SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Dogs and Cats: Facts and Speculations

Decaro, Nicola; Balboni, Andrea; Bertolotti, Luigi; Martino, Piera Anna; Mazzei, Maurizio; Mira, Francesco; Pagnini, Ugo

doi:10.3389/fvets.2021.619207

Cited by 59 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In human cases, behavioural and social factors influence the sex distribution of human cases [32]. There is no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection independently spreading in the dog population [20]. This study further confirms this observation since dogs in animal shelters were not at increased risk of infection.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 71%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since the beginning of COVID-19 pandemics, SARS-CoV-2 natural infections among dogs were described as isolated cases [20]. Due to higher susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection in experimental conditions and their role in the SARS-CoV epidemic back in 2003 [21], cats have been the focus of scientific interest [14,20,22,23]. Only when the first serology results of dogs living in COVID-19 infected households became available, it was clear that human-dog transmissions are far more common than initially thought [7,8,24].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Emergence of SARS-CoV-2 Within the Dog Population in Croatia: Host Factors and Clinical Outcome

Stevanović¹,

Tabain²,

Vilibić-Čavlek³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over a year into the COVID-19 pandemic, there is growing evidence that SARS-CoV-2 infections among dogs are more common than previously thought. In this study, the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was investigated in two dog population. The first group was comprised of 1069 dogs admitted to the Veterinary Teaching Hospital for any given reason. The second group included dogs that shared households with confirmed COVID-19 cases in humans. This study group numbered 78 dogs. In COVID-19 infected households, 43.9% tested ELISA positive, and neutralisation antibodies were detected in 25.64% of dogs. Those data are comparable with the secondary attack rate in the human population. With 14.69% of dogs in the general population testing ELISA positive, there was a surge of SARS-CoV-2 infections within the dog population amid the second wave of the pandemic. Noticeably seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in the dog and the human population did not differ at the end of the study period. Male sex, breed and age were identified as significant risk factors. This study gives strong evidence that while acute dog infections are mostly asymptomatic, they can pose a significant risk to dog health. Seropositive dogs had a 1.97 times greater risk for developing central nervous symptoms.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 71%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Emergence of SARS-CoV-2 Within the Dog Population in Croatia: Host Factors and Clinical Outcome

Stevanović¹,

Tabain²,

Vilibić-Čavlek³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, recent studies have demonstrated the continuous emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 with multiple spike protein mutations. It is not known whether dogs infected with these new variants could transmit the virus to other animals or to humans [ [29] , [30] , [31] ]. In March 2021, a study carried out on British dogs reported for the first time canine and feline infections with the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 variant in addition to some of these pets suffering from myocarditis [ 32 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

SARS-CoV-2 antibodies seroprevalence in dogs from France using ELISA and an automated western blotting assay

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dogs are occasionally susceptible to SARS-CoV-2, developing few or no clinical signs. Epidemiological surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in dogs requires testing to distinguish it from other canine coronaviruses. In the last year, significant advances have been made in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, allowing its surveillance in both human and animal populations. Here, using ELISA and automated western blotting (AWB) assays, we performed a longitudinal study on 809 apparently healthy dogs from different regions of France to investigate anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. There were three main groups: (i) 356 dogs sampled once before the pandemic, (ii) 235 dogs sampled once during the pandemic, and (iii) 218 dogs, including 82 dogs sampled twice (before and during the pandemic), 125 dogs sampled twice during the pandemic and 11 dogs sampled three times (once before and twice during the pandemic). Using ELISA, seroprevalence was significantly higher during the pandemic [5.5% (25/453)] than during the pre-pandemic period [1.1% (5/449)]. Among the 218 dogs sampled twice, at least 8 ELISA-seroconversions were observed. ELISA positive pre-pandemic sera were not confirmed in serial tests by AWB, indicating possible ELISA cross-reactivity, probably with other canine coronaviruses. A significant difference was observed between these two serological tests (Q = 88, p = 0.008). A clear correlation was observed between SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in dogs and the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in human population from the same area. AWB could be used as a second line assay to confirm the doubtful and discrepant ELISA results in dogs. Our results confirm the previous experimental models regarding the susceptibility of dogs to SARS-CoV-2, suggesting that viral transmission from and between dogs is weak or absent. However, the new variants with multiple mutations could adapt to dogs; this hypothesis cannot be ruled out in the absence of genomic data on SARS-CoV-2 from dogs.

show abstract

“…In some cases, the situation is worrying as bilateral transmission between humans and animals has been proved [i.e., minks ( 60 , 61 )]. Some studies underlined that there is currently no evidence that infected dogs could be a source of infection for humans ( 37 , 46 , 62 , 63 ), although further epidemiological investigations are requested before reaching a definitive conclusion ( 63 ). Actually, as a precautionary principle, the fact that there is no scientific evidence does not mean that it could not happen.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%