Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Apr 25:3:32.
doi: 10.3389/fvets.2016.00032. eCollection 2016.

Seroprevalence of Foot-and-Mouth Disease in Susceptible Wildlife in Israel

Affiliations

Seroprevalence of Foot-and-Mouth Disease in Susceptible Wildlife in Israel

Ehud Elnekave et al. Front Vet Sci. .

Abstract

Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) epidemics recur in Israel almost every year. Wild even-toed ungulates are seldom affected during these epidemics. The seroprevalence of FMD in wild ungulates during 2000 and 2005-2013 was estimated using anti-non-structural proteins ELISA. Overall, 209 samples were tested, comprising sera of 120 wild boar (Sus scrofa lybicus), 64 mountain gazelles (Gazella gazella gazella), 6 water buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis), and 19 Persian fallow deer (Dama dama mesopotamica). None of the tested animals presented clinical signs of FMD during blood collection. Sixteen samples [7.7% (95% confidence interval (CI95%) = 4.4-12.1%)] were found to be seropositive. Fifteen out of 120 samples (12.5%) from wild boar were seropositive, compared with only 1 out of 89 samples (1.1%) from all other species combined (Fisher's exact test: p = 0.003). Most of the positive samples obtained from wild boar [13/15 (86.7%)] were collected during 2007, and analysis was restricted to that year and species only. The seroprevalence of FMD in this species during 2007 was estimated at 54.2% (CI95% = 32.8-74.5%; n = 24). A significant infection cluster, comprising nine seropositive samples collected in three different locations, was identified in the north-eastern part of Israel. These findings indicate that wild boar was affected during the 2007 FMD epidemic, even though wild boar presenting FMD typical clinical signs were not observed during that year. The actual role of wild boar in the spread of FMD virus in this epidemic, however, could not be determined. The negligible seroprevalence of FMD found for all other surveillance years indicates that ongoing circulation of FMD among wildlife in Israel is unlikely. It is concluded that while the role of wildlife species in the dynamics of FMD in Israel is usually limited, there might be occasions, in which wildlife plays a part in the spread of the virus.

Keywords: FMD; NSP; prevalence; wild boar; wildlife.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The seroprevalence of foot-and-mouth disease virus in wildlife species in Israel during 2000 and 2005–13. The approximate locations from which samples were collected are indicated. Wildlife species and the number of collected samples are illustrated by different shapes and sizes, respectively. A collection location was considered positive (marked red) if at least one of the species samples was found to be positive. Otherwise, the location was considered negative (marked blue).
Figure 2
Figure 2
The seroprevalence of FMD in wild boar in Israel during 2007. The approximate locations from which samples were collected are indicated (samples collected from the same location were manually scattered around the location in order to allow better visualization). Positive samples are marked red and negative samples marked blue. FMD outbreak locations (during 2006–2007) are indicated by stars. Additionally, the approximate area of the main mountain gazelle population that was affected by FMD during 2007 (“Ramot Yissakhar”) is indicated by a gray polygon filled with diagonal lines. Significant prevalence cluster is indicated by a purple circle.

Similar articles

Cited by

  • Scientific Opinion on the assessment of the control measures for category A diseases of Animal Health Law: Foot and Mouth Disease.
    EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW); Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin-Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gortázar Schmidt C, Herskin M, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MÁ, Padalino B, Pasquali P, Sihvonen LH, Spoolder H, Ståhl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Winckler C, De Clercq K, Gubbins S, Klement E, Stegeman JA, Antoniou SE, Aznar I, Broglia A, Papanikolaou A, Van der Stede Y, Zancanaro G, Roberts HC. EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), et al. EFSA J. 2021 Jun 8;19(6):e06632. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6632. eCollection 2021 Jun. EFSA J. 2021. PMID: 34136003 Free PMC article.

References

    1. Grubman MJ, Baxt B. Foot-and-mouth disease. Clin Microbiol Rev (2004) 17(2):465–93.10.1128/CMR.17.2.465-493.2004 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Knight-Jones TJ, Rushton J. The economic impacts of foot and mouth disease – what are they, how big are they and where do they occur? Prev Vet Med (2013) 112(3–4):161–73.10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.07.013 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Weaver GV, Domenech J, Thiermann AR, Karesh WB. Foot and mouth disease: a look from the wild side. J Wildl Dis (2013) 49(4):759–85.10.7589/2012-11-276 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Valdazo-Gonzalez B, Polihronova L, Alexandrov T, Normann P, Knowles NJ, Hammond JM, et al. Reconstruction of the transmission history of RNA virus outbreaks using full genome sequences: foot-and-mouth disease virus in Bulgaria in 2011. PLoS One (2012) 7(11):e49650.10.1371/journal.pone.0049650 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hargreaves SK, Foggin CM, Anderson EC, Bastos AD, Thomson GR, Ferris NP, et al. An investigation into the source and spread of foot and mouth disease virus from a wildlife conservancy in Zimbabwe. Rev Sci Tech (2004) 23(3):783–90. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources