Detection of seroconversion to West Nile virus, Usutu virus and Sindbis virus in UK sentinel chickens
© Buckley et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2006
Received: 13 July 2006
Accepted: 04 September 2006
Published: 04 September 2006
We previously reported evidence of West Nile virus (WNV) circulation in UK birds, probably introduced by migratory birds from overseas. We now demonstrate WNV-specific seroconversion in sentinel chickens raised on an English farm. Maternal neutralizing antibodies to WNV in hatchlings declined within three weeks. During the following months, healthy chickens developed WNV neutralizing antibodies that were confirmed by immunoblotting and indirect immunofluorescence tests using WNV antigens. The proportion of seropositive chickens was higher for WNV than for Usutu virus or Sindbis virus. Attempts to isolate infectious virus or to detect viral RNA in the sera, failed.
West Nile virus (WNV) and Usutu virus (USUV) are antigenically closely related mosquito-borne members of the genus Flavivirus. Sindbis virus (SINV) is an unrelated mosquito-borne member of the genus Alphavirus. These ar thropod-bo rne viruses (arbo viruses), and many others, are known to circulate globally as pathogens amongst birds and mammalian species [1–4]. During their natural life cycles, they infect ornithophilic Culex spp. mosquitoes that replicate and transmit the viruses to birds and/or mammals when they feed on them. Fatal encephalitic infections of avian species have been recorded for WNV in North America [5–7], and Israel,  and for USUV in Austria . Nevertheless, many healthy avian species have antibodies to these viruses, demonstrating that they are not necessarily pathogenic for all species they infect. On the other hand, WNV and SINV are known human pathogens and have been shown to be pathogenic for a very wide range of other mammalian species both in North America and in the Old World . Previous serological studies on sera collected from UK resident and migratory birds demonstrated the presence of WNV-specific neutralizing antibodies and also small fragments of RNA with sequence corresponding to WNV. We also previously demonstrated the presence of WNV-reactive envelope and non-structural protein (NS1) antibodies by western blot analysis and by indirect immunofluorescence (IF) tests using WNV-infected tissue culture cells as the substrate for the IF tests. The presence of antibodies to NS1 protein inferred that the virus had replicated in the birds since non-structural proteins are only produced in infected cells after virus replication, ie they would not be present in an introduced virus. However, in view of the need for additional proof of the presence of WNV circulating amongst birds in the UK, albeit apparently harmlessly, we have looked for evidence of seroconversion to WNV, USUV and SINV in sentinel chickens.
Results and discussion
Plaque reduction neutralization tests on sentinel chicken sera
Interestingly, thirteen chicks sampled at 9 weeks post-hatching had been kept indoors for the entire period since hatching. Nevertheless, specific antibody responses to WNV in particular were detected in these chicks, viz., 12/13, and 6/13, for WNV-DAK and WNV-Is respectively and 1/13, and 3/13 for USUV and SINV respectively. However, whilst these chicks had been kept indoors, the airflows to their rooms came directly from the outside without isolation by filtration.
Western blot analysis
Indirect immunofluorescence tests
Attempts to isolate infectious virus from seropositive chickens
The sera from 46-day old, and older chickens (a total of 46 sera) and five 10% brain suspensions harvested from chickens that were seropositive in a WNV-PRNT-analysis were inoculated directly onto monolayers of SW13 cells which were then incubated at 37°C for 14 days. The supernatant medium from each sample was then inoculated onto fresh monolayers of SW13 cells and these were incubated for a further 14 days. Each monolayer from the first inoculation and subsequently each monolayer from the second inoculation was tested for the presence of flavivirus antigens using a flavivirus pan-specific monoclonal antibody (MAb 813), followed by fluorescein-conjugated mouse antiglobulin, as described previously . Although some monolayers deteriorated during the incubation period, suggesting that cytopathic effects (cpe) were developing, we were unable to demonstrate the presence of an infectious flavivirus in any of the tested samples either by indirect immunofluorescence microscopy using flavivirus-group-reactive MAb 813 or by RT-PCR using flavivirus-group-reactive primers . Moreover, the mild cpe that was observed in some cultures was not observed during subsequent passage of harvested material, ruling out the possibility of a different cytopathic arbovirus being isolated.
