Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:44:30.819Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biosafety considerations for in vivo work with risk group 3 pathogens in large animals and wildlife in North America

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2013

S. C. Olsen
S. C. Olsen*
Affiliation:
Infectious Bacterial Diseases of Livestock Research Unit, National Animal Disease Center, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Ames, Iowa, USA
*
Corresponding author. E-mail: steven.olsen@ars.usda.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Regulations in the United States require animal biosafety level 3 (ABSL-3) or biosafety level 3 agriculture (BSL-3-Ag) containment for many endemic zoonotic pathogens and etiologic agents of foreign animal diseases. In an effort to protect public health, billions of dollars were invested in regulatory programs over many years to reduce the prevalence of zoonotic pathogens such as Brucella and Mycobacterium bovis in domestic livestock. In addition to research needs in domestic livestock hosts, the establishment of brucellosis and tuberculosis in wildlife in the United States has created a need for research studies addressing these zoonotic diseases. As guidelines in the Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (BMBL, 2009) for BSL-3 and BSL-3-Ag facilities are primarily directed toward laboratory or vivarium facilities, additional issues should be considered in designing large animal containment facilities for domestic livestock and/or wildlife. Flight distance, herd orientation, social needs, aggressiveness, and predictability are all factors we considered on a species by species basis for designing our containment facilities and for work practices with large ruminants. Although safety risk cannot be completely eliminated when working with large animals, studies in natural hosts are critical for advancing vaccine and diagnostic development, and providing basic knowledge of disease pathogenesis in natural hosts. Data gathered in these types of studies are vital for state and national regulatory personnel in their efforts to design strategies to control or eradicate diseases such as brucellosis and tuberculosis in their natural hosts, whether it is domestic livestock or wildlife. It is likely that failure to address the prevalence of disease in wildlife reservoirs will lead to re-emergence in domestic livestock. The overall benefit of these studies is to protect public health, provide economic benefits to producers, and protect the economic investment made in regulatory programs.

Keywords

biosafetypathogenicitybiocontainment facilitieszoonotic pathogens
Type
Review Article
Information
Animal Health Research Reviews , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , June 2013 , pp. 2 - 10
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barrera, L and De Kantor, IN (1987). Nontuberculosis Mycobacteria and Mycobacterium bovis as a cause of human disease in Argentina. Tropical and Geographic Medicine 39: 222–227.Google Scholar
Bernués, A, Manrique, E and Maza, MT (1997). Economic evaluation of bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication programmes in a mountain area of Spain. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 30: 137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (2009). 5th edn.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
Harding, AL and Byers, KB (2000). Epidemiology of laboratory-associated infections. In: Flemming, DO and Hunt, DL (eds) Biological Safety: Principles and Practices, 3rd edn.Washington, DC: ASM Press, pp. 35–54.Google Scholar
Ma, W, Kahn, RE and Richt, JA (2009). The pig as a mixing vessel for influenza viruses: human and veterinary implications. Journal of Molecular and Genetic Medicine 3: 158–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molinari, N-AM, Ortega-Sanchez, IR, Messonnier, ML, Thompson, WW, Wortley, PM, WEintraub, E, and Bridges, CB (2007). The annual impact of seasonal influenza in the US: measuring disease burden and costs. Vaccine 25: 5086–5096.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olmstead, AL and Rhode, PW (2004a). Impossible undertaking: the eradication of bovine TB from the U.S. Journal of Economic History 64: 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olmstead, AL and Rhode, PW (2004b). The tuberculosis cattle trust: disease contagion in an era of regulatory uncertainty. Journal of Economic History 64: 929–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, SC and Hennager, SG (2010). Immune responses and protection against experimental Brucella suis biovar 1 challenge in nonvaccinated or B. abortus strain RB51-vaccinated cattle. Clinical and Vaccine Immunology 17: 1891–1895.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olsen, SC and Stoffregen, WS (2005). Essential role of vaccines in brucellosis control and eradication programs for livestock. Expert Review of Vaccines 4: 915–928.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olsen, SC, Jensen, AE, Stoffregen, WC and Palmer, MV (2003). Efficacy of calfhood vaccination with Brucella abortus strain RB51 in protecting bison against brucellosis. Research in Veterinary Science 74: 17–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olsen, SC, Fach, SJ, Palmer, MV, Sacco, RE, Stoffregen, WS and Waters, WR (2006). Immune responses of elk to initial and booster vaccinations with Brucella abortus strain RB51 or 19. Clinical and Vaccine Immunology 13: 1098–1103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olsen, SC, Boyle, SM, Schurig, GG and Sriranganathan, NN (2009). Immune responses and protection against experimental challenge after vaccination of bison with Brucella abortus strain RB51 or RB51 overexpressing superoxide dismutase and glycosyltransferase genes. Clinical and Vaccine Immunology 16: 535–540.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palmer, MV and Whipple, DL (2006). Survival of Mycobacterium bovis on feedstuffs commonly used as supplemental feed for white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Journal of Wildlife Diseases 42: 853–858.Google Scholar
Palmer, MV, Whipple, DL and Olsen, SC (1999). Development of a model of natural infection with Mycobacterium bovis in white-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 35: 450–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, MV, Whipple, DL and Waters, WR (2001). Experimental deer-to-deer transmission of Mycobacterium bovis. American Journal of Veterinary Research 62: 692–696.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palmer, MV, Waters, WR and Whipple, DL (2002). Milk containing Mycobacterium bovis as a source of infection for white-tailed deer fawns (Odocoileus virginianus). Tuberculosis (Edinburgh) 82: 161–165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palmer, MV, Waters, WR and Whipple, DL (2004a). Investigation of the transmission of Mycobacterium bovis from deer to cattle through indirect contact. American Journal of Veterinary Research 65: 1483–1489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palmer, MV, Waters, WR and Whipple, DL (2004b). Shared feed as a means of deer-to-deer transmission of Mycobacterium bovis. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 40: 87–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palmer, MV, Waters, WR and Whipple, DL (2004c). Investigation of the transmission of Mycobacterium bovis from deer to cattle through indirect contact. American Journal of Veterinary Research 65: 1483–1489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palmer, MV, Waters, WR, Thacker, TC, Stoffregen, WC and Thomsen, BV (2006). Experimentally induced infection of reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) with Mycobacterium bovis. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation 18: 52–60.Google Scholar
Pike, RM (1976). Laboratory-associated infections: summary and analysis of 3921 cases. Health Laboratory Science 13: 105–114.Google ScholarPubMed
Pike, RM (1978). Past and present hazards of working with infectious agents. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine 102: 333–336.Google ScholarPubMed
Pike, RM (1979). Laboratory-associated infections: incidence, fatalities, causes and prevention. Annual Reviews of Microbiology 33: 41–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pike, RM, Sulkin, SE and Schulze, ML (1965). Continuing importance of laboratory-acquired infections. American Journal of Public Health 55: 190–199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roswurm, JD and Ranney, AF (1973). Sharpening the attack on bovine tuberculosis. American Journal of Public Health 63: 884–886.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roth, F, Zinsstag, J, Orkhon, D, Chimed-Ochir, G, Hutton, G, Cosivi, O, Carrin, G and Otte, J (2003). Human health benefits from livestock vaccination for brucellosis: case study. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 81: 867–876.Google ScholarPubMed
Stevens, MG, Olsen, SC, Palmer, MV and Cheville, NF (1997). Brucella abortus strain RB51: a new brucellosis vaccine for cattle. Compendium 19: 766–775.Google Scholar
Stoffregen, WC, Olsen, SC and Bricker, BJ (2006). Parenteral vaccination of domestic pigs with Brucella abortus strain RB51. American Journal of Veterinary Research 67: 1802–1808.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sulkin, SE and Pike, RM (1951). Survey of laboratory-acquired infections. American Journal of Public Health 41: 769–781.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waters, WR, Buddle, BM, Vordemeier, HM, Gormley, E, Palmer, MV, Thacker, TC, Bannantine, JP, Stable, JR, Linscott, R, Martel, E, Millian, F, Foshaug, W and Lawrence, JC (2011a). Development and evaluation of an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for use in the detection of bovine tuberculosis in cattle. Clinical and Vaccine Immunology 18: 1882–1888.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waters, WR, Palmer, MV, Thacker, TC, Davis, WC, Sreevatsan, S, Coussens, P, Meade, KG, Hope, JC and Estes, DM (2011b). Tuberculosis immunity: opportunities from studies with cattle. Clinical and Developmental Immunology 2011: 768542.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waters, WR, Thacker, TC, Nonnecke, BJ, Palmer, MV, Schiller, I, Oesch, B, Vordemeier, HM, Silva, E and Estes, DM (2012). Evaluation of gamma interferon (IFN-γ)-induced protein 10 responses for detection of cattle infected with Mycobacerium bovis; comparisons to IFN-γ responses. Clinical and Vaccine Immunology 19: 356–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waters, WR, Whelan, AO, Lyashchenko, KP, Greenwald, R, Palmer, MV, Harris, BN, Hewinson, RG and Vordermeier, HM (2010). Immune responses in cattle inoculated with Mycobacterium bovis, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, or Mycobacterium kansasii. Clinical and Vaccine Immunology 17: 247–252.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed