Article history: Received: 26-02-2018, Accepted: 23-07-2018, Published online: 08-09-2018
Corresponding author: Fayssal Bouchemla
E-mail: email@example.comCitation: Bouchemla F, Agoltsov VA, Larionov SV, Popova OM, Shvenk EV (2018) Epizootiological study on spatiotemporal clusters of Schmallenberg virus and Lumpy skin diseases: The case of Russia, Veterinary World, 11(9): 1229-1236.
Aim: The submitted article attempts to highlight and specify the development of Schmallenberg virus (SBV) and lumpy skin disease (LSD) in cartographic illustrations, as well as to assess the epizootic situation of these diseases in the world, especially in Russia.
Materials and Methods: Outbreaks (samples were collected from clinically healthy as well as suspected animals in infected areas) were confirmed and reported to the World Organization for Animal Health by veterinary officials representing countries in different geographical regions in the world. The reports showed that ELISA and polymerase chain reaction were used to identify SBV and LSD, taking into account number of infected, dead, and susceptible animals in infection foci since their first registration including in Russia. Once conventional statistical population (arrange data according to the main goal by regions, infected, and dead animals) was defined, a model was installed. A geo-information system, QuickMAP, was used to clarify the disease distribution map, and through the illustrations, analysis values were obtained.
Results: Using information clusters of some epizootological criteria in various territories has demonstrated 1.302 focus of infection of SBV, of which 63.22% were registered in Europe and 36.78% in Russia. The seroprevalence in Russia was about 7.92% of the examined animals. According to the morbidity structure, the causative agent mainly affected cattle (64.76%), small ruminants (33.68%), and goats (1.56%). A global assessment of the effectiveness of primary epizootic diagnosis by practicing veterinarians was 63.19%, i.e., of 100 suspicion reports of SBV, 63.19 cases are confirmed by laboratory methods. A detailed assessment of the types of animals affected by the disease showed that it was easily diagnosed in sheep (70.38%), cattle (60.4%), and goats (48.57%), respectively. In the wild animal species, a significant prevalence was recorded as- 54.5%. In 2016, 1.209 foci of LSD were registered in the world, with 20.548 heads of cattle affected, while 8.5% of them identified in Russia (in 2017, the figure was 7.5%). Different maps had been generated in QuickMAP. Cluster analysis of the infected livestock in different regions in Russia showed that, in 2016, the Chechen Republic, Krasnodar, and Volgograd regions were, respectively, severely, moderately, and mildly affected. In 2017, the situation changed and Saratov, Orenburg regions, and Bashkiria were severely affected. However, the number of outbreaks decreased by 84.81% by contribution to the previous year. Eritrea, Namibia, and South Africa were leading in a cluster of most infected areas in 2017.
Conclusion: Infectious diseases do not know borders. The emergence of SBV and LSD in the territory of the Russian Federation has followed the most common general dynamics of transborder diseases without ignoring details. The epizootic risk from wild animals and favorable climatic conditions is critical to fight against transmission of these diseases in Russia.
Keywords: geographic area, prevalence, Russia, Schmallenberg and lumpy skin disease.
1. Rosselkhoznadzor /Epizootic Situation/Schmallenberg Disease. (2018) Available from: http://www.fsvps.ru/fsvps/iac. Retrieved on 01-02-2018.
2. World Organisation for Animal Health. (2018) World Animal Health Information Database (WAHID) Interface. Available from: http://www.oie.int/wahis_2/public/wahid.php/Countryinformation/Diseasetimeseries. Retrieved on 09-01-2018.
3. Russian Federation. Letter of the Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillanc. (2013) N ΦC-HB-2/5077. Prevention of the Spread of Schmallenberg disease in the Territory of Russian Federation and Preventing the Importation of Infected Animals in the Country.
5. Nick, D.R. (2017) Akabane, Aino and Schmallenberg virus- where do we stand and what do we know about the role of domestic ruminant hosts and culicoides vectors in virus transmission and overwintering. Cur. Opin. Virol., 27: 15-30.
6. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), (2014) Schmallenberg virus: State of Art. EFSA Journal 2014; 12(5):3681.
7. Anastasios, S.J.M., Daly, B.M., Kevin, G. and Rachael, T. (2017) How is Europe positioned for a re-emergence of Schmallenberg virus? Rev. Vet. J., 230: 45-51.
8. Collinsa, A.B., Grant, J., Barrett, D., Doherty, M.L., Hallinane, A. and Mee, J.F. (2017) Schmallenberg virus: Predicting within-herd seroprevalence using bulk-tank milk antibody titres and exploring individual animal antibody titres using empirical distribution functions (EDF). Prev. Vet. Med., 143: 68-78. [Crossref]
9. Berhanu, S., Gelagay, A., Endrias, Z.G., Eystein, S. and Kassahun, A. (2018) Seroprevalence of Schmallenberg virus in dairy cattle in Ethiopia. Acta Tropica., 178: 61-67.
10. Laloy, E., Breard, E., Trappc, S., Pozzi, N., Riou, M., Barc, C., Breton, S., Delaunay, R, Cordonnier, N. and Chateau-Joubert, S. (2017) Fetopathic effects of experimental Schmallenberg virus infection in pregnant goats. Vet. Microbiol., 211: 141-149.
11. Anne, I.A.A. and Armstrong, R.F.C. (2017) Schmallenberg virus, an emerging viral pathogen of cattle and sheep and a potential contaminant of raw materials, is detectable by classical in-vitro adventitious virus assays. Biologicals, 49: 28-32. [Crossref] [PubMed]
12. Poskin, A., Van Campe, W., Mostin, L., Cay, B. and De Regge, N. (2014) Short communication-Experimental Schmallenberg virus infection of pigs. Vet. Microbiol., 170(3-4): 398-402. [Crossref] [PubMed]
13. Rossi, S., Viarouge, C., Faure, E., Gilot-Fromont, E., Gache, K., Gibert, P., Verheyden, H., Hars, J., Klein, F., Maillard, D., Gauthier, D., Game, Y., Pozet, F., Sailleau, C., Garnier, A., Zientara, S. and Breard, E. (2015) Exposure of wildlife to the Schmallenberg virus in France (2011-2014): Higher, faster, stronger (than Bluetongue). Transbound. Emerg. Dis., 64: 354-363.
15. Wernike, K., Silaghi, C., Nieder, M., Pfeffer, M. and Beer, M. (2014) Dynamics of Schmallenberg virus infection within a cattle herd in Germany in 2011. Epidemiol. Infect., 142: 1501-1504.
16. Birhanu, H., Tadele, T., Getachew, G., Teshale, T. and Belay, B. (2014) Estimated prevalence and risk factors associated with clinical lumpy skin disease in Northeastern Ethiopia. Prev. Vet. Med., 115(1-2): 64-68.
17. Gari, G., Grosbois, V., Waret-Szkuta, A., Babiuk, S., Jacquiet, P. and Roger, F. (2012) Lumpy skin disease in Ethiopia: Seroprevalence study across different agro-climate zones. Acta Tropica., 123(2): 101-106. [Crossref] [PubMed]
18. Eirini, I., Agianniotaki, K.E., Tasioudi, S.C., Chaintoutis, P.I., Mangana-Vougiouk, O., Kirtzalidou, A., Alexandropoulos, T., Sachpatzidis, A., Plevraki, E., Dovas, CI. and Chondrokouki, E. (2017) Lumpy skin disease outbreaks in Greece during 2015-16, implementation of emergency immunization and genetic differentiation between field isolates and vaccine virus strains. Vet. Microbiol., 201: 78-84.
19. Ben-Gera, J., Klement, E., Khinich, E., Stram, Y. and Shpigel, N.Y. (2015) Comparison of the efficacy of Neethling lumpy skin disease virus and x10RM65 sheep-pox live attenuated vaccines for the prevention of lumpy skin disease-the results of a randomized controlled field study. Vaccine, 33(38): 4837-4842. [Crossref] [PubMed]20. Ana, C.L.A., Annette, K.E.L., Kristine, B. and Nils, T. (2017) Mortality in Danish swine herds: Spatio-temporal clusters and risk factors. Prev. Vet. Med., 145: 41-48.