Protocols
Development and validation of nucleic acid tests to diagnose Aleutian mink disease virus

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviromet.2019.113776Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Setting up a sensitive and specific probe-based AMDV-PCR.

  • Comparison and validation of three diagnostic AMDV-PCRs.

  • Screening and detection of AMDV from mink and fox samples.

Abstract

Aleutian disease (AD), caused by Aleutian mink disease virus (AMDV), causes significant welfare problems to mink, and financial losses to the farmers. As there is no vaccine or treatment available, reliable diagnostics is important for disease control. Here, we set up a probe-based real-time PCR (NS1-probe-PCR) to detect all strains of AMDV. PCR was validated and compared to two other real-time PCR methods (pan-AMDV- and pan-AMDO-PCR) currently used for AMDV diagnostics in Finland. The NS1-probe-PCR had a similar detection limit of 20 copies/reaction based on plasmid dilution series, and similar or better diagnostic sensitivity, when evaluated using spleen samples from mink, and stool samples from mink and foxes. None of the three PCR tests cross-reacted with other parvoviruses. The NS1-probe-PCR also showed a significantly higher specificity than the pan-AMDO-PCR with spleen samples and the best specificity with stool samples. Furthermore, it produced the results more rapidly than the other two PCRs making it a promising tool for both diagnostic and research purposes.

Introduction

Aleutian disease (AD), caused by Aleutian mink disease virus (AMDV), is one of the most significant infectious diseases of mink. AD causes both significant welfare problems to the animals and financial losses to farmers. AMDV is secreted into urine, feces and saliva of infected mink (Gorham et al., 1964; Farid et al., 2015; Jensen et al., 2014) and is transmitted vertically through placenta or horizontally in direct contact with an infected animal or through indirect contact with contaminated environment (Gorham et al., 1976; Porter et al., 1977; Broll and Alexandersen, 1996). Clinical signs vary from subclinical to severe and fatal (Bloom et al., 1994) depending, among other things, on the age and genotype of the animal (Gorham et al., 1976; Alexandersen, 1986).

AD was first reported in Aleutian-type mink in the USA in 1956 (Hartsough and Gorham, 1956) but it has since spread to all mink producing countries and also been reported in other mink genotypes (Aasted, 1985), ferrets and several wild mustelids and carnivores (Knuuttila et al., 2015; Farid, 2013; Fournier-Chambrillon et al., 2004; Murakami et al., 2001). AMDV belongs to family Parvoviridae (Shahrabadi et al., 1977; Bloom et al., 1980) and species Carnivore amdoparvovirus 1 (Cotmore et al., 2014) and its 4.7 kb ssDNA genome (Bloom et al., 1980, 1988; Bloom et al., 1990) encodes two structural proteins (VP1 and VP2) and three non-structural proteins (NS1, NS2 and NS3) (Shahrabadi et al., 1977; Qiu et al., 2006, 2007; Huang et al., 2014).

Despite eradication efforts, AMDV still causes major epidemics (Hagberg et al., 2017). As there is no effective treatment and the attempts to develop a vaccine have been unsuccessful (Aasted et al., 1998; Castelruiz et al., 2005), reliable diagnostics is important in disease control. Diagnostics is mostly based on pathological findings and serology, using antibody detection methods such as CIEP and ELISA, as well as DNA detection by PCR (Knuuttila et al., 2009, 2014; Cho and Ingram, 1972). As some mink can clear the virus, but remain antibody-positive, the best way to determine viremia (from euthanized individuals) is to perform a PCR from spleen tissue (Jensen et al., 2014). However, genetic diversity makes it difficult to set up a PCR that is sensitive and able to amplify all virus strains, while remaining specific. As false positive or negative results might have severe economic consequences to the farmers, it is important to have properly validated PCRs.

The aim of this study was to set up a diagnostic PCR that is specific, amplifies all AMDV strains, and is easy to interpret, as well as validate and compare the novel test and PCRs currently used in diagnostics in Finland.

