Ranaviruses have been identified as the etiologic agent in many amphibian die-offs across the globe. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is commonly used to detect ranavirus infection in amphibian hosts, but the test results may vary between tissue samples obtained by lethal and non-lethal procedures. Testing liver samples for infection is a common lethal sampling technique to estimate ranavirus prevalence because the pathogen often targets this organ and the liver is easy to identify and collect. However, tail clips or swabs may be more practicable for ranavirus surveillance programs compared with collecting and euthanizing animals, especially for uncommon species. Using PCR results from liver samples for comparison, we defined false-positive test results as occurrences when a non-lethal technique indicated positive but the liver sample was negative. Similarly, we defined false-negative test results as occurrences when a non-lethal technique was negative but the liver sample was positive. Using these decision rules, we estimated false-negative and false-positive rates for tail clips and swabs. Our study was conducted in a controlled facility using American bullfrog Lithobates catesbeianus tadpoles; false-positive and falsenegative rates were estimated after different periods of time following exposure to ranavirus. False-negative and false-positive rates were 20 and 6%, respectively, for tail samples, and 22 and 12%, respectively, for swabs. False-negative rates were constant over time, but false-positive rates decreased with post-exposure duration. Our results suggest that non-lethal sampling techniques can be useful for ranavirus surveillance, although the prevalence of infection may be underestimated when compared to results obtained with liver samples.
KEY WORDS: Iridovirus · Ranavirus · Molecular technique · PCR · Sampling · SurveillanceResale or republication not permitted without written consent of the publisher shipment in order to verify that they are not infected with ranavirus. Also, in order to better understand the threat that ranaviruses pose to native amphibians, surveillance for this pathogen is becoming more widespread in wild populations (e.g. Gray et al. 2007, 2009b, Greer et al. 2009, Hoverman et al. 2012. Given the increased need to test amphibians for rana virus infection, the usefulness of non-lethal sampling techniques needs to be determined.Common non-lethal techniques for pathogen testing include tail or toe clips and swabs of the oral cavity, cloaca and skin , Kriger et al. 2006, St-Amour & Lesbarrères 2007, Driskell et al. 2009, Gray et al. 2009b. Testing amphibians for infection using non-lethal techniques has several advantages -including, presumably, a low impact on wild or captive populations, the possibility of repeat sampling of the same individual, and generally, a lower cost compared to full necropsies of euthanized animals (Greer & Collins 2007, St-Amour & Lesbarrères 2007, Green et al. 2010. These advantages are particularly useful when monitoring infection in uncommo...