Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34080762›Full record

ArticleTransboundary and emerging diseases2022

SARS-CoV-2 infection in cats and dogs in infected mink farms.

Anna E van Aart, Francisca C Velkers, Egil A J Fischer, Els M Broens, Herman Egberink, Shan Zhao, Marc Engelsma, Renate W Hakze-van der Honing, Frank Harders, Myrna M T de Rooij and 13 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Transboundary and emerging diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

80 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 120 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Spike destabilization attenuates Mink Cluster 5 SARS-CoV-2.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Anna E van AartInstitute for Risk Assessment Sciences (IRAS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Francisca C VelkersFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Farm Animal Health, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2923-3233
Egil A J FischerFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Farm Animal Health, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0599-701X
Els M BroensDepartment of Biomolecular Health Sciences, Infectious Diseases and Immunology, Clinical Infectiology Division, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Herman EgberinkDepartment of Biomolecular Health Sciences, Infectious Diseases and Immunology, Virology Division, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Shan ZhaoDepartment of Biomolecular Health Sciences, Infectious Diseases and Immunology, Virology Division, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Marc EngelsmaWageningen Bioveterinary Research, Lelystad, The Netherlands.
Renate W Hakze-van der HoningWageningen Bioveterinary Research, Lelystad, The Netherlands.
Frank HardersWageningen Bioveterinary Research, Lelystad, The Netherlands.
Myrna M T de RooijInstitute for Risk Assessment Sciences (IRAS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Carien RadstakeStichting Zwerfkatten Nederland (Stray Cat Foundation Netherlands), Nieuw Beijerland, The Netherlands.
Paola A MeijerFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Farm Animal Health, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Bas B Oude MunninkDepartment of Viroscience, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Jan de RondGD Animal Health, Deventer, The Netherlands.
Reina S SikkemaDepartment of Viroscience, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Arco N van der SpekNetherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Marcel SpierenburgNetherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Wendy J WoltersFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Farm Animal Health, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Robert-Jan MolenaarGD Animal Health, Deventer, The Netherlands.
Marion P G KoopmansDepartment of Viroscience, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Wim H M van der PoelWageningen Bioveterinary Research, Lelystad, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7498-8002
Arjan StegemanFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Farm Animal Health, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Lidwien A M SmitInstitute for Risk Assessment Sciences (IRAS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0292-0946
Utrecht University · NLWageningen University & Research · NLErasmus MC · NLDe Gezondheidsdienst voor Dieren · NLNetherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority · NLUniversity of Applied Sciences Utrecht · NLZuyderland Medisch Centrum · NL

Funding

Netherlands Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Foods
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animals like mink, cats and dogs are susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection. In the Netherlands, 69 out of 127 mink farms were infected with SARS-CoV-2 between April and November 2020 and all mink on infected farms were culled after SARS-CoV-2 infection to prevent further spread of the virus. On some farms, (feral) cats and dogs were present. This study provides insight into the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2-positive cats and dogs in 10 infected mink farms and their possible role in transmission of the virus. Throat and rectal swabs of 101 cats (12 domestic and 89 feral cats) and 13 dogs of 10 farms were tested for SARS-CoV-2 using PCR. Serological assays were performed on serum samples from 62 adult cats and all 13 dogs. Whole Genome Sequencing was performed on one cat sample. Cat-to-mink transmission parameters were estimated using data from all 10 farms. This study shows evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in 12 feral cats and 2 dogs. Eleven cats (18%) and two dogs (15%) tested serologically positive. Three feral cats (3%) and one dog (8%) tested PCR-positive. The sequence generated from the cat throat swab clustered with mink sequences from the same farm. The calculated rate of mink-to-cat transmission showed that cats on average had a chance of 12% (95%CI 10%-18%) of becoming infected by mink, assuming no cat-to-cat transmission. As only feral cats were infected it is most likely that infections in cats were initiated by mink, not by humans. Whether both dogs were infected by mink or humans remains inconclusive. This study presents one of the first reports of interspecies transmission of SARS-CoV-2 that does not involve humans, namely mink-to-cat transmission, which should also be considered as a potential risk for spread of SARS-CoV-2.

Indexed as

Cat DiseasesCOVID-19Dog DiseasesAnimalsAnimals, WildCatsDogsFarmsHumansMinkSARS-CoV-2catsdogsepidemiologyminkone healthSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID34080762
PMCPMC8242445
OpenAlexW3163963580

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.