Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31814288›Full record

ArticleZoonoses and public health2020

Faeces as a novel material to estimate lyssavirus prevalence in bat populations.

Lineke Begeman, Engbert A Kooi, Erik van Weezep, Marco W G van de Bildt, Chantal B E M Reusken, Peter H C Lina, Marion P G Koopmans, Judith M A van den Brand, Thijs Kuiken

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Zoonoses and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 34% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. DivergentViruses · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Lineke BegemanDepartment of Viroscience, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8856-9135
Engbert A KooiWageningen Bioveterinary Research, Lelystad, The Netherlands.
Erik van WeezepWageningen Bioveterinary Research, Lelystad, The Netherlands.
Marco W G van de BildtDepartment of Viroscience, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Chantal B E M ReuskenDepartment of Viroscience, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4605-9174
Peter H C LinaNaturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Marion P G KoopmansDepartment of Viroscience, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Judith M A van den BrandDepartment of Pathology, Veterinary Faculty, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Thijs KuikenDepartment of Viroscience, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5501-9049
Erasmus University Rotterdam · NLMinistry of Health Welfare and Sport · NLNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment · NLNaturalis Biodiversity Center · NLUtrecht University · NLWageningen University & Research · NL

Funding

ZonMw 522003002
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rabies is caused by infection with a lyssavirus. Bat rabies is of concern for both public health and bat conservation. The current method for lyssavirus prevalence studies in bat populations is by oral swabbing, which is invasive for the bats, dangerous for handlers, time-consuming and expensive. In many situations, such sampling is not feasible, and hence, our understanding of epidemiology of bat rabies is limited. Faeces are usually easy to collect from bat colonies without disturbing the bats and thus could be a practical and feasible material for lyssavirus prevalence studies. To further explore this idea, we performed virological analysis on faecal pellets and oral swabs of seven serotine bats (Eptesicus serotinus) that were positive for European bat 1 lyssavirus in the brain. We also performed immunohistochemical and virological analyses on digestive tract samples of these bats to determine potential sources of lyssavirus in the faeces. We found that lyssavirus detection by RT-qPCR was nearly as sensitive in faecal pellets (6/7 bats positive, 86%) as in oral swabs (7/7 bats positive, 100%). The likely source of lyssavirus in the faeces was virus excreted into the oral cavity from the salivary glands (5/6 bats positive by immunohistochemistry and RT-qPCR) or tongue (3/4 bats positive by immunohistochemistry) and swallowed with saliva. Virus could not be isolated from any of the seven faecal pellets, suggesting the lyssavirus detected in faeces is not infectious. Lyssavirus detection in the majority of faecal pellets of infected bats shows that this novel material should be further explored for lyssavirus prevalence studies in bats.

Indexed as

AnimalsChiropteraFecesLyssavirusPilot ProjectsRNA, ViralRNA, ViralChiropteraEptesicus serotinusfaeceslyssavirussurveillance

Identifiers

PMID31814288
PMCPMC7027462
OpenAlexW2993058915

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.