Search

Objectives To assess the prevalence of canine parainfluenza virus, canine adenovirus type 2, canine distemper virus, canine respiratory coronavirus and influenza virus A infections in: (1) privately-owned or, (2) kennelled dogs showing signs consistent with canine infectious respiratory disease and, (3) clinically healthy dogs in Vienna, Austria. Materials and methods Prospectively, nasal and tonsillar swabs from 214 dogs affected with infectious respiratory disease, and 50 healthy control dogs were tested for nucleic acids specific to the various viral infections. Concurrent bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from 31 dogs with chronic respiratory disease was investigated for the same viral pathogens. Additionally, anti-canine respiratory coronavirus antibody concentrations were measured in paired blood samples from 30 acutely diseased dogs. Results Canine respiratory coronavirus (7.5%) and canine parainfluenza virus (6.5%) were the most commonly detected viruses in samples from the upper airways of dogs with respiratory infections. Serological results showed a significant seroconversion in response to coronavirus in 50% of the examined cases. None of the samples was positive for influenza virus A-specific nucleic acid. Canine coronavirus-specific nucleic acid was detected in 4.0% of healthy dogs. Clinical significance Canine coronavirus should be considered as a clinically relevant cause of infectious respiratory disease in crowded dog populations. For sample collection, the nasal mucosa can be recommended as the favoured site. Analysis of paired serum samples aids verification of canine coronavirus infection in respiratory disease.

Summary The novel coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) has resulted in an unprecedented public health crisis and economic losses. Although several cases of cats and dogs infected with SARS‐CoV‐2 have been reported during this outbreak, the prevalence of SARS‐CoV‐2 in dog and its transmission among other companion animals are still unknown. Here, we report an extensive serological study of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in dogs in Wuhan and analyze the infection rates at different stages of the pandemic outbreak. A total of 946 dogs serum samples were collected from Wuhan, of which 36 samples were obtained prior to the pandemic outbreak. Indirect enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) showed that 16 sera collected during the outbreak were detected as positive through the receptor binding domain (RBD) of SARS‐CoV‐2. Of these 16 sera, 10 exhibited measurable SARS‐CoV‐2 specific neutralizing antibodies whose titers ranged from 1/20 to 1/180. No serological cross‐reactivity was detected between SARS‐CoV‐2 and canine coronavirus (CCV). Furthermore, with the effective control of the outbreak, a decrease in the SARS‐CoV‐2 seropositive dog number was observed. Our results suggest that SARS‐CoV‐2 has infected companion dogs during the outbreak, and that COVID‐19 patient families have a higher risk of dog infection. Our findings deepen our understanding of the infection of SARS‐CoV‐2 in dogs and provide an important reference for prevention of COVID‐19.

Infection with pantropic canine coronavirus was detected during outbreaks in France and Belgium. This was concurrent in most cases with canine parvovirus 2c. One outbreak was a deadly acute systemic disease with a single pantropic canine coronavirus infection. This is the first report of a fatality associated with pantropic canine coronavirus alone outside Italy.

Canine coronavirus (CCoV) is responsible for enteric disease in pups. Infected dogs generally have a rapid recovery, so the virus is highly contagious and the spread of infection is difficult to control. Chemical disinfectants have been widely used in human disease-control programmes to prevent viral infectious diseases from spreading, but to date, there are no studies in the literature on the sensitivity of CCoV to chemical biocides. The present study investigated the sensitivity of CCoV to disinfectants currently used for prophylaxis in kennel and dog breeding locations. The effects of three agents: alkyl-dimethyl-benzyl-ammonium chloride, benzalkonium chloride and didecyl-dimethyl-ammonium chloride, on the infectivity titre of CCoV in A72 cell lines, were studied at different concentrations. Although they may regard a small number of agents, the findings showed that the sensitivity of CCoV to disinfectants varies and the differences are dose correlated. In general, virus inactivation implies a permanent loss of infectivity which can be evaluated in suspensions and hand disinfection tests.

