ORCID Profile
0000-0001-9750-4296
Current Organisations
University of Zurich
,
Universität Zürich
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: MDPI AG
Date: 10-02-2023
DOI: 10.3390/V15020491
Abstract: Different feline leukemia virus (FeLV) infection outcomes are possible in cats following natural exposure, such as progressive infections (persistent viremia), regressive infections (transient or no viremia followed by proviral persistence) and abortive infections (presence of only antibodies). Laboratory-based testing is currently required for categorization of infection outcomes in cats. The aim of this study was to evaluate the field performance of a novel, rapid, combination point-of-care (PoC) test kit commercially available in Europe (v-RetroFel®Ag/Ab 2020–2021 version) to determine different FeLV infection outcomes by concurrent detection of FeLV antigen (p27) and antibodies against FeLV transmembrane envelope protein (p15E). A secondary aim was to evaluate the performance of the same test kit (v-RetroFel®FIV) to determine positive/negative feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) infection status by the detection of antibodies to FIV capsid protein (p24) and transmembrane glycoprotein (gp40). Two cohorts of domestic cats were recruited and tested with v-RetroFel® using plasma or serum, including cats in Australia (n = 200) and cats in Germany (n = 170). Results from p27 antigen PoC testing, proviral DNA PCR, and neutralizing antibody testing or testing for antibodies against non-glycosylated surface unit envelope protein (p45) were used to assign cats to groups according to different FeLV infection outcomes. Testing with a laboratory-based FeLV p15E antibody ELISA was also performed for comparison. In the first cohort, v-RetroFel®Ag/Ab correctly identified 89% (109/122) FeLV-unexposed cats and 91% (21/23) progressive infections, but no regressive (0/23) or abortive (0/32) infections. In the second cohort, v-RetroFel®Ag/Ab correctly identified 94% (148/158) FeLV-unexposed cats and 100% (4/4) progressive infections, but no regressive (0/2) and only 17% (1/6) abortive infections. There was test agreement between v-RetroFel®Ab and the p15E laboratory ELISA in 58.9% of s les. As a secondary outcome of this study, the sensitivity and specificity of v-RetroFel®FIV testing in cohort 1 were 94.7% (18/19) and 98.3% (178/181), and in cohort 2, 30.0% (3/10) and 100.0% (160/160), respectively. Prior history of FIV vaccination did not produce any false-positive FIV results. In conclusion, v-RetroFel®Ag/Ab (2020–2021 version) was unable to accurately determine different FeLV infection outcomes in the field. Improvements of the test prior to application to field s les are required.
Publisher: MDPI AG
Date: 31-05-2019
DOI: 10.3390/V11060503
Abstract: A field study was undertaken to (i) measure the prevalence of feline leukaemia virus (FeLV) exposure and FeLV infection in a cross-section of healthy Australian pet cats and (ii) investigate the outcomes following natural FeLV exposure in two Australian rescue facilities. Group 1 (n = 440) consisted of healthy client-owned cats with outdoor access, predominantly from eastern Australia. Groups 2 (n = 38) and 3 (n = 51) consisted of a mixture of healthy and sick cats, group-housed in two separate rescue facilities in Sydney, Australia, tested following identification of index cases of FeLV infection in cats sourced from these facilities. Diagnostic testing for FeLV exposure/infection included p27 antigen testing using three different point-of-care FeLV kits and a laboratory-based ELISA, real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) testing to detect FeLV proviral DNA in leukocytes, real-time reverse-transcription PCR (qRT-PCR) testing to detect FeLV RNA in plasma, and neutralising antibody (NAb) testing. Cats were classified as FeLV-uninfected (FeLV-unexposed and presumptively FeLV-abortive infections) or FeLV-infected (presumptively regressive and presumptively progressive infections). In Group 1, 370 FeLV-unexposed cats (370/440, 84%), 47 abortive infections (47/440, 11%), nine regressive infections (9/440, 2%), and two progressive infections (2/440, 0.5%) were identified, and 12 FeLV-uninfected cats (12/440, 3%) were unclassifiable as FeLV-unexposed or abortive infections due to insufficient s les available for NAb testing. In Groups 2 and 3, 31 FeLV-unexposed cats (31/89, 35%), eight abortive infections (8/89, 9%), 22 regressive infections (22/89 25%), and 19 progressive infections (19/89 21%) were discovered, and nine FeLV-uninfected cats (9/89 10%) were unclassifiable due to insufficient s les available for NAb testing. One of the presumptively progressively-infected cats in Group 3 was likely a focal FeLV infection. Two other presumptively progressively-infected cats in Group 3 may have been classified as regressive infections with repeated testing, highlighting the difficulties associated with FeLV diagnosis when s ling cats at a single time point, even with results from a panel of FeLV tests. These results serve as a reminder to Australian veterinarians that the threat of FeLV to the general pet cat population remains high, thus vigilant FeLV testing, separate housing for FeLV-infected cats, and FeLV vaccination of at-risk cats is important, particularly in group-housed cats in shelters and rescue facilities, where outbreaks of FeLV infection can occur.
Publisher: MDPI AG
Date: 03-02-2021
DOI: 10.3390/V13020240
Abstract: A field study undertaken in Australia compared the antibody responses induced in client-owned cats that had been vaccinated using two inactivated whole feline leukaemia virus (FeLV) vaccines, the monovalent vaccine Fel-O-Vax® Lv-K and the polyvalent vaccine Fel-O-Vax® 5. Serum s les from 428 FeLV-uninfected cats (118 FeLV-vaccinated and 310 FeLV-unvaccinated) were tested for anti-FeLV neutralising antibodies (NAb) using a live virus neutralisation assay to identify 378 FeLV-unexposed (NAb-negative) and 50 FeLV-exposed (NAb-positive abortive infections) cats, following by anti-surface unit (SU) FeLV-A and FeLV-B antibody ELISA testing. An additional 42 FeLV-infected cats (28 presumptively regressively infected, 14 presumptively progressively infected) were also tested for anti-SU antibodies. NAb-positive cats displayed significantly higher anti-SU antibody ELISA responses compared to NAb-negative cats (p 0.001). FeLV-unexposed cats (NAb-negative) that had been vaccinated less than 18 months after a previous FeLV vaccination using the monovalent vaccine (Fel-O-Vax® Lv-K) displayed higher anti-SU antibody ELISA responses than a comparable group vaccinated with the polyvalent vaccine (Fel-O-Vax® 5) (p 0.001 for both anti-FeLV-A and FeLV-B SU antibody responses). This difference in anti-SU antibody responses between cats vaccinated with the monovalent or polyvalent vaccine, however, was not observed in cats that had been naturally exposed to FeLV (NAb-positive) (p = 0.33). It was postulated that vaccination with Fel-O-Vax® 5 primed the humoral response prior to FeLV exposure, such that antibody production increased when the animal was challenged, while vaccination with Fel-O-Vax® Lv-K induced an immediate preparatory antibody response that did not quantitatively increase after FeLV exposure. These results raise questions about the comparable vaccine efficacy of the different FeLV vaccine formulations and correlates of protection.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 2016
DOI: 10.1111/JVIM.13822
No related grants have been discovered for Regina Hofmann-Lehmann.