2011
DOI: 10.1080/03079457.2011.571660
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Experimental infection of domestic canaries (Serinus canaria domestica) withMycoplasma gallisepticum: a new model system for a wildlife disease

Abstract: The ethical and logistical challenges inherent in experimental infections of wild-caught animals present a key limitation to the study of wildlife diseases. Here we characterize a potentially useful domestic model for a wildlife disease that has been of particular interest in recent decades; that is, infection of North American house finches (Carpodacus mexicanus) with Mycoplasma gallisepticum, more commonly known as a worldwide poultry pathogen. Seven domestic canaries (Serinus canaria domestica) were infecte… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
63
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

4
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 61 publications
(64 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
1
63
0
Order By: Relevance
“…All animals included in the experiment underwent a two-week quarantine protocol to ensure no previous exposure to MG. In brief, animals were monitored for two weeks for visible eye lesions, and were tested for MG-specific antibodies (as per Hawley et al 2011) on day 14 post-capture to account for time for development of antibodies in case exposure to MG in the wild occurred on the day of capture. Only individuals that were seronegative, never showed clinical signs, and were never housed with a cagemate that showed clinical signs were used in this experiment.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…All animals included in the experiment underwent a two-week quarantine protocol to ensure no previous exposure to MG. In brief, animals were monitored for two weeks for visible eye lesions, and were tested for MG-specific antibodies (as per Hawley et al 2011) on day 14 post-capture to account for time for development of antibodies in case exposure to MG in the wild occurred on the day of capture. Only individuals that were seronegative, never showed clinical signs, and were never housed with a cagemate that showed clinical signs were used in this experiment.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although it is extremely challenging to quantify MG exposure levels in natural populations, these lines of evidence suggest that free-living house finches are likely exposed to variable amounts of MG while feeding, with some individuals likely experiencing repeated exposure to relatively low doses of MG. However, to date, experimental exposures of house finches to MG have used relatively high infectious doses (≥10 4 color changing units[=CCU]/ml) and/or single time-point exposures (Dhondt et al 2007b; Bouwman and Hawley 2010; Bonneaud et al 2011; Hawley et al 2011; Bonneaud et al 2012; Adelman et al 2013a), which are unlikely to be fully representative of the range of variation in MG exposure in the wild.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Capture was conducted with mist nets or cage traps in Virginia under permits from the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Finches were held in groups during quarantine, during which they were monitored for clinical signs of M. gallisepticum and at the end of which they were tested for prior M. gallisepticum exposure via enzymelinked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (30,31) and quantitative PCR (qPCR) (32) as done previously. Animals with signs of disease or seropositivity were excluded from the experiment.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At 16.00 on the day before sampling, feeder ports were wiped for 10 s with Vircon S disinfectant (DuPont Disinfectants, Sudbury, Suffolk, UK) to remove MG. After 24 h, feeders were sampled for MG by rotating a sterile, TPB-dipped cotton swab inside the port for 10 s, then processing as above. The amount of MG in all samples was determined by quantitative PCR using published methods [12,13]. Conjunctival lesions were scored on a scale of 0-3 per eye (see electronic supplementary material).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%