Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Springer logoLink to Springer
. 2024 Jan 20;48(3):1803–1812. doi: 10.1007/s11259-024-10293-4

Detection of hepatitis E virus genotype 3 in an Algerian mouse (Mus spretus) in Portugal

Sérgio Santos-Silva 1, Danny Franciele da Silva Dias Moraes 2, Pedro López-López 3,4, Joana Paupério 5, João Queirós 6,7,8,9, António Rivero-Juarez 3,4, Laura Lux 10, Rainer G Ulrich 11, Helena MR Gonçalves 12,13, Wim HM Van der Poel 14,15, Maria SJ Nascimento 16, João R Mesquita 1,17,18,✉
PMCID: PMC11147874  PMID: 38243141

Abstract

Virus monitoring in small mammals is central to the design of epidemiological control strategies for rodent-borne zoonotic viruses. Synanthropic small mammals are versatile and may be potential carriers of several microbial agents. In the present work, a total of 330 fecal samples of small mammals were collected at two sites in the North of Portugal and screened for zoonotic hepatitis E virus (HEV, species Paslahepevirus balayani). Synanthropic small mammal samples (n = 40) were collected in a city park of Porto and belonged to the species Algerian mouse (Mus spretus) (n = 26) and to the greater white-toothed shrew (Crocidura russula) (n = 14). Furthermore, additional samples were collected in the Northeast region of Portugal and included Algerian mouse (n = 48), greater white-toothed shrew (n = 47), wood mouse (Apodemus sylvaticus) (n = 43), southwestern water vole (Arvicola sapidus) (n = 52), Cabrera’s vole (Microtus cabrerae) (n = 49) and Lusitanian pine vole (Microtus lusitanicus) (n = 51). A nested RT-PCR targeting a part of open reading frame (ORF) 2 region of the HEV genome was used followed by sequencing and phylogenetic analysis. HEV RNA was detected in one fecal sample (0.3%; 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.01–1.68) from a synanthropic Algerian mouse that was genotyped as HEV-3, subgenotype 3e. This is the first study reporting the detection of HEV-3 in a synanthropic rodent, the Algerian mouse. The identified HEV isolate is probably the outcome of either a spill-over infection from domestic pigs or wild boars, or the result of passive viral transit through the intestinal tract. This finding reinforces the importance in the surveillance of novel potential hosts for HEV with a particular emphasis on synanthropic animals.

Keywords: HEV reservoir, One health, Rodent, Wildlife, Zoonosis

Introduction

Hepatitis E virus (HEV) is a small nonenveloped single-stranded positive sense RNA virus that belongs to the Hepeviridae family, subfamily Orthohepevirinae, genus Paslahepevirus. species balayani (Purdy et al. 2022). In both developing and industrialized countries, HEV is the main cause of acute hepatitis, reported to infect around 20 million individuals and resulting in 3.3 million symptomatic cases and 44,000 fatalities annually worldwide (WHO 2022). Hepatitis E was identified as a zoonotic illness in the late 1990s and pigs were discovered to be the primary natural host of HEV genotypes 3 and 4 (Dalton et al. 2008). The intake of undercooked pork meat was soon linked to a significant number of autochthonous cases in several European countries (Pavio et al. 2015).

HEV (Paslahepevirus balayani) includes variants detected in humans, pigs, wild boar, deer, mongoose, rabbits, camels and other animals, with 8 genotypes recognized until today (HEV-1 - HEV-8), whereby HEV-3, HEV-4 and HEV-7 with zoonotic transmission (Smith et al. 2020). Genotypes HEV-3 and HEV-4 are transmitted via contact with infected animals, especially pigs, or mainly by consumption of contaminated pork meat products (Velavan et al. 2021). These two genotypes have been detected in Sus scrofa domesticus (domestic pigs) and Sus scrofa scrofa (wild boars), as well as in humans (Berto et al. 2012; de la Villalba et al. 2013; Santos-Silva et al. 2023). Despite numerous studies on HEV-3 and HEV-4, particularly in high-income countries where transmission of these two genotypes via the fecal-oral route and infections acquired through environmental contamination with animal feces is still mostly unknown, other potential transmission routes are being investigated, such as milk (King et al. 2018; Treagus et al. 2021; Santos-Silva et al. 2022).

In rats, the first description of HEV was in 1993 in the former Soviet Union, in a region that experienced a viral hepatitis outbreak in human in July-October 1989 having been pointed out to rodents a certain role in the process of the spread of the virus (Karetnyĭ et al. 1993). However, molecular detection and characterization of HEV RNA in Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) only occurred in 2010 (Johne et al. 2010b). Moreover, currently a growing body of data shows evidence of the circulation of HEV-3 in small mammals, like rats and rabbits (Lack et al. 2012; Ryll et al. 2017).

