Lack of detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Wildlife from Kerala, India in 2020-21
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Spillover of SARS-CoV-2 into a variety of wild and domestic animals has been an ongoing feature of the human pandemic. The establishment of a new reservoir in white tailed deer in North America and increasing divergence of the viruses circulating in them from those circulating in the human population has highlighted the ongoing risk this poses for global health. Some parts of the world have seen more intensive monitoring of wildlife species for SARS-CoV-2 and related coronaviruses but there are still very large gaps in geographical and species-specific information. This paper reports negative results for SARS-CoV-2 PCR based testing using a pan coronavirus end point RDRP PCR and a Sarbecovirus specific E gene qPCR on lung and or gut tissue from wildlife from the Indian State of Kerala. These animals included: 121 Rhinolophus rouxii (Rufous Horsehoe Bat), 6 Rhinolophus bedommei (Lesser Woolly Horseshoe Bat), 15 Rossettus leschenaultii (Fulvous Fruit Bat), 47 Macaca radiata (Bonnet macaques), 35 Paradoxurus hermaphroditus (Common Palm Civet), 5 Viverricula indica (Small Indian Civet) , 4 Herpestes edwardsii (Common Mongoose), 10 Panthera tigris (Bengal Tiger), 8 Panthera pardus fusca ( Indian Leopard), 4 Prionailurus bengalensis (Leopard cats), 2 Felis chaus (Jungle cats), 2 Cuon alpinus (Wild dogs) and 1 Melursus ursinus (sloth bear).
Article activity feed
-
This is a study that would be of interest to the field and community.
-
-
-
The work presented is clear and the arguments well formed.
-
Comments to Author
The manuscript by Zachariah et al screened a variety of wildlife species from Kerala, India for SARS-CoV-2 infection by pan-coronavirus PCR and SARS-CoV-2 envelope gene qPCR. No animals were PCR positive for coronaviruses during the sampling period from 2020-2021. The authors collected lung tissue, faeces and rectal and oronasal swabs from animals as part of the necropsy procedure on these species. The major limitation of this work is the lack of serology for SARS-CoV-2. It could be expected that animals would remain PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2 for much shorter periods of time than antibodies would be detectable? Why did the authors not perform ELISAs for SARS-CoV-2 antibody in addition to PCR? As the animals were deceased when samples were taken, the authors could have screened tissues that have …
Comments to Author
The manuscript by Zachariah et al screened a variety of wildlife species from Kerala, India for SARS-CoV-2 infection by pan-coronavirus PCR and SARS-CoV-2 envelope gene qPCR. No animals were PCR positive for coronaviruses during the sampling period from 2020-2021. The authors collected lung tissue, faeces and rectal and oronasal swabs from animals as part of the necropsy procedure on these species. The major limitation of this work is the lack of serology for SARS-CoV-2. It could be expected that animals would remain PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2 for much shorter periods of time than antibodies would be detectable? Why did the authors not perform ELISAs for SARS-CoV-2 antibody in addition to PCR? As the animals were deceased when samples were taken, the authors could have screened tissues that have been shown to have the highest levels of SARS-CoV-2 in other wildlife species including white tailed deer (such as medial retropharyngeal lymph nodes and palatine tonsil). Could the authors justify their sampling strategy? The manuscript would benefit from proofreading prior to acceptance as there are a number of typographical errors in the current version.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Good
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Good
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Partially support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-
Comments to Author
This study aimed to determine the potential spread of SARS-CoV-2 to wildlife in India. the authors pursued this line of investigation based on prior reports in the literature of either virus or antibodies to SARS CoV2 found in other wildlife species, especially deer and mink. The importance of such a study would provide additional data on potential wildlife species that could serve as reservoirs of this virus and pose potential threats to human populations. The authors employed trapping of Rhinolophus bats and opportunistic testing of carnivore and primate species either found dead or culled as part of nuisance animal control activities. Unfortunately, or fortunately the results were negative for virus by PCR. the authors did not look for antibodies, data that would have strengthen the paper.
Comments to Author
This study aimed to determine the potential spread of SARS-CoV-2 to wildlife in India. the authors pursued this line of investigation based on prior reports in the literature of either virus or antibodies to SARS CoV2 found in other wildlife species, especially deer and mink. The importance of such a study would provide additional data on potential wildlife species that could serve as reservoirs of this virus and pose potential threats to human populations. The authors employed trapping of Rhinolophus bats and opportunistic testing of carnivore and primate species either found dead or culled as part of nuisance animal control activities. Unfortunately, or fortunately the results were negative for virus by PCR. the authors did not look for antibodies, data that would have strengthen the paper. Overall, methodology is appropriate and while this paper presents negative data, this data does add information about wildlife species infected with the SARS CoV2 virus. Serology would have been a helpful addition to understanding the role of this coronavirus in wildlife.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Satisfactory
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Very good
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Strongly support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-
-
