Lack of Marburg Virus Transmission From Experimentally Infected to Susceptible In-Contact Egyptian Fruit Bats

Pawęska, Janusz T.; Vuren, Petrus Jansen van; Fenton, Karla A.; Graves, K; Grobbelaar, Antoinette A.; Moolla, Naazneen; Leman, Patricia A.; Weyer, Jacqueline; Storm, Nadia; McCulloch, Stewart D.; Scott, Terence Peter; Markotter, Wanda; Odendaal, Lieza; Clift, Sarah J.; Geisbert, Thomas W.; Hale, Martin; Kemp, Alan C.

doi:10.1093/infdis/jiv132

Cited by 59 publications

(115 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

103

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, virus was not detected in feces or urine collected from infected specimens or the cave floor (Amman et al 2012). Laboratory experimental subcutaneous infection of R. aegyptiacus identified a number of PCR-positive tissues including salivary glands in asymptomatic bats and viral loads detected in oral and rectal swabs are consistent with biting as a mode of bat-bat transmission (Amman et al 2015;Paweska et al 2015). However, the period during which the virus could be isolated was limited to a few days, and no transmission from the infected specimens to naïve, incontact conspecifics could be induced.…”

Section: Evidence Of Link Between Fruit Bats and Marburg Virusesmentioning

confidence: 77%

“…Evidence for a filovirus-fruit bat link is stronger for Marburg virus (MARV), although knowledge gaps regarding the full host range and circulation also remain for this filovirus Towner et al 2009;Amman et al 2012;Paweska et al 2015;reviewed in Olival and Hayman 2014). Virological studies focused on R. aegyptiacus inhabiting East African caves where MARV outbreaks occurred, found live, healthy specimens of R. aegyptiacus to be MARV PCR and seropositive.…”

Section: Evidence Of Link Between Fruit Bats and Marburg Virusesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing the Evidence Supporting Fruit Bats as the Primary Reservoirs for Ebola Viruses

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1 This children's game also goes by whisper down the lane or telephone, depending on the country where it is played. While the pioneering studies discussed below were well done and careful to state that their evidence did not confirm the sole or ultimate reservoir, this message of restraint has been lost in some recent reviews and popular media. Our goal here is to reiterate the original message and highlight future directions.

show abstract

Section: Evidence Of Link Between Fruit Bats and Marburg Virusesmentioning

confidence: 77%

Section: Evidence Of Link Between Fruit Bats and Marburg Virusesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the Evidence Supporting Fruit Bats as the Primary Reservoirs for Ebola Viruses

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Serological studies of virus-specific bat antibodies were among the first functional studies to be performed. Infection of R. aegyptiacus with MARV resulted in the development of antigen-specific IgG responses in the bats by 28 days after challenge (25,(109)(110)(111). While the durability of the antibody response seems to vary-with one study reporting that antibody titers fell below detectable levels by 3 months after infection (25) and another study finding virus-specific IgG levels were still maintained 11 months following infection (111)-both studies found that secondary challenge with MARV increased virus-specific IgG antibodies titres to a greater extent than seen following initial MARV infection.…”

Section: Antibody Responses In Batsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Novel Insights Into Immune Systems of Bats

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, viruses similar to those that cause serious disease in humans and other mammals have been detected in apparently healthy bats. These include filoviruses, paramyxoviruses, and coronaviruses that cause severe diseases such as Ebola virus disease, Marburg haemorrhagic fever and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in humans. The evolution of flight in bats seem to have selected for a unique set of antiviral immune responses that control virus propagation, while limiting self-damaging inflammatory responses. Here, we summarize our current understanding of antiviral immune responses in bats and discuss their ability to co-exist with emerging viruses that cause serious disease in other mammals. We highlight how this knowledge may help us to predict viral spillovers into new hosts and discuss future directions for the field.

show abstract

“…Similar results were documented with the Egyptian rousette bats infected with MARV, where replication occurred but overt signs of illness were absent. Notably, this same bat species was demonstrated to be refractory to experimental infection with EBOV (30)(31)(32).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Innate Immune Responses of Bat and Human Cells to Filoviruses: Commonalities and Distinctions

Kuzmin

Schwarz

Ilinykh

et al. 2017

J Virol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marburg (MARV) and Ebola (EBOV) viruses are zoonotic pathogens that cause severe hemorrhagic fever in humans. The natural reservoir of MARV is the Egyptian rousette bat (Rousettus aegyptiacus); that of EBOV is unknown but believed to be another bat species. The Egyptian rousette develops subclinical productive infection with MARV but is refractory to EBOV. Interaction of filoviruses with hosts is greatly affected by the viral interferon (IFN)-inhibiting domains (IID). Our study was aimed at characterization of innate immune responses to filoviruses and the role of filovirus IID in bat and human cells. The study demonstrated that EBOV and MARV replicate to similar levels in all tested cell lines, indicating that permissiveness for EBOV at cell and organism levels do not necessarily correlate. Filoviruses, particularly MARV, induced a potent innate immune response in rousette cells, which was generally stronger than that in human cells. Both EBOV VP35 and VP24 IID were found to suppress the innate immune response in rousette cells, but only VP35 IID appeared to promote virus replication. Along with IFN-␣ and IFN-␤, IFN-␥ was demonstrated to control filovirus infection in bat cells but not in human cells, suggesting host species specificity of the antiviral effect. The antiviral effects of bat IFNs appeared not to correlate with induction of IFN-stimulated genes 54 and 56, which were detected in human cells ectopically expressing bat IFN-␣ and IFN-␤. As bat IFN-␥ induced the type I IFN pathway, its antiviral effect is likely to be partially induced via cross talk.IMPORTANCE Bats serve as reservoirs for multiple emerging viruses, including filoviruses, henipaviruses, lyssaviruses, and zoonotic coronaviruses. Although there is no evidence for symptomatic disease caused by either Marburg or Ebola viruses in bats, spillover of these viruses into human populations causes deadly outbreaks. The reason for the lack of symptomatic disease in bats infected with filoviruses remains unknown. The outcome of a virus-host interaction depends on the ability of the host immune system to suppress viral replication and the ability of a virus to counteract the host defenses. Our study is a comparative analysis of the host innate immune response to either MARV or EBOV infection in bat and human cells and the role of viral interferon-inhibiting domains in the host innate immune responses. The data are useful for understanding the interactions of filoviruses with natural and accidental hosts and for identification of factors that influence filovirus evolution.

show abstract

Lack of Marburg Virus Transmission From Experimentally Infected to Susceptible In-Contact Egyptian Fruit Bats

Cited by 59 publications

References 21 publications

Assessing the Evidence Supporting Fruit Bats as the Primary Reservoirs for Ebola Viruses

Assessing the Evidence Supporting Fruit Bats as the Primary Reservoirs for Ebola Viruses

Novel Insights Into Immune Systems of Bats

Innate Immune Responses of Bat and Human Cells to Filoviruses: Commonalities and Distinctions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About