Published Date: 2012-08-05 00:32:46
Subject: PRO/AH/EDR> Cedar virus (02) - Australia, bats
Archive Number: 20120805.1228784

CEDAR VIRUS (02) - AUSTRALIA, BATS
***********************************
A ProMED-mail post
http://www.promedmail.org
ProMED-mail is a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases
http://www.isid.org

Date: Thu 2 Aug 2012
Source: PLoS Pathologens [edited]
http://www.plospathogens.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.ppat.1002836


[The following article in PLoS Pathology provides more detailed information about the discovery of Cedar virus than was posted on ProMED-mail on 4 Aug 2012 (archive no. 20120803.1227893). Please note that the authors of the scientific PLoS Pathogens report below named the virus Cedar virus, not Cedar Grove virus. - Mod. TY]

Reference:
Marsh GA, de Jong C, Barr JA, Tachedjian M, Smith C, et al. (2012) Cedar Virus: A Novel Henipavirus Isolated from Australian Bats. PLoS Pathogens 8(8): e1002836. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1002836


Abstract
--------
The genus Henipavirus in the family Paramyxoviridae contains 2 viruses, Hendra virus (HeV) and Nipah virus (NiV) for which pteropid bats act as the main natural reservoir. Each virus also causes serious and commonly lethal infection of people as well as various species of domestic animals, however little is known about the associated mechanisms of pathogenesis. Here, we report the isolation and characterization of a new paramyxovirus from pteropid bats, Cedar virus (CedPV), which shares significant features with the known henipaviruses. The genome size (18,162 nt) and organization of CedPV is very similar to that of HeV and NiV; its nucleocapsid protein displays antigenic cross-reactivity with henipaviruses; and it uses the same receptor molecule (ephrin-B2) for entry during infection. Preliminary challenge studies with CedPV in ferrets and guinea pigs, both susceptible to infection and disease with known henipaviruses, confirmed virus replication and production of neutralizing antibodies, although clinical disease was not observed. In this context, it is interesting to note that the major genetic difference between CedPV and HeV or NiV lies within the coding strategy of the P gene, which is known to play an important role in evading the host innate immune system. Unlike HeV, NiV, and almost all known paramyxoviruses, the CedPV P gene lacks both RNA editing and also the coding capacity for the highly conserved V protein. Preliminary study indicated that CedPV infection of human cells induces a more robust IFN-β response than HeV.


Author Summary
--------------
Hendra and Nipah viruses are 2 highly pathogenic paramyxoviruses that have emerged from bats within the last 2 decades. Both are capable of causing fatal disease in both humans and many mammal species. Serological and molecular evidence for henipa-like viruses have been reported from numerous locations including Asia and Africa, however, until now no successful isolation of these viruses have been reported. This paper reports the isolation of a novel paramyxovirus, named Cedar virus, from fruit bats in Australia. Full genome sequencing of this virus suggests a close relationship with the henipaviruses. Antibodies to Cedar virus were shown to cross-react with, but not cross-neutralize Hendra or Nipah virus. Despite this close relationship, when Cedar virus was tested in experimental challenge models in ferrets and guinea pigs, we identified virus replication and generation of neutralizing antibodies, but no clinical disease was observed. As such, this virus provides a useful reference for future reverse genetics experiments to determine the molecular basis of the pathogenicity of the henipaviruses.

Methods [summarized]
--------------------
[For a full description of methods used, and results, see original article at the URL above].

o Urine collection and virus isolation
Urine (approximately 0.5-1 ml) was collected off plastic sheets placed underneath a colony of flying foxes (predominantly _Pteropus alecto_ with some _P. poliocephalus_ in the mixed population) in Cedar Grove, South East Queensland, Australia and pooled into 2ml tubes containing 0.5 ml of viral transport medium (SPGA: a mix of sucrose, phosphate, glutamate and albumin plus penicillin, streptomycin and fungizone). The tubes were temporarily stored on ice after collection and transported to a laboratory in Queensland, frozen at -80°C, and then shipped on dry ice to the CSIRO Australian Animal Health Laboratory (AAHL) in Geelong, Victoria for virus isolation. The samples were thawed at 4°C and centrifuged at 16,000-g for 1 min to pellet debris. Urine in the supernatant (approximately 0.5-1 ml) was diluted 1:10 in cell culture media. The diluted urine was then centrifuged at 1200-g for 5 min and split evenly over Vero, PaKi, PaBr, PaSp and PaPl cell monolayers in 75cm2 tissue culture flasks. The flasks were rocked for 2 h at 37°C, 14 ml of fresh cell culture media was added and then incubated for 7 d at 37°C. The flasks were observed daily for toxicity, contamination, or viral cytopathic effect (CPE).

[This is a report of the isolation and characterization of a novel paramyxovirus and is the 3rd member of the henipaviruses. As mentioned in the comment for the original ProMED-mail post (archive no. 20120803.1227893), it will also be of interest to see if there are antibodies in wild and domestic vertebrates that reside in the area where the infected flying fox bats occur, as an indication of natural exposure with or without resulting disease.

The black flying fox (_Pteropus alecto_) is distributed across northern Australia. An image can be accessed at
http://www.oceanwideimages.com/images/10748/large/black-flying-fox-24T5025-24D.jpg and an image of _Pteropus poliocephalus_ at http://www.batconservancy.org/siteRoot/images/lubee/bats/grayHeadedFlyingFox.jpg

A HealthMap/ProMED-mail interactive map showing the location of Beaudesert in Queensland state can be accessed at http://healthmap.org/r/2*0w. - Mod.TY]

See Also