Results
Experimental susceptibility and transmission studies in
animals
Numerous studies have evaluated the susceptibility of various animal
species to infection with SARS-CoV-2 in experimental settings, for the
purposes of animal model development and to inform understanding of the
potential role of animals in the emergence and transmission of
SARS-CoV-2 in the community. Experimentally infected bats have
demonstrated characteristics of reservoir hosts, whereas ferrets appear
to most closely mimic human infections and viral transmission dynamics,
making them a highly suitable animal model for COVID-19 studies.
Results of experimental species susceptibility and transmission studies
are summarised in Table 1, and presented below.
[Table 1]
Ferrets
Ferrets are highly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2, with efficient virus
replication occurring in the upper respiratory tract (nasal turbinates,
soft palate and tonsils) from as early as two days post infection (dpi).
Highest viral titres were observed in nasal washes, peaking at 4 dpi
before dropping below detection limits at 10 dpi (Kim et al., 2020).
Virus replication potentially also occurs in the digestive tract (viral
RNA was detected in rectal swabs of infected ferrets) but does not
appear to replicate in the lower respiratory tract, even in animals that
were intratracheally inoculated. Antibodies were detectable in low
quantities from 13 dpi, increasing substantially by 20 dpi (Shi et al.,
2020). The virus is effectively transmitted via direct contact and to
other in-contact ferrets via the respiratory droplet route (Kim et al.,
2020; Richard et al., 2020; Shi et al., 2020).
Clinical signs in infected ferrets included elevated body temperatures,
loss of appetite, reduced activity and occasional coughing (Kim et al.,
2020; Shi et al., 2020). The similarity of the clinical disease picture
in infected ferrets and humans, and the efficient replication of
SARS-CoV-2 in the ferret upper respiratory tract makes them a highly
suitable animal model for evaluating antiviral drugs or vaccine
candidates against COVID-19.
Cats
Cats are also readily infected with SARS-CoV-2, with viral replication
occurring in the upper respiratory tract following nasal inoculation
(Shi et al., 2020). Peak oral and nasal viral shedding was recorded at 3
dpi in three directly inoculated cats, and on day 7 post-exposure in two
in-contact cats (Bosco-Lauth et al., 2020). Infectious virus is also
excreted rectally (Shi et al., 2020).
Transmission occurs by both direct contact and indirectly via aerosols
(Bosco-Lauth et al., 2020; Shi et al., 2020). Experimental exposure has
resulted in both subclinical and symptomatic infections, with juvenile
cats (70 to 100 days old) reportedly more susceptible to severe clinical
disease and death (Shi et al., 2020).
Antibody titres have been recorded in both experimentally-inoculated and
in-contact cats (Bosco-Lauth et al., 2020; Shi et al., 2020).
Bosco-Lauth et al. (2020) reported that infected cats (n=3) developed
significant neutralising antibody titres that stayed stable or increased
from 14 dpi up to 42 dpi. Following re-challenge with SARS-CoV-2 at 28
dpi, a moderate increase in antibody titre was observed, and no virus
was shed by any of the cats in the subsequent 14-day period.
A study by Chen et al. (2020) suggests that cats have both a high
frequency of cells expressing ACE2, and a high proportion of cells
co-expressing ACE2 and TMPRSS2 (transmembrane serine protease 2), both
of which are targets for SARS-CoV-2 entry. These target cells are also
widely distributed among organs within the feline digestive, respiratory
and urinary systems, suggesting that cats may be susceptible to
infection and transmission via several routes.
Dogs
Dogs appear to have low susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 following
experimental inoculation. One study (Shi et al., 2020) intranasally
infected five beagles with SARS-CoV-2, and collected samples over the
subsequent two week period. Viral RNA was detected in three of the dogs’
rectal swabs between 2 and 6 dpi. No virus was detected in any
oropharyngeal swabs taken from the dogs during the study period, nor in
any organs or tissues on autopsy, and attempts at virus isolation were
negative. Antibodies were detected in the sera of 2/4 experimentally
infected dogs, but neither of two additional beagles that were housed in
close proximity.
Chen et al. (2020) reported very low levels of co-expression of ACE2 and
TMPRSS2 target receptors in canine lung cells, as well as mutations in
critical amino acid sequences in ACE2 receptors, which they suggested
may be responsible for the low susceptibility of dogs to SARS-CoV-2
infection.
