76
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Kyasanur Forest Disease Virus Alkhurma Subtype in Ticks, Najran Province, Saudi Arabia

      letter

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          To the Editor: The lineage of Kyasanur Forest disease virus (KFDV) found in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is commonly referred to as Alkhurma hemorrhagic fever virus (AHFV). This virus was first isolated from a specimen collected in 1994 from a butcher living in Makkah Province, who was hospitalized for a hemorrhagic fever from which he died ( 1 ). The virus was assigned to the genus Flavivirus on the basis of reactivity with genus-specific monoclonal antibodies and sequencing of a fragment of the nonstructural 5 (NS5) gene, which showed >89% identity with KFDV. Ten other cases were confirmed among patients who had leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, and elevated liver enzymes. Observations of patients in the original study or in a subsequent analysis ( 2 ) suggested that Alkhurma hemorrhagic fever (AHF) disease was associated with contact with blood from infected animals, bites from infected ticks, or the drinking of raw milk. However, the exact mode of transmission to humans has still not been fully elucidated. More recently, AHFV RNA was detected in a single pool of sand tampans (Ornithodoros savignyi, soft ticks), collected in western Saudi Arabia ( 3 ), which suggests a link with these ticks. To analyze the virus association with arthropods further, we collected and identified ticks and mosquitoes in Najran Province, southern Saudi Arabia, during May and June 2009 from different sites close to where human AHF cases had been recently confirmed ( 4 , 5 ). Camel ticks (Hyalomma dromedarii) (130 adults) were collected while they fed on camels, and O. savignyi sand tampans (243 adults) were collected from the ground in camel resting places (except 1 collected while feeding on a camel). Mosquitoes were collected by using light traps (203 Culex decens females) or as larvae that were then raised in the laboratory (9 Culiseta sp. females). Ticks and mosquitoes were stored at room temperature and killed by overnight freezing the day before shipping to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Atlanta, GA, USA). All arthropods were processed in the BioSafety Level 4 laboratory by injecting Vero E6 cells and by intracerebrally inoculating suckling mice with ground pools of either 5 ticks or 10 mosquitoes. All the tick material was used for the tested pools. Isolates of AHFV were obtained from 1 of 13 pools of H. dromedarii ticks and 1 of 6 pools of O. savignyi sand tampans, both from Al Mishaaliyia district, and from 5 of 8 pools of O. savignyi sand tampans from the Al Balad Magan camel market. Virus identity was confirmed by sequencing a 390-nt fragment from the virus core protein C and preM genes. No virus was isolated from any mosquito suspensions. Phylogenetic analysis of the 7 tick isolates and the available homologous sequences of AHFV are presented in the Figure. The tick AHFV sequences are closely related but distinct from previously reported AHFV sequences from human isolates or from the only sequence reported from ticks collected in 2004 in Jeddah Province. The observed sequences are clustered by site of collection but not by tick species. In this report, we confirm that the sand tampan (O. savignyi tick) is a vector and reservoir of AHFV in Saudi Arabia. Of all arthropods, this tick is one of the most highly adapted to the desert. It can be found in the shade of trees, beside rock fences, on livestock, and in livestock yards, particularly camel yards ( 6 ). It can feed rapidly during the day or night on camels, goats, sheep, wild mammals, and humans. Sand tampans can survive for long periods without feeding, fulfilling perfectly the role of reservoir for AHFV. This tick has been reported in arid biotopes of northeastern, eastern, and southern Africa (7) and from Arabia to India and Sri Lanka, which suggests a potential wide distribution of AHFV or related viruses. In India, KFDV has been isolated from Ornithodoros spp. ticks collected in a bat-inhabited cave ( 8 ), and experimental transtadial and transovarial transmission of KFDV in O. crossi ticks has been reported ( 9 ). The isolation of AHFV from the camel tick (H. dromedarii) also has public health implications. The capital city of Najran serves as a market for camels and other livestock from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Adult camel ticks infest mainly camels, and infected ticks can feed on and infect animals just before sale or slaughter. AHF in persons working in the Najran market has been described (5). Unfortunately, no AHFV sequence is available from those cases. The genetic diversity of the isolated viruses from ticks is quite low. Previous analysis of KFDV and AHFV suggested slow evolution with divergence ≈33 years ago (10). The data reported here clearly strengthen the position of AHFV in the tick-borne flavivirus complex, although the numbers and species of mosquitoes tested were limited. Expanded epidemiologic and molecular studies should provide insight into the distribution and evolution of the virus and identify at-risk regions within Saudi Arabia. Laboratory infection and transmission studies in colonized ticks should clarify the role of O. savignyi and H. dromedarii ticks in the ecology of AHFV. Currently, public health messages are being developed for the community at risk and local health care workers. Figure Phylogenetic analysis of Alkhurma viruses isolated from Ornithodoros savignyi and Hyalomma dromedarii ticks in Najran Province, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. A 390-bp region of the core protein C and preM genes was amplified and sequenced for each of the isolates (HQ443410–6) by using primers ALK244S (5′-GTGTTGATGCGCATGATGGG-3′) and ALK665R (5′-TGCAGAAACAGTCCACATCA-3′). A maximum-likelihood analysis was conducted with available sequences in GenBank for ALK (NC_004355; 3) by using Kyasanur Forest disease (AY323490) as the outgroup and the default settings in GARLI version 0.96b8 (www.phylo.org/pdf_docs/zwicklDissertation.pdf). Scale bar indicates substitutions per site.

          Related collections

          Most cited references7

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Alkhurma Hemorrhagic Fever Virus in Ornithodoros savignyi Ticks

          Evidence for the tickborne nature of Alkhurma hemorrhagic fever virus (AHFV) is indirect because AHFV has not been detected in arthropods. One Ornithodoros savignyi tick from Saudi Arabia contained AHFV RNA. This is the first direct evidence that AHFV is a tickborne flavivirus and confirms the association between human AHFV cases and tickbite history.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Recent Ancestry of Kyasanur Forest Disease Virus

            Kyasanur Forest disease virus (KFDV) is a member of the mammalian tick-borne virus group (previously referred to as the tick-borne encephalitis serogroup) of the family Flaviviridae and genus Flavivirus ( 1 ). In addition to KFDV, this group contains Louping ill, tick-borne encephalitis, Omsk hemorrhagic fever, Langat, Powassan, Royal Farm, and Gadgets Gully viruses. KFD was first recognized in 1957 in the Kyasanur Forest of Shimoga District, Karnataka State, India, when a disease causing a high number of deaths was observed in 2 species of monkeys: the black-faced langur (Semnopithecus entellus, earlier known as Presbytis entellus) and the red-faced bonnet monkey (Macaca radiata). Human cases were also found among persons who visited forests to collect firewood, grass, and other forest products. Human disease is characterized by an incubation period of ≈3–8 days, followed by chills, frontal headache, body ache, and high fever for 5–12 days, and a case-fatality rate >30% ( 2 ). During infection by KFDV, virus titer remains high <10 days after onset of symptoms, as reported by Bhat et al. ( 3 ). However, Upadhyaya et al. ( 4 ) found that viremia in patients lasted for 12–13 days of illness and unlike most other flaviviruses, remains high during the first 3–6 days with titers as high as 3.1 × 106 PFU/mL. Continuing deaths in monkeys and an average of 400–500 human cases have been seen annually over the past 5 decades, commonly occurring in evergreen, semi-evergreen, and neighboring, moist, deciduous forest areas. An array of tick species, mainly Haemaphysalis spinigera, act as vectors for KFDV ( 5 ). This species of tick is widely distributed in tropical evergreen and deciduous forests of southern and central India and Sri Lanka. KFDV has also been isolated from 7 other species of this genus and from Dermacentor and Ixodes ticks. This disease is transmitted by ticks among ground birds and small mammals such as the white-tailed rat, white-bellied rat, shrew, and bat. High titers of virus can be obtained after experimental infection of black-napped hares, porcupines, flying squirrels, Malabar giant squirrels, three-striped squirrels, gerbils, mice, long-tailed tree mice, and shrews ( 2 – 9 ). Until 1971, KFDV was endemic to the Sagar, Sorab, and Shikaripur taluks (counties) of Shimoga District (Figure 1). By 1972, a new focus of virus activity appeared in Sirsi Taluk, Uttara Kannada District. Many KFDV isolates were obtained from Karnataka during 1957–1972 and maintained in a repository at the National Institute of Virology (NIV) in Pune, India. However, the virus was found to be highly infectious, as shown by numerous infections in field and laboratory personnel ( 2 , 10 ), which resulted in suspension of work with this virus until an appropriate BioSafety Level-3 laboratory was built at NIV in 2004. In 2006, this laboratory isolated a virus from a serum sample of a patient suspected of having KFD that was obtained from the Virus Diagnostic Laboratory in Shimoga. Figure 1 Areas of Karnataka State, India, known to be affected by Kyasanur Forest disease (dark gray shading). More recent studies have identified KFDV in Saudi Arabia and the People’s Republic of China ( 11 , 12 ). During 1994–1995, a virus was isolated from hemorrhagic fever patients in the Makkah region of Saudi Arabia and identified as a KFDV variant, referred to as the Alkhurma variant or subgroup ( 11 , 13 , 14 ). The prototype strain of KFDV from Saudi Arabia (strain 1176, isolated in 1995) and the KFDV reference strain from India (P-9605, isolated in 1957) differ from each another by only 8% at the genome nucleotide level, despite their temporal (38 years) and geographic (≈4,000 km) separation. A virus initially referred to as Nanjianyin virus, isolated in 1989 from a febrile patient in Nanjian County in the Hengduan Mountain region of Yunnan Province in southwestern China, was recently identified as a strain of KFDV ( 12 ). However, it is unclear whether this KFDV 1989 isolate from China is an authentic virus isolate because it is virtually identical at the nucleotide level with the 1957 reference strain from India (P-9605), despite their being isolated 32 years and