The course of hepatitis E virus infection in pigs after contact-infection and intravenous inoculation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Worldwide, hepatitis E virus (HEV) genotype 3 is observed in pigs and transmission to humans is implied. To be able to estimate public health risks from <it>e.g</it>. contact with pigs or consumption of pork products, the transmission routes and dynamics of infection should be identified. Hence, the course of HEV-infection in naturally infected pigs should be studied.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>To resemble natural transmission, 24 HEV-susceptible pigs were infected either by one-to-one exposure to intravenously inoculated pigs (C1-pigs; n = 10), by one-to-one exposure to contact-infected pigs (C2-pigs: n = 7; C3-pigs: n = 5) or due to an unknown non-intravenous infection route (one C2-pig and one C3-pig). The course of HEV-infection for contact-infected pigs was characterized by: faecal HEV RNA excretion that started at day 7 (95% confidence interval: 5–10) postexposure and lasted 23 (19–28) days; viremia that started after 13 (8–17) days of faecal HEV RNA excretion and lasted 11 (8–13) days; antibody development that was detected after 13 (10–16) days of faecal HEV RNA excretion. The time until onset of faecal HEV RNA excretion and onset of viremia was significantly shorter for <it>iv</it>-pigs compared to contact-infected pigs, whereas the duration of faecal HEV RNA excretion was significantly longer. At 28 days postinfection HEV RNA was detected less frequently in organs of contact-infected pigs compared to <it>iv</it>-pigs. For contact-infected pigs, HEV RNA was detected in 20 of 39 muscle samples that were proxies for pork at retail and in 4 of 7 urine samples.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The course of infection differed between infection routes, suggesting that contact-infection could be a better model for natural transmission than <it>iv </it>inoculation. Urine and meat were identified as possible HEV-sources for pig-to-pig and pig-to-human HEV transmission.</p

Potential role of ticks as vectors of bluetongue virus

When the first outbreak of bluetongue virus serotype 8 (BTV8) was recorded in North-West Europe in August 2006 and renewed outbreaks occurred in the summer of 2007 and again in 2008, the question was raised how the virus survived the winter. Since most adult Culicoides vector midges are assumed not to survive the northern European winter, and transovarial transmission in Culicoides is not recorded, we examined the potential vector role of ixodid and argasid ticks for bluetongue virus. Four species of ixodid ticks (Ixodes ricinus, Ixodes hexagonus, Dermacentor reticulatus and Rhipicephalus bursa) and one soft tick species, Ornithodoros savignyi, ingested BTV8-containing blood either through capillary feeding or by feeding on artificial membranes. The virus was taken up by the ticks and was found to pass through the gut barrier and spread via the haemolymph into the salivary glands, ovaries and testes, as demonstrated by real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (PCR-test). BTV8 was detected in various tissues of ixodid ticks for up to 21 days post feeding and in Ornithodoros ticks for up to 26 days. It was found after moulting in adult Ixodes hexagonus and was also able to pass through the ovaries into the eggs of an Ornithodoros savignyi tick. This study demonstrates that ticks can become infected with bluetongue virus serotype 8. The transstadial passage in hard ticks and transovarial passage in soft ticks suggest that ticks have potential vectorial capacity for bluetongue virus. Further studies are required to investigate transmission from infected ticks to domestic livestock. This route of transmission could provide an additional clue in the unresolved mystery of the epidemiology of Bluetongue in Europe by considering ticks as a potential overwintering mechanism for bluetongue virus

Potential environmental transmission routes of SARS-CoV-2 inside a large meat processing plant experiencing COVID-19 clusters

Worldwide exceptionally many COVID-19 clusters were observed in meat processing plants. Many contributing factors, promoting transmission, were suggested, including climate conditions in cooled production rooms favorable for environmental transmission but actual sampling studies are lacking. We aimed to assess SARS-CoV-2 contamination of air and surfaces to gain insight in potential environmental transmission in a large Dutch meat processing plant experiencing COVID-19 clusters. We performed SARS-CoV-2 screening of workers operating in cooled production rooms and intensive environmental sampling during a two-week study period in June 2020. Sampling of air (both stationary and personal), settling dust, ventilation systems, and sewage was performed. Swabs were collected from high-touch surfaces and workers’ hands. Screening of workers was done using oronasopharyngeal swabs. Samples were tested for presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA by RT-qPCR. Of the 76 (predominantly asymptomatic) workers tested, 27 (35.5%) were SARS-CoV-2 RNA positive with modest to low viral loads (Ct≥29.7). In total, 6 out of 203 surface swabs were positive (Ct ≥38), being swabs taken from communal touchscreens/handles. One of the 12 personal air samples and one of the 4 sewage samples were positive, RNA levels were low (Ct≥38). All other environmental samples tested negative. Although one-third of workers tested SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive, environmental contamination was limited. Hence widespread transmission of SARS-CoV-2 via air and surfaces was considered unlikely within this plant at the time of investigation in the context of strict COVID-19 control measures in place

A comprehensive sampling study on SARS-CoV-2 contamination of air and surfaces in a large meat processing plant experiencing COVID-19 clusters in June 2020.

Objective We aimed to assess SARS-CoV-2 contamination of air and surfaces to gain insight into potential occupational exposure in a large meat processing plant experiencing COVID-19 clusters. Methods: Oro-nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 screening was performed in 76 workers. Environmental samples (n = 275) including air, ventilation systems, sewage, and swabs of high-touch surfaces and workers' hands were tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Results: Twenty-seven (35.5%) of the (predominantly asymptomatic) workers tested positive with modest to low viral loads (cycle threshold ≥ 29.7). Six of 203 surface swabs, 1 of 12 personal air samples, and one of four sewage samples tested positive; other samples tested negative. Conclusions: Although one third of workers tested positive, environmental contamination was limited. Widespread SARS-CoV-2 transmission via air and surfaces was considered unlikely within this plant at the time of investigation while strict COVID-19 control measures were already implemented

Potential environmental transmission routes of SARS-CoV-2 inside a large meat processing plant experiencing COVID-19 clusters

Worldwide exceptionally many COVID-19 clusters were observed in meat processing plants. Many contributing factors, promoting transmission, were suggested, including climate conditions in cooled production rooms favorable for environmental transmission but actual sampling studies are lacking. We aimed to assess SARS-CoV-2 contamination of air and surfaces to gain insight in potential environmental transmission in a large Dutch meat processing plant experiencing COVID-19 clusters. We performed SARS-CoV-2 screening of workers operating in cooled production rooms and intensive environmental sampling during a two-week study period in June 2020. Sampling of air (both stationary and personal), settling dust, ventilation systems, and sewage was performed. Swabs were collected from high-touch surfaces and workers’ hands. Screening of workers was done using oronasopharyngeal swabs. Samples were tested for presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA by RT-qPCR. Of the 76 (predominantly asymptomatic) workers tested, 27 (35.5%) were SARS-CoV-2 RNA positive with modest to low viral loads (Ct≥29.7). In total, 6 out of 203 surface swabs were positive (Ct ≥38), being swabs taken from communal touchscreens/handles. One of the 12 personal air samples and one of the 4 sewage samples were positive, RNA levels were low (Ct≥38). All other environmental samples tested negative. Although one-third of workers tested SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive, environmental contamination was limited. Hence widespread transmission of SARS-CoV-2 via air and surfaces was considered unlikely within this plant at the time of investigation in the context of strict COVID-19 control measures in place