Syrian golden hamsters
SARS-CoV-2 infections in Syrian golden hamsters appear to resemble
features found in human patients with mild infections, with viral
replication in the epithelial cells of the respiratory and
gastrointestinal tracts following intranasal inoculation (Chan et al.,
2020). Peak viral load 105 – 107was detected in the lungs at around 2 to 3 dpi and high copy numbers of
viral RNA continued to be detectable beyond 7 dpi, although no
infectious virus was detected from 7 dpi.
Syrian hamsters developed mild clinical signs including weight loss,
rapid breathing, postural changes, with older hamsters (32-24 weeks old)
exhibiting more pronounced and consistent weight loss than younger
hamsters (6 months old) (Osterrieder et al., 2020). Other age-dependent
observations included an earlier and stronger influx of immune cells in
lung tissue, and rapid lung recovery at day 14 post-infection in younger
hamsters. Older hamsters developed conspicuous alveolar and perivascular
oedema indicative of vascular leakage (Osterrieder et al., 2020),
similar to the more severe pathology observed in elderly COVID-19
patients.
Transmission studies reported efficient viral transmission from infected
to naïve in-contact hamsters, resulting in similar pathology but not
weight loss. All infected hamsters fully recovered and developed mean
serum neutralising antibody titre >1:427 by day 14
post-infection (Sia et al., 2020), with higher antibody titres seen in
younger animals (Osterrieder et al., 2020). Immunoprophylaxis with early
convalescent serum achieved significant decrease in lung viral load but
not in lung pathology (Chan et al., 2020).
Non-human primates
Experimental infection studies have been reported in a range of
non-human primate species, including rhesus macaques (Macaca
mulatta ), cynomolgus or crab-eating macaques (Macaca
fascicularis ), common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus) and African
green or vervet monkeys (Chlorocebus aethiops) .
An experimental study by Lu et al. (2020) determined that that rhesus
macaques (Macaca mulatta ) were the most susceptible to SARS-CoV-2
infection, followed by cynomolgus or crab-eating macaques (Macaca
fascicularis ) and lastly common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus).SARS-CoV-2 was detected in nasal, throat and anal swabs as well as blood
from all three monkey species, with viral shedding from the upper
respiratory tract peaking between 6 and 8 dpi.
Infections in all tested monkey species ranged from asymptomatic, to
mild serous nasal discharge and transient or intermittent increases in
body temperatures (Hartman et al., 2020; Rockx et al., 2020), to
moderate respiratory disease with coughing, anorexia, postural changes
and weight loss, and some radiographic chest abnormalities similar to
those from human COVID-19 patients observed (Lu et al., 2020; Munster et
al., 2020). Hartman et al. (2020) also reported a transient decrease in
lung tidal volume at 7 dpi. Post-mortem examination of severely affected
animals showed severe gross pathology in the heart, stomach and lower
respiratory tract including diffuse interstitial pneumonia (Munster et
al., 2020; Shan et al., 2020).
Viral replication was highest in lung tissue, but was also detected in
ileum and tracheo-bronchial lymph nodes (Rockx et al., 2020). Viral
shedding in oropharyngeal swabs peaked between 1 and 5 dpi, decreasing
below detectable limits by day 9, with one study recording a second
recrudescent period of viral shedding from respiratory and
gastrointestinal tracts, in all infected macaques including subclinical
animals, between 14-21 dpi (Hartman et al., 2020). Anal and rectal swabs
tested positive in some animals up to 11 and 20 dpi, respectively
(Munster et al., 2020; Shan et al., 2020). Higher levels of viral RNA
were detected in nasal swabs of aged cynomolgus macaques compared to
younger animals (Rockx et al., 2020). Viral RNA was detectable by RT-PCR
in peripheral blood between 2 and 10 dpi (Lu et al., 2020), and
antibodies against the S1 domain and nucleocapsid proteins of SARS-CoV-2
detectable from 14 dpi (Rockx et al., 2020).
Study authors concluded that the experimental non-human primate species
tested are permissive to SARS-CoV-2 infection, shed virus for pronged
periods of time and display COVID-19-like disease, thereby providing
suitable animal models for COVID-19 studies (Munster et al., 2020;
Totura et al., 2020).
Fruit bats
Fruit bats (Rousettus aegyptiacus ) intranasally inoculated with
SARS-CoV-2 (n=9) developed transient infection in the upper and lower
respiratory tract, with virus replication detectable in the nasal
epithelium, trachea, lung and lung-associated lymphatic tissue.
Infectious virus was isolated from the nasal epithelium and trachea of
one bat at four dpi. Viral RNA was also detected in the nasal epithelium
of one of three in-contact bats sacrificed 21 days after the infection
of the experimentally inoculated bats. No clinical signs, elevated body
temperatures, decreases in body weight or mortality were observed in any
of the bats; these characteristics are consistent with those of a
reservoir host (Schlottau et al., 2020).
