SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibodies in Dogs and Cats in the United Kingdom

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

Companion animals are susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection and sporadic cases of pet infections have occurred in the United Kingdom. Here we present the first large-scale serological survey of SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibodies in dogs and cats in the UK. Results are reported for 688 sera (454 canine, 234 feline) collected by a large veterinary diagnostic laboratory for routine haematology during three time periods; pre-COVID-19 (January 2020), during the first wave of UK human infections (April-May 2020) and during the second wave of UK human infections (September 2020-February 2021). Both pre-COVID-19 sera and those from the first wave tested negative. However, in sera collected during the second wave, 1.4% (n=4) of dogs and 2.2% (n=2) cats tested positive for neutralising antibodies. The low numbers of animals testing positive suggests pet animals are unlikely to be a major reservoir for human infection in the UK. However, continued surveillance of in-contact susceptible animals should be performed as part of ongoing population health surveillance initiatives.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.06.23.449594: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: Ethical approval to collect electronic health data (SAVSNET) and physical samples from participating laboratories (National Virtual Biobank) was granted by the Research Ethics Committee at the University of Liverpool (RETH000964).
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Cell Line Authenticationnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Experimental Models: Cell Lines
    SentencesResources
    The virus/serum mixture was then inoculated onto Vero E6 cells, incubated at 37°C for 1 h, and overlaid as in standard plaque assays [27].
    Vero E6
    suggested: None

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    The major limitations of such a system are the relatively sparse data available for each sample such that individual animals, that are not identifiable, may have been sampled twice or have come from the same household. In addition, such samples lack detailed information on the health of the animals and whether they were from a COVID-19-positive household. However, acquiring such samples from the UK Virtual Biobank, offers a responsive resource for studying national patterns of disease in UK pets [25]. We report here the detection of SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibodies during the second wave of human infections in the UK. Other groups have previously reported that cats and dogs can become infected, likely through their interactions with humans. Although animal-to-animal transmission has been reported, for example on mink farms and in experimental infections [18–20, 22, 34], the small numbers of companion animals testing positive in the field suggest that pets are not currently acting as a significant reservoir for infection, and that the pandemic will be controlled by measures largely focussed on minimising human-to-human transmission. However, studies like that presented here strongly argue for continued surveillance of in-contact, susceptible animal species, which will help determine whether in the future, more targeted control measures are needed for pet animals, particularly in regions that are gaining control of infection in their human populations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.


    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.