Besides the initial reports of HEV-3 in small mammals, additional Hepeviridae members have also been found, namely Rocahepevirus ratti. Putative genotypes of rat Hepatitis E virus (species Rocahepevirus ratti; ratHEV) HEV-C3 and HEV-C4 were identified in A. chevrieri and E. melanogaster, respectively (Wang et al. 2018), however, there is a high likelihood of numerous additional orthohepeviruses being present in different rodent species and geographic locations (Wang et al. 2018). Genotypes of Paslahepevirus balayani species xhibit a greater divergence than other hepeviruses species (Reuter et al. 2020) and are distinctly different from genotypes HEV-C1 and HEV-C2 of Rocahepevirus ratti (Wang et al. 2020).

The zoonotic potential of rocahepeviruses is now recognized. Interestingly, ratHEV replication in a human-derived cell line was demonstrated (Jirintai et al. 2014; Li et al. 2015). Notwithstanding, experimental infection in monkeys and domestic pigs failed (Purcell et al. 2011; Cossaboom et al. 2012), however a recent study successfully inoculated ratHEV in Rhesus and Cynomolgus monkeys (Yang et al. 2022). Nevertheless, ratHEV infection has been linked to chronic hepatitis and acute hepatitis (Sridhar et al. 2018; Andonov et al. 2019). Additionally, ratHEV human infections have also recently been reported in Europe (Rivero-Juarez et al. 2022; Rodriguez et al. 2023), and IgG anti-ratHEV-reactive IgG antibodies have been detected in forestry workers in Germany and Japan (Dremsek et al. 2012; Li et al. 2013; de Cock et al. 2022).

Small mammals include animals of the order Eulipotyphla (formerly known as Insectivora) and the order Rodentia. They have extremely versatile habits, inhabiting various locations with the ability to settle between wild and urban environments (Bencatel et al. 2017). The full spectrum of small mammals, including synanthropic animals that have adapted to human environments, representing additional HEV reservoirs and playing a role in the epidemiology of zoonotic HEV is still far from being clarified. Synanthropic animals thrive in close proximity to human populations and may frequently come into contact with humans and their habitats, thereby increasing the potential for zoonotic transmission. Detecting spill-over infections in small mammals is valuable as it helps map the occurrence of HEV strains in different regions. Understanding the crucial role of synanthropic animals in the epidemiology of HEV is essential for developing effective prevention and control strategies, as they can serve as additional reservoirs and vectors for the virus. Consequently, comprehensive research that encompasses both wildlife and synanthropic animals is necessary to gain a complete understanding of the complex dynamics of HEV transmission.

In Portugal, HEV infection in humans has been widely reported (Berto et al. 2012; Mesquita et al. 2016; Moraes et al. 2022) and HEV RNA has been detected in domestic pigs and in wild mammals, such as wild boar and red deer (Moraes et al. 2022; Santos-Silva et al. 2023), however no studies have been ever carried out in small mammals. Hence the aim of this study was to perform a screening and to provide genetic characterization of HEV detected in synanthropic and wild small mammals from Portugal.

Materials and methods

Sampling and collection

A total of 330 fecal samples from synanthropic and wild small mammals were collected. Samples from synanthropic animals, represented by the wild species Algerian mouse (Mus spretus) (n = 26) and by the greater white-toothed shrew (Crocidura russula) (n = 14), were collected in the spring of 2014 from a public city park in Porto, Portugal (Fig. 1). The wild small mammal fecal samples (n = 290) were collected during ecological studies (Barão et al. 2022; Lux et al. 2023) from six different species in the spring of 2020 in the Northeast region of Portugal (Trás-os-Montes). Wild small mammal droppings were collected from 24 different sampling units, representing six different habitat types and were from one insectivore (greater white-toothed shrew, Crocidura russula, n = 47) and from five species of rodents, including two species of the family Muridae (wood mouse, Apodemus sylvaticus, n = 43; Algerian mouse, Mus spretus, n = 48) and three species of the family Cricetidae (southwestern water vole, Arvicola sapidus, n = 52; Cabrera’s vole, Microtus cabrerae, n = 49; Lusitanian pine vole, Microtus lusitanicus, n = 51).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

(A) Map of Portugal. Red and green squares highlight the sampling site of synanthropic and wild small mammals, respectively. (B) Location of the 24 sampling units centered in olive grove patches. Common names of small mammal species are as follows: wood mouse (Apodemus sylvaticus), southwestern water vole (Arvicola sapidus), greater white-toothed shrew (Crocidura russula), Cabrera’s vole (Microtus cabrerae), Lusitanian pine vole (Microtus lusitanicus) and Algerian mouse (Mus spretus)

Wild small mammal species of the samples were previously determined by molecular analysis of a short 12 S rRNA gene fragment to genetically identify the host species (Barão et al. 2022). Fresh samples were immediately transported to the laboratory and kept frozen at -20 °C until further analysis.

Sample preparation and RNA extraction

Individual fecal suspensions (10% in phosphate-buffered saline, pH 7.2) and 0.2 g sterile silicone microbeads (Precellys Lysing kits, Bertin Technologies SAS, Montigny-le-Bretonneux, France) were prepared. Fecal samples were shredded with plastic pestles, vortexed for 5 min using the cell disruptor Disruption Genie (Scientific industries, Inc., Bohemia, NY, USA) and centrifugated at 8,000 × g for 5 min according to previously described methods (Mesquita et al. 2010). Nucleic acid extraction was carried out from 140 µL of clarified supernatants using the automatic nucleic acid extraction machine QIAcube® (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) and QIAamp® viral RNA mini kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). The RNA was eluted in 50 µL of RNase-free ultrapure water and kept at -80 °C until further use.

Amplification of HEV RNA

All RNA extracts were tested for HEV RNA by a pangenotypic nested RT-PCR assay that targets the open reading frame (ORF) 2 region that encodes the viral capsid protein of the HEV genome (exclusively for HEV genotypes of species Paslahepevirus balayani, amplifying a 467 nucleotides (nt)-long genome fragment in the second round spanning between nt 5930–6334 (Frías et al. 2021).

RNA extracts were also tested by a broad-spectrum nested RT-PCR assay targeting the RNA-dependent RNA-polymerase (RdRp) gene of the ORF1 region of the HEV genome (nt 331–334 ) spanning nt 4285–4616 (numbering according to genotype 3 strain Meng accession number AF082843), that was developed for detection of novel hepeviruses (Johne et al. 2010b). For the first round, Qiagen One-Step™ RT-PCR kit (Qiagen®, Hilden, Germany) was used for both assays and for the second round, 5 µL of the first-round products were used as templates with GoTaq® (Promega™, WI, U.S.A.), all according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The WHO PEI 6329/10 subgenotype 3a standard (accession number AB630970, provided by the Paul Ehrlich-Institute, Langen, Germany) was used as a positive control and RNase-free water as negative control. Amplification reactions, with the corresponding positive and negative controls (nuclease – free water), were conducted in Bio-Rad T100TM Thermal Cycler. The conditions for first rounds were an initial reverse transcription (RT) step for 15 min at 45ºC followed by 3 min at 95ºC (enzyme activation, denaturation of template DNA). For the pangenotypic nested RT-PCR assay the thermal profile includes 40 cycles of 95 ºC for 15 s, 52 ºC for 15 s, and 72 ºC for 2 s, with a final elongation at 72 ºC for 10 min. For the broad-spectrum nested RT-PCR assay the same conditions were followed except the annealing temperature was set as 50 ºC. Both second rounds followed the same conditions, excluding the RT step.

If samples were positive for any of the above molecular approaches, HEV RNA quantification was also attempted using a broad-spectrum real-time RT-PCR (RT-qPCR) assay targeting the open reading frame ORF3 region with primers/probe (TaqMan) as previously described (Jothikumar et al. 2006). The RT-qPCR was performed using iTaq Universal Probes One-Step Kit (Bio-Rad Laboratories, USA) at a final total of 20 µL reaction mixture volume in a CFX Connect Real-Time thermocycling System (Bio-Rad Laboratories, USA). The thermal cycling regimen for the RT-qPCR reaction included initial reverse transcription (RT) at 50 °C for 10 min, followed by a simultaneous step for reverse transcriptase inactivation and the initial denaturation of cDNA at 95 °C for 3 min. Subsequently, 45 cycles of amplification were carried out, involving denaturation at 95 °C for 15 s and annealing/extension at 55 °C for 15 s.

Sequencing and phylogenetic analysis

RT-PCR products were separated by electrophoresis at 100 V for 40 min on a 1.5 % agarose gel stained with Xpert Green Safe DNA gel dye (GriSP®) and documented using the ChemiDoc XRS system with ImageLab software (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA). Bands of the expected size were excised and treated enzymatically to remove unincorporated primers and nt using Illustra™ ExoProStar™ (Sigma Aldrich® Darmstadt, Germany). Amplicons were further sequenced in both directions with the dideoxy-chain termination method using the BigDye Terminator v1.1 Cycle Sequencing kit (PE Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA). Sequence editing and multiple alignments were performed with the BioEdit software package, version 2.1 (Ibis Biosciences, Carlsbad, CA, USA). Aligned sequences were compared to sequences found in the NCBI (GenBank) nucleotide database, retrieved on 1 February 2023 (http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast). Phylogenetic analysis was performed using MEGA version X software (Kumar et al. 2018). The maximum-likelihood (ML) approach was used to infer this analysis (Tamura 1992; Kumar et al. 2018), and Tamura-Nei model was used to estimate the maximum likelihood (ML) bootstrap values using 1000 replicates. The Tamura-Nei model was determined by MEGA version X (Kumar et al. 2018) as the best replacement. Further typing was performed with the HEVnet genotyping tool (Mulder et al. 2019) to identify genotypes/subgenotypes of HEV.

Results

From the 330 fecal samples tested, one was positive for HEV RNA by the pangenotypic nested RT-PCR assay that targets the ORF2 (0.3%; 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.01–1.68) (Table 1). No sample was positive using the broad-spectrum nested ORF1-targeting RT-PCR assay and the in-house broad-spectrum RT-qPCR assay targeting the ORF3 region. The HEV RNA positive stool sample originates from a synanthropic Algerian mouse, which represented an occurrence of 1.4% (95% CI: 0.03–7.3) for this species when considering both synanthropic and wild Algerian mouse and 2.5% (95% CI: 0.06–13.16) for the total of the synanthropic samples collected. The respective generated consensus sequence was identified as HEV subgenotype 3e by Blast search. Phylogenetic analysis based on the 467 nt-long partial region of the ORF2 confirmed clustering with HEV-3 subgenotype e (Fig. 2), being closely related to variants of human (MK167982, from United Kingdom) and animal (MT840367, wild boar from Italy) origin. Furthermore, pairwise nt sequence similarity of the positive sample and the positive control was 81.2%. The sequence of HEV detected in this study is available in GenBank database under accession number OK545865. The mean pairwise distances analysis between each reference HEV sequences, as recommended for HEV subtyping studies (Smith et al. 2020), and the positive (51 M) sample is described in Table 2. No sample was positive for ratHEV RNA.

Table 1.

HEV RNA* detection rate in the different small mammal species studied and the results of HEV genotype characterization

Small mammals Results
No. of wild small mammals’ positive samples/No- of analysed samples (detection rate in %, 95% CI) HEV No. of synanthropic small mammals’ positive samples/No- of analysed samples (detection rate in %, 95% CI) HEV
Family Species (common names) HEV (ORF1 RT-PCR) Genotype/subgenotype HEV (ORF2 RT-PCR) Genotype/subgenotype
Muridae Apodemus sylvaticus (wood mouse) 0/43 ND 0/0 ND
Mus spretus (Algerian mouse) 0/48 ND 1/26 (3.9%, 0.1–19.6) 3e
Total 0/91 ND 1/26 (3.9%, 0.1–19.6) 3e
Cricetidae Arvicola sapidus (southwestern water vole) 0/52 ND 0/0 ND
Microtus cabrea (Cabrera’s vole) 0/49 ND 0/0 ND
Microtus lusitanicus (Lusitanian pine vole) 0/51 ND 0/0 ND
Total 0/152 ND 0/0 ND
Soricidae Crocidura russula (greater white-toothed-shrew) 0/47 ND 0/14 ND
Total 0/290 ND 1/40 (2.5%, 0.06–13.16) 3e
Open in a new tab

ORF – Open reading frame; ND – Not determined; CI – Confidence Interval; HEV – hepatitis E virus

*based on the detection of HEV RNA by nested RT-PCR targeting ORF2

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Phylogenetic analysis of HEV sequence found in a synanthropic Algerian mouse from Portugal. HEV-3 found in this study (OK545865) and the closest related variants of human (MK167982, from United Kingdom) and animal (MT840367, wild boar from Italy) origin and their respective accession numbers are highlighted in bold in the tree inferred using the MEGA X software and the Interactive Tree of Life (iTOL) based on 50 nucleotide HEV sequences as well as 49 strains of various genotypes obtained from GenBank.

Table 2.

The analysis involved 50 nucleotide sequences and focused on the number of base substitutions per site between sequences, as well as the mean pairwise distances between each HEV genotype/sugenotype and between 51 M. The final dataset contained 428 positions in total

Pair Wise Distance (%) Pair Wise Distance (%)
Accession number|HEV genotypes/subgenotypes 51 M Accession number|HEV genotypes/subgenotypes 51 M
FJ457024|1 78.27 FJ998008|3i 84.35
MH918640|1 77.10 AY115488|3j 85.28
M73218|1a 79.44 AB369689|3k 83.88
L08816|1b 78.04 JQ953664|3 L 82.94
X98292|1c 78.97 KU513561|3 m 83.88
AY230202|1d 78.74 FJ906895|3ra 81.31
AY204877|1e 78.04 AB369688|4 78.97
JF443721|1f 78.27 MK410048|4 79.67
LC225387|1 g 80.14 AB197673|4a 79.44
KX578717|2a 77.10 DQ279091|4b 77.80
MH809516|2b 79.67 AB074915|4c 78.74
AB290313|3 88.08 AJ272108|4d 77.57
LC260517|3 84.11 AY723745|4e 79.21
MF959764|3 83.64 AB220974|4f 76.17
MF959765|3 83.64 AB108537|4 g 77.34
MK390971|3 81.78 GU119961|4 h 78.27
KP294371|3 83.88 AB369690|4i 79.21
AF082843|3a 83.41 AB573435|5a 80.56
AP003430|3b 85.75 AB856243|6 77.34
FJ705359|3c 82.94 AB602441|6a 77.80
AF296165|3d 82.89 KJ496144|7 81.07
AB248521|3e 90.65 KJ496143|7a 78.27
AB369687|3f 89.25 MH410174|8 75.93
AF455784|3 g 85.51 KX387865|8a 76.64
JQ013794|3 h 82.48
Open in a new tab

Discussion

The potential role and impact of small mammals as a HEV reservoir is still largely unknown. The present study offers the first molecular-based proof of the presence and identification of the zoonotic HEV-3 in a synanthropic Algerian mouse in Portugal.

