SARS-CoV-2 in fruit bats, ferrets, pigs, and chickens: an experimental transmission study.

Kore Schlottau1 Melanie Rissmann2 Annika Graaf1 Jacob Schön1 Julia Sehl3 Claudia Wylezich1 Dirk Höper1 Thomas C Mettenleiter4 Anne Balkema-Buschmann2 Timm Harder1 Christian Grund1 Donata Hoffmann1 Angele Breithaupt3 Martin Beer1
Affiliations 4 institutions
  1. Institute of Diagnostic Virology, Greifswald-Insel Riems, Germany.
  2. Institute of Novel and Emerging Infectious Diseases, Greifswald-Insel Riems, Germany.
  3. Department of Experimental Animal Facilities and Biorisk Management, Greifswald-Insel Riems, Germany.
  4. Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Greifswald-Insel Riems, Germany.

Abstract

In December, 2019, a novel zoonotic severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus emerged in China. The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) became pandemic within weeks and the number of human infections and severe cases is increasing. We aimed to investigate the susceptibilty of potential animal hosts and the risk of anthropozoonotic spill-over infections. We intranasally inoculated nine fruit bats (Rousettus aegyptiacus), ferrets (Mustela putorius), pigs (Sus scrofa domesticus), and 17 chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) with 105 TCID50 of a SARS-CoV-2 isolate per animal. Direct contact animals (n=3) were included 24 h after inoculation to test viral transmission. Animals were monitored for clinical signs and for virus shedding by nucleic acid extraction from nasal washes and rectal swabs (ferrets), oral swabs and pooled faeces samples (fruit bats), nasal and rectal swabs (pigs), or oropharyngeal and cloacal swabs (chickens) on days 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 21 after infection by quantitative RT-PCR (RT-qPCR). On days 4, 8, and 12, two inoculated animals (or three in the case of chickens) of each species were euthanised, and all remaining animals, including the contacts, were euthanised at day 21. All animals were subjected to autopsy and various tissues were collected for virus detection by RT-qPCR, histopathology immunohistochemistry, and in situ hybridisation. Presence of SARS-CoV-2 reactive antibodies was tested by indirect immunofluorescence assay and virus neutralisation test in samples collected before inoculation and at autopsy. Pigs and chickens were not susceptible to SARS-CoV-2. All swabs, organ samples, and contact animals were negative for viral RNA, and none of the pigs or chickens seroconverted. Seven (78%) of nine fruit bats had a transient infection, with virus detectable by RT-qPCR, immunohistochemistry, and in situ hybridisation in the nasal cavity, associated with rhinitis. Viral RNA was also identified in the trachea, lung, and lung-associated lymphatic tissue in two animals euthanised at day 4. One of three contact bats became infected. More efficient virus replication but no clinical signs were observed in ferrets, with transmission to all three direct contact animals. Mild rhinitis was associated with viral antigen detection in the respiratory and olfactory epithelium. Prominent viral RNA loads of 0-104 viral genome copies per mL were detected in the upper respiratory tract of fruit bats and ferrets, and both species developed SARS-CoV-2-reactive antibodies reaching neutralising titres of up to 1/1024 after 21 days. Pigs and chickens could not be infected intranasally by SARS-CoV-2, whereas fruit bats showed characteristics of a reservoir host. Virus replication in ferrets resembled a subclinical human infection with efficient spread. Ferrets might serve as a useful model for further studies-eg, testing vaccines or antivirals. German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture.

Supporting text Virus Host Location
Chiroptera 371 COVID-19 425 Rhinitis 1 Animals 1948 Antibodies, Viral 212 Chickens 146 Ferrets 79 RNA, Viral 193 SARS-CoV-2 453

Evidence records

7 total
Zoonotic Surveillance
1 records · 1 evidence types
Evidence type
1 records
OVE4079
Key finding

Fruit bats (Rousettus aegyptiacus) displayed characteristics consistent with a reservoir host for SARS-CoV-2.

Virus
Host
Location
Not specified
Supporting text

Pigs and chickens could not be infected intranasally by SARS-CoV-2, whereas fruit bats showed characteristics of a reservoir host.

Method
experimental infection | RT-qPCR | immunohistochemistry | in situ hybridisation | virus neutralisation test
Sample type
oral swabs | pooled faeces samples | respiratory tissues
Experimental Infection
6 records · 2 evidence types
Evidence type
4 records
OVE4069
Key finding

Fruit bats (Rousettus aegyptiacus) experimentally inoculated with SARS-CoV-2 showed transient infection, confirming susceptibility to infection.

