Hantaviruses and Their Hosts in Europe: Reservoirs Here and There, But Not Everywhere?

Abstract

Five hantaviruses are known to circulate among rodents in Europe, and at least two among insectivores. Four (Dobrava, Saaremaa, Seoul, and Puumala [PUUV] viruses) are clearly associated with hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome (HFRS). PUUV, the most common etiological agent of HFRS in Europe, is carried by the bank vole (Myodes glareolus), one of the most widespread and abundant mammal species in Europe. This host-virus system is among hantaviruses also the most studied one in Europe. However, HFRS incidence varies throughout the continent. The spatial as well as temporal variation in the occurrence of HFRS is linked to geographic differences in the population dynamics of the reservoir rodents in different biomes of Europe. While rodent abundance may follow mast seeding events in many parts of temperate Europe, in northern (N) Europe multiannual cycles in population density exist as the result of the interaction between rodent populations and specialist predator populations in a delayed density-dependent manner. The spatial distribution of hantaviruses further depends on parameters such as forest patch size and connectivity of the most suitable rodent habitats, and the conditions for the survival of the virus outside the host, as well as historical distribution patterns (phylogeographies) of hosts and viruses. In multiannually fluctuating populations of rodents, with population increases of great amplitude, one should expect a simultaneous build-up of recently hantavirus-infected (shedding) rodents. The increasing number of infectious, virus-shedding rodents leads to a rapid transmission of hantavirus across the rodent population, and to humans. Our review discusses these aspects for PUUV, the only European hantavirus for which there is a reasonable, yet still far from complete, ecological continental-wide understanding. We discuss how this information could translate to other European hantavirus-host systems, and where the most important questions lie for further research.

Serologic Investigation of Hantavirus Infection in Patients with Previous Thrombocytopenia, and Elevated Urea and Creatinine Levels in an Epidemic Region of Turkey

“…For example, Olsson et al (44) demonstrated that human cases in OctoberNovember-December are related to rodent intensity in September. Two peaks in HFRS cases are seen annually in northern countries, with a minor peak in August and a major peak in October-February (45,46). In line with previous work, we found that most cases were seen in autumn and winter (Table 3).…”

Prevalence ofLeptospiraspp. and Seoul hantavirus in brown rats (Rattus norvegicus) in four regions in the Netherlands, 2011-2015

“…However, we were unable to detect SEOV. One potential explanation is that SEOV is only present in very focal areas, as patchy distributions are also known for other hantaviruses depending on habitat connectivity of their hosts [34]. …”

Spatial and temporal variation of hantavirus bank vole infection in managed forest landscapes

“…In spite of the large interest regarding hantavirus disease and biology, considerable gaps of knowledge still exist regarding e.g., the ecology of the viruses and how they persist in fluctuating reservoir populations. Nephropathia epidemica (NE) is a milder variant of HFRS caused by the hantavirus Puumala virus (PUUV) present in many parts of Europe (Olsson et al 2010), and bank voles (Myodes glareolus) are the natural reservoir (Brummer-Korvenkontio et al 1980, Yanagihara et al 1984. The epidemiology of NE is closely linked to the temporal and spatial dynamics of the bank vole (Niklasson et al 1995, Olsson et al 2005, Voutilainen et al 2012.…”