Lyssa excreta: Defining parameters for fecal samples as a rabies virus surveillance method

PLoS One. 2024 Jan 23;19(1):e0294122. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294122. eCollection 2024.

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.

MeSH terms

  • Animals
  • Body Fluids*
  • Chiroptera*
  • Feces
  • Humans
  • Lepidoptera*
  • Rabies virus*
  • Rabies*

Grants and funding

Funding was provided by the Arizona Biomedical Research Commission (grant number BPM0003; https://www.azdhs.gov/biomedical/). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.