Phylogenetic variations of highly pathogenic H5N6 avian influenza viruses isolated from wild birds in the Izumi plain, Japan, during the 2016–17 winter season

Ozawa, Makoto; Matsuu, Aya; Khalil, Ahmed Magdy; Nishi, Natsuko; Tokorozaki, Kaori; Masatani, Tatsunori; Horie, Masayuki; Okuya, Kosuke; Ueno, K.; Kuwahara, Masakazu; Toda, Shigehisa

doi:10.1111/tbed.13087

Cited by 23 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the time period relevant for this report, no cases of A(H5N6) in wild birds HPAI virus were detected in Asia ( Figure 13). Information extracted from the scientific literature Genetic characterisation of HPAI virus A(H5N6) clade 2.3.4.4c from wild birds overwintering on the Izumi plain in Japan in 2016-2017 enabled the identification of two previously unreported genotypes designated C-7 and C-8 in cranes (Ozawa et al, 2019). The PB2, PB1, PA and NS segments of the novel genotypes showed close relatedness to the respective segments of LPAI virus detected in duck faeces and water samples collected from the same sampling site and during the same period, highlighting the high propensity for reassortment between HPAI A(H5N6) virus clade 2.3.4.4 and LPAI virus.…”

Section: Detectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Avian influenza overview November 2018 – February 2019

Adlhoch¹,

Kuiken²,

Monne³

et al. 2019

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

No human infections due to highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) A(H5N8) or A(H5N6) viruses ‐ detected in wild birds and poultry outbreaks in Europe ‐ have been reported so far and the risk of zoonotic transmission to the general public in Europe is considered very low. Between 16 November 2018 and 15 February 2019, two HPAI A(H5N8) outbreaks in poultry establishments in Bulgaria, two HPAI A(H5N6) outbreaks in wild birds in Denmark and one low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI) A(H5N3) in captive birds in the Netherlands were reported in the European Union (EU). Genetic characterisation of the HPAI A(H5N6) viruses reveals that they cluster with the A(H5N6) viruses that have been circulating in Europe since December 2017. The wild bird species involved were birds of prey and were likely infected due to hunting or scavenging infected wild waterfowl. However, HPAI virus was not detected in other wild birds during this period. Outside the EU, two HPAI outbreaks were reported in poultry during the reporting period from western Russia. Sequence information on an HPAI A(H5N6) virus found in a common gull in western Russia in October 2018 suggests that the virus clusters within clade 2.3.4.4c and is closely related to viruses that transmitted zoonotically in China. An increasing number of outbreaks in poultry and wild birds in Asia, Africa and the Middle East was observed during the time period for this report. Currently there is no evidence of a new HPAI virus incursion from Asia into Europe. However, passive surveillance systems may not be sensitive enough if the prevalence or case fatality in wild birds is very low. Nevertheless, it is important to encourage and maintain a certain level of passive surveillance in Europe testing single sick or dead wild birds and birds of prey as they may be sensitive sentinel species for the presence of HPAI virus in the environment. A well‐targeted active surveillance might complement passive surveillance to collect information on HPAI infectious status of apparently healthy wild bird populations.

show abstract

Section: Detectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Avian influenza overview November 2018 – February 2019

Adlhoch¹,

Kuiken²,

Monne³

et al. 2019

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Virus-neutralization tests were conducted using recently isolated swine influenza viruses of H1 and H3 subtypes and highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses (HPAIVs) of the H5 subtype in Japan, specifically A/swine/ Chiba/KU-MI2-3/2016 (H1N1, KU-MI2-3), A/swine/ Chiba/KU-FK3/2016 (H1N2, KU-FK3), A/swine/Japan/ KU-MD4/2013 (H3N2, KU-MD4) and HPAIV strains, A/duck/Kagoshima/KU-116/2015 (H5N8, KU-116), and A/crane/Kagoshima/KU-4/2016 (H5N6, KU-4). [4][5][6][7] In brief, a mixture of twofold dilution of serum and 200 TCID 50 (median tissue culture infectious dose) of the viruses in Dulbecco's Modified Eagle's Medium (DMEM) was allowed to stand for 2 hr. The mixture was then inoculated in MDCK cells seeded into 48 well tissue culture plates.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Outbreaks of HPAI caused by viruses of the H5N8 and H5N6 subtypes occurred in wild birds overwintering on the Izumi plain, Kagoshima prefecture, during the winters of 2014-2015 and 2016-2017. 5,7 To detect antibodies against H5 subtype IAVs in the sera of wild boars, a virusneutralization test was performed using the HPAI strains KU-116 (H5N8) and KU-4 (H5N6). As shown in Table 1, no sera showed a neutralizing effect against either HPAIVs of the H5 subtype.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Serological survey of influenza A virus infection in Japanese wild boars (Sus scrofa leucomystax)

Fujimoto

Inoue

Ozawa

et al. 2019

Microbiology and Immunology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We conducted a serological survey to detect antibodies against influenza A virus (IAV) in Japanese wild boars in Kagoshima prefecture, Japan, between 2014 and 2017. Seroprevalence against a pandemic‐like swine H1N1 (H1N1pdm) virus was identified in 27.1% of specimens, and 1.7% were positive for both swine H1N2 and H3N2 viruses, indicating that wild boars could play an important role in the dynamics of H1N1pdm viral dispersion in the wild. The high frequency of positive results for sera against the H1N1pdm virus suggests that cross‐species IAV transmission between wild boars, livestock, and humans is a threat to veterinary and public health.

show abstract

“…salinity, dryness, ultraviolet radiation, pH, temperature, humidity and microbial flora) (Henaux, Samuel, Dusek, Fleskes, & Ip, 2012; Irwin et al., 2011; Keeler, Berghaus, & Stallknecht, 2012; Nielsen, Jensen, Stockmarr, & Jorgensen, 2013; Yamamoto, Nakamura, Yamada, & Mase, 2010); hence, the poorer viral detection rates found in some studies on ES compared with live bird cloacal samples (Sonnberg et al., 2012; Tracey, 2010). While there are examples of HPAI virus strains being sporadically isolated from faecal samples (Gerloff et al., 2014; Hiono et al., 2015; Jeong et al., 2014; Negovetich et al., 2011; Ozawa et al., 2019; Poen et al, 2016; Willeberg et al., 2010) during wild bird surveillance, these are often infrequent incidents, and environmental faecal sampling in isolation may have poor sensitivity as a method of HPAI virological surveillance (Latorre‐Margalef et al., 2016; Poen et al, 2016). For certain AI viruses (e.g.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Phylogenetic variations of highly pathogenic H5N6 avian influenza viruses isolated from wild birds in the Izumi plain, Japan, during the 2016–17 winter season

Cited by 23 publications

References 18 publications

Avian influenza overview November 2018 – February 2019

Avian influenza overview November 2018 – February 2019

Serological survey of influenza A virus infection in Japanese wild boars (Sus scrofa leucomystax)

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About