almost 3,000 km apart. The P-9605 strain was distributed widely to arbovirus reference laboratories. Reference KFDV virus was used as part of the analysis of serum samples from Yunnan Province ( 15 , 16 ). Results of molecular epidemiologic studies have suggested that tick-borne flaviviruses have evolved slowly while dispersing north and west across Asian and European forests during the past few millennia ( 17 – 19 ). This pattern is different from that of rapidly evolving mosquito-borne flaviviruses, many of which can be transported long distances by migratory birds, persons, animals, or mosquito eggs ( 19 , 20 ). We examined the diversity and evolution of KFDV and present data that indicated that KFDV isolates from India, Saudi Arabia, and China share a recent common ancestor, indicating long-range movement of this tick-borne flavivirus. In addition, we also estimated the evolution rate of KFDV and compared it with that of mosquito-borne flaviviruses. Methods Virus Selection and Reverse Transcription–PCR Forty-seven representative KFDV isolates from India were chosen for analysis; these isolates were obtained during 1957–1972 (Table 1). Isolates represented viruses from various host species and different geographic locations in Shimoga, Uttara Kannada, and Dakshina Kannada districts, Karnataka State. One KFDV from India isolated in 2006 was also included. Lyophilized KFDV stocks were obtained from the virus repository at the NIV, India, and grown in Vero E6 cell lines. Primers for PCR and phylogenetic analysis were designed to target regions of structural genes (premembrane/envelope) and the nonstructural protein 5 (NS5) gene (viral polymerase) (Table 2). Table 1 Isolates of Kyasanur Forest disease virus analyzed, India* ID no. Isolate Year Location Original source Common name of source 1 W379 1957 Baragi Semnopithecus entellus Black-faced langur 2 P9605 1957 Shigga Homo sapiens Human 3 G11333 1957 Barasi Haemaphysalis spinigera Tick 4 P16011 1958 Kaisodi H. sapiens Human 5 W3399 1958 Hessare S. entellus Black-faced langur 6 W6043 1959 Belisiri S. entellus Black-faced langur 7 W6178 1959 Koppalgadde S. entellus Black-faced langur 8 G27667 1959 Kunvahalli Haemaphysalis spinigera from dead monkey Tick 9 P20924 1959 Mullukere H. sapiens Human 10 P21092 1959 Hadapsar H. sapiens Human 11 601203 1960 Tudikoppa H. sapiens Human 12 611661 1961 Sagar Station Haemaphysalis turturis Tick 13 612057 1961 Barur Rattus rattus wroughtoni White-bellied rat 14 62844 1962 Hillemarur H. spinigera Ticks 15 62849 1962 Hillemarur R. rattus wroughtoni White-bellied rat 16 62957 1962 Hillemarur H. sapiens Human 17 623969–2 1962 VRC Poona H. sapiens Human 18 63661 1963 Malvei H. sapiens Human 19 63696 1963 Suranagadde S. entellus Black-faced langur 20 64244 1964 Balagodu Ixodes petauristae Tick 21 64350 1964 Marasa Haemaphysalis formosensis Tick 22 642034 1964 Kangodu H. turturis Tick 23 642046 1964 Kangodu Haemaphysalis papuana kinneari Tick 24 652 1965 Kangodu Haemaphysalis wellingtoni Tick 25 651521 1965 VRC Poona H. sapiens Human 26 652980 1965 Vadnala Haemaphysalis spp. Tick 27 6616 1966 Yelagalale S. entellus Black-faced langur 28 66364–1 1966 VRC staff, Sagar 2-day acute-phase serum sample, H. sapiens Human 29 66928–2 1966 Sagar H. sapiens Human 30 664518 1966 Kondagalale H. turturis Tick 31 67965 1967 Sagar H. sapiens Human 32 671004 1967 Bhadrapura S. entellus Black-faced langur 33 673514 1967 Siravala H. papuana kinneari Tick 34 68142 1968 Holagalale S. entellus Black-faced langur 35 68159 1968 Siravala H. turturis Tick 36 68484 1968 Halagalale Rattus blanfordi White-tailed wood rat 37 681960 1968 Barur H. sapiens Human 38 692156 1969 Chikkanallur H. spinigera Tick 39 692163 1969 Thonagodu H. sapiens Human 40 712419 1971 Nodahalli H. spinigera Tick 41 716810 1971 Gunjnur H. spinigera Tick 42 72166 1972 Gadgeri-sirsi Haemaphysalis kyasanurensis Tick 43 72827 1972 Holekoppa S. entellus Black-faced langur 44 A106 2006 Chikkanallur H. sapiens Human 45 W6204 1959 Kannahalli S. entellus Black-faced langur 46 G27678 1959 Kopalgadde H. spinigera Tick 47 W1930 1958 Chimnoor S. entellus Black-faced langur 48 601011 1960 Chikkasakuna H. sapiens Human *ID, identification; VRC, Virus Research Centre. Table 2 Primers used for diagnostic nested reverse transcription–PCR and genotyping of KFD virus, India* Gene Primer Genome location Primer sequence (5′ → 3′) Product, bp Type preM–env KFD-EF2 459–478 TGGTGTTCTCTGCGACAGTT 780 Genotyping KFD-ER2 1258–1238 TCTGTCACTCTGGTCTCGCTT KFD-EF3† 606–628 TCATTCGAGTGTGTGTCACCATT KFD-ER1† 701–678 TTCCGTATTCCAGTGACACTCGCT NS5 KFD-F3 9422–9441 GGCTGAGTCATGGACATCAT 642 KFD-R4 11046–11063 TCCACTCGTGTGGATGCT KFD-F4† 9660–9680 TGAGACCTTCTGACGACCGCT KFD-R3† 9801–9819 TCCTTCATCGTCAACTCAT *preM, premembrane; env, envelope; KFD, Kyasanur Forest disease; NS5, nonstructural protein 5.
