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
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
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
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