rates from four different serological methods, virus neutralisation test (VNT), ID Screen® SARS-CoV-2-N IgG ELISA, Whole Antigen ELISA, and lentivirus-based SARS-CoV-2 pseudotype virus neutralisation tests (pVNT). All methods were able to detect prior infection with COVID-19, albeit with different relative sensitivities. The VNT and SARS-CoV-2-N ELISA methods showed a strong correlation yet provided increased detection rates when used in combination. A pVNT correlated strongly with SARS-CoV-2 VNT and was able to effectively discriminate SARS-CoV-2 antibody positive and negative serum with the same efficiency as the VNT. Moreover, the pVNT was performed with the same level of discrimination across multiple separate institutions. Therefore, the pVNT is a sensitive, specific, and reproducible lower biosafety level alternative to VNT for detecting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies for diagnostic and research applications. Our data illustrate the potential utility of applying VNT or pVNT and ELISA antibody tests in parallel to enhance the sensitivity of exposure to infection.