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 28, Number 2—February 2022
Research Letter

Spillover of Canine Parvovirus Type 2 to Pigs, South Dakota, USA, 2020

Article Metrics
Gun Temeeyasen, Tamer A. Sharafeldin, Chun-Ming Lin, and Ben M. HauseComments to Author 
Author affiliation: South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota, USA

Cite This Article


In 1978, canine parvovirus type 2 originated from spillover of a feline panleukopenia–like virus, causing a worldwide pandemic of enteritis and myocarditis among canids. In 2020, the virus was identified in pigs in South Dakota, USA, by PCR, sequencing, in situ hybridization, and serology. Genetic analysis suggests spillover from wildlife.

Canine parvovirus type 2 (CPV-2) is a variant of the species Carnivore protoparvovirus 1, which can cause severe disease in carnivores of many species (13). Besides CPV-2, which causes enteritis in dogs of all ages and myocarditis in puppies, the virus species includes feline panleukopenia virus, which causes severe enteritis and leukopenia in cats of all ages (4). In 1978, CPV-2 emerged and caused a worldwide pandemic after spillover from a feline panleukopenia virus–like virus in wildlife. Subsequent adaptation to canine hosts led to genetic and antigenic diversification into subtypes 2a, 2b, and 2c (5). Continued CPV host switching has been documented; spillover to wildlife (including skunks, raccoons, coyotes) has resulted in clinical disease and asymptomatic infection (2).

In October 2020, a dead pig was submitted to South Dakota State University (Brookings, SD, USA) for diagnostic testing. Histopathologic examination revealed mild to moderate enteritis, hepatitis, and visceral edema. Hemolytic Escherichia coli was isolated. No significant lung lesions were noted. Approximately 8 months later, we performed viral metagenomic sequencing on archived lung tissue for an unrelated research project and unexpectedly identified CPV-2. Using a S′ nuclease PCR (Integrated DNA Technologies,, we confirmed that the sample was CPV-2 positive; cycle threshold (Ct) was 24.4. Sanger sequencing of overlapping amplicons confirmed the CPV-2 genome sequence determined by metagenomic sequencing. We submitted the strain SDS21601 sequence to GenBank (accession no. MZ666397).

We used a S′ nuclease PCR to test 90 archived porcine lung samples submitted for respiratory disease diagnostic testing for CPV-2. Of the 90 samples, 9 (10%) were positive for CPV-2, including those with strain SDS21601, and Ct values were 22.4–36.3. The samples were collected September–November 2020 from swine farms within 150 miles of Brookings. We sequenced the genome from a second strongly positive sample (Ct 22.4) and submitted strain SDS21608 to GenBank (accession no. MZ666398). An amplicon from 4 of the remaining 7 samples positive by PCR was generated by PCR and confirmed as CPV-2 by Sanger sequencing. The 3 samples that failed to yield a CPV-2–specific amplicon had Ct values >32. Sequence comparison showed 99.9% nt identity between SDS21601 and SDS21608. blastp ( analysis of SDS21601 virus capsid protein (VP) 2 found 100% identity to CPV-2 from a coyote sampled in Montana in 2012. Analysis of the VP2 amino acid sequences identified an F212I mutation previously identified only from US wildlife, mainly coyotes.


Canine parvovirus type 2 (CPV-2) nucleic acid in a bronchial lymph node obtained from a commercial pig, South Dakota, USA, 2020. Virus was detected by in situ hybridization with a commercially available CPV-2 probe (Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Signals of CPV-2 nucleic acid were hybridized as intracytoplasmic red pinpoints in a few cells morphologically resembling monocyte–macrophage lineage cells in the medullary sinus. Golden-brown pigments are suggestive of hemosiderin accumulated in the cytoplasm of macrophages. The slide was counter-stained with hematoxylin. Scale bar indicates 50 μm.

Figure. Canine parvovirus type 2 (CPV-2) nucleic acid in a bronchial lymph node obtained from a commercial pig, South Dakota, USA, 2020. Virus was detected by in situ hybridization with a...

We performed in situ hybridization on archived formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues from SDS21608 by using a commercially available CPV-2 probe. CPV-2 nucleic acids were hybridized sporadically as intracytoplasmic punctate signals in few monocyte–macrophage lineage cells in the medullary and subcapsular sinuses of a bronchial lymph node (Figure). However, the primary anatomic site of CPV-2 infection and replication was not determined. In other examined tissues, we observed neither typical virus-associated microscopic lesions as seen in carnivores nor obvious CPV-2 hybridization signals.

To further investigate the extent of CPV-2 circulation among swine, 8 months after collection of the CPV-2–positive lung tissue, we collected 20 serum samples from multiparous sows on the farm where strain SDS21601 originated. Of the 20 samples, 13 (65%) were positive for CPV-2–specific antibodies by hemagglutination inhibition (HI) assay; titers were 10–40 (Table). Nearly all serum samples (19 of 20) had antibody titers to porcine parvovirus 1 (PPV-1), ranging from 16 to 4,096. This result was expected given that pigs on the farm received commercial PPV-1 vaccine before farrowing. There was no correlation between CPV-2 and PPV-1 HI titers, indicating a lack of cross-reactivity between CPV-2 and PPV-1 antibodies in the HI assay.

