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 26, Number 12—December 2020

Shedding of Marburg Virus in Naturally Infected Egyptian Rousette Bats, South Africa, 2017

Janusz T. PawęskaComments to Author , Nadia Storm, Wanda Markotter, Nicholas Di Paola, Michael R. Wiley, Gustavo Palacios, and Petrus Jansen van Vuren
Author affiliations: National Institute for Communicable Diseases of the National Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg, South Africa (J.T. Pawęska, N. Storm, P. Jansen van Vuren); Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA (N. Storm); University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa (J.T. Pawęska, W. Markotter); University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA (N. Di Paola, M.R. Wiley, G. Palacios); US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, Frederick, Maryland, USA (N. Di Paola, M.R. Wiley, G. Palacios); Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation–Health and Biosecurity, Geelong, Victoria, Australia (P. Jansen van Vuren)

Main Article

Table 2

Marburgvirus seroconversion in 6 of 18 Egyptian rousette bats (Rousettus aegyptiacus) recaptured at Matlapitsi Cave, Limpopo Province, South Africa, February 2017–September 2017*

Bat ID First capture
iELISA, %† Capture date iELISA, %† Capture date
SMB676 2.2 2016 Apr 23.3 2017 Feb
SMB797 12.4 2016 Jun 23.7 2017 Apr
SMA780 0.7 2014 Jul 61.7 2017 Sep
SM906 15.2 2013 Sep 202.4 2017 Sep
SMB160 2.5 2015 Mar 51.3 2017 Sep



2016 Nov


2017 Sep

*Recaptured bats were identified by a previously applied unique tattoo number. iELISA, indirect ELISA.
†Percent positivity of the internal positive control serum in I-ELISA calculated as (average optical density of the test serum replicates/average optical density of the positive control serum replicates) × 100; cutoff percent positivity of iELISA = 16.78% (7).

Main Article

Page created: August 12, 2020
Page updated: November 19, 2020
Page reviewed: November 19, 2020
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.