White-nose syndrome survivors do not exhibit frequent arousals associated with Pseudogymnoascus destructans infection

Background: White-nose syndrome (WNS) has devastated bat populations in North America, with millions of bats dead. WNS is associated with physiological changes in hibernating bats, leading to increased arousals from hibernation and premature consumption of fat reserves. However, there is evidence of surviving populations of little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus) close to where the fungus was first detected nearly ten years ago. Results: We examined the hibernation patterns of a surviving population of little brown myotis and compared them to patterns in populations before the arrival of WNS and populations at the peak of WNS mortality. Despite infection with Pseudogymnoascus destructans, the causative fungal agent, the remnant population displayed less frequent arousals from torpor and lower torpid body temperatures than bats that died from WNS during the peak of mortality. The hibernation patterns of the remnant population resembled pre-WNS patterns with some modifications. Conclusions: These data show that remnant populations of little brown myotis do not experience the increase in periodic arousals from hibernation typified by bats dying from WNS, despite the presence of the fungal pathogen on their skin. These patterns may reflect the use of colder hibernacula microclimates by WNS survivors, and/or may reflect differences in how these bats respond to the disease.Peer reviewe

Robust evidence for bats as reservoir hosts is lacking in most African virus studies : a review and call to optimize sampling and conserve bats

DATA ACCESSIBILITY : Data used in this study are available from the Dryad Digital Repository: https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.c866t1gcx [222]. Supplementary material is available online [223].Africa experiences frequent emerging disease outbreaks among humans, with bats often proposed as zoonotic pathogen hosts. We comprehensively reviewed virus–bat findings from papers published between 1978 and 2020 to evaluate the evidence that African bats are reservoir and/or bridging hosts for viruses that cause human disease. We present data from 162 papers (of 1322) with original findings on (1) numbers and species of bats sampled across bat families and the continent, (2) how bats were selected for study inclusion, (3) if bats were terminally sampled, (4) what types of ecological data, if any, were recorded and (5) which viruses were detected and with what methodology. We propose a scheme for evaluating presumed virus–host relationships by evidence type and quality, using the contrasting available evidence for Orthoebolavirus versus Orthomarburgvirus as an example. We review the wording in abstracts and discussions of all 162 papers, identifying key framing terms, how these refer to findings, and how they might contribute to people’s beliefs about bats. We discuss the impact of scientific research communication on public perception and emphasize the need for strategies that minimize human–bat conflict and support bat conservation. Finally, we make recommendations for best practices that will improve virological study metadata.Open access funding provided by the Max Planck Society. Bucknell University and, in part, by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health (NIH); the German Academic Exchange Service; the German Research Foundation the Institut Universitaire de France; the South African Research Chair Initiative of the Department of Science and Innovation and administered by the National Research Foundation (NRF) of South Africa; in part, by NSF and National Geographic and Rolex grants.https://royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rsblam2024Medical VirologyNon

Robust evidence for bats as reservoir hosts is lacking in most African virus studies – a review and call to optimize sampling and conserve bats

<p><span>Africa experiences frequent emerging disease outbreaks among humans, with bats often proposed as zoonotic pathogen hosts. We comprehensively reviewed virus-bat findings from papers published between 1978 and 2020 to evaluate the evidence that African bats are reservoirs and/or bridging hosts for viruses that cause human disease. We present data from 162 papers (of 1322) with original findings on (1) numbers and species of bats sampled across bat families and the continent, (2) how bats were selected for study inclusion, (3) if bats were terminally sampled, (4) what types of ecological data, if any, were recorded, and (5) which viruses were detected and with what methodology. We propose a scheme for evaluating presumed virus-host relationships by evidence type and quality, using the contrasting available evidence for </span><em>Orthoebolavirus</em> (formerly <em>Ebolavirus</em>) versus <em>Orthomarburgvirus</em> (formerly <em>Marburgvirus</em>) as an example. We review the wording in abstracts and discussions of all 162 papers, identifying key framing terms, how these refer to findings, and how they might contribute to people's beliefs about bats. We discuss the impact of scientific research communication on public perception and emphasize the need for strategies that minimize human-bat conflict and support bat conservation. Finally, we make recommendations for best practices that will improve virological study metadata.</p><p>Funding provided by: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases<br>Crossref Funder Registry ID: https://ror.org/043z4tv69<br>Award Number: R01AI151144</p><p>Funding provided by: German Academic Exchange Service<br>Crossref Funder Registry ID: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100021828<br>Award Number: </p><p>Funding provided by: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft<br>Crossref Funder Registry ID: https://ror.org/018mejw64<br>Award Number: 437846632</p><p>Funding provided by: Institut Universitaire de France<br>Crossref Funder Registry ID: https://ror.org/055khg266<br>Award Number: </p><p>Funding provided by: National Research Foundation<br>Crossref Funder Registry ID: https://ror.org/05s0g1g46<br>Award Number: UID:98339</p><p>Funding provided by: National Science Foundation<br>Crossref Funder Registry ID: https://ror.org/021nxhr62<br>Award Number: IOS:2031906</p><p>Funding provided by: National Science Foundation<br>Crossref Funder Registry ID: https://ror.org/021nxhr62<br>Award Number: OISE:2020577</p><p>Funding provided by: National Geographic Society<br>Crossref Funder Registry ID: https://ror.org/04bqh5m06<br>Award Number: </p><p>Funding provided by: Rolex SA (Switzerland)<br>Crossref Funder Registry ID: https://ror.org/03rbr3273<br>Award Number: </p><p>Funding provided by: National Science Foundation<br>Crossref Funder Registry ID: https://ror.org/021nxhr62<br>Award Number: IOS:2217296</p><p>We analyzed data from peer-reviewed primary research articles published through 2020 for which bats were captured in Africa for viral surveillance. We used the search terms "bat OR bats OR Chiroptera" AND "virus OR viral OR virological" AND "Africa OR 'each African country name in English or country name variant'" (Fig. S1) in a Web of Science (all database) search, repeated in French, yielding a total of 1322 papers (two from French search). We also included older primary data from seven studies used in 11 modeling papers from this period. In total 162 papers met our study inclusion criteria, published between 1978 and 2020 (Text S1). This dataset, analyzed alongside our current understanding of African bat systematics and ecology, provided a snapshot in time of African bat viral research from which we were able to describe the nature of these studies in detail (Fig. 1). Data on (1) numbers of species and individuals sampled across bat families and the continent; (2) how bats were selected for study; (3) whether they were terminally sampled; (4) whether ecological data were recorded; and (5) which viruses were detected and with what methodology, were manually extracted. We focus on four viral families most relevant to humans: <em>Coronaviridae</em>,<em> Paramyxoviridae</em>, <em>Rhabdoviridae</em> and <em>Filoviridae</em>, list other viral findings, and propose a schematic approach to evaluating the quality of the evidence underlying putative bat-virus relationships, using the contrasting available evidence base for <em>Orthoebolavirus</em> versus <em>Orthomarburgvirus</em> as an example. Our findings are placed in the context of numbers of known and suspected human infections and fatalities from African zoonoses associated with bats. Finally, we review the wording in abstracts and discussions of all 162 papers. We identify several key framing terms, how these refer to findings, and how they might contribute to people's beliefs about bats. In light of the growing fear of bats as sources of viral spillovers, we discuss the impact of scientific research communication on public perception and emphasize the need for strategies that minimize human-bat conflict.</p&gt