Amino acid substitutions in low pathogenic avian influenza virus strains isolated from wild birds in Korea

Oh, Kwang-Hyun; Mo, Jong-Suk; Bae, Yeonji; Lee, Seung-Baek; Lai, Van Dam; Wang, Seung-Jun; Mo, In-Pil

doi:10.1007/s11262-018-1550-7

Cited by 6 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The AI prevalence rate by VI in September 2017 to April 2018 was 0.45%. This prevalence rate is relatively higher compared with previous study conducted in Korea between January 2014 and March in 2016 (0.32%) [3]. The difference probably stems from the study design: the previous studies involved sampling from a wide range of wild bird habitats in Korea.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 63%

“…The difference probably stems from the study design: the previous studies involved sampling from a wide range of wild bird habitats in Korea. Current study involved intensive sampling of pre-defined areas in which AI virus isolation described [23].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Co-infection of wild birds with AI viruses appears to occur naturally and is considered an important mechanism for the genetic reassortment of the AI virus [343536]. These genetic variations lead to changes in several viral characteristics, such as pathogenicity, transmissibility, and drug resistance [3]. Therefore, detecting mixed infections is very important and should be done as early as possible.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ever since the low-pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI) virus was first reported in Korea in 1996, isolation of several subtypes of LPAI viruses originating from live-bird markets and backyard bird stalls has been reported [1]. The isolation of LPAI virus from migratory wild birds is also consistently reported [123]. The highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus was first reported in 2003 at a layer farm in Korea [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In response to the economic damage inflicted by the HPAI virus, the Korean government implemented an annual nationwide surveillance program to monitor AI virus entering the country from early September to late February each year [13]. Accurate and early detection of the AI virus is critical for the implementation of rapid biosecurity and control measures in the event of an AI virus outbreak.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The difference of detection rate of avian influenza virus in the wild bird surveillance using various methods

Kim

Son

et al. 2019

J Vet Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Korea is located within the East Asian-Australian flyway of wild migratory birds during the fall and winter seasons. Consequently, the likelihood of introduction of numerous subtypes and pathotypes of the Avian influenza (AI) virus to Korea has been thought to be very high. In the current study, we surveyed wild bird feces for the presence of AI virus that had been introduced to Korea between September 2017 and February 2018. To identify and characterize the AI virus, we employed commonly used methods, namely, virus isolation (VI) via egg inoculation, real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR), conventional RT-PCR (cRT-PCR) and a newly developed next generation sequencing (NGS) approach. In this study, 124 out of 11,145 fresh samples of wild migratory birds tested were rRT-PCR positive; only 52.0% of VI positive samples were determined as positive by rRT-PCR from fecal supernatant. Fifty AI virus specimens were isolated from fresh fecal samples and typed. The cRT-PCR subtyping results mostly coincided with the NGS results, although NGS detected the presence of 11 HA genes and four NA genes that were not detected by cRT-PCR. NGS analysis confirmed that 12% of the identified viruses were mixed-subtypes which were not detected by cRT-PCR. Prevention of the occurrence of AI virus requires a workflow for rapid and accurate virus detection and verification. However, conventional methods of detection have some limitations. Therefore, different methods should be combined for optimal surveillance, and further studies are needed in aspect of the introduction and application of new methods such as NGS.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 63%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The difference of detection rate of avian influenza virus in the wild bird surveillance using various methods

Kim

Son

et al. 2019

J Vet Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A literature review of the use of environmental sampling in the surveillance of avian influenza viruses

Hood

Roche

Brioudes

et al. 2020

Transbound Emerg Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This literature review provides an overview of use of environmental samples (ES) such as faeces, water, air, mud and swabs of surfaces in avian influenza (AI) surveillance programs, focussing on effectiveness, advantages and gaps in knowledge. ES have been used effectively for AI surveillance since the 1970s. Results from ES have enhanced understanding of the biology of AI viruses in wild birds and in markets, of links between human and avian influenza, provided early warning of viral incursions, allowed assessment of effectiveness of control and preventive measures, and assisted epidemiological studies in outbreaks, both avian and human. Variation exists in the methods and protocols used, and no internationally recognized guidelines exist on the use of ES and data management. Few studies have performed direct comparisons of ES versus live bird samples (LBS). Results reported so far demonstrate reliance on ES will not be sufficient to detect virus in all cases when it is present, especially when the prevalence of infection/contamination is low. Multiple sample types should be collected. In live bird markets, ES from processing/selling areas are more likely to test positive than samples from bird holding areas. When compared to LBS, ES is considered a cost-effective, simple, rapid, flexible, convenient and acceptable way of achieving surveillance objectives. As a non-invasive technique, it can minimize effects on animal welfare and trade in markets and reduce impacts on wild bird communities. Some limitations of environmental sampling methods have been identified, such as the loss of species-specific or information on the source of virus, and taxonomic-level analyses, unless additional methods are applied. Some studies employing ES have not provided detailed methods. In others, where ES and LBS are collected from the same site, positive results have not been assigned to specific sample types. These gaps should be remedied in future studies.

show abstract

Genetic Characteristics of Avian Influenza Virus Isolated from Wild Birds in South Korea, 2019–2020

Kim

Lee

et al. 2021

Viruses

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wild aquatic birds, a natural reservoir of avian influenza viruses (AIVs), transmit AIVs to poultry farms, causing huge economic losses. Therefore, the prevalence and genetic characteristics of AIVs isolated from wild birds in South Korea from October 2019 to March 2020 were investigated and analyzed. Fresh avian fecal samples (3256) were collected by active monitoring of 11 wild bird habitats. Twenty-eight AIVs were isolated. Seven HA and eight NA subtypes were identified. All AIV hosts were Anseriformes species. The HA cleavage site of 20 representative AIVs was encoded by non-multi-basic amino acid sequences. Phylogenetic analysis of the eight segment genes of the AIVs showed that most genes clustered within the Eurasian lineage. However, the HA gene of H10 viruses and NS gene of four viruses clustered within the American lineage, indicating intercontinental reassortment of AIVs. Representative viruses likely to infect mammals were selected and evaluated for pathogenicity in mice. JB21-58 (H5N3), JB42-93 (H9N2), and JB32-81 (H11N2) were isolated from the lungs, but JB31-69 (H11N9) was not isolated from the lungs until the end of the experiment at 14 dpi. None of infected mice showed clinical sign and histopathological change in the lung. In addition, viral antigens were not detected in lungs of all mice at 14 dpi. These data suggest that LPAIVs derived from wild birds are unlikely to be transmitted to mammals. However, because LPAIVs can reportedly infect mammals, including humans, continuous surveillance and monitoring of AIVs are necessary, despite their low pathogenicity.

show abstract

Amino acid substitutions in low pathogenic avian influenza virus strains isolated from wild birds in Korea

Cited by 6 publications

References 39 publications

The difference of detection rate of avian influenza virus in the wild bird surveillance using various methods

The difference of detection rate of avian influenza virus in the wild bird surveillance using various methods

A literature review of the use of environmental sampling in the surveillance of avian influenza viruses

Genetic Characteristics of Avian Influenza Virus Isolated from Wild Birds in South Korea, 2019–2020

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About