Tree shrews
Tree shrews (Tupaia belangeris ) were considered as potential
animal models for SARS-CoV-2 infection, as they are genetically similar
to primates and have been used in biomedical research for animal models
of viral infections including hepatitis B, influenza and Zika viruses
(Zhou et al., 2020). However, the one available study by Zhou et al.
(2020) reported limited viral replication in tree shrews (n=24)
intranasally inoculated with SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detectable
in nasal, throat and anal swabs from 6 dpi; viral shedding was highest
in younger animals during the early stage of viral infection, and of
longest duration in the adult and old animals, particularly in the males
of these groups. Organs appeared grossly normal and histopathological
changes were generally mild on necropsy, except for one adult animal
that had severe lung pathology.
Poultry
Chickens, turkeys, ducks, quail, geese and pigeons were not able to be
experimentally infected (Chen et al., 2020; Shi et al., 2020; Suarez et
al., 2020) and did not seroconvert (Suarez et al., 2020), and are
presumed to be not susceptible to SARS-CoV-2. The virus did not
replicate in embryonated chicken’s eggs (Suarez et al., 2020).
A study by Chen et al. (2020) suggests a lack of co-expression of ACE2
and the entry activator TMPRSS2 target receptors in lung cells of
poultry, as well as mutations in critical amino acid sequences in ACE2
receptors, are responsible for the low susceptibility of these species
to SARS-CoV-2.
Pigs
Pigs were not able to be experimentally infected and are presumed to be
not susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 (Shi et al., 2020). A study by Chen et al.
(2020) reported that cells that co-express ACE2 and TMPRSS2
(transmembrane serine protease 2) receptors are targeted by SARS-CoV-2
for viral entry, and are widely distributed in a variety of porcine
kidney and lung cells. The authors suggest that pigs may be able to
function as intermediate hosts for SARS-CoV-2, despite contrary evidence
of previous experimental studies, and invite further research on the
subject.
Natural SARS-CoV-2 infection events in
animals
The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) defined the following
criteria for confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 in animals: isolation of
SARS-CoV-2 from a sample taken directly from an animal, or
identification of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA in a sample taken directly from
an animal that either targets at least two specific genomic regions at a
level indicating the presence of infectious virus, or targeting a single
genomic region followed by sequencing of a secondary target (OIE,
2020d).
To date, confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 in animals worldwide remain
limited and sporadic, with global totals of fourteen domestic pets,
eight captive big cats and an unreported number of European mink on
nineteen fur farms having definitively tested positive to SARS-CoV-2
(see Table 2). Most cases are strongly linked to close contact with
confirmed or suspected human COVID-19 patients, indicating that
human-to-animal (anthroponotic) transmission is the primary mode of
spread in domestic settings. In high-density animal environments,
including zoos and intensive breeding farms, subsequent between-animal
transmission has been presumed to occur, and to date there are two cases
of probable animal-to-human transmission being investigated on Dutch
mink farms. If confirmed, these cases would represent the first known
cases of zoonotic transmission of the virus since the initial spill-over
event/s from bats to humans in China.
[Table 2]
Summary case data are presented below.
Companion animals
Cats
Domestic cats are currently the most commonly reported companion animal
species to be infected with SARS-CoV-2, with eleven confirmed cases
reported from USA (n=4), France (n=2), Hong Kong (n=1), Belgium (n=1),
Spain (n=1), Germany (n=1) and Russia (n=1) to date (CDC, 2020; ENVT,
2020; FASFC, 2020; MAPA, 2020; ProMED-mail, 2020f, 2020i; WAHIS, 2020b,
2020f, 2020i). Of the pet cats to have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2,
nearly all have had known (n=8) or suspected (n=2) close contact with
human COVID-19 cases. Infected cats have shown clinical signs in 8/11
cases, from mild upper respiratory disease including oral lesions and
tongue ulceration (n=1), fever (n=2), sneezing and ocular discharge
(n=4), to moderate respiratory and/or gastrointestinal disease (n=3).
The Spanish cat was euthanised due to severe and deteriorating
respiratory distress, however the its condition was attributed to
underlying hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and the positive SARS-CoV-2 test
finding was considered incidental (MAPA, 2020). Of the remaining
infected cats, nine have fully recovered either naturally or following
supportive treatment; follow-up data on the Russian cat has not been
provided to date.
