Cargando…
Revisiting Ophidiomycosis (Snake Fungal Disease) After a Decade of Targeted Research
Emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) are typically characterized by novelty (recent detection) and by increasing incidence, distribution, and/or pathogenicity. Ophidiomycosis, also called snake fungal disease, is caused by the fungus Ophidiomyces ophidiicola (formerly “ophiodiicola”). Ophidiomycosis...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8200636/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34136555 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.665805 |
_version_ | 1783707650640314368 |
---|---|
author | Davy, Christina M. Shirose, Leonard Campbell, Doug Dillon, Rachel McKenzie, Christina Nemeth, Nicole Braithwaite, Tony Cai, Hugh Degazio, Tarra Dobbie, Tammy Egan, Sean Fotherby, Heather Litzgus, Jacqueline D. Manorome, Pilar Marks, Steve Paterson, James E. Sigler, Lynne Slavic, Durda Slavik, Emily Urquhart, John Jardine, Claire |
author_facet | Davy, Christina M. Shirose, Leonard Campbell, Doug Dillon, Rachel McKenzie, Christina Nemeth, Nicole Braithwaite, Tony Cai, Hugh Degazio, Tarra Dobbie, Tammy Egan, Sean Fotherby, Heather Litzgus, Jacqueline D. Manorome, Pilar Marks, Steve Paterson, James E. Sigler, Lynne Slavic, Durda Slavik, Emily Urquhart, John Jardine, Claire |
author_sort | Davy, Christina M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) are typically characterized by novelty (recent detection) and by increasing incidence, distribution, and/or pathogenicity. Ophidiomycosis, also called snake fungal disease, is caused by the fungus Ophidiomyces ophidiicola (formerly “ophiodiicola”). Ophidiomycosis has been characterized as an EID and as a potential threat to populations of Nearctic snakes, sparking over a decade of targeted research. However, the severity of this threat is unclear. We reviewed the available literature to quantify incidence and effects of ophidiomycosis in Nearctic snakes, and to evaluate whether the evidence supports the ongoing characterization of ophidiomycosis as an EID. Data from Canada remain scarce, so we supplemented the literature review with surveys for O. ophidiicola in the Canadian Great Lakes region. Peer-reviewed reports of clinical signs consistent with ophidiomycosis in free-ranging, Nearctic snakes date back to at least 1998, and retrospective molecular testing of samples extend the earliest confirmed record to 1986. Diagnostic criteria varied among publications (n = 33), confounding quantitative comparisons. Ophidiomycosis was diagnosed or suspected in 36/121 captive snakes and was fatal in over half of cases (66.7%). This result may implicate captivity-related stress as a risk factor for mortality from ophidiomycosis, but could also reflect reporting bias (i.e., infections are more likely to be detected in captive snakes, and severe cases are more likely to be reported). In contrast, ophidiomycosis was diagnosed or suspected in 441/2,384 free-ranging snakes, with mortality observed in 43 (9.8 %). Ophidiomycosis was only speculatively linked to population declines, and we found no evidence that the prevalence of the pathogen or disease increased over the past decade of targeted research. Supplemental surveys and molecular (qPCR) testing in Ontario, Canada detected O. ophidiicola on 76 of 657 free-ranging snakes sampled across ~136,000 km(2). The pathogen was detected at most sites despite limited and haphazard sampling. No large-scale mortality was observed. Current evidence supports previous suggestions that the pathogen is a widespread, previously unrecognized endemic, rather than a novel pathogen. Ophidiomycosis may not pose an imminent threat to Nearctic snakes, but further research should investigate potential sublethal effects of ophidiomycosis such as altered reproductive success that could impact population growth, and explore whether shifting environmental conditions may alter host susceptibility. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8200636 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-82006362021-06-15 Revisiting Ophidiomycosis (Snake Fungal Disease) After a Decade of Targeted Research Davy, Christina M. Shirose, Leonard Campbell, Doug Dillon, Rachel McKenzie, Christina Nemeth, Nicole Braithwaite, Tony Cai, Hugh Degazio, Tarra Dobbie, Tammy Egan, Sean Fotherby, Heather Litzgus, Jacqueline D. Manorome, Pilar Marks, Steve Paterson, James E. Sigler, Lynne Slavic, Durda Slavik, Emily Urquhart, John Jardine, Claire Front Vet Sci Veterinary Science Emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) are typically characterized by novelty (recent detection) and by increasing incidence, distribution, and/or pathogenicity. Ophidiomycosis, also called snake fungal disease, is caused by the fungus Ophidiomyces ophidiicola (formerly “ophiodiicola”). Ophidiomycosis has been characterized as an EID and as a potential threat to populations of Nearctic snakes, sparking over a decade of targeted research. However, the severity of this threat is unclear. We reviewed the available literature to quantify incidence and effects of ophidiomycosis in Nearctic snakes, and to evaluate whether the evidence supports the ongoing characterization of ophidiomycosis as an EID. Data from Canada remain scarce, so we supplemented the literature review with surveys for O. ophidiicola in the