The first molecular identification of a hepevirus (ratHEV, species Rocahepevirus ratti) in rodents was in Norway rat feces and liver samples in Germany in 2010 (Johne et al. 2010a, b). Since then ratHEV strains have been detected in rats across at least three continents (Asia, America, and Europe), indicating that rats are infected with the virus throughout a large geographic range (Reuter et al. 2020). In addition, ratHEV has been found in a variety of wild rat species, including Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) and Black rats (Rattus rattus) in many European countries (Johne et al. 2010a; Ryll et al. 2017; Simanavicius et al. 2018; Murphy et al. 2019), United States of America (Purcell et al. 2011), Hong Kong (Sridhar et al. 2021), Indonesia (Mulyanto et al. 2014; Primadharsini et al. 2018). Furthermore, ratHEV has also been detected in synanthropic rats (Porea et al. 2023), and in humans (Rivero-Juarez et al. 2022) from Europe. In the present study, ratHEV was not detected in any of the 290 wild small mammal fecal samples that included one insectivore and five rodent species. Further studies assessing urban rats/rodents (Rattus sp.) should be conducted in Portugal in order to estimate the zoonotic risk of infection, considering the findings in neighboring countries, such as France and Spain.

Nevertheless, in this study, HEV-3 subgenotype 3e was detected in the fecal sample of a synanthropic Algerian mouse, that goes in accordance to results from previous studies that also report this human pathogenic genotype in small mammals (Lack et al. 2012). However, no accurate assessment of the variety of hepevirus species/genotypes circulating in wild small mammals in Portugal can be made due to the extremely low number of positive samples. Furthermore, the positive sample was identified using the pangenotypic nested RT-PCR assay that targets the ORF2 region that encodes the viral capsid protein of the HEV genome and specific to the species Paslahepevirus balayani and not with the broad-spectrum nested RT-PCR assay targeting the RdRp gene of the ORF1 region of the HEV genome and the broad-spectrum RT-qPCR assay targeting the ORF3 region. These differences may be attributed to the genetic variability of the virus, which may have hindered detection with the other sets of primers.

According to the HEVTool (Mulder et al. 2019) and phylogenetic analysis, the HEV strain detected in the Algerian mouse was associated with strains that cause more severe illness in humans (Subissi et al. 2019). Since synanthropic small mammals live in close association with people and benefit from their surroundings and activities and although the uncertainty in how HEV behaves in synanthropic and wild small mammals, there is some concern that it could spread and infect humans and other species. However, as previously mentioned, the HEV positive sample found in this study could potentially be result of a spill-over infection or of passive viral transit through the intestinal tract, which is highly unlikely to be transmitted to humans or animals. In a study from Italy, rats inhabiting a pig farm were found to have HEV-3e (the same subgenotype found in pigs), highlighting the possible involvement of rats in the spread of this virus (De Sabato et al. 2020) or at least a spill-over effect that enables the tracking of this particular virus strain within a specific geographic area. Interestingly, in previous studies, HEV-3 RNA was detected in intestinal contents, but not in the liver of mice from a pig farm house and was considered to be a virus that had entered the intestine from ingested feces of pigs rather than infection of mice (Grierson et al. 2019). In addition, studies show the absence of genotype HEV-3 in liver tissue samples from wild rats, supporting the argument that rats, like mice, are only accidental hosts of HEV (Takahashi et al. 2022). Nevertheless, further investigations may be required before discarding the possibility of HEV replication in rats. A study reported wild-type and immunodeficient mice being resistant to HEV-3 infection, yet HEV RNA and anti-HEV antibodies were detected in rats inoculated with HEV, indicating a successful infection (Schlosser et al. 2019).

In our study a low HEV detection rate was seen in synanthropic and wild small mammals (0.3%), with HEV-3 being identified. A similar detection rate (0.2%) has been reported in a study that detected HEV-3 in one Norway rat in a survey conducted in 11 European countries (1/508, from Belgium) (Ryll et al. 2017), while in USA 7.85% (35/446) of the Rattus spp. surveyed positive for HEV-3 having some been classified as subgenotype 3a (Lack et al. 2012). Besides rats, HEV-3a has also been detected in another small mammal (namely yellow-necked field mouse, Apodemus flavicollis) in Europe (Prpić et al. 2019). Furthermore, this HEV genotype has been identified in other mammal species, such as wild boar, from the same region of Portugal as our study (Mesquita et al. 2016; Santos-Silva et al. 2023). Therefore, the question whether rodents are truly natural reservoirs of human HEV or act as only intermediate hosts or bioindicators is not yet conclusively answered (Kenney 2019; Wang et al. 2020).