While most of the infected cats were from single-cat households, the
German case provided evidence of variable susceptibility to infection
with and low transmission of SARS-CoV-2 between cats: three cats were
resident in a retirement home that was experiencing a COVID-19 outbreak,
and only one tested positive, even after all three cats were
subsequently quarantined together (ProMED-mail, 2020i).
Dogs
Three dogs have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR to date, all of
which had had family exposure to COVID-19 (WAHIS, 2020c, 2020e, 2020h).
A 17-year-old Pomeranian in Hong Kong was the world’s first domestic pet
to be confirmed with SARS-CoV-2 after testing positive in a quarantine
facility on 26th February 2020. In total, the
Pomeranian tested positive to SARS-CoV-2 by PCR over a period of 12
days, with higher viral loads and a longer duration of shedding in the
dog’s nasal swabs than oral swabs. The dog had also developed antibodies
to SARS-CoV-2 as indicated by a positive plaque reduction neutralisation
assay result. The dog died two days after its release from quarantine,
reportedly due to an underlying geriatric disease (WAHIS, 2020a).
The other two canine cases were both German Shepherds, from Hong Kong
and the USA. Both dogs had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies,
and virus was also isolated from the Hong Kong case (WAHIS, 2020d). The
American case is the only dog to have reportedly showed signs of
clinical respiratory disease, however further details of clinical signs
or disease severity were not provided (APHIS, 2020). Two additional dogs
(the Netherlands, USA) tested antibody positive after their owners were
confirmed to have COVID-19 (Schouten, 2020d; WAHIS, 2020h). A pug in the
USA was initially reported to have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during
a university study, but negative results were obtained in subsequent
confirmatory testing and the animal was eventually classified as
negative (Fisher, 2020; Hauser & Gross, 2020).
Zoo animals
A 4-year old Malayan tiger (Panthera tigris jacksoni) at the
Wildlife Conservation Society’s Bronx Zoo in New York developed mild
clinical signs of respiratory disease (dry cough and some wheezing) from
27th March. Duplicate nasal and oropharyngeal swabs
and tracheal wash samples were collected and confirmed to be positive
for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR and sequencing on 4th April
(WAHIS, 2020j). By 3rd April, three additional tigers
(another Malayan and two Siberian tigers) from the zoo’s Tiger Mountain
exhibit and three African lions from the African Plains exhibit were
also showing similar respiratory signs, with anorexia also reported in
one or more animals (no further details provided) (WCS, 2020a).
Infection in these additional six symptomatic big cats and in another
asymptomatic Siberian tiger also housed in Tiger Mountain was later
confirmed using an rRT-PCR test and genetic sequencing on
opportunistically collected voided faecal samples, bringing the zoo’s
total to eight cases (five tigers and three lions) (WAHIS, 2020g,
2020j). All eight animals in the two affected enclosures were isolated,
and symptomatic animals were administered antibiotics and/or supportive
care as needed. All were reported to be recovering well (WCS, 2020b)
As the zoo had been closed to the public since 16thMarch, transmission is presumed to have occurred from pre- or
asymptomatic animal keeper/s infected with SARS-CoV-2 (WCS, 2020b), but
no confirmed staff infections have been reported to date (ProMED-mail,
2020d). It is also not confirmed whether all the cats were infected by
the keeper/s, or whether there was subsequent between-animal
transmission. None of the other big cat species, including snow leopard,
cheetah, clouded leopard, Amur leopard, puma or serval, nor any animals
at the zoo have shown any signs of respiratory disease (Cordova, 2020;
WCS, 2020b). Enhanced personal protective equipment (PPE) including
surgical masks, face shields, gloves and coveralls, has been since been
implemented for all staff caring for wild felid species in all zoos
owned by the Society (WCS, 2020b).
Farmed mink
The Netherlands
SARS-CoV-2 infections in farmed European mink (Mustela lutreola )
were first reported on 26th April 2020, after “a
few” mink on two Dutch fur farms showed respiratory and/or
gastrointestinal disease, and increased mortality (Schouten, 2020a). At
least one employee at each farm had reportedly shown signs consistent
with COVID-19 infection and subsequently tested positive for SARS-CoV-2
(Oreshkova et al., 2020). The farms housed 13,000 and 7,500 mink,
respectively, most of which were pregnant females given the time of
year. By late June, the total number of infected mink farms had risen to
seventeen (de Jonge & Schouten, 2020c, 2020f), all of which are located
in North Brabant province, an area with high numbers of livestock farms
(particularly poultry, pigs and mink) (ProMED-mail, 2020h) and which at
the time of the initial outbreaks was the country’s hardest hit region
for COVID-19 (Newmark, 2020).