†Internal primers for sequencing some isolates. Total RNA was extracted from 250 μL of infected Vero cell lysates by using Trizol reagent (GIBCO-BRL, Gaithersburg, MD, USA) per the manufacturer’s protocol. RNA was dissolved in 50 μL of nuclease-free water. cDNA was prepared separately for structural genes and NS5 by using avian Moloney virus reverse transcriptase (Promega, Madison, WI, USA). Briefly, 10 pM of each gene-specific reverse primer (ER2 and R4 were used for each set of the reverse transcription reactions, respectively) and incubated at 42°C for 45 min and then 85°C for 5 min. cDNA was amplified by using 1U of Taq DNA Polymerase, 10× PCR buffer (Invitrogen. Carslbad, CA, USA), 0.2 mmol/L dNTP, 1.5 mmol/L MgCl2, and 10.0 pM of each primer pair as described in Table 2 in a reaction volume of 25 μL. PCR conditions included denaturation at 94°C for 5 min; 35 cycles of 1-min steps at 94°C, 55°C, and 72°C; and a 5-min extension at 72°C. Amplified products were analyzed by agarose gel electrophoresis. Bands of interest were recovered by using a DNA Gel Extraction Kit (QIAGEN, Valencia, CA, USA), according to the manufacturer’s protocol. Direct sequencing of the amplified product was conducted by using an ABI 3100 automated DNA sequencer and Big Dye terminator kit (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA). Virus Sequence Analysis The quality of each sequence was monitored by using Sequence Analysis software version 5.1 (Applied Biosystems). Sequences were assembled by using Kodon software version 2.1 (Appled Maths, Austin, TX, USA). Sequences were processed to give 720 nt of the structural gene (nt positions 500–1220) and 620 nt of the NS5 gene (nt positions 9440–10080) and submitted to the National Center for Biotechnology Information (Bethesda, MD, USA) NCBI (GenBank accession nos. EU293242–EU293289 and EU293290–EU293337, respectively). Multiple sequence alignments were generated by using the MAFFT function ( 21 ) in SeaView ( 22 ). Nucleotide and amino acid proportional distances were calculated and compared for each virus with their respective date of isolation. A partition homogeneity test ( 23 ) was conducted by using PAUP* 4.0b10 ( 24 ) to demonstrate that it was not inappropriate to analyze the 720-nt structural gene fragment and 620-nt NS5 gene fragment as a colinearized or concatenated single sequence. Phylogenetic analysis was performed on the colinearized sequence from each of the 48 KFDV isolates from India (Table 1) along with the corresponding gene regions available in GenBank for additional KFDVs: a1989 KFDV isolate (Nanjianyin) reportedly from China (EU918174, NS5 and EU918175, polyprotein) and 2 KFDVs from Saudi Arabia isolated in 1995 (AF331718) and 2004 (DQ154114). The Modeltest 3.7 software program ( 25 ) was used to examine 56 models of nucleotide substitution to determine the model most appropriate for Bayesian coalescent analysis of the KFDV dataset. The general time reversible evolutionary model incorporating invariant sites (GTR + I) was found to be the best fit to the data according to the Akaike information criterion. Bayesian phylogenetic analysis was conducted by using BEAST, BEAUTi, and Tracer analysis software ( 26 ) with the GTR + I model. Preliminary analyses were run for 10,000,000 generations to select the clock and demographic models most appropriate for the KFDV dataset. An analysis of the marginal likelihoods indicated that the relaxed lognormal molecular clock and constant population size model was decisively chosen (log10 Bayes factors of 3.113) for the KFDV dataset. Final data analysis included a Markov chain Monte Carlo chain length of 50,000,000 generations with sampling every 1,000 states. Results Comparison of nucleotide sequences of colinearized fragments of structural (720 nt) and NS5 (620 nt) genes of 48 KFDV isolates from India collected over the past 5 decades (Table 1) showed a low level of diversity among these viruses (GenBank accession nos. EU29242–EU29337). A maximum of 1.2% nt and 0.5% aa differences were seen among these viruses; the most divergent virus was the A106 virus isolated in 2006. Most viruses were isolated during 1957–1972. That the 2006 virus isolate is the most divergent is consistent with the 34-year gap in sampling. As expected, little diversity was seen among the virus isolates irrespective of the host, which included humans, black-faced langurs, red-faced bonnet monkeys, various tick species (H. spinigera, H. kyasanurensis, H. turturis, H. papuana kinneari, H. wellingtoni, H. formosensis, and Ixodes petauristae), and rodents (Rattus rattus wroghtoni and R. blanfordi) (Table 1). The sequence of the 1957 KFDV reference strain (P9605) from India and strain 651521 isolated from an NIV laboratory staff member in 1965 were identical, despite their 8-year separation. However, the staff member was accidently infected while handling reference KFDV, which provided an explanation for this anomaly. All KFDV isolates from India differed from the Alkhurma variant of KFDV ( 27 ) found in Saudi Arabia by ≈8%–9% at the nucleotide level. This finding is similar to the extent of diversity (8%) reported in a comparison of the complete genome of a KFDV isolate from India with that of an isolate from Saudi Arabia ( 28 ). In contrast, the 1989 KFDV isolate (Nanjianyin) reportedly from China ( 12 ), differed by only 1 nt (1/1,320 [0.08%]) from the 1957 KFDV reference strain (P9605) from India and the laboratory infection strain 651521. It is notable that of the 48 KFDV strains from India analyzed, the KFDV strain from China should be most similar to strain P9605, a reference strain that was distributed worldwide to arbovirus reference laboratories. The KFDV 1989 isolate from China is virtually identical at the nucleotide level to the 1957 reference strain (P9605) from India, despite their being isolated 32 years and almost 3,000 km apart, which suggests that the strain from China is not an authentic virus isolate. A reference KFDV from India appears to have been used in the analysis of serum samples from Yunnan Province ( 15 , 16 ), which suggests a potential source of laboratory cross-contamination. In addition, the 2 sequence fragments (EU918174 for NS5 and EU918175 for the polyprotein) of the KFDV isolate reportedly from China appear to contain several sequence analysis errors; neither fragment encodes a functional protein because of creation of a stop codon and 2 frame shifts relative to KFDV reference sequences (AY323490 and EU480689). Bayesian coalescent analysis of sequence differences among the 48 KFDV isolates from India (1957–2006), the isolates from Saudi Arabia (1995–2004) ( 28 , 29 ), and the reported isolate from China (1989) ( 12 ) was conducted to estimate the rate of evolution and time to the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) for these viruses (Figure 2). These viruses were estimated to be evolving at a mean rate of 6.4 × 10–4 substitutions/site/year (95% highest probable density [HPD] 4.1–8.8 × 10–4 substitutions/site/year). This estimate is similar to rates for other flaviviruses analyzed by using similar Bayesian coalescent methods, including a rate of 2.17 × 10–4 substitutions/site/year obtained for 23 St. Louis encephalitis viruses collected during 1933–2001 ( 30 ) and a rate of 4.2 × 10–4 substitutions/site/year for yellow fever virus ( 31 ). The finding of similar evolutionary rates for tick-borne and mosquito-borne flaviviruses was unexpected, given earlier assertions that evolution of tick-borne viruses was more gradual than rapidly evolving mosquito-borne viruses ( 19 ). Figure 2 Bayesian coalescent analysis of sequence differences of Kyasanur Forest disease virus isolates from India (1957–2006), People’s Republic of China (1989), and Saudi Arabia (1995–2004). Analysis was conducted by using the general time reversible model incorporating invariant sites, a relaxed molecular clock, constant population size, and the BEAST, BEAUTi, and Tracer analysis software ( 26 ). The maximum clade credibility tree is depicted. Posterior probability values are indicated for clades of interest with the time to most recent common ancestor shown below. Scale bar indicates nucleotide substitutions per site. Analysis estimated that the mean time to the MRCA for all the KFDV isolates was only 64 years (95% HPD 51–84 years) before 2006 (the year when the most contemporary virus was isolated). The analysis estimated that these viruses shared a common ancestor as recently as ≈1942. Analysis of only KFDV isolates from India provides a slightly more recent estimate of their MRCA (≈1948), just 9 years before identification of the disease in Kyasanur Forest in 1957. This finding correlates well with the perception of local villagers and healthcare providers in the Kyasanur Forest area that this was a newly emerged disease ( 32 ). Massive deaths of monkeys or compatible human disease in the region were not reported before the 1957 disease outbreak. In the initial years, disease activity was reported in a limited area of ≈100 km2 in Sagar and Sorab taluks of Shimoga District. However, after 1972, epizootics and epidemics were recognized in several new foci, increasingly more distant from the original focus. Discussion Most viruses analyzed were isolated in various small hamlets from migrating persons within the early enzootic zone in the Shimoga District (until 1972). Attempts to examine the relationship between genetic differences in a virus isolate relative to geographic location did not show any notable findings because of small differences and distances involved. However, the 1972 virus 72166 was isolated from a tick in the village of Gadgeri in Sirsi (Uttara Kannada District), which is north of Shimoga District. The 2006 virus A106 was isolated from a person south of Shimoga District, in Mangalore (Dakshina Kannada District) and further from the original virus epicenter (Figure 1). Although much of the topology of the virus phylogenetic tree generated by Bayesian coalescent analysis is poorly supported (nodal support posterior probability values <95), there is support for a branch that contains the 72166 1972 and the A106 2006 virus isolates (Figure 2). These data suggest that there may be an association between virus genetic divergence and temporal and geographic spread of KFDV in Karnataka, consistent with the concept of virus spreading over time from an initial focus of activity. Why this initial focus of virus activity occurred in this location and at this time remains unclear, but speculation includes emergence of the virus from a cryptic forest cycle caused by changes in land use or introduction of the virus from elsewhere by birds. A more complete picture should emerge with analysis of additional virus samples (particularly from the post-1973 period) and complete virus genomes. Bayesian analysis estimates that the 1995 and 2004 KFDV isolates from Saudi Arabia shared a common ancestor in 1992. The node connecting these viruses with the 2006 KFDV isolate from India was in 1977, and a strongly supported node (1.0) shows that the 1972 and 2006 KFDV isolates from India shared a common ancestor with the viruses from Saudi Arabia in ≈1969. The simplest interpretation of these data and the epidemiologic observations would be that KFDV was introduced from India into Saudi Arabia in the late 1970s or the 1980s. Similar findings of low genetic diversity and recent common ancestry were reported for the KFDVs from Saudi Arabia in a more limited study of 11 virus isolates collected over a 5-year period (1994–1999). Only 0.4%, 0.6%, and 0.9% genetic diversity were found in the E, NS3, and NS5 gene fragments of these isolates, respectively ( 27 ). Using these gene fragments along with those of the complete genome sequence of KFDV from India, the authors estimated divergence time by using an older method based on distance analysis of nonsynonymous substitutions. This estimate indicated recent ancestry of these viruses. The KFDV strains from Saudi Arabia were estimated to have diverged from one another over a 4–72 year period and the KFDVs from India and Saudi Arabia were estimated to have diverged 66–177 years ago ( 27 ). It is unclear what factors influenced the apparent emergence of KFDV in Shimoga District, India, in 1957 and in the Makkah/Jeddah region in Saudi Arabia in 1994. Also unknown is how this tick-borne virus moved over the large distance between these regions. A considerable amount of knowledge has been accumulated with regard to the ecology of KFDV in India ( 32 ). The natural history of the virus is complex and involves dynamic cycles of various life stages of Ixodid ticks (primarily H. spinigera, but also other Haemaphysalis spp. ticks and Ixodes ticks) and amplifying (vertebrate) hosts, including rodents and shrews, and possibly monkeys and cattle. Increased human populations in the Sagar and Sorab taluks in the early 1950s may have been the primary catalyst for emergence of KFD in 1957. During 1951–1961, the population of Sagar Taluk increased 116%, bringing with it increases in deforestation, cattle grazing, and extension of paddy fields and cleared grazing areas deeper into previously forested areas ( 32 ). Expansion of the cattle population may have been a crucial factor because cattle harbor adult forms of H. spinigera ticks, and an association between cattle and increases in tick larval density has been described ( 32 ). Cattle also carry all life stages of other Haemaphysalis spp. ticks, which have been shown to be infected with KFDV. Thus, cattle would likely increase tick densities in cleared forest areas most frequented by humans. In addition, rats, shrews, and mice are highly susceptible to KFDV infection, and numerous virus isolates have been obtained from organs of infected animals ( 33 ). Changes in land use and population densities may have resulted in emergence of KFDV from a cryptic enzootic cycle in this previously heavily forested area. A high percentage of birds in the affected area are positive for antibodies reactive with KFDV and infested with Haemaphysalis spp. and other tick genera, particularly larvae and nymphs ( 32 ). It is unclear whether birds play a role in the complex virus maintenance cycle in an enzootic zone, but birds carrying virus-infected ticks or migration of viremic birds could spread KFDV over large distances such as those separating areas of KFDV activity in India and Saudi Arabia ( 19 , 34 ). There is serologic evidence of KFDV, or a related flavivirus in the mammalian tick-borne virus group, in Saurashtra, Gujarat State, on the coast of India on the Arabian Sea and in birds captured outside Karnataka State ( 2 , 10 , 32 ). The current known distribution of KFDV is limited to relatively restricted areas of India and Saudi Arabia. However, it is likely that the virus exists in other areas in cryptic enzootic cycles or is associated with unrecognized or undiagnosed disease. This finding, together with the distance separating the KFDV-affected areas in India and Saudi Arabia, despite their relatively recent common ancestry, suggests that KFD has the potential to flare up in other regions because of virus movement or ecologic changes in the area. Clinicians should consider KFD in a differential diagnosis when considering acute febrile cases with compatible symptoms in other regions of Asia and the Middle East.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Alkhurma Hemorrhagic Fever in Humans, Najran, Saudi Arabia

              Alkhurma virus (ALKV) was discovered in Saudi Arabia in 1995 in a butcher with suspected Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever. His fever developed after he had slaughtered a sheep from the city of Alkhurma. Diagnostic testing identified a flavivirus as the etiologic agent ( 1 , 2 ). Subsequently, ALKV was isolated from the blood of 6 male butchers in Jeddah, and another 4 cases were diagnosed serologically. This disease was named Alkhurma hemorrhagic fever (ALKHF) because the first case was reported from the Alkhurma governorate ( 1 ). After initial virus identification, from 2001 through 2003, another 37 suspected ALKHF cases, of which 20 were laboratory confirmed, were reported in Alkhumra district, south of Jeddah ( 3 ). Among the 20 patients with confirmed cases, 11 had hemorrhagic manifestations and 5 died. Full genome sequencing has indicated that ALKV is a distinct variant of Kyasanur Forest disease virus, a virus endemic to the state of Karnataka, India ( 4 ). Recently, ALKV was found by reverse transcription–PCR in Ornithodoros savignyi ticks collected from camels and camel resting places in 3 locations in western Saudi Arabia ( 5 ). ALKHF is thought to be a zoonotic disease, and reservoir hosts may include camels and sheep. Suggested routes of transmission are contamination of a skin wound with blood of an infected vertebrate, bite of an infected tick, or drinking of unpasteurized, contaminated milk ( 6 ). Several studies have been conducted to describe the characteristics and determinants of ALKHF ( 1 , 3 , 5 , 6 ). We conducted a case–control study to assess associated risk factors. Materials and Methods Study Area The study was conducted in the city of Najran, which is in the southern part of Saudi Arabia on the border with Yemen. It is the capital of Najran region and has a population of ≈250,000. It is an agricultural city in which residents commonly raise domestic animals in their backyards. Cases of ALKHF were found in 6 districts, which were close to each other (within ≈30 km) and rural and in which hygiene was poor. Case Identification From 2006 through 2009, laboratory testing for ALKV was performed for Najran residents who sought medical care and whose illnesses met the case definition for suspected ALKHF. Infection with ALKV was suspected if a patient had acute febrile illness for at least 2 days; negative Rift Valley fever, Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever, and dengue confirmatory test results; and >2 of the following: 1) at least 3-fold elevation of alanine transferase or aspartate transferase or clinical jaundice; 2) signs of encephalitis such as confusion, disorientation, drowsiness, coma, neck stiffness, hemiparesis, paraparesis, or convulsions; 3) signs of hemorrhage such as ecchymosis, purpura, petechiae, gastrointestinal bleeding (hematemesis, melena, hematochesia), epistaxis, bleeding from puncture sites, or menorrhagia; and 4) platelet count 40 1 (4) 10 (15) 11 (12) Reference Gender M 18 (64) 31 (48) 49 (53) 1.97 (0.72–5.45) F 10 (36) 34 (52) 44 (47) Ref Marital status Single 15 (54) 30 (46) 45 (48) 1.35 (0.51—3.63) Married 13 (46) 35 (54) 48 (52) Reference Nationality Saudi 3 (11) 14 (22) 17 (18) 0.86 (0.05–28.00) Yemeni 24 (86) 47 (72) 71 (76) 2.04 (0.19–50.75) Bangladeshi 1 (4) 4 (6) 5 (5) Reference Education Preschool 1 (4) 6 (9) 7 (8) 0.25 (0.01–6.51) None (illiterate) 4 (14) 7 (11) 11 (12) 0.86 (0.06–12.21) Primary 9 (32) 29 (45) 38 (41) 0.85 (0.18–4.15) Intermediate 4 (14) 11 (17) 15 (16) 0.55 (0.04–7.15) Secondary 8 (29) 9 (14) 17 (18) 1.33 (0.12–15.74) University 2 (7) 3 (5) 5 (5) Reference Occupation Livestock related† 4 (14) 9 (14) 13 (14) 1.27 (0.23–6.79) Student 12 (43) 17 (26) 29 (31) 2.02 (0.57–7.34) Housewife 5 (18) 19 (29) 24 (26) 0.75 (0.17–3.30) Other‡ 7 (25) 20 (31) 27 (29) Reference District Al Hadhan 4 (14) 5 (8) 9 (10) 2.80 (0.25–36.19) Al Balad 7 (25) 15 (23) 22 (24) 1.63 (0.21–15.05) Al Jarbah 12 (43) 29 (45) 41 (44) 1.45 (0.22–11.83) Al Mashaliah 3 (11) 9 (14) 12 (13) 1.17 (0.10–14.06) Al Ghwaila 2 (7) 7 (11) 9 (10) Reference House Modern 20 (71) 50 (77) 70 (75) 0.75 (0.25–2.30) Traditional 8 (29) 15 (23) 23 (25) Reference *OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.
†Shepherd, butcher.
‡Teacher, driver, military, none. Outbreak Setting Cases were identified within 6 different districts; most were in the city of Najran. They were in agricultural areas with livestock, some of which lived with the people in the houses. Patient Demographics and Risk Factors The mean age of case-patients was 22.3 years ± 11.2 years, and mean age of controls was 25.2 years ± 15.4 years; the difference was not significant (t test, p = 0.657). The age group 20–39 years contained 14 (50%) case-patients and 31 (48%) controls; the age group 100 8 (29) 40 (62) 48 (52) Reference Contact with domestic animals Yes 13 (46) 9 (14) 22 (24) 5.39 (1.74–17.30) No 15 (54) 56 (86) 71 (76) Reference Feeding animals Yes 9 (32) 3 (5) 12 (13) 9.79 (2.11–51.48) No 19 (68) 62 (95) 81 (87) Reference Milking animals Yes 7 (25) 5 (8) 12 (13) 4.00 (0.99–16.64) No 21 (75) 60 (92) 81 (87) Reference Slaughtering animals Yes 10 (36) 6 (9) 16 (17) 5.46 (1.54–20.02) No 18 (64) 59 (91) 77 (83) Reference Handling raw meat products Yes 9 (32) 7 (11) 16 (17) 3.92 (1.14–13.84) No 19 (68) 58 (89) 77 (83) Reference Drinking unpasteurized milk Yes 8 (29) 6 (9) 14 (15) 3.93 (1.06–14.88) No 20 (71) 59 (91) 79 (85) Reference Being bitten by tick Yes 10 (36) 3 (5) 13 (14) 11.48 (2.51–59.73) No 18 (64) 62 (95) 80 (86) Reference Being bitten by mosquito Yes 25 (89) 49 (75) 74 (80) 2.72 (0.65–13.03) No 3 (11) 16 (25) 19 (20) Reference *OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval. A significantly higher proportion of case-patients (46%) than controls (14%) had direct contact with animals (OR 5.39, 95% CI 1.74–17.3). Furthermore, 9 (32%) case-patients and 3 (5%) controls fed animals (OR 9.79, 95% CI 21.1–51.48); 10 (36%) case-patients and 6 (9%) controls slaughtered animals (OR 5.46, 95% CI 1.54–20.02); and 9 (32%) case-patients and 7 (11%) controls handled raw meat products (OR 3.92, 95% CI 1.14–13.84). A borderline significant association with disease was found for milking animals (OR 4.00, 95% CI 0.99–16.64). Risk was higher for those who dealt with animals in multiple ways (e.g., feeding, slaughtering, milking, handling raw meat products) (χ2 for trend 15.53; p<0.001). Unpasteurized milk was consumed by 8 (29%) case-patients and 6 (9%) controls (OR 3.93, 95% CI 1.06–14.88). A statistically significant association was found for tick bites and disease; a higher proportion of case-patients (36%) than controls (5%) reported a history of tick bites (OR 11.48, 95% CI 2.51–59.73). No statistically significant difference between case-patients and controls was found for exposure to mosquitoes (OR 2.72, 95% CI 0.65–13.03) (Table 2). Multivariate analysis, conducted with variables that were significant (p<0.05) in bivariate analysis and with variables previously reported to be associated with ALKHF (contact with animals, tick bites, close proximity of neighboring farms, consumption of unpasteurized milk, and mosquitoes bites) was conducted by backward stepwise regression analysis. Among these variables, contact with animals, tick bites, and neighboring farms remained predictors for ALKHF (adjusted ORs 3.17, 95% CI 0.96–10.43; 6.20, 95% CI 1.34–28.70; and 3.63, 95% CI 1.25–10.4, respectively) (Table 4). Table 4 Multivariate logistic regression results of risk factors for Alkhurma hemorrhagic, Najran, Saudi Arabia, 2006–2009* Risk factor Crude OR (95% CI) Model aOR† (95% CI) Contact with domestic animals 5.39
(1.74–17.3) 3.17
(0.96–10.43) Tick bites 11.48
(2.51–59.73) 6.20
(1.34–28.70) Adjacent farm distance 4.00
(1.40–11.75) 3.63
(1.25–10.49) *OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; aOR, adjusted OR.
