Most of the clinical presentations in dogs involve gastroenteritis, more often with viral aetiology. In the present study, we screened the rectal swabs from 475 clinically suspected dogs for the presence of either of six viruses namely, CPV-2/2a/2b/2c, CDV, CAdV-2, CCoV, CRV and CaAstV that are the most common aetiology of viral gastroenteritis.
Prevalence Rate Of Gastroenteritis Causing Viruses
Being a highly sensitive, rapid, and specific technique that can detect low titre viruses, real-time PCR was successfully being used for molecular screening of clinical samples for viruses (Decaro et al. 2005). Initial screening for viral aetiology showed that around 71.6% of gastroenteritis cases were infected with either one or a mixture of the five tested viruses, whereas none of them tested positive for the presence of CRV (Table S1). Based on a previous molecular survey in symptomatic dogs, viral aetiology in gastroenteritis cases can go up to 93% (Zobba et al. 2021). Fig. 1a and Table S2 show the detailed prevalence rate for the viruses that tested positive upon initial screening by real-time PCR. The overall incidence rate for each virus was found highest at 64.8% for CPV-2/2a/2b/2c, followed by 8% for CDV, 7.2% for CaAstV, 5.9% for CCoV and 4.6% for CAdV-2. Further, the antigenic typing of highly prevalent CPV-2/2a/2b/2c by TARMS-PCR revealed CPV-2b as the most prevalent antigenic type followed by CPV-2a, and CPV-2c (Fig. 1b and Table S3). It was previously reported that the prevalence rate for CPV-2/2a/2b/2c would be in the range of 50-70% (Kumar and Nandi 2010; Abedi et al. 2018), for CDV to be around 2% (Ashmi et al. 2017; Agnihotri et al. 2018), for CaAstV in the range of 9-40% (Takano et al. 2015; Zhou et al. 2017a; Li et al. 2018), for CCoV in the range of 8-65% (Ntafis et al. 2013; Wang et al. 2016; Agnihotri et al. 2018), and around 60% for CAdV (Balboni et al. 2014; DiGangi et al. 2019). The prevalence rate of viruses may depend on age of the dog (1m- 5years), geographical distribution and environmental factors. We observed that apart from CPV-2/2a/2b/2c all other infections occurred mostly in combination with other viruses, especially with CPV-2. The incidence rate for coinfections ranging from two to four viruses in different combinations accounted for 16.8%. It was previously reported that the mixed infections with different viral combinations was much common in dogs with gastroenteritis (Pratelli et al. 2001; Damián et al. 2005; Chvala et al. 2007; Headley et al. 2013; Zobba et al. 2021). In conjunction with previous reports (Pratelli et al. 2001; Headley et al. 2013; Zobba et al. 2021), we suggest that the gastroenteritis cases may be screened for mixed infections for effective treatment. Most of the pet owners failed to provide proper history as there was no pet health record maintained with them. Of the animals for which the vaccination history was available, it was interesting to note 70.3% of the animals vaccinated with DHPPIL were found positive for at least one of the viruses in question. This observation alerts the need to focus on updating the vaccine with circulating strains of the viruses. Moreover, it highlights the need for regular molecular and serological screening of prevalent viruses to address the vaccination failures.
Recovery Of Virus Isolates In Cell Lines
Because of the presence of mixed infections, especially with CPV-2 a highly virulent virus (Nandi and Kumar 2010), it was difficult to obtain virus isolates from MDCK cells alone. Hence for isolation of CDV and CCoV we used specialized cell lines such as B95a (Pawar et al. 2011) and A-72 (Pratelli et al. 2003). The virus isolates were recovered by infecting the respective cell lines as described in previous section. We observed CPE after 5 dpi for CDV in B95a cells, 3 dpi for CPV-2/2a/2b/2c, CaAstV and 5 dpi for CAdV-2 in MDCK cells, 5 dpi for CCoV in A-72 cells (Fig. 2).
