Rabies virus infection in Eptesicus fuscus bats born in captivity (naïve bats)

• Published in: PloS one 2013-05, Vol.8 (5), p.e64808-e64808
• Main Authors: Davis, April D, Jarvis, Jodie A, Pouliott, Craig, Rudd, Robert J
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Animal bites; Animal husbandry; Animals; Antibodies; Antibodies, Viral - blood; Antibodies, Viral - immunology; Bats; Biology; Captivity; Chiroptera; Chiroptera - immunology; Chiroptera - virology; Eptesicus fuscus; Eptesicus serotinus; Exposure; Gene expression; Genetic Variation; Immunoglobulins; Infections; Inoculation; Laboratory animals; Lasionycteris noctivagans; Lyssavirus; Medicine; Pathogenesis; Rabies; Rabies - immunology; Rabies - virology; Rabies virus - genetics; Rabies virus - immunology; Studies; Tropical diseases; Veterinary Science; Viruses
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0064808

The study of rabies virus infection in bats can be challenging due to quarantine requirements, husbandry concerns, genetic differences among animals, and lack of medical history. To date, all rabies virus (RABV) studies in bats have been performed in wild caught animals. Determining the RABV exposure history of a wild caught bat based on the presence or absence of viral neutralizing antibodies (VNA) may be misleading. Previous studies have demonstrated that the presence of VNA following natural or experimental inoculation is often ephemeral. With this knowledge, it is difficult to determine if a seronegative, wild caught bat has been previously exposed to RABV. The influence of prior rabies exposure in healthy, wild caught bats is unknown. To investigate the pathogenesis of RABV infection in bats born in captivity (naïve bats), naïve bats were inoculated intramuscularly with one of two Eptesicus fuscus rabies virus variants, EfV1 or EfV2. To determine the host response to a heterologous RABV, a separate group of naïve bats were inoculated with a Lasionycteris noctivagans RABV (LnV1). Six months following the first inoculation, all bats were challenged with EfV2. Our results indicate that naïve bats may have some level of innate resistance to intramuscular RABV inoculation. Additionally, naïve bats inoculated with the LnV demonstrated the lowest clinical infection rate of all groups. However, primary inoculation with EfV1 or LnV did not appear to be protective against a challenge with the more pathogenic EfV2.