Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36560639›Full record

ArticleViruses2022

Non-Lethal Detection of

Charlotte E Ford, Lola M Brookes, Emily Skelly, Chris Sergeant, Tresai Jordine, Francois Balloux, Richard A Nichols, Trenton W J Garner

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Viruses, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Charlotte E FordSchool of Biological and Behavioural Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3961-032X
Lola M BrookesZoological Society of London, Institute of Zoology, Nuffield Building, Outer Circle, London NW8 7LS, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5354-0244
Emily SkellyZoological Society of London, Institute of Zoology, Nuffield Building, Outer Circle, London NW8 7LS, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9337-4877
Chris SergeantZoological Society of London, Institute of Zoology, Nuffield Building, Outer Circle, London NW8 7LS, UK.
Tresai JordineZoological Society of London, Institute of Zoology, Nuffield Building, Outer Circle, London NW8 7LS, UK.
Francois BallouxUCL Genetics Institute, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK.
Richard A NicholsSchool of Biological and Behavioural Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, UK.
Trenton W J GarnerZoological Society of London, Institute of Zoology, Nuffield Building, Outer Circle, London NW8 7LS, UK.
Zoological Society of London · GBQueen Mary University of London · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ranaviruses have been involved in amphibian mass mortality events worldwide. Effective screening to control this pathogen is essential; however, current sampling methods are unsuitable for the detection of subclinical infections. Non-lethal screening is needed to prevent both further spread of ranavirus and losses of at-risk species. To assess non-lethal sampling methods, we conducted two experiments: bath exposing common frogs to RUK13 ranavirus at three concentrations, and exposing common toads to RUK13 or PDE18. Non-lethal sampling included buccal, digit, body and tank swabs, along with toe clips and stool taken across three time-points post-exposure. The presence/load of ranavirus was examined using quantitative PCR in 11 different tissues obtained from the same euthanised animals (incl. liver, gastro-intestinal tract and kidney). Buccal swab screening had the highest virus detection rate in both species (62% frogs; 71% toads) and produced consistently high virus levels compared to other non-lethal assays. The buccal swab was effective across multiple stages of infection and differing infection intensities, though low levels of infection were more difficult to detect. Buccal swab assays competed with, and even outperformed, lethal sampling in frogs and toads, respectively. Successful virus detection in the absence of clinical signs was observed (33% frogs; 50% toads); we found no difference in detectability for RUK13 and PDE18. Our results suggest that buccal swabbing could replace lethal sampling for screening and be introduced as standard practice for ranavirus surveillance.

Indexed as

DNA Virus InfectionsRanavirusAnimalsAnuraUnited Kingdombuccal swabCMTVcommon frogcommon toadFV3non-lethal detection

Identifiers

PMID36560639
PMCPMC9786228
OpenAlexW4310214339

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.