Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 24, Number 12—December 2018

Neglected Hosts of Small Ruminant Morbillivirus

Claudia Schulz1Comments to Author , Christine Fast, Kore Schlottau, Bernd Hoffmann, and Martin Beer
Author affiliations: Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Greifswald–Insel Riems, Germany

Main Article


Design and outcomes of PPRV transmission trials, Germany*

Trial no.†
No. inoculated animals
No. contact controls
Seroconversion, total no. by species
Excretion of PPRV RNA, total no. by species
Excretion of infectious PPRV, total no. by species
Contact transmission (no. contact-infected/total no. in contact)
1 P-GP 3P‡ 2G, 1P‡ 3P,‡ 2G 3P,‡ 2G 1P, 2G Yes (1/2G;§ 1/1P‡)
2 W-GP 4W 2G, 2P 4W 4W 2W No (0/2G; 0/2P)
3 G-P 2G 2P 2G, 2P 2G, 2P 2G Yes (2/2P)
S-S 5S 5S 5S 5S 5S No (0/5S)

*P, pig; PPRV, small ruminant morbillivirus (formerly called peste des petits ruminants virus); W, wild boar; G, goat; GP, goats and pigs; S, sheep.
†For trials 1–3, animals were experimentally infected by intranasal inoculation with PPRV strain Kurdistan/2011 for independent transmission trials conducted in the containment facility of the Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Isle of Riems, Germany. Contact control animals were added 2 d after experimental infection. In 2 of the trials, PPRV transmission was documented from pigs to 1 goat and 1 pig (trial 1) and from goats to 2 pigs (trial 3). Infectious PPRV excretion was detected in >1 animal of each species, and PPRV RNA and seroconversion were detected in all experimentally infected or contact-infected animals (further details in Technical Appendix Figure 1). For trial 4, a 1-to-1 (pairwise) study design was chosen to estimate the reproductive ratio. The results of the sheep trial are presented in this study to enable comprehensive comparison with the PPRV pathogenesis in suids.
‡One of 3 pigs was probably not infected by experimental intranasal PPRV inoculation but by contact infection.
§One contact goat was infected by pigs; however the source of infection (goat or pig) cannot be determined for the second contact goat.
¶In each of 5 stables, 2 sheep were kept together: 1 experimentally infected sheep and 1 contact control sheep.

Main Article

1Current affiliation: University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Hannover, Germany.

Page created: November 20, 2018
Page updated: November 20, 2018
Page reviewed: November 20, 2018
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.