JWD Subscribe to eTOC alerts
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 38(4), 2002, pp. 720-728
© Wildlife Disease Association  2002
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gaydos, J.
Right arrow Articles by Stallknecht, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gaydos, J.
Right arrow Articles by Stallknecht, D.

Cross-protection between epizootic hemorrhagic disease virus serotypes 1 and 2 in white-tailed deer

JK Gaydos, WR Davidson, F Elvinger, EW Howerth, M Murphy, and DE Stallknecht


ABSTRACT

Viruses in the epizootic hemorrhagic disease (EHD) serogroup are the most frequent cause of hemorrhagic disease in the southeastern United States, but nothing is known about cross-protection between the two EHD serotypes (EHDV-1 and EHDV-2) present in this region. We experimentally tested whether deer surviving EHDV-2 infection would be protected against subsequent infection with EHDV-1, and used field data to examine the possibility of reciprocal cross-protection. Eleven white-tailed deer fawns (Odocoileus virginianus) were experimentally infected with EHDV-2 and later challenged with EHDV-1. Two EHDV-2-naive fawns also were infected with EHDV-1. Deer were monitored via physical examination, complete blood counts, clotting profiles, viral isolation, and serology, and each animal was assigned a quantitative clinical disease severity score based on presence of certain physical and clinical parameters. Infection of naive controls with EHDV-1 caused severe clinical disease and death of both fawns, whereas deer previously infected with EHDV-2 exhibited no or minimal signs of disease. Thus, infection with EHDV-2 conferred protection against disease caused by subsequent EHDV-1 infection. Although prior EHDV-2 exposure protected deer from severe clinical disease, it did not prevent infection nor viremia indicating they could still act as virus amplifying hosts. These experimental infections suggest that EHDV-1 and 2 may exist in a state of mutual permissiveness.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Wildl DisHome page
J. K. Gaydos, J. M. Crum, W. R. Davidson, S. S. Cross, S. F. Owen, and D. E. Stallknecht
EPIZOOTIOLOGY OF AN EPIZOOTIC HEMORRHAGIC DISEASE OUTBREAK IN WEST VIRGINIA
J. Wildl. Dis., July 1, 2004; 40(3): 383 - 393.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Wildl DisHome page
G. L. Flacke, M. J. Yabsley, B. A. Hanson, and D. E. Stallknecht
Hemorrhagic Disease in Kansas: Enzootic Stability Meets Epizootic Disease
J. Wildl. Dis., April 1, 2004; 40(2): 288 - 293.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2002 by the Wildlife Disease Association.