1.
European Commission for the Control
of Foot-and-Mouth Disease
A CONTAMINATED ENVIRONMENT IS AN EFFICIENT ROUTE OF
TRANSMISSION FOR FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE VIRUS
Claire Colenu9

2.
Introduc=on
• Multiple routes of transmission for Foot-and-Mouth disease
• Detection of FMDV in the environment
• Role of environmental transmission

3.
Project outline:
• 4x cattle transmission experiments to study environmental challenge and
transmission
• Use of results to quantify the rate of indirect spread between cattle via
environmental fomite/aerosol contamination
• Development of aerosol and environmental sampling methods for surveillance

4.
Experimental plan: Transmission studies #1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
C4
C4
C3
C3
Room 1
Room 2
Room 1
Room 1
Room 2
C1 C1
C2 C2
C1 = needle inoculation
C2 = direct contact challenge
C3 + C4 = environmental challenge
Day 0
Day 2-3
Day 3-8
Day 3-5
Day 8-10

5.
Transmission study #1: results
Experiment 1 –
November 2014
Experiment 2 –
February 2015
C3 – Environmental
challenge in room
contaminated by
needle inoculated
cattle
One animal developed
clinical signs 5 dpc
Both animals
developed clinical
signs 5 dpc
C4 – Environmental
challenge in room
contaminated by
direct contact
infected cattle
No evident clinical
signs, culled two weeks
post challenge
One animal developed
clinical signs 4 dpc

6.
Transmission study #1: results
Environmental samples per room:
1x feed trough swab
2x wall swabs
5x floor swabs
5x faecal samples
Error bars = 1x standard deviation

7.
Transmission study #1: results
Environmental samples per room:
1x feed trough swab
2x wall swabs
5x floor swabs
5x faecal samples
Error bars = 1x standard deviation

8.
Experimental plan: Transmission studies #2
Room 1
Day 0
C1 C1
Day 2-3
C1
C1 C2
C2
Day 4-5
C3 C3
Room 1
Room 1 Room 2
Day 3-6
C2 C2
Day 6-7
C4C4
Room 3
Day 6-9
C2C2
Day 9-10
C5 C5
C1- Needle inoculated
C2- Direct contact challenge
C3 + C5 – Post-clinical fomite challenge
C4- Pre-clinical fomite challenge
Room 2
C1C1
Room 3
C2 C2
24 hr gap between C1s/C2s and C3s

9.
Experiment 3 –
February 2016
Experiment 4 –
April 2016
C3 – Environmental
challenge (24 hr gap)
No clinical signs in
observation period
No clinical signs in
observation period
C4 – Environmental
challenge, pre-clinical
One animal developed
clinical signs 6 dpc
One animal developed
clinical signs 2 dpc
C5 – Environmental
challenge
One animal developed
clinical signs 10 dpc
One animal developed
clinical signs 2 dpc
Transmission study #2: results

10.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
log10PFU/ml
Day of study
Trough
Wall
Floor
Faeces
Transmission study #2: results
Virus survival in room 1 – contamina=on by needle inoculated ca9le
Study 3 Study 4
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
log10PFU/ml
Day of study
Trough
Wall
Floor
Faeces
Environmental samples per room:
2x feed trough swabs
5x wall swabs
5x floor swabs
5x faecal samples
Error bars = 1x standard deviation
C3 environmental
challenge
C3 environmental
challenge

11.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
log10PFU/ml
Day of study
Trough
Wall
Floor
Faeces
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
log10PFU/ml
Day of study
Trough
Wall
Floor
Faeces
Transmission study #2: results
Virus survival in room 2 – preclinical contamina=on from C2
ca9le
Study 3 Study 4
C4 environmental
challenge
C4 environmental
challenge
Environmental samples per room:
2x feed trough swabs
5x wall swabs
5x floor swabs
5x faecal samples
Error bars = 1x standard deviation

12.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
log10PFU/ml
Day of study
Trough
Wall
Floor
Faeces
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
log10PFU/ml
Day of study
Trough
Wall
Floor
Faeces
Transmission study #2: results
Virus survival in room 3 – contamina=on from C2 ca9le displaying clinical signs
Study 3 Study 4
C5 environmental
challenge
C5 environmental
challenge
Environmental samples per room:
2x feed trough swabs
5x wall swabs
5x floor swabs
5x faecal samples
Error bars = 1x standard deviation

13.
Environmental transmission – es=ma=ng probability of
transmission

14.
Conclusions
• Successfully demonstrated transmission of FMDV from a contaminated
environment
• Able to quantify the amount of live virus in the environment at the point of
challenge
• Use of data to quantify the risk associated with transmission from the
environment

15.
Acknowledgements
The Pirbright Institute
Emma Brown
Noel Nelson (Met Office)
Simon Gubbins
Wageningen Bioveterinary Research (WBR)
Aldo Dekker
Phaedra Eblé
Jose Gonzales
Animal technicians at both institutes
Funded by DEFRA project SE2815