Whole Genome Sequencing Based Evolutionary Dynamics
Worldwide, there were limited reports of whole-genome sequences of CDV, CCoV and CaAstV isolated from dogs (Caddy and Goodfellow 2015; Romanutti et al. 2020; He et al. 2020); and we found no reports from India, till date. Hence, the whole genome of the three viruses (CDV, CaAstV, CCoV) was sequenced, extracted and the ORF regions were predicted. The total genomic length was found to be around 15.6 kb for CDV, 6.5 kb for CaAstV, 29 kb for CCoV which was nearly similar to that of the previous reports (Von Messling et al. 2001; Carstens 2010; Mihalov-Kovács et al. 2017). We found six ORFs (N, M, F, H, L, P) for CDV; three ORFs for CaAstV (ORF-1a, 1b, 2); and two overlapping ORFs coding ORF-1a and RdRp genes along with nine other genes (M, S, E, N, ORF-3a, 3b, 3c and ORF-7a, 7b) for CCoV as similar to earlier reports (Von Messling et al. 2001; Martella et al. 2011; Garcia 2016). The complete sequences along with protein-coding regions were deposited in the GenBank database of NCBI using BankIt submission and the accession numbers are MT905031 for CDV, MT894143 for CaAstV and MT955604 for CCoV. The whole-genome sequence of CDV was clustered with Asia-1 lineage that was distant from vaccine lineage (Fig. 3a), CaAstV was clustered with group III that consists of China and Brazil isolates when divided into three groups based on the relatedness (Fig. 3b). CCoV was clustered with group II that consists of China and Taipei isolates when divided into two groups based on the relatedness (Fig. 3c). A previous study suggested that all wild type strains of CDV clustered in a similar way to the groups obtained as in H gene analysis, which is normally used to identify geographically distinct CDV lineages (Romanutti et al. 2020). We observed a similar grouping in this study. Further, we also noticed that all the wild type strains are genetically distant to vaccine strains (Martella et al. 2006; Zhao et al. 2010). For CaAstV and CCoV, we could only find very limited reports of whole genome based phylogenetic analysis based on geographical distribution. A study reported a similar observation for CaAstV where one of the strains they sequenced got clustered with China isolates (Caddy and Goodfellow 2015). Another study reported that the CCoV isolates from five provinces of China during 2018-19 clustered with the earlier isolates from China similar to our observations (He et al. 2020).
Further, to understand the phylogeny with respect to individual orfs of each of the viruses, the phylogenetic tree based on individual genes of the respective viruses using ten different geographically distinct sequences for each was reconstructed. To our knowledge, very few of such reports on these viruses were published before (Li et al. 2018). Most of the reports relied on partial or complete sequence of one or two variable genes in total (Swati et al. 2015; Navarro et al. 2017; Zhou et al. 2017a; Li et al. 2018). Hence, it is noteworthy to understand if there exists any difference in evolutionary relationship with respect to individual genes. The isolates were grouped based on the relatedness; the geographical lineages can’t be tested as the number of isolates collected were only ten. Fig. 4a shows that the current CDV isolate was clustered under M-2 of 3 groups for M gene, L-3 of 3 groups for L gene, H-1 of 2 groups for H gene, N-2 of 3 groups for N gene, F-2 of 3 groups for F gene, P/C-1 of 2 groups for P/C gene. Though the isolates interchanged in between groups with respect to genes, the current isolate always clustered with China and Europe isolates except for L and F genes, which got clustered with North America and African isolates. However, the whole genome analysis shows clustering with Asia-1 lineage. Fig. 4b shows that the current CaAstV isolate was clustered under ORF-1a-1 of 3 groups for ORF-1a, ORF-2-3 of 3 groups for ORF-2. However, the ORF-1b of all showed high level of similarity so that all the isolates were clustered together. The variation in molecular evolutionary relationship is varying greatly for individual gene for CaAstV as the current isolate is clustered with China isolates with respect to ORF-1a analysis, South America and Europe isolates with respect to ORF-2 analysis, and all the isolates show similarity with respect to ORF-1b analysis. The ORF-2 phylogeny was similar to that of the whole genome for CaAstV. Fig. 4c shows that the current CCoV isolate was clustered under ORF-1a-2 of 4 groups for ORF-1a gene, ORF-3a-3 of 4 groups for ORF-3a gene, ORF-3b-4 of 4 groups for ORF-3b gene, rdrp-2 of 4 groups for rdrp gene, N-1 of 3 groups for N gene, E-1 of 2 groups for E gene, S-3 of 3 groups for S gene, M-3 of 4 groups for M gene, ORF-7b-2 of 2 groups for ORF-7b gene, ORF-7a-1 of 3 groups for ORF-7a gene, ORF-3c-2 of 4 groups for ORF-3c gene. Similar to CDV, there was shuffling of lineages with respect to individual orfs. The current isolate always clustered with China and Europe isolates except for E and ORF-3c genes, which got clustered with North America, China and Europe isolates; and Europe isolates, respectively. However, the whole genome analysis show clustering with group II, which has Chinese isolates. Our observations were consistent with the previous reports on independent evolution of genes and various selection pressures and/or evolutionary constraints for various genomic regions (Lukashov and Goudsmit 2002; Li et al. 2018). From this study we understood that the molecular evolutionary dynamics were changing with respect to the individual genes in some cases.