Although it was not possible to obtain sequential samples of serum from each animal the PRNT studies with groups of newly hatched, juvenile and young adult chickens produced evidence that these animals had been exposed either to infectious WNV or a very closely related virus during the summer of 2004. The supplementary positive results obtained by immunoblotting and immunofluorescence microscopy also support this conclusion by demonstrating specific immune responses against the WNV envelope protein. Many of the newly hatched chicks had antibodies that neutralized WNV and to a lesser extent USUV and SINV. It is well known that maternal antibodies are concentrated in the fertile egg and that the quantity of these antibodies declines rapidly in the newly hatched chick . Our PRNT results are totally consistent with these known observations and they demonstrate that WNV, USUV and SINV (at least), or closely related viruses, must have circulated on the farm in the previous year. The decline in antibody prevalence during the first few weeks after hatching is also consistent with the idea that WNV is unlikely to have been circulating significantly during the first three or four months of the year, i.e. late winter and early spring. The detection of a significant increase in the numbers of serologically positive chickens from July onwards can probably be explained most appropriately as due to this being the time immediately after the arrival of migratory birds from Africa, Europe and the Middle East and also being the warmest time of the year when mosquitoes would be relatively active and therefore capable of transmitting arboviruses, even in England. Some chickens seroconverted even though they had been kept indoors for most of their lives. However, the ventilation system for the building in which they were housed is positive and not filtered inwards, moreover, adjoining rooms contained wild birds, inferring that the chickens could have been exposed to aerosols containing virus. In addition to virus transmission by blood transfusion and organ transplantation, there is now compelling evidence that arboviruses such as WNV may be transmitted between vertebrates using a variety of mechanisms other than direct transmission by arthropods. These include the aerosol and faecal/oral routes, transmission via direct physical contact or maternal milk, and through contaminated water. It is also clear that WNV can persist in vertebrate hosts for months if not years without inducing obvious clinical symptoms [5, 14–21]. It seems likely that these properties provide WNV with the tools to circulate silently in many regions of the world and this may explain our observations of seroconversion in sentinel chickens in the UK. It is also important to emphasize that similar studies using sera from sequentially bled sentinel chickens in Italy, known to circulate WNV but with no associated disease, have been carried out and will report similar findings to those reported herein (manuscript submitted for publication).
Our observations support and extend the findings of others that although mosquitoes are important vectors in disease transmission, other modes of transmission and persistence may also be important in the transmission and circulation of WNV and other arboviruses. We now need to understand why in most cases, WNV can disperse very successfully without causing overt disease but in other situations it can cause significant epidemic outbreaks involving substantial morbidity and mortality.
Materials and methods
Three groups of chickens were hatched in early April, mid May and mid June 2004 respectively on a farm in Cambridgeshire and reared outdoors. Individual sera were collected from birds at various ages from 4 days to 20 weeks. The last samples (20 weeks) were collected at the end of October 2004, when outdoor temperatures had dropped sufficiently to reduce insect-biting activity in the UK to relatively low levels. Groups of these animals were monitored periodically for the presence, in the sera, of neutralizing antibodies to WNV, USUV and SINV. For obvious technical reasons, only very small quantities of serum were obtainable from the very young chicks, limiting the scope of their investigation. Another group of chickens was hatched and reared indoors, and serum samples collected at 9 weeks of age.
Plaque reduction neutralization tests
These tests were carried out as described previously  and are based on the WHO standard method. Briefly, each heat-inactivated (56°C for 30 minutes) serum sample was diluted serially in twofold stages. These were mixed in equal volume with 50 plaque-forming units of either WNV-Is, WNV-DAK, USUV or SINV. The mixtures were incubated overnight at 4°C. Each mixture was then placed on a monolayer of SW13 cells in 24-well Petri-plates and incubated for 60 mins at room temperature. 1 ml of overlay medium (RPMI-1640 with Hepes buffer, 1% foetal bovine serum, penicillin, streptomycin and 1% SeaPlaque Agarose) was added to each well and allowed to set at room temperature, then the plates were incubated at 37°C until plaques were identifiable in control wells. The monolayers were fixed in 10% formol-saline and stained with 0.1% naphthalene black stain. Serum neutralization titres were estimated as the highest dilution causing at least 50% reduction of plaque numbers. Titres less than 1/10 were considered to be negative.