†aOR for risk factors (contact with domestic animals, tick bites, adjacent farm distance) after elimination of nonsignificant variables (drinking unpasteurized milk and owning or raising domestic animals) calculated by using backward stepwise strategy. Discussion Our findings that some patients had subclinical illness and that no deaths were documented among the 28 case-patients suggest that previous studies may not have characterized the full spectrum of ALKV-associated illness and that case-fatality rates as high as 25% may have resulted from detecting only severe cases of ALKHF. In addition, our identification of multiple seropositive members within families suggests the occurrence of family-based clusters of ALKV infection. ALKV-positive persons with subclinical disease, identified by the active surveillance system, did not undergo thorough clinical and laboratory investigations and were not directly observed by a clinician. Because of this lack of observation and because of the inability of some case-patients to recall and report low-grade fever within 1 month before onset of illness, only 53% of case-patients reported fever, but all case-patients who were hospitalized had fever. Our findings underscore the role of the high percentage of case-patients with subclinical infection in the epidemiology of this disease; seroprevalence studies should be encouraged. A similar seasonal pattern of disease (March–July) was found in western provinces (Jeddah and Makkah) among 11 case-patients who recovered during 1994–1999. This finding might support evidence of disease association with the peak activity of ticks in the beginning of March ( 9 , 10 ). Similar to other hemorrhagic fevers, ALKHF showed no predilection for patient age, gender, or nationality ( 11 ). Risk factors identified by this study included a broad array of activities associated with animal exposures but most significantly with direct contact with animals. Similarly, a higher proportion of case-patients than controls owned or raised animals; however, no difference was noted in the proportion reporting abnormalities in their animals. This finding might suggest the low virulence of the virus in animals and highlights the need for animal studies. Among the animals raised, sheep were significantly associated with the disease. Although we found no significant association between ALKHF infection and livestock-related occupations such as butchering, we found a high association for history of slaughtering livestock. These findings agree with those of other studies conducted in the cities of Jeddah and Makkah ( 1 , 3 ). Furthermore, we found that another major risk factor for human infection was direct contact with blood or body fluids from animals. Ingestion of unpasteurized milk has been noted as a risk factor in previous studies; the mode of transmission is not yet clear but has been suggested to result from contamination of the milk ( 6 , 12 ). However, our multivariate analysis found no association. Only 10 of the 28 interviewed case-patients had a history of a tick bite within 1 month before symptom onset; however, tick exposure was significantly more common among case-patients than among controls. The association of tick bites and ALKV was supported by Charrel et al., who detected ALKV DNA in ticks (Ornithodoros spp.) collected from camels and camel resting places in western Saudi Arabia ( 5 ). ALKV has been identified only in the southern and western parts of Saudi Arabia. Given our current evidence that subclinical ALKV infections occur in humans, the virus may be more widespread in Saudi Arabia than previously realized. We are conducting studies to further characterize the distribution of ALKV in Saudi Arabia. In addition, the history of the reported disease in Makkah during the Hajj, when thousands of livestock are imported to Saudi Arabia, and the existence of the outbreak in Najran, which is at the border with Yemen, necessitate further studies in adjacent countries ( 3 , 5 ). Additionally, ALKV is closely related to Kyasanur Forest disease virus, which has been well characterized in India. The possibility remains that this virus has a wider geographic range in the Middle East and central Asia than previously realized. Because our investigations were retrospective, we cannot exclude recall bias about exposure, but as long as the controls were from the same households, they were exposed to some of the questions during the surveillance done by the preventive department. Furthermore, the investigators who administered the questionnaires based the questions on the month before the interview, which should minimize recall bias. ALKHF is a zoonotic disease with clinical features ranging from subclinical asymptomatic to severe complications. This study highlights the different activities related to exposure to animals and tick bites in the transmission of ALKV to humans; it found no significant association with mosquitoes. Further studies are needed to understand the role of livestock, wildlife, and ticks in the maintenance of the virus and the risk factors so that public health measures can be developed to reduce the extent of the disease in humans.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Emerg Infect Dis
                Emerging Infect. Dis
                EID
                Emerging Infectious Diseases
                Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
                1080-6040
                1080-6059
                May 2011
                : 17
                : 5
                : 945-947
                Affiliations
                [1]Author affiliations: Najran Preventive Medicine Department, Najran, Saudi Arabia (M. Mahdi);
                [2]Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA (B.R. Erickson, J.A. Comer, S.T. Nichol, P.E. Rollin);
                [3]Ministry of Health, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (M.A. AlMazroa, Z.A. Memish)
                Author notes
                Address for correspondence: Pierre E. Rollin, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd NE, Mailstop G14, Atlanta, GA 30333, USA; email: pyr3@ 123456cdc.gov
                Article
                10-1824
                10.3201/eid1705.101824
                3321790
                21529425
                b352b6e2-ad41-4435-ae83-466e90269574
                History
                Categories
                Letters to the Editor

                Infectious disease & Microbiology
                viruses,saudi arabia,kyasanur forest disease,alkhurma hemorrhagic fever,vector-borne infections,tick-borne infections,letter

                Comments

                Comment on this article