Common voles (Microtus arvalis): Important reservoir for Tula orthohantavirus and other zoonotic pathogens

• Main Author: Schmidt, Sabrina
• Other Authors: Ulrich, Rainer G.
• Format: Doctoral or Postdoctoral Thesis
• Language: English
• Published: Universität Greifswald, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät / Abteilung für Mikrobiologie und Molekularbiologie 2023
• Subjects: Text; ddc:570; Zoonose > Hanta-Virus > Feldmaus; Tula; Common vole; Microtus arvalis
• Online Access: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:gbv:9-opus-78456; https://www.openagrar.de/receive/openagrar_mods_00085583; https://www.openagrar.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/openagrar_derivate_00051621/Dissertation-Schmidt-Sabrina.pdf; https://epub.ub.uni-greifswald.de/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/7845/file/Dissertation.pdf

The aim of this work was to characterize the distribution of TULV in European common vole populations, to clarify the host association of TULV and to investigate correlations between host population dynamics and changes in TULV prevalence. Furthermore, the potential of common voles as reservoir for other rodent-borne pathogens was examined in comparison to other rodent species. Molecular and serological analysis of rodents captured at 87 locations in Germany, France, Luxembourg, and Austria revealed TULV infections at 53.6 % of all trapping locations. The seroprevalence in common voles was low with a mean of 8.5 % (range: 0 – 19 %). TULV RNA was more often detected (mean: 15.3 %, range 0 - 37.5 %). Field voles (Microtus agrestis) and water voles (Arvicola amphibius) were less often tested positive for TULV: mean seroprevalence was 7 % for field voles and 6.7 % for water voles. RNA could be detected in 5.4 % of all tested field voles and 3.2 % of water voles and with exception of a single field vole only when TULV-RNA-positive common voles were trapped at the same location. Those results indicate that TULV infections of field and water voles are spillover infections from sympatric TULV-infected common voles. Phylogenetic analysis revealed distinct genetic differences between TULV sequences of regions of greater geographical distance which were associated with different evolutionary common vole lineages. Furthermore, we could detect genetic differences between TULV strains from trapping sites close to each other (ca. 10 km). In a capture-mark-recapture study 1042 common voles captured in live traps in Germany were sampled as well as 225 captured in snap traps. When analyzing the seroprevalence of fluctuating common vole populations over several years and seasons we found a negative correlation between prevalence and population density in the current season but a delayed density-dependent positive correlation between the current population density and seroprevalence in the next season. However, this trend varied ...