Purification of WNV
The supernatant medium collected from 10 × 175 cm2 plastic tissue culture bottles was clarified by centrifugation at 5000 g for 30 mins and the virus was then precipitated from this clarified medium by the addition of 7% polyethylene glycol and 0.4 M NaCl. After stirring overnight at 4°C, the virus was sedimented by centrifugation at 5000 g for 1 hour. The pellets were resuspended in PBS and layered onto 15–60% (w/w) sucrose gradients prepared in Tris-EDTA buffer pH7.4. The gradients were spun at 90,000 g for 3 hours and the tube was then fractionated by upward displacement. Each fraction was tested for the presence of viral antigens by western blotting (see below). The sample in the 60% sucrose fraction produced a very distinct band of viral envelope (E) protein as deduced using a monoclonal antibody known to bind to WNV-E protein (see Results).
Gradient-purified West Nile virus antigen and sera (diluted 1/100) from sentinel chickens were used for the analysis. The virus proteins were separated by10% polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis under reducing conditions until the dye front had run off the bottom of the gel. A Biorad semi-dry blotter was used to transfer the protein bands from the gel onto the Hybond-P PVDF transfer membrane. After transfer the membrane was blocked in 5% milk powder (in TBS and 0.05% Tween 20) for 1 hour at room temperature. The blot was then cut into identical strips (approximately 6 mm wide) which were individually treated with a chicken serum diluted 1/100 to test for antibodies to WNV. The strips were washed in TBS/Tween 20 three times before addition of 1:20,000 dilution of Rabbit anti Chicken conjugated with alkaline phosphatase (Sigma) for 1 hour at room temperature. The strips were washed three times in TBS/Tween 20 then once in 0.1 M Tris pH9.6 before addition of the BCIP/NBT liquid substrate system (Sigma).
Indirect immunofluorescence microscopy
This was performed on chicken sera (diluted 1:100 or 1:1000 in PBS). Each diluted serum was added to acetone-fixed WNV-infected Vero cells on glass coverslips. After incubation for 1 hour at 37°C the cells were washed in warm PBS for 30 minutes. Rabbit anti-chicken FITC (Sigma) diluted to 1:400 was then added and after incubation for 1 hour at 37°C, the coverslips were washed in warm PBS and water before mounting in DABCO/Glycerol/PBS pH8.6, on microscope slides. Each monolayer was examined for virus-specific immunofluorescence under a UV light microscope.
- Lundstrom JO: Mosquito-borne viruses in Western Europe: A review. Journal of Vector Ecology 1999, 24: 1-39.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gould EA, Higgs S, Buckley A, Gritsun TS: Potential Arbovirus Emergence and Implications for the United Kingdom. Emerging Infectious Diseases 2006, 12: 549-555.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Buckley A, Dawson A, Moss SR, Hinsley SA, Bellamy PE, Gould EA: Serological evidence of West Nile virus, Usutu virus and Sindbis virus infection of birds in the UK. Journal of General Virology 2003, 84: 2807-2817. 10.1099/vir.0.19341-0View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hubalek Z, Cerny V, Mittermayer T, Kilik J, Halouzka J, Juricova Z, Kuhn I, Bardos V: Arbovirological survey in Silica plateau area, Roznava District, Czechoslovakia. Journal of Hygiene, Epidemiology, Microbiology and Immunology 1986, 30: 87-98.Google Scholar
- Komar N, Langevin S, Hinten S, Neneth N, Edwards E, Hettler D, Davis B, Bowen R, Bunning M: Experimental infection of North American birds with the New York strain of West Nile virus. Emerging Infectious Diseases 2003, 9: 311-327.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Murgue B, Zeller H, Deubel V: The Ecology and Epidemiology of West Nile Virus in Africa, Europe and Asia. Japanese Encephalitis and West Nile Viruses. In Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology. Volume 267. Edited by: Mackenzie JM, Barrett AD and Deubel V. Edited by: Compans R W, Cooper M D, Ito Y, Koprowski H, Melchers F, Oldstone M B A, Olsnes S, Potter M, Vogt P K, Wagner H. Berlin, Springer-Verlag; 2002:195-221.Google Scholar
- Stone WB, Therrien JE, Benson R, Kramer L, Kauffman EB, Eldson M, Campbell S: Assays to detect West Nile virus in dead birds. Emerging Infectious Diseases 2005, 11: 1770-1773.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Malkinson M, Banet C, Weisman Y, Pokamunski S, King R, Drouet MT, Deubel V: Introduction of West Nile virus in the Middle East by migrating white storks. Emerging Infectious Diseases 2002, 8: 392-397.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Weissenbock H, Kolodziejek J, Url A, Lussy H, Rebel-Bauder B, Nowotny N: Emergence of Usutu virus, an African mosquito-borne flavivirus of the Japanese encephalitis virus group, Central Europe. Emerging Infectious Diseases 2002, 8: 652-656.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- McClean RG, Ubico SR, Bourne D, Komar N: West Nile Virus in Livestock and Wildlife. Japanese Encephalitis and West Nile Viruses. In Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology. Volume 267. Edited by: Mackenzie JM, Barrett AD and Deubel V. Edited by: Compans R W, Cooper M D, Ito Y, Koprowski H, Melchers F, Oldstone M B A, Olsnes S, Potter M, Vogt P K, Wagner H. Berlin, Springer-Verlag; 2002:272-303.Google Scholar
- Gould EA, Buckley A, Cammack N, Barrett ADT, Clegg JCS, Ishak R, Varma MGR: Examination of the immunological relationships between flaviviruses using yellow fever virus monoclonal antibodies. Journal of General Virology 1985, 66: 1369-1382.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gaunt MW, Gould EA: Rapid subgroup identification of the flaviviruses using degenerate primer E-gene RT-PCR and site specific restriction enzyme analysis. Journal of Virological Methods 2005, 128: 113-127. 10.1016/j.jviromet.2005.04.006View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Rose ME, Orlans E, Buttress N: Immunoglobulin classes in hen's egg; their segregation in yolk and white. European Journal of Immunology 1974, 4: 521-523.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Nir Y, Beemer A, Goldwasser RA: West Nile virus infection in mice following exposure to a viral aerosol. British Journal of Experimental Pathology 1965, 46: 443-449.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ravindra KV, Friefeld AG, Kalil AC, Mercer DF, Grant WJ, Botha JF, Wrenshall LE, Stevens RB: West Nile virus-associated encephalitis in recipients of renal and pancreas transplants: case series and literature review. Clinical Infectious Disease 2004, 38: 1257-1260. 10.1086/383325View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Iwamoto M, Jerrigan DB, Guasch A, Trepka MJ, Blackmore CG, Hellinger WC, Pham SM, Zaki S, Lanciotti RS, Lance-Parker SE, Diaz Granados CA, Winquist AG, Perlino CA, Wiersma S, Hillyer KL, Goodman JL, Marfin AA, Chamberland ME, Petersen LR: Transmission of West Nile virus from an organ donor to four transplant recipients. New England Journal of Medicine 2003, 348: 2196-2203. 10.1056/NEJMoa022987View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- CDC: Possible West Nile virus transmission to an infant through breast feeding-Michigan. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports 2002, 51: 577-578.Google Scholar
- Banet-Noach C, Simanov L, Malkinson M: Direct (non-vector) transmission of West Nile virus in geese. Avian Pathology 2003, 32: 489-494. 10.1080/0307945031000154080View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Pogodina VV, Frolova MP, Malenko GV, Fokina GI, Koreshkova GV, Kiseleva LL, Bochkova NG, Ralph NM: Study on West Nile virus persistence in monkeys. Arch Virol 1983, 75: 71-86. 10.1007/BF01314128View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tonry JH, Xiao CY, Siirin M, Chen H, Travassos da Rosa APA, Tesh RB: Persistent shedding of West Nile virus in urine of experimentally infected hamsters. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 2005, 72: 320-324.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sbrana E, Tonry JH, Xiao SY, Travassos da Rosa APA, Higgs S, Tesh RB: Oral transmission of West Nile virus in a hamster model. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 2005, 72: 325-329.PubMedGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.