Virus
Host
Location
Not specified
Supporting text

We intranasally inoculated nine fruit bats (Rousettus aegyptiacus) ... with 10^5 TCID50 of a SARS-CoV-2 isolate per animal. Seven (78%) of nine fruit bats had a transient infection, with virus detectable by RT-qPCR, immunohistochemistry, and in situ hybridisation in the nasal cavity, associated with rhinitis.

Method
intranasal inoculation | RT-qPCR | immunohistochemistry | in situ hybridisation
Sample type
nasal cavity | trachea | lung | lung-associated lymphatic tissue
Experimental system
animal challenge model (intranasal inoculation of fruit bats)
OVE4070
Key finding

Ferrets (Mustela putorius) experimentally inoculated with SARS-CoV-2 exhibited efficient virus replication without clinical signs, demonstrating permissiveness and suitability as a model.

Virus
Host
Location
Not specified
Supporting text

We intranasally inoculated ... ferrets (Mustela putorius) ... with 10^5 TCID50 of a SARS-CoV-2 isolate per animal. More efficient virus replication but no clinical signs were observed in ferrets, with transmission to all three direct contact animals.

Method
intranasal inoculation | RT-qPCR | immunohistochemistry
Sample type
respiratory epithelium | olfactory epithelium | upper respiratory tract
Experimental system
animal challenge model (intranasal inoculation of ferrets)
OVE4071
Key finding

Pigs (Sus scrofa domesticus) experimentally inoculated with SARS-CoV-2 were not susceptible, as virus was undetected and no seroconversion occurred.

Virus
Host
Location
Not specified
Supporting text

We intranasally inoculated ... pigs (Sus scrofa domesticus) ... with 10^5 TCID50 of a SARS-CoV-2 isolate per animal. Pigs and chickens were not susceptible to SARS-CoV-2. All swabs, organ samples, and contact animals were negative for viral RNA, and none of the pigs or chickens seroconverted.

Method
intranasal inoculation | RT-qPCR | serology (indirect immunofluorescence assay) | virus neutralisation test
Sample type
nasal swabs | rectal swabs | organ samples
Experimental system
animal challenge model (intranasal inoculation of pigs)
OVE4072
Key finding

Chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) inoculated with SARS-CoV-2 showed no infection or seroconversion, indicating resistance to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Virus
Host
Location
Not specified
Supporting text

We intranasally inoculated ... chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) ... with 10^5 TCID50 of a SARS-CoV-2 isolate per animal. Pigs and chickens were not susceptible to SARS-CoV-2. All swabs, organ samples, and contact animals were negative for viral RNA, and none of the pigs or chickens seroconverted.

Method
intranasal inoculation | RT-qPCR | serology (indirect immunofluorescence assay) | virus neutralisation test
Sample type
oropharyngeal swabs | cloacal swabs | organ samples
Experimental system
animal challenge model (intranasal inoculation of chickens)
Evidence type
2 records
OVE4073
Key finding

SARS-CoV-2 was transmitted from inoculated fruit bats (Rousettus aegyptiacus) to one of three direct contact bats under controlled experimental conditions.

Virus
Host
Location
Not specified
Supporting text

We intranasally inoculated nine fruit bats (Rousettus aegyptiacus) ... with 10^5 TCID50 of a SARS-CoV-2 isolate per animal. One of three contact bats became infected.

Method
intranasal inoculation | direct contact co-housing | RT-qPCR detection of viral RNA | immunohistochemistry | in situ hybridisation
Experimental system
direct contact transmission model among co-housed fruit bats
OVE4074
Key finding

SARS-CoV-2 was efficiently transmitted from inoculated ferrets (Mustela putorius) to all three direct contact ferrets in an experimental setup.

Virus
Host
Location
Not specified
Supporting text

We intranasally inoculated ... ferrets (Mustela putorius) ... with 10^5 TCID50 of a SARS-CoV-2 isolate per animal. More efficient virus replication but no clinical signs were observed in ferrets, with transmission to all three direct contact animals.

Method
intranasal inoculation | direct contact co-housing | RT-qPCR detection of viral RNA | serological assays for antibodies
Experimental system
direct contact transmission model among co-housed ferrets