While the detection rate in this study is relatively low, the results suggest a potential susceptibility of these small rodents to HEV infection. Furthermore, strikingly HEV was only detected in a synanthropic rodent that is closely associated with people and that benefits from people surroundings and activities, whereas no non-synanthropic wild small mammal have shown evidence of HEV RNA. As such, the present study on HEV in small mammals of Portugal as a potential source for hepevirus transmission highlights the necessity for further research to improve risk assessment for human health.

In conclusion, this is the first time that HEV subgenotype 3e was identified in an Algerian mouse. However, the HEV isolate identified is most likely the result of a spillover infection from domestic pigs, or possibly the result of passive viral transit through the intestinal tract. Moreover, our study is the first hepevirus report in Portuguese small mammals, raising questions about their susceptibility to HEV and their role in HEV epidemiology.

Acknowledgements

Sérgio Santos-Silva thanks Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) for the financial support of his Ph.D work under the scholarship 2021.09461.BD contract through the Maria de Sousa-2021 program. H. M. R. Gonçalves work was supported through the project PTDC/BTM-MAT/30858/2017. Antonio Rivero-Juarez is the recipient of a Miguel Servet Research Contract by the Ministerio de Ciencia, Promoción y Universidades of Spain (CP18/00111). This work is financed by national funds through FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., under the projects UIDB/04750/2020, UIDB/50006/2020 and LA/P/0064/2020. Additional support was provided by FEDER funds through the Programa Operacional Factores de Competitividade (COMPETE), and by national funds through the FCT, within the scope of the project AGRIVOLE—PTDC/BIA-ECO/31728/2017.

Author contributions

All authors contributed to the study’s conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Sérgio Santos-Silva, Danny Franciele da Silva Dias Moraes, Pedro López-López, Joana Paupério, João Queirós, Laura Lux. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Sérgio Santos-Silva, and João R. Mesquita and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Fundação para Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT), grant number 2021.09461.BD.

Open access funding provided by FCT|FCCN (b-on).