Clinical signs of SARS-CoV-2 infections in mink, reported from four
farms, ranged from mild watery nasal discharge to severe diffuse
interstitial pneumonia and death. Overall adult mortality rates on the
first and second farms were reported as 2.4% and 1.2% respectively,
compared to a normal baseline mortality rate of 0.6%. No increase in
kit mortality was observed. SARS-CoV-2 was detected by PCR in high
concentrations in throat and nasal swabs from infected animals, and in
conchae, liver and intestines (Oreshkova et al., 2020).
Genetic sequencing and phylogenetic analysis of viral samples from the
first sampled mink suggest virus was introduced separately into the
farms via an infected human, with subsequent between-mink transmission
at each location. Some companies own multiple farms, and in these cases
the infections are presumed to have been epidemiologically linked
(Janssen, 2020; Schouten, 2020d). Non-permeable cage separators prevent
direct contact between mink, however indirect transmission is presumed
to have occurred via fomites, infectious aerosols and/or
faecally-contaminated dust particles (Oreshkova et al., 2020).
A national reporting requirement for any sign of respiratory disease
and/or increased mortalities in farmed mink was introduced from
26th April (Schouten, 2020a). Protective measures were
implemented on and around all infected farms, including visitor bans,
transport bans for mink and mink manure, and PPE for farm employees.
Public roads within a 400m radius of each premises were initially
closed, but later reopened after testing of dust and air samples
revealed that no virus was present outside the animal facilities
(Schouten, 2020d). Additional surveillance and testing activities are
described in the Surveillance section.
From the 5th June, all infected mink farms were
ordered to be depopulated in the interest of public health (de Jonge &
Schouten, 2020a), resulting in the euthanasia and disposal of over
500,000 mink by late June (HvN, 2020). The presence of peak numbers of
mink kits on the farms at this time of year and their decreasing
maternal antibody protection through the late summer months would
increase the number of susceptible animals on-farm by five to six times.
The risk of uncontrolled viral transmission between mink and the
potential for viral mutation and reassortment, as well as the
establishment of a viral reservoir for ongoing human infections, was
considered unacceptable. Affected farms are to be cleaned, disinfected
and quarantined following the cull. Owners will be compensated for the
loss of their animals, and given the opportunity to permanently close
their businesses ahead of the Dutch government’s mandatory ban on mink
farming as of 1st January 2024. The uninfected mink
farms are still allowed to operate but are required to conduct ongoing
surveillance activities (de Jonge & Schouten, 2020a).
Denmark
The Danish Veterinary and Food Authority issued a press release on
17th June to advise that SARS-CoV-2 had been confirmed
on a mink farm in the North Jutland region (MoF, 2020a). A second farm
in the region was subsequently confirmed to be infected on
20th June (MoF, 2020b). Samples from mink on both
farms were tested after one person associated with each farm was
diagnosed with COVID-19. On the second farm, the family dog was also
reported to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 (MoF, 2020b). Entry and egress
restrictions were placed on the mink farms while testing was being
completed, and normal hygiene protocols for visitors to mink farms
(including washing hands and changing clothes before and after animal
handling) are still in force (Denis et al., 2020). The Danish government
decreed that the infected farms will be depopulated in the interest of
public health, and from 24th June implemented
mandatory reporting of suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections in
Danish fur farms, and issued regulations for sampling and testing of fur
animals (mink and ferrets), safe handling of feed and manure, and the
quarantining, depopulation and disinfection of the infected premises
(Larsen & Zuferov, 2020).
Surveillance of animal
populations
Testing of pets of human COVID-19
patients
The 5th meeting of the OIE Advisory Group on COVID-19
(OIE, 2020c) reported that routine testing of companion animals is being
discouraged to “avoid concerned owners making unnecessary visits to
their private veterinarian, which may increase public health risks
through person to person contact.” It was also noted that “there have
also been instances of humans submitting their own samples disguised as
their pet’s sample to veterinarians in a desperate attempt to be
tested.” The possibility of including a species probe in the diagnostic
testing was discussed as a way of detecting this activity.
Hong Kong
Early in the pandemic, Hong Kong authorities took the unique step of
routinely quarantining and testing companion animals owned by COVID-19
patients. News reports suggested that as of 26thApril, only the three known cases (two dogs and one cat as described in
the case summaries) from 52 sampled pets were positive for SARS-CoV-2
(2/32 dogs, 1/18 cats and 0/2 hamsters) following PCR testing of nasal,
oral and faecal samples (Cheng, 2020; Deacon, 2020). Whilst the sample
size is small, the infection prevalence of 5.8% among the tested
animals is nevertheless of interest.
