The Efficacy of Surrogate Virus Neutralization Test ELISA Varies in the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies with Different Postmortem White-Tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) Biological Samples.
Raquel Francisco, Sonia M Hernandez, Ethan P Barton, Melanie R Kunkel, Kayla G Adcock, Daniel G Mead, Mark G Ruder, Jillian R Broadhurst, Michael J Yabsley
{"title":"The Efficacy of Surrogate Virus Neutralization Test ELISA Varies in the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies with Different Postmortem White-Tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) Biological Samples.","authors":"Raquel Francisco, Sonia M Hernandez, Ethan P Barton, Melanie R Kunkel, Kayla G Adcock, Daniel G Mead, Mark G Ruder, Jillian R Broadhurst, Michael J Yabsley","doi":"10.7589/JWD-D-24-00155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The susceptibility of white-tailed deer (WTD; Odocoileus virginianus) to SARS-CoV-2 has resulted in WTD being one of the most studied wildlife species during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, WTD specimen collections for SARS-CoV-2 research and surveillance have largely been opportunistic. Our objective was to evaluate the detection of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) in WTD serum, plus two additional WTD biological sample types, using a blocking ELISA previously used for WTD serum. The two additional sample types evaluated were eluted Nobuto filter-paper strips (FPSs) from heparinized whole blood collected perimortem from 34 WTD and serosanguinous fluid collected postmortem from the thoracic cavity of 34 WTD. A true NAb prevalence of 88% was established from the serum samples. The FPS eluates performed most poorly (56% apparent prevalence; 57% sensitivity; 50% specificity), followed by serosanguinous fluid (88% apparent prevalence; 87% sensitivity; 0% specificity). Serosanguinous fluid appeared to better reflect the WTD population's true seroprevalence, although sensitivity decreased to <90% for both nonserum biological sample types. As studies are being developed to better understand the ecology of SARS-CoV-2 infections in WTD and other wildlife, it is important to consider the sample type being assessed, because sensitivity may vary greatly.</p>","PeriodicalId":17602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Wildlife Diseases","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Wildlife Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7589/JWD-D-24-00155","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The susceptibility of white-tailed deer (WTD; Odocoileus virginianus) to SARS-CoV-2 has resulted in WTD being one of the most studied wildlife species during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, WTD specimen collections for SARS-CoV-2 research and surveillance have largely been opportunistic. Our objective was to evaluate the detection of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) in WTD serum, plus two additional WTD biological sample types, using a blocking ELISA previously used for WTD serum. The two additional sample types evaluated were eluted Nobuto filter-paper strips (FPSs) from heparinized whole blood collected perimortem from 34 WTD and serosanguinous fluid collected postmortem from the thoracic cavity of 34 WTD. A true NAb prevalence of 88% was established from the serum samples. The FPS eluates performed most poorly (56% apparent prevalence; 57% sensitivity; 50% specificity), followed by serosanguinous fluid (88% apparent prevalence; 87% sensitivity; 0% specificity). Serosanguinous fluid appeared to better reflect the WTD population's true seroprevalence, although sensitivity decreased to <90% for both nonserum biological sample types. As studies are being developed to better understand the ecology of SARS-CoV-2 infections in WTD and other wildlife, it is important to consider the sample type being assessed, because sensitivity may vary greatly.
期刊介绍:
The JWD publishes reports of wildlife disease investigations, research papers, brief research notes, case and epizootic reports, review articles, and book reviews. The JWD publishes the results of original research and observations dealing with all aspects of infectious, parasitic, toxic, nutritional, physiologic, developmental and neoplastic diseases, environmental contamination, and other factors impinging on the health and survival of free-living or occasionally captive populations of wild animals, including fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Papers on zoonoses involving wildlife and on chemical immobilization of wild animals are also published. Manuscripts dealing with surveys and case reports may be published in the Journal provided that they contain significant new information or have significance for better understanding health and disease in wild populations. Authors are encouraged to address the wildlife management implications of their studies, where appropriate.