Section snippets

PCR protocols

A new probe-based PCR (NS1-probe-PCR) was developed to amplify the genomic region of 1586–1645 bp (according to strain AMDV-G (GenBank accession no. M20036.1)) of all AMDV strains. Primers AMDV NS1 F (GGAAARACCYTRCTRGCATCYT), and AMDV NS1 R (GTTACCRCACTCTTCASHCC), and the probe (6-FAM-AACTTTCCATGGACTGA-MGB) were designed so that they have a maximum of two mismatches with the sequences (for comparison, we used sequences published in GenBank by the end of 2016). PCR reactions contained 4 μl of 5x

Results

The lowest copy number that gave positive results with all five plasmid replicates was 20 copies/reaction for all three PCRs. In most cases, adding mink DNA caused no decrease or only a small decrease (less than 1 cycle) on Ct values.

Nine diagnostic samples were negative (38–46) and 34 were positive with all tree PCRs (1–34). Three samples produced contradictory results (35–37) and one sample (38) that had been positive in initial diagnostics was now negative. Seven out of eleven negative

Discussion

In this study, we set up a probe-based AMDV-PCR and compared that to other two PCRs currently used in diagnostics in Finland. Serological method measuring IgG-antibody response to AMDV with ELISA is the main protocol to diagnose AMDV, as hundreds of thousands of samples need to be screened annually in Finland (Knuuttila et al., 2009, 2014). However, PCR is needed to confirm the results in uncertain cases and in cases where the ELISA-positive result comes from a clean farm. PCR is also needed to

Conclusions

We successfully set up a novel probe-based AMDV-PCR and validated that and other two PCRs currently used in diagnostics in Finland. We also found AMDV-DNA from fox stool, indicating that foxes might also secrete AMDV. However, further studies are needed to understand the significance of AMDV infections in foxes, since the possibility of contamination could not be fully excluded.

NS1-probe-PCR showed similar or better analytic and diagnostic sensitivity as compared to the other two PCRs as well

Declaration of Competing Interest

None.

Acknowledgments

We thank Johanna Martikainen for technical assistance and Anna Knuuttila for her contribution in setting up pan-AMDV- and pan-AMDO-PCRs. We also thank Fin Furlab and the farmes for providing samples.

This study was supported by the Helve Foundation and Finnish Veterinary Foundation grants.

References (33)

  • M.E. Bloom et al.

    Aleutian mink disease: puzzles and paradigms

    Infect. Agents Dis.

    (1994)
  • S. Alexandersen

    Acute interstitial pneumonia in mink kits: experimental reproduction of the disease

    Vet. Pathol.

    (1986)
  • G.R. Hartsough et al.

    Aleutian disease in mink

    Nat. Fur News

    (1956)
  • B. Aasted

    Aleutian disease of mink. Virology and immunology

    Acta Pathol. Microbiol. Immunol. Scand. Suppl.

    (1985)
  • A. Knuuttila et al.

    Aleutian mink disease virus in free-ranging mustelids in Finland - a cross-sectional epidemiological and phylogenetic study

    J. Gen. Virol.

    (2015)
  • A.H. Farid

    Aleutian mink disease virus in furbearing mammals in Nova Scotia, Canada

    Acta Vet. Scand.

    (2013)
  • Cited by (8)

    • Mechanisms behind the varying severity of Aleutian mink disease virus: Comparison of three farms with a different disease status

      2022, Veterinary Microbiology
      Citation Excerpt :

      To determine AMDV copy numbers, spleen and kidney samples were tested with quantitative NS1-probe-PCR (Virtanen et al., 2020). Each run contained a dilution series (104, 103, 100, 10, 1, and 0 copies/reaction) of a plasmid containing the PCR product prepared earlier (Virtanen et al., 2020) in three parallel reactions and the samples in two parallel reactions. DNA concentrations were measured with NanoDrop.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text