USA
The Center for Disease Control and Preparedness (CDC) has reportedly
applied an ad hoc approach to companion animal testing in the
USA, assessing pets of COVID-19 patients on a case by case basis based
on risk (OIE, 2020a). National Animal Health Laboratory Network labs and
some state labs are testing animal samples for SARS-CoV-2, however there
are reportedly only a small number of samples that have been tested so
far (OIE, 2020a). Media reports on 12th April
suggested that the University of Illinois has tested gorilla,
chimpanzee, cat, dog and armadillo samples, which all returned negative
results (Knibbs, 2020).
The Washington State University’s Washington Animal Disease Diagnostic
Laboratory (WADDL) commenced RT-PCR testing of animal samples for
SARS-CoV-2 in late March, with testing limited to animals linked to
confirmed COVID-19 patients, and experimental animals (WADDL, 2020b).
Testing is conducted on nasal and oropharyngeal swabs collected by
state-approved veterinarians. Any PCR positives are re-tested and
partially genetically sequenced at WADDL, and submitted to the National
Veterinary Services Laboratory for additional confirmatory testing. At
the start of July 2020, 57 tests had been conducted on 25 cats, 2
tamanduas (a genus of anteater), 26 dogs, 2 ferrets, 1 camel and 1 mink,
all of which were negative. Clinical signs were reported in some of the
animals, including respiratory disease in the two tamanduas and two
ferrets, all of which recovered; gastrointestinal disease in a dog that
subsequently recovered; and sudden death in one cat that was due to
hypertrophic cardiomyopathy as determined by autopsy (WADDL, 2020a).
Other university-based research studies of pets and/or livestock
belonging to COVID-19 patients are reportedly being conducted in the New
England region of the USA by Tufts University’s Cummings School of
Veterinary Medicine – which is also collecting samples from animal
owners (CUVM, 2020) – and in Canada by the University of Guelph’s
Ontario Veterinary College (UoG, 2020).
Europe
Some laboratories in Italy are reportedly preparing to test pets (OIE,
2020b). The universities of Padua and Venice are reportedly planning
serosurveys for SARS-CoV-2 in the small town of Vo, which was the
epicentre of the initial outbreak in Italy, in order to assess the
potential role of cats in the epidemiology of the disease (ProMED-mail,
2020c, 2020j). No routine testing of pets appears to be occurring in
other European countries, although in Germany any animal that shows
respiratory disease symptoms and has had contact with a COVID-19
positive human is eligible for testing (OIE, 2020b). In the Netherlands,
some companion animals of COVID-19 patients with clinical disease appear
to be being tested for SARS-CoV-2, as evidenced by a report of a
positive test result in eight-year-old American bulldog that was
euthanised due to severe deteriorating respiratory disease (Schouten,
2020d). Molecular diagnostic testing did not detect SARS-CoV-2, however
serological testing identified antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in the dog’s
blood. It was not reported whether the dog’s condition was attributed to
SARS-CoV-2 or to another cause. The Dutch Agriculture Minister
subsequently implemented requirements for veterinarians to report
suspected SARS-CoV-2 infections in animals, and for laboratories to
report positive test results, to the Netherlands Food and Consumer
Product Safety Authority (Schouten, 2020d).
A French study by Temmam et al. (2020) tested 21 domestic animals (9
cats and 11 dogs) belonging to members of a veterinary student
community. Eleven of eighteen students had clinical signs consistent
with COVID-19 (including fever, cough, anosmia etc), and two had tested
positive to SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. Whilst three cats displayed clinical
signs consistent with coronavirus disease (respiratory or digestive
signs), no pet tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR on nasal or
rectal swabs and no animals demonstrated an antibody response when
screened with an immunoprecipitation assay.
A preprint by Ruiz-Arrondo et al. (2020) described an investigation of
SARS-CoV-2 in companion animals taken from 17 households with confirmed
human COVID-19 patients in La Rioja, northern Spain. The 23 asymptomatic
companion animals (12 dogs, 7 cats, 2 rabbits and 1 guinea pig) were
quarantined, and oropharyngeal and rectal swabs were taken from each
animal. An 8-year-old female domestic cat’s oropharyngeal swab was the
only sample to test positive. A 7-year-old male domestic cat from the
same household – whose owner was the only person in the study with
severe COVID-19 symptoms, requiring hospitalisation – tested negative.
Follow-up nasopharyngeal and rectal swabs from both cats collected 26
days after the first samples all tested negative.