To further investigate seroprevalence of CPV-2 in South Dakota, we randomly selected 25 sow serum samples from unrelated submissions collected at 5 farms (5 samples/farm) and analyzed them by HI for CPV-2. Of the 25 samples, 23 (92%) were positive for CPV-2; titers were 10–80. Together with the 10% positivity detected by quantitative PCR, these results suggest widespread CPV-2 infection of swine in South Dakota.

Members of Carnivore protoparvovirus 1 display >98% identity. Amino acid residue 300 of VP2 has been shown to be a critical determinant for the cross-species transfer of CPV-2 between carnivores of different species (6). Glycine 300 and tyrosine 305, observed in the VP2 of both swine CPV-2 strains (SDS21601 and SDS21608), are diagnostic of CPV-2 isolates from canids (7). The F212I mutation present in both swine CPV-2 strains, which was previously found only in wildlife, suggests a sylvatic origin. Of the species in which F212I has been identified, only coyotes are common in the agricultural areas of the upper US Midwest and are peridomestic. We hypothesize that the source of swine CPV-2 infection is CPV-2–positive coyote feces.

Our results demonstrate spillover of CPV-2 to swine. CPV-2 has been associated with severe enteritis in insectivorous Taiwanese pangolin (Manis pentadactyla pentadactyla), further demonstrating the propensity of CPV-2 to overcome host barriers (8). The ability of CPV-2 to cause disease in swine remains unknown; further surveillance is warranted because this spillover may threaten the health of swine herds.

Dr. Temeeyasen is a research associate at the Animal Disease Research and Diagnostic Laboratory, South Dakota State University, in Brookings. His primary research interest is pathogenic porcine and bovine viruses.



We thank Martha Ohnstad and Craig Long for assistance with metagenomic sequencing.

This project was in part funded by start-up funds provided to B.H. by the South Dakota State University Agricultural Experiment Station Hatch and Animal Health funds in addition to the South Dakota State University Center for Biologics Research and Commercialization.



  1. Cotmore  SF, Agbandje-McKenna  M, Chiorini  JA, Mukha  DV, Pintel  DJ, Qiu  J, et al. The family Parvoviridae. Arch Virol. 2014;159:123947. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Allison  AB, Kohler  DJ, Fox  KA, Brown  JD, Gerhold  RW, Shearn-Bochsler  VI, et al. Frequent cross-species transmission of parvoviruses among diverse carnivore hosts. J Virol. 2013;87:23427. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Steinel  A, Parrish  CR, Bloom  ME, Truyen  U. Parvovirus infections in wild carnivores. J Wildl Dis. 2001;37:594607. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Parrish  CR. Pathogenesis of feline panleukopenia virus and canine parvovirus. Baillieres Clin Haematol. 1995;8:5771. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Wasik  BR, de Wit  E, Munster  V, Lloyd-Smith  JO, Martinez-Sobrido  L, Parrish  CR. Onward transmission of viruses: how do viruses emerge to cause epidemics after spillover? Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2019;374:20190017. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Allison  AB, Organtini  LJ, Zhang  S, Hafenstein  SL, Holmes  EC, Parrish  CR. Single mutations in the VP2 300 loop region of the three-fold spike of the carnivore parvovirus capsid can determine host range. J Virol. 2015;90:75367. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Allison  AB, Kohler  DJ, Ortega  A, Hoover  EA, Grove  DM, Holmes  EC, et al. Host-specific parvovirus evolution in nature is recapitulated by in vitro adaptation to different carnivore species. PLoS Pathog. 2014;10:e1004475. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Chang  YC, Lin  ZY, Lin  YX, Lin  KH, Chan  FT, Hsiao  ST, et al. Canine parvovirus infections in Taiwanese pangolins (Manis pentadactyla pentadactyla). Vet Pathol. 2021;58:74350. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar




Cite This Article

DOI: 10.3201/eid2802.211681

Original Publication Date: January 13, 2022

Table of Contents – Volume 28, Number 2—February 2022

EID Search Options
presentation_01 Advanced Article Search – Search articles by author and/or keyword.
presentation_01 Articles by Country Search – Search articles by the topic country.
presentation_01 Article Type Search – Search articles by article type and issue.



Please use the form below to submit correspondence to the authors or contact them at the following address:

Ben M. Hause, Department of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences, South Dakota State University, Box 2175, 1155 North Campus Dr, Brookings, SD 57007, USA

Send To

10000 character(s) remaining.


Page created: December 02, 2021
Page updated: January 22, 2022
Page reviewed: January 22, 2022
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.