Non-Lethal Detection of Frog Virus 3-Like (RUK13) and Common Midwife Toad Virus-Like (PDE18) Ranaviruses in Two UK-Native Amphibian Species

Viruses. 2022 Nov 25;14(12):2635. doi: 10.3390/v14122635.

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.

Keywords: CMTV; FV3; buccal swab; common frog; common toad; non-lethal detection.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Animals
  • Anura
  • DNA Virus Infections* / diagnosis
  • DNA Virus Infections* / epidemiology
  • DNA Virus Infections* / veterinary
  • Ranavirus* / genetics
  • United Kingdom

Grants and funding

The authors would like to acknowledge funding from the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC); NE/L002485/1, NE/M00080X/1 and NE/S000992/1, as well as funding from the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement & Reduction of animals in research (NC3Rs); NC/R001790/1.