Other surveillance
activities
IDEXX surveillance and validation of
novel SARS-CoV-2 RealPCR
assay
IDEXX Laboratories have reportedly used their new ‘SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19)
RealPCR Test’ to perform an international surveillance study of
SARS-CoV-2 in animals (IDEXX, 2020a, 2020b, 2020d). They have reported
testing more than 5,000 specimens from dogs, cats and horses with
respiratory disease in more than 17 countries (in North America, Europe
and Asia). Over 3,500 specimens were reportedly sourced from all 50
states in the USA, and South Korea, from randomly selected diagnostic
respiratory (77%, mostly deep pharyngeal and conjunctival) and
diarrhoeal (23%, faeces) samples collected from canine (55%), feline
(41%) and equine (4%) patients (IDEXX, 2020c). Locations with high
community transmission at the time of sample collection (such as
Seattle) were represented (Devlin, 2020; IDEXX, 2020c; ProMED-mail,
2020b). Specimens were also tested in parallel with three assays from
the CDC and all samples tested negative (Brulliard, 2020; IDEXX, 2020a;
ProMED-mail, 2020b). These results have been reported on IDEXX’s website
and have not been peer-reviewed, nor has a manuscript been released
(Denis et al., 2020). Detailed metadata regarding sample type and
location are not available. In the report, IDEXX state ‘Our monitoring
of canine and feline specimens submitted for diagnostic respiratory
RealPCR panels is ongoing and has now expanded to Canada, all US states,
and countries within the EU, including areas with high rates of COVID-19
in the human population’ (IDEXX, 2020c).
Chinese testing of outbreak and archival animal
samples
China reported to the OIE on 5th February 2020 that
veterinary departments ‘had carried out 2019-nCoV testing towards
samples of pigs, poultry and dogs and other domestic animals collected
since 2019 (mainly in late 2019). So far, results of such testing are
all negative’ (OIE, 2020e). Prior to 9th February, the
China Animal Health Epidemiology Center reportedly tested over 4,800
archived animal samples (including from poultry, cat, dogs and pigs)
that had been collected in 2019 from numerous locations around China,
all with negative results (OIE, 2020e; ProMED-mail, 2020a). There is no
indication that these samples included animals known or suspected to
have had contact with COVID-19 patients (Denis et al., 2020;
ProMED-mail, 2020a). Further reports exist that ‘animals from fur farms
(including mink, foxes, raccoon dogs) have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 by
RT-PCR. So far all have been negative’ (OIE, 2020b).
A preprint by Q. Zhang et al. (2020) reported results of serological
screening performed on feline serum samples collected in Wuhan prior to
and during the early stages of the outbreak. All samples taken before
the outbreak (n=39) were antibody negative, while 14.7% (15/102) of
sera collected during the outbreak were antibody positive by ELISA, and
confirmed by VNT and Western blot. Of the positive cats, three were
owned by COVID-19 patients, six were owned but had no known contact with
COVID-19 patients, and six were strays. Paired nasopharyngeal and rectal
swabs collected from all cats during the study reportedly tested
negative by RT-PCR, indicating that no active infections were detected.
The results suggest that the cats were infected by humans during the
outbreak. A preliminary analysis of the transmission dynamics among
these cats has estimated a R0 of 1.09 (95% confidence interval
1.05–1.13), indicating that sustained transmission between cats is
unlikely to have occurred (Akhmetzhanov, Linton, & Nishiura, 2020).
Another study from China reported testing for SARS-CoV-2 on 1,914 serum
samples, collected at varying times and obtained from varying sources,
from 35 animal species (including pigs, cows, sheep, horses, chickens,
ducks, geese, experimental mice, rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, monkeys,
dogs, cats, wild camels, foxes, minx, alpacas, ferrets, bamboo rats,
peacocks, eagles, tigers, rhinoceroses, pangolins, leopard cats,
jackals, giant pandas, masked civets, porcupines, bears, yellow-throated
martens, weasels, red pandas and wild boar) using a double-antigen
sandwich ELISA, with no positive results (Deng et al., 2020). Of most
note is the lack of positive ELISA results among 15 pet and 99 street
dogs from Wuhan (Deng et al., 2020). Otherwise, there is very limited
information presented regarding the animal populations from which the
samples were derived, and so very little inference can be made from this
paper (Denis et al., 2020; Weese, 2020).
Mink farms in the Netherlands – including feral cats and
mink-to-human
transmission
Following the confirmed infections in several mink farms in the North
Brabant region of the Netherlands in late April 2020, the Dutch
Agriculture Minister initiated a series of surveillance activities in
the country’s mink farms. Investigations on the infected farms included
the testing of samples from sick and dead mink, manure and the
environment; and genetic sequencing of viral isolates (ProMED-mail,
2020e, 2020g; Schouten, 2020a). Investigations into SARS-CoV-2
infections in domestic pets in the vicinity of infected farms, as well
as in pigs, undomesticated farm cats and rabbits in the region, are also
reportedly underway (Schouten, 2020b).
On the first two infected mink farms, serological surveillance of
undomesticated farm cats revealed the presence of antibodies in 7/24
cats that were tested (de Jonge & Schouten, 2020d; Schouten, 2020c). Of
the positive cats, virus was detected in 1/7, however in too small a
quantity to permit genetic sequencing (de Jonge & Schouten, 2020e). At
present it is not known how or when the cats became infected, or what
their role may have been in transmission of the infection between humans
and mink on the farms, but the possibilty of infection from mink is
being investigated (ProMED-mail, 2020k).
From 19th May, SARS-CoV-2 was designated an infectious
animal disease in the Netherlands, with all mink companies required to
submit the carcasses of mink that have died on their premises each week
for ‘early warning’ PCR testing (de Jonge & Schouten, 2020d).
Serological screening also required one-off blood samples to be
collected from all mink farms in the country, for antibody detection by
ELISA. By late June 2020, an additional twelve infected premises had
been detected by the ‘early warning’ research (de Jonge & Schouten,
2020a, 2020b, 2020d, 2020f), bringing the country’s total number of
infected farms, all of which will have to be depopulated, to seventeen.
Further research also indicated at least two “plausible” cases of
mink-to-human infection (Schouten, 2020c), after genetic analysis of
viral strains from infected employees revealed high homology with those
in the farms’ infected mink, but not with environmentally derived
samples or with virus from COVID-19 patients in the region or even in
the country (de Jonge & Schouten, 2020e). The employees are presumed to
have been infected by the mink before the outbreaks were evident, and
prior to the implementation of PPE on the premises (de Jonge &
Schouten, 2020e).
Great apes and other wild animal
populations
While no natural or experimental cases of SARS-CoV-2 in great apes have
been reported to date, their known susceptibility to common human
respiratory viruses including rhinovirus C (the common cold) (Negrey et
al., 2019) and the similarity of the ape form of the ACE2 receptor used
by SARS-CoV-2 to infect human cells (Melin, Janiak, Marrone, Arora, &
Higham, 2020) has caused concern among primatologists and
conservationists worldwide. Wildlife preserves across Africa and Asia
have reportedly closed to the public to minimise human contact. Research
teams in Tanzania, Cote d’Ivoire and Uganda, among others, are
reportedly collecting faecal samples from wild gorillas and chimpanzees
for virus testing, and training wildlife rangers to identify signs of
respiratory distress in apes while also introducing PPE, quarantine and
social distancing measures for in-contact researchers (Gibbons, 2020).
Use of PPE including face masks, gloves and coveralls was also
recommended by the US National Wildlife Health Center for researchers
conducting any wildlife handling or investigations into wildlife
mortality events (Sleeman, 2020).
One predictive modelling study identified 291 bat species that are
likely to be undetected hosts of betacoronaviruses, including 30Rhinolophus species in addition to the 16 known hosts in this
genus, suggesting that the potential bat reservoir for SARS-CoV-2 may be
two-thirds higher than currently described (Becker et al., 2020). A
rapid risk assessment conducted by the US Geological Survey states a
non-negligible risk of human-to-bat transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in north
America at present, but estimates that implementation of appropriate PPE
including N95 respirator masks, dedicated outer clothing, and gloves,
would reduce the exposure risk by 94-96% (Runge et al., 2020). Should
SARS-CoV-2 be introduced into the north American bat population, there
would be an estimated 33.3% likelihood that the virus could spread and
become established, thereby creating a potential reservoir of infection
for humans and other animal species (Runge et al., 2020).
The OIE ‘EBO-SURSY’ project is reportedly proposing to test 3,000
samples previously collected from bats for haemorrhagic fever virus
surveillance in West Africa for the presence of coronavirus, to
investigate potential circulation of precursor viruses to SARS-CoV-2
(OIE, 2020b). American research institutes are also reportedly
conducting infection studies in brown bats, to investigate the
possibility of whether these wide-ranging animals could become a
reservoir for SARS-CoV-2 following human-to-bat transmission (OIE,
2020b), and surveillance of native north American wildlife generally to
investigate their potential as reservoirs for SARS-CoV-2 (Sleeman,
2020).