Canadian Great Lakes region. Peer-reviewed reports of clinical signs consistent with ophidiomycosis in free-ranging, Nearctic snakes date back to at least 1998, and retrospective molecular testing of samples extend the earliest confirmed record to 1986. Diagnostic criteria varied among publications (n = 33), confounding quantitative comparisons. Ophidiomycosis was diagnosed or suspected in 36/121 captive snakes and was fatal in over half of cases (66.7%). This result may implicate captivity-related stress as a risk factor for mortality from ophidiomycosis, but could also reflect reporting bias (i.e., infections are more likely to be detected in captive snakes, and severe cases are more likely to be reported). In contrast, ophidiomycosis was diagnosed or suspected in 441/2,384 free-ranging snakes, with mortality observed in 43 (9.8 %). Ophidiomycosis was only speculatively linked to population declines, and we found no evidence that the prevalence of the pathogen or disease increased over the past decade of targeted research. Supplemental surveys and molecular (qPCR) testing in Ontario, Canada detected O. ophidiicola on 76 of 657 free-ranging snakes sampled across ~136,000 km(2). The pathogen was detected at most sites despite limited and haphazard sampling. No large-scale mortality was observed. Current evidence supports previous suggestions that the pathogen is a widespread, previously unrecognized endemic, rather than a novel pathogen. Ophidiomycosis may not pose an imminent threat to Nearctic snakes, but further research should investigate potential sublethal effects of ophidiomycosis such as altered reproductive success that could impact population growth, and explore whether shifting environmental conditions may alter host susceptibility. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-05-31 /pmc/articles/PMC8200636/ /pubmed/34136555 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.665805 Text en Copyright © 2021 Davy, Shirose, Campbell, Dillon, McKenzie, Nemeth, Braithwaite, Cai, Degazio, Dobbie, Egan, Fotherby, Litzgus, Manorome, Marks, Paterson, Sigler, Slavic, Slavik, Urquhart and Jardine. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Veterinary Science Davy, Christina M. Shirose, Leonard Campbell, Doug Dillon, Rachel McKenzie, Christina Nemeth, Nicole Braithwaite, Tony Cai, Hugh Degazio, Tarra Dobbie, Tammy Egan, Sean Fotherby, Heather Litzgus, Jacqueline D. Manorome, Pilar Marks, Steve Paterson, James E. Sigler, Lynne Slavic, Durda Slavik, Emily Urquhart, John Jardine, Claire Revisiting Ophidiomycosis (Snake Fungal Disease) After a Decade of Targeted Research |
title | Revisiting Ophidiomycosis (Snake Fungal Disease) After a Decade of Targeted Research |
title_full | Revisiting Ophidiomycosis (Snake Fungal Disease) After a Decade of Targeted Research |
title_fullStr | Revisiting Ophidiomycosis (Snake Fungal Disease) After a Decade of Targeted Research |
title_full_unstemmed | Revisiting Ophidiomycosis (Snake Fungal Disease) After a Decade of Targeted Research |
title_short | Revisiting Ophidiomycosis (Snake Fungal Disease) After a Decade of Targeted Research |
title_sort | revisiting ophidiomycosis (snake fungal disease) after a decade of targeted research |
topic | Veterinary Science |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8200636/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34136555 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.665805 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT davychristinam revisitingophidiomycosissnakefungaldiseaseafteradecadeoftargetedresearch AT shiroseleonard revisitingophidiomycosissnakefungaldiseaseafteradecadeoftargetedresearch AT campbelldoug revisitingophidiomycosissnakefungaldiseaseafteradecadeoftargetedresearch AT dillonrachel revisitingophidiomycosissnakefungaldiseaseafteradecadeoftargetedresearch AT mckenziechristina revisitingophidiomycosissnakefungaldiseaseafteradecadeoftargetedresearch AT nemethnicole revisitingophidiomycosissnakefungaldiseaseafteradecadeoftargetedresearch AT braithwaitetony revisitingophidiomycosissnakefungaldiseaseafteradecadeoftargetedresearch AT caihugh revisitingophidiomycosissnakefungaldiseaseafteradecadeoftargetedresearch AT degaziotarra revisitingophidiomycosissnakefungaldiseaseafteradecadeoftargetedresearch AT dobbietammy revisitingophidiomycosissnakefungaldiseaseafteradecadeoftargetedresearch AT egansean revisitingophidiomycosissnakefungaldiseaseafteradecadeoftargetedresearch AT fotherbyheather revisitingophidiomycosissnakefungaldiseaseafteradecadeoftargetedresearch AT litzgusjacquelined revisitingophidiomycosissnakefungaldiseaseafteradecadeoftargetedresearch AT manoromepilar revisitingophidiomycosissnakefungaldiseaseafteradecadeoftargetedresearch AT markssteve revisitingophidiomycosissnakefungaldiseaseafteradecadeoftargetedresearch AT patersonjamese revisitingophidiomycosissnakefungaldiseaseafteradecadeoftargetedresearch AT siglerlynne revisitingophidiomycosissnakefungaldiseaseafteradecadeoftargetedresearch AT slavicdurda revisitingophidiomycosissnakefungaldiseaseafteradecadeoftargetedresearch AT slavikemily revisitingophidiomycosissnakefungaldiseaseafteradecadeoftargetedresearch AT urquhartjohn revisitingophidiomycosissnakefungaldiseaseafteradecadeoftargetedresearch AT jardineclaire revisitingophidiomycosissnakefungaldiseaseafteradecadeoftargetedresearch |