ArticlePloS one2024
Lyssa excreta: Defining parameters for fecal samples as a rabies virus surveillance method.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rabies and Pinnipeds Reviewed: Premonitions, Perturbations, and Projections?Veterinary sciences · 2026Review
- High Prevalence of Multi-Viral Co-Infections and Low Rabies Seropositivity in Stray Cats of Shenzhen, China.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.