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Declarations

Animal ethical statement

No animals were sacrificed for the purpose of this study and all applicable institutional and/or national/international guidelines for the care and use of animals have been followed.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. Andonov A, Robbins M, Borlang J, et al. Rat Hepatitis E Virus linked to severe Acute Hepatitis in an Immunocompetent patient. J Infect Dis. 2019;220:951–955. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiz025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Barão I, Queirós J, Vale-Gonçalves H, et al. Landscape characteristics affecting small Mammal occurrence in heterogeneous Olive Grove Agro-ecosystems. Conservation. 2022;2:51–67. doi: 10.3390/conservation2010005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bencatel J, Álvares F, Moura A, Barbosa AM (2017) Atlas de mamíferos de Portugal
  4. Berto A, Mesquita JR, Hakze-van der Honing R, et al. Detection and characterization of Hepatitis E Virus in Domestic pigs of different ages in Portugal. Zoonoses Public Health. 2012;59:477–481. doi: 10.1111/j.1863-2378.2012.01488.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cossaboom CM, Córdoba L, Sanford BJ, et al. Cross-species infection of pigs with a novel rabbit, but not rat, strain of hepatitis E virus isolated in the United States. J Gen Virol. 2012;93:1687–1695. doi: 10.1099/vir.0.041509-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Dalton HR, Bendall R, Ijaz S, Banks M. Hepatitis E: an emerging infection in developed countries. Lancet Infect Dis. 2008;8:698–709. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(08)70255-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. de Cock M, Fonville M, de Vries A, et al. Screen the unforeseen: microbiome-profiling for detection of zoonotic pathogens in wild rats. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2022;69:3881–3895. doi: 10.1111/tbed.14759. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. de la Villalba CM, Owot M, Benedito JC, et al. Hepatitis E virus genotype 3 in humans and swine, Cuba. Infect Genet Evol J Mol Epidemiol Evol Genet Infect Dis. 2013;14:335–339. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2012.12.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. De Sabato L, Di Bartolo I, Lapa D, et al. Molecular characterization of HEV Genotype 3 in Italy at Human/Animal Interface. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:1–9. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.00137. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Dremsek P, Wenzel JJ, Johne R, et al. Seroprevalence study in forestry workers from eastern Germany using novel genotype 3- and rat hepatitis E virus-specific immunoglobulin G ELISAs. Med Microbiol Immunol. 2012;201:189–200. doi: 10.1007/s00430-011-0221-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Frías M, López-López P, Zafra I, et al. Development and clinical validation of a pangenotypic PCR-based assay for the detection and quantification of hepatitis E virus (Orthohepevirus A Genus) J Clin Microbiol. 2021;59:1–7. doi: 10.1128/JCM.02075-20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Grierson SS, McGowan S, Cook C, et al. Molecular and in vitro characterisation of hepatitis E virus from UK pigs. Virology. 2019;527:116–121. doi: 10.1016/j.virol.2018.10.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Jirintai S, Tanggis, Mulyanto, et al. Rat hepatitis E virus derived from wild rats (Rattus rattus) propagates efficiently in human hepatoma cell lines. Virus Res. 2014;185:92–102. doi: 10.1016/j.virusres.2014.03.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Johne R, Heckel G, Plenge-Bönig A, et al. Novel hepatitis E virus genotype in Norway rats, Germany. Emerg Infect Dis. 2010;16:1452–1455. doi: 10.3201/eid1609.100444. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Johne R, Plenge-Bönig A, Hess M, et al. Detection of a novel hepatitis E-like virus in faeces of wild rats using a nested broad-spectrum RT-PCR. J Gen Virol. 2010;91:750–758. doi: 10.1099/vir.0.016584-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Jothikumar N, Cromeans TL, Robertson BH, et al. A broadly reactive one-step real-time RT-PCR assay for rapid and sensitive detection of hepatitis E virus. J Virol Methods. 2006;131:65–71. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2005.07.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Karetnyĭ IV, Dzhumalieva DI, Usmanov RK et al (1993) [The possible involvement of rodents in the spread of viral hepatitis E]. Zhurnal Mikrobiol Epidemiol i Immunobiol 52–56 [PubMed]
  18. Kenney SP (2019) The current host range of hepatitis E viruses. Viruses 11:10.3390/v11050452 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  19. King NJ, Hewitt J, Perchec-Merien AM. Hiding in Plain Sight? It’s time to investigate other possible transmission routes for Hepatitis E Virus (HEV) in developed countries. Food Environ Virol. 2018;10:225–252. doi: 10.1007/s12560-018-9342-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Kumar S, Stecher G, Li M, et al. MEGA X: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis across computing platforms. Mol Biol Evol. 2018;35:1547–1549. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msy096. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Lack JB, Volk K, Van Den Bussche RA. Hepatitis E virus genotype 3 in wild rats, United States. Emerg Infect Dis. 2012;18:1268–1273. doi: 10.3201/eid1808.120070. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Li TC, Yoshizaki S, Ami Y, et al. Susceptibility of laboratory rats against genotypes 1, 3, 4, and rat hepatitis E viruses. Vet Microbiol. 2013;163:54–61. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2012.12.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Li TC, Yang T, Yoshizaki S, et al. Construction and characterization of an infectious cDNA clone of rat hepatitis E virus. J Gen Virol. 2015;96:1320–1327. doi: 10.1099/vir.0.000072. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Lux L, Ulrich RG, Santos-Silva S et al (2023) Detection and molecular characterization of Giardia and Cryptosporidium Spp. Circulating in Wild Small mammals from Portugal. Animals 13. 10.3390/ani13030515 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  25. Mesquita JR, Barclay L, Nascimento MSJ, Vinjé J. Novel norovirus in dogs with diarrhea. Emerg Infect Dis. 2010;16:980–982. doi: 10.3201/eid1606.091861. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Mesquita JR, Oliveira RMS, Coelho C, et al. Hepatitis E Virus in Sylvatic and Captive Wild Boar from Portugal. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2016;63:574–578. doi: 10.1111/tbed.12297. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Moraes Df, Lopez-Lopez P, Palmeira JD, et al. Screening for hepatitis E virus genotype 3 in red deer (Cervus elaphus) and fallow deer (Dama dama), Portugal, 2018–2020. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2022;69:2764–2768. doi: 10.1111/tbed.14427. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Mulder AC, Kroneman A, Franz E, et al. HEVnet: a one health, collaborative, interdisciplinary network and sequence data repository for enhanced hepatitis e virus molecular typing, characterisation and epidemiological investigations. Eurosurveillance. 2019;24:1–6. doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2019.24.10.1800407. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Mulyanto, Suparyatmo JB, Andayani IGAS, et al. Marked genomic heterogeneity of rat hepatitis E virus strains in Indonesia demonstrated on a full-length genome analysis. Virus Res. 2014;179:102–112. doi: 10.1016/j.virusres.2013.10.029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Murphy EG, Williams NJ, Jennings D, et al. First detection of Hepatitis E virus (Orthohepevirus C) in wild brown rats (Rattus norvegicus) from Great Britain. Zoonoses Public Health. 2019;66:686–694. doi: 10.1111/zph.12581. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Pavio N, Meng XJ, Doceul V. Zoonotic origin of hepatitis e. Curr Opin Virol. 2015;10:34–41. doi: 10.1016/j.coviro.2014.12.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Porea D, Raileanu C, Crivei LA et al (2023) First detection of Hepatitis E Virus (Rocahepevirus ratti genotype C1) in Synanthropic Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) in Romania. Viruses 15. 10.3390/v15061337 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  33. Primadharsini PP, Mulyanto, Wibawa IDN, et al. The identification and characterization of novel rat hepatitis E virus strains in Bali and Sumbawa, Indonesia. Arch Virol. 2018;163:1345–1349. doi: 10.1007/s00705-018-3736-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Prpić J, Keros T, Vucelja M, et al. First evidence of hepatitis E virus infection in a small mammal (yellow-necked mouse) from Croatia. PLoS ONE. 2019;14:1–9. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225583. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Purcell RH, Engle RE, Rood MP, et al. Hepatitis E virus in rats, Los Angeles, California, USA. Emerg Infect Dis. 2011;17:2216–2222. doi: 10.3201/eid1712.110482. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Purdy MA, Drexler JF, Meng X-J, et al. ICTV Virus Taxonomy Profile: Hepeviridae 2022. J Gen Virol. 2022;103:1–2. doi: 10.1099/jgv.0.001778. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Reuter G, Boros Á, Pankovics P (2020) Review of Hepatitis E virus in rats: evident risk of Species Orthohepevirus C to Human zoonotic infection and disease. 10.3390/v12101148. Viruses 12: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  38. Rivero-Juarez A, Frias M, Perez AB, et al. Orthohepevirus C infection as an emerging cause of acute hepatitis in Spain: first report in Europe. J Hepatol. 2022;77:326–331. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2022.01.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Rodriguez C, Marchand S, Sessa A, et al. Orthohepevirus C Hepatitis, an underdiagnosed disease? J Hepatol. 2023;79:e39–e41. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2023.02.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Ryll R, Bernstein S, Heuser E, et al. Detection of rat hepatitis E virus in wild Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) and black rats (Rattus rattus) from 11 European countries. Vet Microbiol. 2017;208:58–68. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2017.07.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Santos-Silva S, Gonçalves HMR, Rivero-Juarez A, et al. Detection of hepatitis E virus in milk: current evidence for viral excretion in a wide range of mammalian hosts. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2022;69:3173–3180. doi: 10.1111/tbed.14683. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Santos-Silva S, Moraes DF, da SD, López-López P et al (2023) Survey of Zoonotic Diarrheagenic Protist and Hepatitis E Virus in Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) of Portugal. Anim an open Access J from MDPI 13. 10.3390/ani13020256 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  43. Schlosser J, Dähnert L, Dremsek P, et al. Different outcomes of experimental hepatitis E virus infection in diverse mouse strains, Wistar rats, and rabbits. Viruses. 2019;11:1–11. doi: 10.3390/v11010001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Simanavicius M, Tamosiunas PL, Petraityte-Burneikiene R, et al. Generation in yeast and antigenic characterization of hepatitis E virus capsid protein virus-like particles. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2018;102:185–198. doi: 10.1007/s00253-017-8622-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Smith DB, Izopet J, Nicot F, et al. Update: proposed reference sequences for subtypes of hepatitis E virus (species Orthohepevirus A) J Gen Virol. 2020;101:692–698. doi: 10.1099/jgv.0.001435. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Sridhar S, Yip CCY, Wu S, et al. Rat hepatitis E virus as cause of persistent hepatitis after liver transplant. Emerg Infect Dis. 2018;24:2241–2250. doi: 10.3201/eid2412.180937. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Sridhar S, Yip CC-Y, Wu S, et al. Transmission of Rat Hepatitis E virus infection to humans in Hong Kong: a clinical and epidemiological analysis. Hepatology. 2021;73:10–22. doi: 10.1002/hep.31138. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Subissi L, Peeters M, Lamoral S, et al (2019) Subtype-specific differences in the risk of hospitalisation among patients infected with hepatitis E virus genotype 3 in Belgium, 2010–2018. Epidemiol Infect 147:5–8. 10.1017/S0950268819001122 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  49. Takahashi M, Kunita S, Kawakami M, et al. First detection and characterization of rat hepatitis E virus (HEV-C1) in Japan. Virus Res. 2022;314:198766. doi: 10.1016/j.virusres.2022.198766. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Tamura K. Estimation of the number of nucleotide substitutions when there are strong transition-transversion and G + C-content biases. Mol Biol Evol. 1992;9:678–687. doi: 10.1093/OXFORDJOURNALS.MOLBEV.A040752. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Treagus S, Wright C, Baker-Austin C, et al. The Foodborne transmission of Hepatitis E Virus to humans. Food Environ Virol. 2021;13:127–145. doi: 10.1007/s12560-021-09461-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Velavan TP, Pallerla SR, Johne R, et al. Hepatitis E: an update on one health and clinical medicine. Liver Int off J Int Assoc Study Liver. 2021;41:1462–1473. doi: 10.1111/liv.14912. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Wang B, Li W, Zhou J-H, et al. Chevrier’s Field Mouse (Apodemus chevrieri) and Père David’s vole (Eothenomys melanogaster) in China carry orthohepeviruses that form two putative novel genotypes within the species Orthohepevirus C. Virol Sin. 2018;33:44–58. doi: 10.1007/s12250-018-0011-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Wang B, Harms D, Yang X, Lou, Bock CT. Orthohepevirus C: an expanding species of emerging hepatitis e virus variants. Pathogens. 2020;9:1–23. doi: 10.3390/pathogens9030154. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. WHO (2022) Hepatitis E. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/hepatitis-e
  56. Yang F, Li Y, Li Y et al (2022) Experimental cross-species transmission of Rat Hepatitis E Virus to Rhesus and Cynomolgus monkeys. Viruses 14. 10.3390/v14020293 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Articles from Veterinary Research Communications are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES