Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38261561›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Lyssa excreta: Defining parameters for fecal samples as a rabies virus surveillance method.

Faith M Walker, Jordyn R Upton, Daryn Erickson, Zachary A Barrand, Breezy Brock, Michael Valentine, Emma L Federman, Emma M Froehlich, Lolita Van Pelt, Lias Hastings and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Review
  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

14 authors.

Faith M WalkerSchool of Forestry, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8435-4452
Jordyn R UptonSchool of Forestry, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, United States of America.
Daryn EricksonTGen North Pathogen and Microbiome Division, Flagstaff, Arizona, United States of America.
Zachary A BarrandTGen North Pathogen and Microbiome Division, Flagstaff, Arizona, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-9281-7314
Breezy BrockTGen North Pathogen and Microbiome Division, Flagstaff, Arizona, United States of America.
Michael ValentineTGen North Pathogen and Microbiome Division, Flagstaff, Arizona, United States of America.
Emma L FedermanSchool of Forestry, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, United States of America.
Emma M FroehlichSchool of Forestry, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, United States of America.
Lolita Van PeltUSDA APHIS Wildlife Services, Phoenix, Arizona, United States of America.
Lias HastingsUSDA APHIS Wildlife Services, Phoenix, Arizona, United States of America.
Daniel E SanchezSchool of Forestry, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, United States of America.
David L BergmanUSDA APHIS Wildlife Services, Phoenix, Arizona, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-6757-643X
David M EngelthalerTGen North Pathogen and Microbiome Division, Flagstaff, Arizona, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-5945-059X
Crystal M HeppTGen North Pathogen and Microbiome Division, Flagstaff, Arizona, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is not possible to systematically screen the environment for rabies virus (RABV) using current approaches. We sought to determine under what conditions RABV is detectable from feces and other accessible samples from infected wildlife to broaden the number of biological samples that could be used to test for RABV. We employed a recently-developed quantitative RT-PCR assay called the "LN34 panlyssavirus real-time RT-PCR assay", which is highly sensitive and specific for all variants of RABV. We harvested and tested brain tissue, fecal, and/or mouth swab samples from 25 confirmed RABV positive bats of six species. To determine if rabies RNA lasts in feces sufficiently long post-defecation to use it as a surveillance tool, we tested fecal samples from 10 bats at the time of sample collection and after 24 hours of exposure to ambient conditions, with an additional test on six bats out to 72 hours. To assess whether we could pool fecal pellets and still detect a positive, we generated dilutions of known positives at 1:1, 1:10, 1:50, and 1:200. For six individuals for which matched brain, mouth swab, and fecal samples were tested, results were positive for 100%, 67%, and 67%, respectively. For the first time test to 24 hours, 63% of feces that were positive at time 0 were still positive after 24 hours, and 50% of samples at 72 hours were positive across all three replicates. Pooling tests revealed that fecal positives were detected at 1:10 dilution, but not at 1:50 or 1:200. Our preliminary results suggest that fecal samples hold promise for a rapid and non-invasive environmental screening system.

Indexed as

Body FluidsChiropteraLepidopteraRabiesRabies virusAnimalsFecesHumans

Identifiers

PMID38261561
PMCPMC10805288

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.