Objectives: To evaluate the ability of a high-cell-passage canine coronavirus vaccine to immunise dogs against challenge with a field isolate of the virus. Methods: Three dogs that had previously tested seronegative and virus-negative for canine coronavirus were inoculated twice, at 21-day intervals, with the vaccine and kept under observation. Two seronegative and virus-negative dogs served as unvaccinated controls. For safety tests, two additional dogs were inoculated oronasally with 10 times the vaccinal dose and no reactions were observed. Faecal samples were collected daily from the vaccinated dogs after the first and second inoculations. Both vaccinated and control dogs were challenged two weeks after the second vaccination with a field canine coronavirus strain. Blood samples were collected for serological tests before vaccination and at weekly intervals after vaccinations and challenge. Results: Virus was not detected in faecal samples after the first or second vaccinations by virus isolation assays and PCR. Significantly, the vaccinated dogs did not have clinical signs after challenge and no virus shedding was observed. The two unvaccinated control dogs had moderate enteritis, and virus was detected in cell cultures starting from three days postchallenge (dog 1) and two days postchallenge (dog 2), and by PCR for 23 median days. Clinical Significance: This study showed the efficacy of a high-cell-passage canine coronavirus vaccine in preventing infection of dogs by virulent virus and, specifically, its ability to induce sterilising immunity.

Antibody titres to selected pathogens (canine adenovirus [CAV-2], feline herpesvirus [FHV], phocine herpesvirus [PHV-1], canine distemper virus, dolphin morbillivirus [DMV], phocine distemper virus [PDV], parainfluenza virus type 3 [PI3], rabies virus, dolphin rhabdovirus [DRV], canine coronavirus, feline coronavirus, feline leukaemia virus, Borrelia burgdorferi and Toxoplasma gondii) were determined in whole blood or serum samples from selected free-ranging terrestrial carnivores and marine mammals, including cougars (Fellis concolor), lynxes (Fellis lynx), American badgers (Taxidea taxus), fishers (Martes pennanti), wolverines (Gulo gulo), wolves (Canis lupus), black bears (Ursus americanus), grizzly bears (Ursus arctos), polar bears (Ursus maritimus), walruses (Odobenus rosmarus) and belugas (Delphinapterus leucas), which had been collected at several locations in Canada between 1984 and 2001. Antibodies to a number of viruses were detected in species in which these infections have not been reported before, for example, antibodies to CAV-2 in walruses, to PDV in black bears, grizzly bears, polar bears, lynxes and wolves, to DMV in grizzly bears, polar bears, walruses and wolves, to PI3 in black bears and fishers, and to DRV in belugas and walruses.

An outbreak of dual infection in dogs with canine adenovirus type 1 (CAV-1) and canine coronavirus (CCV) infection is reported in an animal shelter that comprised approximately 200 adults stray dogs and 30 puppies. Twenty puppies died 7-8 days after the onset of the clinical signs (severe enteritis, leucopoenia, respiratory distress and dehydration). Both CAV-1 and CCV were isolated from tissue or swab samples. Antibodies to CCV and, at high levels, to CAV-1 also were detected in several puppies. The principal histological findings were atrophy of small intestinal villi, lymphoid depletion, hepatitis and bronchopneumonia. The persistence of CCV in the faeces, observed by the polymerase chain reaction assay, was longer than previously reported. Results demonstrated the serious consequences which may occur with dual infections by CAV-1 and CCV in assembled groups of dogs that are housed in poorly managed kennels with inadequate vaccination programmes.

Objective To estimate the frequency of serum antibodies (IgG and IgM) to canine coronavirus (CCV) in the Australian dog population and evaluate the role of CCV as a causative agent of gastroenteritis. Design A serological survey of antibodies to CCV among different dog populations. Procedure The development and characterisation of an indirect ELISA for the detection of antibodies (IgG and IgM) to CCV was undertaken. Sera collected from both diarrhoeal and non-diarrhoeal dogs from various populations throughout Australia were tested for these antibodies to CCV. Results Serum samples (1396) collected from 1984 to 1998 were tested for the presence of IgG antibodies to CCV. Samples were divided into two categories on the basis of the number of dogs housed together. The groups were either an open population containing dogs housed as groups of three or less, or kennel populations. Sera from 15.8% of the open population and 40.8% of kennelled dogs were positive for CCV antibodies. The prevalence of antibodies varied from zero to 76% in kennelled dogs. About 23% of 128 dogs positive for IgG antibodies to CCV were also positive for IgM antibodies to CCV, indicating recent CCV infection. Of those dogs that were presented with clinical signs of gastroenteritis such as diarrhoea and vomiting(n = 29), 85% were positive in the IgM ELISA and 85.7% in the IgG ELISA for antibodies to CCV. In comparison, for those dogs presented without any history of gastroenteritis only 15% were positive for IgM and 30% positive for IgG. Conclusion Serological evidence indicates that infection with CCV in dogs is widespread throughout the Australian mainland. The prevalence of antibodies varies greatly among different populations, with an average of 40.8% positive in kennelled populations and 15.8% in the open population.

Twenty‐one cases of feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) were diagnosed using a direct immunofluorescence test on cytocentrifuged pleural and peritoneal effusions from cats sampled in vivo (11 cases) and at necropsy (10 cases). A commercial fluorescent polyclonal antiserum of feline origin reacting with FIPV and cross reacting with transmissible gastroenteritis virus and canine coronavirus was used. Eleven cats with ascites of a different origin were used as negative controls. The direct immunofluorescence test was 97 per cent reliable (31 cases of 32) and can be used in routine diagnosis.

The seroprevalence and, or, incidence of canine coronavirus infection was determined in several dog populations in the UK. Seroprevalence ranged from 76 per cent for a rescue kennel to 100 per cent in a commercial breeding colony. In the rescue kennel there was no difference in seroprevalence of the virus between dogs less than or more than four months of age. In the breeding colony, subclinical seroconversion occurred between six and 10 weeks of age. The virus was isolated from faecal samples from 45 of 100 dogs in the rescue kennel; it was isolated from 73 per cent of the dogs with diarrhoea and from 43 per cent of those which did not have diarrhoea. In field cases of acute, mainly haemorrhagic diarrhoea in pet dogs, eight of 32 were positive for canine coronavirus. No canine coronavirus was isolated from either clinically healthy pet dogs in a boarding kennel or from non-diarrhoeic pet dogs examined at the University of Liverpool Small Animal Hospital. It would appear that although canine coronavirus is widespread, the role of the virus in canine enteritis is still equivocal.

To determine the prevalence of antibodies to four major canine viruses, serum samples were obtained from 190 dogs presented to the Small Animal Hospital at the University of Liverpool. Antibodies to canine coronavirus (CCV), canine distemper virus (CDV), canine parvovirus (CPV) and rotavirus (RV) were assayed using serum neutralisation (CCV and CDV), haemagglutina‐tion inhibition (CPV) and indirect fluorescent antibody (RV) techniques. Overall 54 per cent of dogs were seropositive to CCV, 84 per cent to CDV, 70 per cent to CPV and 86 per cent to RV, The antibody titres obtained were analysed with respect to a number of different parameters including: age, sex, breed, vaccination status, exercise regime, diet, Liverpool district in which the dog resided and the presence of diarrhoea, The prevalence and titres of antibodies to CCV, CDV and RV appeared to be influenced by age, CDV by vaccination status, and CCV by the presence of diarrhoea; no other influencing parameters were found.

Canine parvovirus (CPV) and canine coronavirus (CCoV) are considered to be the main pathogens responsible for acute gastroenteritis in young dogs Greene and Decaro 2012). Recently, canine caliciviruses (CaCV), genus Norovirus and canine astroviruses (CaAstV) have been associated with outbreaks of enteritis in puppies that were either singly infected or coinfected with CCoV and/or CPV Martella and others 2008,Mesquita and others 2010,Ntafis and others 2010,Zhu and others 2011,Grellet and others 2012,Martella and others 2012). Previous reports have shown that CPV and/or CCoV are responsible for approximately 48 per cent of the enteritis cases in puppies in the state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Castro and others 2012). However, cases involving CaCV or CaAstV infections have not been described yet in South America. The purpose of this study was to perform the molecular characterisation of CaCV in faecal samples from puppies showing clinical signs of gastroenteritis using RT-PCR and sequence analysis. In addition, the unexpected detection of CaAstV in puppies with enteritis was reported. Faecal samples collected between February 2005 and May 2012 from 232 client-owned puppies with diarrhoea, that were less than one year of age, from private animal hospitals in the city of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, were analysed. This trial was licensed by the Ethics Committee of Animal Research-PROPP/ UFF-CEPA/ NAL, No. 0223/12. For genome detection, nucleic acids were extracted from 10 per cent faecal suspensions in 0.01 M Tris/HCl/Ca2+ using …