Norwegian moose CWD induces clinical disease and neuroinvasion in gene-targeted mice expressing cervid S138N prion protein

Maria Immaculata Arifin; Samia Hannaoui; Raychal Ashlyn Ng; Doris Zeng; Irina Zemlyankina; Hanaa Ahmed-Hassan; Hermann M Schatzl; Lech Kaczmarczyk; Walker S Jackson; Sylvie L Benestad; Sabine Gilch

doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1012350

. 2024 Jul 1;20(7):e1012350. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1012350

Norwegian moose CWD induces clinical disease and neuroinvasion in gene-targeted mice expressing cervid S138N prion protein

Maria Immaculata Arifin ^1,^#, Samia Hannaoui ^1,^#, Raychal Ashlyn Ng ¹, Doris Zeng ¹, Irina Zemlyankina ¹, Hanaa Ahmed-Hassan ^1,², Hermann M Schatzl ^1,^3,⁴, Lech Kaczmarczyk ⁵, Walker S Jackson ⁵, Sylvie L Benestad ⁶, Sabine Gilch ^1,^3,^4,^*

Editor: Suzette A Priola⁷

PMCID: PMC11244775 PMID: 38950080

Abstract

Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is a prion disease affecting deer, elk and moose in North America and reindeer, moose and red deer in Northern Europe. Pathogenesis is driven by the accumulation of PrP^Sc, a pathological form of the host’s cellular prion protein (PrP^C), in the brain. CWD is contagious among North American cervids and Norwegian reindeer, with prions commonly found in lymphatic tissue. In Nordic moose and red deer CWD appears exclusively in older animals, and prions are confined to the CNS and undetectable in lymphatic tissues, indicating a sporadic origin.

We aimed to determine transmissibility, neuroinvasion and lymphotropism of Nordic CWD isolates using gene-targeted mice expressing either wild-type (138SS/226QQ) or S138N (138NN/226QQ) deer PrP. When challenged with North American CWD strains, mice expressing S138N PrP did not develop clinical disease but harbored prion seeding activity in brain and spleen. Here, we infected these models intracerebrally or intraperitoneally with Norwegian moose, red deer and reindeer CWD isolates. The moose isolate was the first CWD type to cause full-blown disease in the 138NN/226QQ model in the first passage, with 100% attack rate and shortened survival times upon second passage. Furthermore, we detected prion seeding activity or PrP^Sc in brains and spinal cords, but not spleens, of 138NN/226QQ mice inoculated intraperitoneally with the moose isolate, providing evidence of prion neuroinvasion. We also demonstrate, for the first time, that transmissibility of the red deer CWD isolate was restricted to transgenic mice overexpressing elk PrP^C (138SS/226EE), identical to the PrP primary structure of the inoculum.

Our findings highlight that susceptibility to clinical disease is determined by the conformational compatibility between prion inoculum and host PrP primary structure. Our study indicates that neuroinvasion of Norwegian moose prions can occur without, or only very limited, replication in the spleen, an unprecedented finding for CWD.

Author summary

Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is a prion disease of cervids that is expanding its global footprint. The pathogenesis of prion disease is driven by the accumulation of PrP^Sc, a misfolded isoform of the cellular prion protein (PrP^C). CWD prion strains from North America are lymphotropic, while Norwegian moose and red deer prions are not, and therefore considered non-contagious, sporadic CWD forms.

We studied the propagation of Norwegian CWD prions in gene-targeted mice carrying cervid PrP^C variants. We reveal that the Norwegian moose isolate induces clinical disease in mice expressing a PrP^C variant previously shown to only display subclinical infection upon challenge with North American CWD. We report the first instance of red deer CWD transmission exclusively to mice overexpressing elk PrP^C.

Notably, our findings suggest a neuroinvasion route for Norwegian moose CWD prions that potentially bypasses spleen replication, underscoring the complexity of prion disease transmission, and the need for continued research into the behavior of prions across different species and protein variants.

Introduction

Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is the prion disease of free-ranging and captive cervid populations in the United States, Canada, South Korea, Norway, Sweden, and Finland [1–3]. The disease is primarily caused by the aggregation and accumulation of PrP^Sc, a misfolded and infectious isoform of the host-expressed cellular prion protein (PrP^C). PrP^Sc is thought to be the main, if not the only, component of prions [4,5]. CWD prions can replicate and accumulate in peripheral tissues of infected animals, particularly in the lymphatic system. Infected animals shed infectious prions into the environment through saliva, blood, urine, and feces [6–8], and environmental prion contamination can facilitate prolonged indirect transmission [9–11]. CWD in North America is highly contagious, and prevalence has reached up to ~19% within endemic regions and as high as ~87% in localized areas [12].

Several distinct CWD prion strains have been identified in North America [13–17]. They are all lymphotropic, contagious, and considered to be acquired by infection. By contrast, Norwegian CWD has distinct features; CWD in moose and red deer was identified in very old animals, with PrP^Sc detectable in the brain but not in lymphatic tissues, while lymphotropism was only evident in cases of reindeer CWD [18–21]. This gave rise to the hypothesis that CWD in Norwegian moose and red deer represent sporadic, atypical forms of CWD, reminiscent of atypical/Nor98 scrapie and atypical H- and L-BSE strains [22–24]. On the host’s side, previous studies have suggested that animals harboring PrP^C allelic variants were less prone to contracting CWD compared to their wild-type counterparts [25–27]. However, certain prion strains have been shown to break these genotypic transmission barriers, e.g., the H95⁺ and 116AG CWD strains from white-tailed deer were able to produce terminal prion disease in Tg60 mice expressing the 96S deer PrP^C, a mouse model resistant to transmission from other CWD isolates [14,16].

The objective of our study was to delve deeper into the characteristics of Norwegian CWD prion isolates, particularly their propagation dynamics in hosts that carry cervid PrP^C variants known for their reduced susceptibility to CWD, e.g., S138N in reindeer/caribou. We were also interested in exploring their ability to infiltrate the brain following infection from peripheral sites. To this end, we characterized the propagation of three Norwegian CWD isolates, i.e., the M-NO3 moose isolate, R-NO16 reindeer isolate, and H-NO1 red deer isolate in gene-targeted mice expressing either the wild-type deer representative for mule deer, white-tailed deer and reindeer/caribou (138SS/226QQ) or the 138NN (138NN/226QQ) PrP^C variant found in caribou [28,29], or transgenic mice overexpressing elk (138SS/226EE) PrP^C [30–32]. Our findings reveal that the M-NO3 moose isolate was able to induce clinical disease in gene-targeted mice expressing the 138NN-PrP^C variant, an experimental host that previously only showed subclinical infection, i.e., prions were detected by in vitro amplification, but infected mice did not display clinical signs, upon infection with North American CWD isolates [29]. In addition, while M-NO3 did not elicit clinical disease in our mouse models following intraperitoneal inoculation, we detected prion seeding activity using RT-QuIC in several mouse brains and spinal cords, as well as proteinase K (PK)-resistant PrP^Sc by western blot in the spinal cord of one Prnp.Cer.138NN mouse. Notably, there was no prion seeding activity detected in their spleens. This suggests a route of neuroinvasion for M-NO3 prions that may bypass or only transiently involve splenic prion replication. Furthermore, we report the novel finding that the H-NO1 red deer isolate can transmit disease exclusively to transgenic mice overexpressing elk PrP^C.

Results

Propagation of Norwegian CWD isolates in Prnp.Cer.Wt mice

Prior to inoculation, brain homogenates (BH) from R-NO16, M-NO3 [20], and H-NO1 [21] were tested for prion seeding activity in RT-QuIC using mouse recombinant PrP as a substrate and compared based on endpoint dilution and lag phase. Endpoint dilution is the highest sample dilution resulting in a positive reaction [33]. Ten percent BH from R-NO16 and M-NO3 were still positive for seeding activity when diluted up to 2 x 10⁻⁴, while H-NO1 was positive only up to 2 x 10⁻³ dilution, suggesting lower amounts of seeding-capable prions in the H-NO1 brain (Fig 1). Lag phase represents the time required to cross the threshold [33]. R-NO16 had the shortest lag phase with ~5 hours reaction time, followed by M-NO3 at ~10 hours, and H-NO1 at ~15 hours (Fig 1). This suggests that R-NO16 had the highest prion seeding activity, followed by M-NO3 and H-NO1.

Fig 1 — Ten percent brain homogenates were subjected to serial dilutions from 2 x 10⁻¹ to 2 x 10⁻⁶ in RT-QuIC seed dilution buffer. Samples were considered positive when a minimum of two out of four wells crossed the threshold relative fluorescence unit (RFU). Threshold is the average RFU of all negative control reactions plus five times their standard deviation. Negative control was a CWD-negative mule deer. R-NO16 and M-NO3 were positive for prion seeding activity up to 2 x 10⁻⁴ dilution (upper panels), and H-NO1 up to 2 x 10⁻³ dilution (bottom left panel). The y-axis represents the RFU, and the x-axis represents time in hours (h). Mouse recombinant PrP was used as substrate for the RT-QuIC reactions.

Gene-targeted mice expressing wild-type deer PrP (Prnp.Cer.Wt), were inoculated intracerebrally (i.c.) or intraperitoneally (i.p.) with R-NO16, M-NO3 or H-NO1. Mice inoculated i.c. with R-NO16 and M-NO3 reached terminal prion disease with average survival times of 628.4 ± 25.4 days post-inoculation (dpi) and 700 ± 108.5 dpi, respectively (Table 1). Mice inoculated with R-NO16 displayed signs similar to those inoculated with a Canadian reindeer isolate [29], designated R-CA1 here onwards, the most apparent being ataxia, low-profile walking, and lethargy, while groups inoculated with M-NO3 mostly displayed signs of intense hyperactivity, loss of balance, and pronounced kyphosis. However, neither isolate resulted in a full attack rate, with R-NO16 giving a 71.4% and M-NO3 a 66.7% attack rate (Table 1). Mice inoculated i.c. with H-NO1 did not develop clinical disease up to 820 dpi (Table 1). Upon i.p. inoculation, only mice inoculated with R-NO16 reached terminal disease at 719.4 ± 30.7 dpi with 87.5% attack rate, while those inoculated i.p. with M-NO3 did not develop clinical signs of prion disease up to the experimental endpoint of 779 dpi (Table 1). Of note, experimental endpoints among gene-targeted mice were selected according to the natural lifespan of mouse models and to be comparable between groups of mice with different genotypes inoculated with the same CWD isolate, e.g., Prnp.Cer.Wt and Prnp.Cer.138NN mice inoculated i.p. with M-NO3 (Table 1).

Table 1. Survival times of Prnp.Cer.Wt, Prnp.Cer.138NN and TgElk mice following intracerebral (i.c.) and intraperitoneal (i.p.) inoculation with Norwegian CWD isolates.

				Average survival times ± SD in days (N₁/N_total)
Inoculum	Tissue	passage	roi	Prnp.Cer.Wt	Prnp.Cer.138NN	TgElk
R-NO16	Brain	1	i.c.	628.4 ± 25.4 (5/7)	734 (5/5) ^b	na
Reindeer				637 (1/7) ^a, 733 (1/7) ^b
		1	i.p.	719.4 ± 30.7 (7/8)	734 (4/4) ^b	na
				703 (1/8) ^a
M-NO3	Brain	1	i.c.	700 ± 108.5 (4/6)	565, 656 (2/5)	258 (4/4) ^b
Moose				623, 635 (2/6) ^a	720 (1/5) ^a, 756, 832 (2/5) ^b
		1	i.p.	297, 653 (2/5) ^a, 779 (3/5) ^b	600, 651, 720 (3/5) ^a, 774, 782 (2/5) ^b	na
		2	i.c.	na	360.6 ± 34.7 (9/9)	na
H-NO1	Brain	1	i.c.	572, 656, 720 (3/5) ^a, 818, 820 (2/5) ^b	714 (1/4) ^a, 784, 798, 832 (3/4) ^b	166 (1/4)
Red deer						257 (3/4) ^b
		1	i.p.	na	629, 629, 705 (3/3) ^a	na
		2	i.c.	na	na	149.3 ± 44.5 (4/5)
						315 (1/5) ^b

Open in a new tab

^a Humane endpoint euthanasia with no clinical signs or confirmed prion disease, defined in methods.

^b Experimental endpoint euthanasia with no clinical disease, defined as ≥ 700 dpi for mice inoculated with R-NO16, ≥ 750 dpi for mice inoculated with M-NO3 and H-NO1, and ≥ 250 dpi for the TgElk mouse line independent of inoculum (see methods). N₁/N_total = number of mice euthanized / number of mice per group; SD = standard deviation; roi = route of inoculation; i.c. = intracerebral; i.p. = intraperitoneal; na = not inoculated.

Mice that exhibited clinical prion signs were euthanized upon terminal disease (see materials and methods) and were confirmed to harbor PK-resistant prions (PrP^res) in their brains by western blot analysis (Fig 2A and 2B). PrP^res patterns, following first passage, were compared to original isolates from Norway used for inoculation, and to previously characterized CWD isolates from North America (Fig 2D). Norwegian isolates had low to moderate seeding activity in RT-QuIC, and only M-NO3 harbored detectable amounts of PrP^res by western blot. Despite similar seeding activity, R-NO16 did not show PrP^res, possibly due to a higher amount of PK-sensitive PrP^Sc compared to M-NO3 (Figs 2D and A in S1 Text). Overall, brain homogenates from mice inoculated with M-NO3 harbored PrP^res of lower molecular weight, with a pattern comparable to that of the original M-NO3 isolate. PrP^res in brain homogenates of mice infected with R-NO16 appears similar to R-CA1, an experimental isolate from reindeer [34], and two isolates from white-tailed deer consisting of different strains (Wisc-1 and 116AG; 14,16). CWD from elk harboring strain CWD2 [17] exhibits PrP^res with a molecular weight that is intermediate between that of M-NO3 and other North American CWD strains (WTD-Wisc-1, WTD-116AG and R-CA1). Additionally, the molecular weight of this PrP^res differs from any PrP^res detected in gene-targeted mice (Figs 2 and A in S1 Text) Mice euthanized due to reasons unrelated to prion disease or due to reaching our experimental endpoint (see materials and methods) did not contain levels of PrP^res detectable by western blots in their brains (Fig 2A–2C). However, some of these PrP^res-negative mouse brains were positive for seeding activity in RT-QuIC (Table 2 and Fig B in S1 Text), suggesting that they harbor either very low amounts of prions, or PK-sensitive prions. Spleens from these mice were analyzed by RT-QuIC and groups inoculated with R-NO16 were positive, independent of the inoculation route, and, to a lesser extent, those inoculated with H-NO1 (Table 2). Interestingly, Prnp.Cer.Wt mice inoculated i.p. with M-NO3 were the only ones that did not exhibit any seeding activity in either their brains or spleens (Table 2). Additionally, brains and spleens of mice inoculated i.p. were examined for abnormal PrP deposits by immunohistochemistry and only those inoculated with R-NO16 were found positive (Fig C in S1 Text). In contrast to the same mouse model inoculated with R-CA1 [29], mice inoculated with R-NO16 did not harbor PrP deposits in their hippocampus (Fig C in S1 Text).

**PrP**^res **detection in *Prnp*.Cer.Wt and *Prnp*.Cer.138NN brain homogenates of mice inoculated i.c. and i.p. with R-NO16 (A), M-NO3 (B), and H-NO1 (C) isolates.** Ten percent brain homogenates were digested with 50 μg/mL PK for one hour at 37°C. For (A) and (B), the anti-PrP antibody used was 4H11 (1:500), and for (C) it was 9A2 (1:1000, upper panel) and 4H11 (1:500, lower panel). (D) PrP^res-positive brain homogenates of gene-targeted mice as indicated inoculated i.c. with R-CA1, R-NO16, and M-NO3 were analyzed by western blot along with CWD isolates from North America (Elk-CWD2, WTD-Wisc-1, WTD-116AG, R-CA1) and Norway (R-NO16, M-NO3, H-NO1) digested with 50 μg/ml of PK using anti-PrP antibody 4H11 (1:500). R-NO16 and H-NO1 did not harbor detectable amounts of PrP^res. Samples from Asterisk (*) in Fig 2B indicates non-specific signal. WT (SS) = *Prnp*.Cer.Wt; NN = *Prnp*.Cer.138NN; neg = non-inoculated *Prnp*.Cer.138NN mouse brain; pos = PrP^res-positive *Prnp*.Cer.Wt control brain; kDa = kilodalton; i.c. = intracerebral; i.p. = intraperitoneal.

Table 2. Number of mouse brains and spleens positive for PrP^res on WB and/or prion seeding activity in RT-QuIC per total number of samples tested within each respective group.

			Number of positive samples / number of samples tested
			Prnp.Cer.Wt							Prnp.Cer.138NN
			Brain				Spleen			Brain				Spleen
Inoculum	Tissue	roi	WB	RT-QuIC			RT-QuIC			WB	RT-QuIC			RT-QuIC
Inoculum	Tissue	roi	PrP^res	-1	-2	-3	-1	-2	-3	PrP^res	-1	-2	-3	-1	-2	-3
R-NO16	Brain	i.c.	5/7	–	–	–	2/7	3/7	3/7	0/4	0/4	2/4	2/4	0/4	0/4	0/4
Reindeer
		i.p.	6/7	–	–	–	2/6	4/6	4/6	0/3	1/3	1/3	0/3	2/3	2/3	2/3
M-NO3	Brain	i.c.	4/6	–	–	–	0/5	0/5	0/5	2/5	2/5	3/5	1/5	0/5	0/5	0/5
Moose
		i.p.	0/5	0/5	0/5	0/5	0/4	0/4	0/4	0/5	2/5	4/5	1/5	0/4	0/4	0/4
H-NO1	Brain	i.c.	0/5	0/5	5/5	0/5	0/3	0/3	1/3	0/4	0/4	3/4	2/4	0/4	0/4	0/4
Red deer
		i.p.	na	na	na	na	na	na	na	0/3	0/3	0/3	0/3	0/3	0/3	0/3

Open in a new tab

The numbers -1, -2, and -3 refer to 2 x 10⁻¹, 2 x 10⁻², and 2 x 10⁻³ RT-QuIC seed dilutions, respectively. Samples were considered positive in RT-QuIC when a minimum of two out of four replicates crossed the threshold relative fluorescence unit (RFU, see methods). Brain homogenates positive for PrP^res on WB (Fig 2) were not tested in RT-QuIC, except for Prnp.Cer.138NN mouse brains inoculated i.c. with M-NO3. Brain homogenates from Prnp.Cer.Wt mice inoculated i.c. and i.p. with R-NO16 and i.c. with M-NO3 that were negative for PrP^res on WB (Fig 2) were tested in RT-QuIC but not included in this table (data shown in Fig B in S1 Text). roi = route of inoculation; WB = western blot; i.c. = intracerebral; i.p. = intraperitoneal;– = not tested; na = not inoculated.

The absence of clinical disease, PrP^res, abnormal PrP deposits, and prion seeding activity in the brains of Prnp.Cer.Wt mice inoculated i.p. with M-NO3, as well as the absence of seeding activity in the spleens of both i.c. and i.p. inoculated groups, provide evidence that M-NO3 prions are not able to propagate in lymphatic tissue, regardless of inoculation route, in animals expressing wild-type deer PrP^C (138SS/226QQ).

Norwegian moose CWD isolate causes clinical disease in Prnp.Cer.138NN mice

A gene-targeted mouse line harboring caribou-Prnp homozygous for asparagine at codon 138 (Prnp.Cer.138NN), was inoculated i.c. and i.p. with the R-NO16, M-NO3 and H-NO1 CWD isolates from Norway. The Prnp.Cer.138NN mouse line was resistant to clinical prion disease upon inoculation with various CWD isolates and strains from North America, including reindeer and white-tailed deer prions [29].

Here, the M-NO3 moose isolate was able to break this transmission barrier and produced clinical disease in two out of the five Prnp.Cer.138NN mice inoculated i.c. (40% attack rate; Table 1). PrP^res with a low molecular weight similar to that of the original M-NO3 isolate, but slightly different between the two mice, was detectable in their brains upon PK digestion and western blotting (Figs 2B, 2D and A in S1 Text). One other sample had a signal at around 25 kDa, which was confirmed to be unspecific/non-PrP related after deglycosylation. No clinical signs of CWD infection or PrP^res were detected in the brains of Prnp.Cer.138NN mice inoculated i.p. with M-NO3 or inoculated by either route with R-NO16 or H-NO1 (Table 1 and Fig 2A–2C).

When the PrP^res-negative brains of Prnp.Cer.138NN mice and their spleens were tested for prion seeding activity in RT-QuIC, between 50 and 75% of the brains from i.c.-inoculated animals were positive, regardless of inoculum, whereas all spleens were negative (Table 2). This is different from North American CWD prions, which had detectable seeding activity in the spleen upon i.c. inoculation in this mouse model [29].

Divergent PrP^res patterns in brains of Prnp.Cer.138NN mice inoculated i.c. with M-NO3

PrP^res profiles of R-CA1, R-NO16, and M-NO3 in Prnp.Cer.Wt mice, and M-NO3 in Prnp.Cer.138NN mice were further analyzed by western blot and compared using various monoclonal anti-PrP antibodies (Fig 3). Unglycosylated PrP^res in Prnp.Cer.Wt mouse brains inoculated with R-CA1 and R-NO16 had similar molecular weights at ~19 kDa, while PrP^res from mice inoculated with M-NO3 migrated slightly faster at ~18 kDa (Fig 3). Interestingly, of the two PrP^res-positive Prnp.Cer.138NN mice inoculated i.c. with M-NO3 prions, one mouse had an unglycosylated PrP^res band with a similar size as its Prnp.Cer.Wt counterparts, while the other showed a slightly faster migrating band at ~17 kDa (Fig 3). Upon probing with monoclonal antibodies raised against the N-terminus of PrP, 9A2 and 12B2, none of the PrP glycoforms in the sample with the ~17 kDa PrP^res (white arrowheads in Fig 3A) seem to be detected, and only faint signals were detectable in the three samples harboring the ~18 kDa PrP^res band (Fig 3A). After deglycosylation, PrP^res from all four mice inoculated with M-NO3 were still detected with 4H11, but not with 12B2 (Fig 3B). Overexposure of the 12B2 blot revealed faint PrP^res bands for the ~18 kDa samples, but none for the ~17 kDa sample (Fig 3B). This indicates that the N-terminal cleavage site of PrP^res is different in these two mouse brains. Interestingly, in three out of the four Prnp.Cer.Wt mice, an additional faint PrP^res band at approximately ~16 kDa was detectable with 8H4, which was absent in the samples from Prnp.Cer.138NN mice (Fig 3C). These findings confirm previously described strain differences between R-NO16 and M-NO3 [18,35], and indicate the divergence of M-NO3 into PrP^res signatures with ~18 or ~17 kDa unglycosylated fragments in Prnp.Cer.138NN mice.

Fig 3 — (A) Ten percent brain homogenates were digested with 50 μg/mL PK for one hour at 37°C. Anti-PrP antibodies used were 4H11 (1:500), 9A2 (1:1000) and 12B2 (1:1000). (B) PK-digested brain homogenates were then subjected to deglycosylation using the PNGase-F enzyme and probed with 4H11 and 12B2 and (C) with 8H4 (1:2000). Open arrowheads indicate the *Prnp*.Cer.138NN sample with a ~17 kDa PrP^res band that is not detectable by 12B2. Asterisks (*) indicate the ~16 kDa PrP^res band detected with 8H4 in *Prnp*.Cer.Wt samples. WT (SS) = *Prnp*.Cer.Wt; NN = *Prnp*.Cer.138NN; kDa = kilodalton.

Next, we performed a second passage of M-NO3 in Prnp.Cer.138NN mice. We used a pool of brain homogenates from the two PrP^res-positive Prnp.Cer.138NN mice inoculated with M-NO3 for i.c. passage (n = 9). All mice in this group developed terminal, clinical prion disease, with a significantly shortened survival time of 360.6 ± 34.7 dpi compared to the first passage with 565 and 656 dpi, respectively (Fig 4A and Table 2). Brain homogenates of all mice were positive for PrP^res in western blot (Figs 4B and D in S1 Text). We compared the PrP^res pattern and reactivity with different anti-PrP antibodies in brain homogenates of mice upon 2^nd passage with those observed in the 1^st passage. Interestingly, all brain homogenates from 2^nd passage had PrP^res similar to the higher molecular weight pattern in 1^st passage, which was detectable with monoclonal antibody 12B2 (Figs 4B and D in S1 Text).

Fig 4 — **(A)** Comparison of survival times of *Prnp*.Cer.138NN inoculated with M-NO3 (1^st passage; n = 5; attack rate = 40%; see **Table 1**). Equal volumes of 10% brain homogenates of two mice with terminal prion disease in the 1^st passage were pooled and used for the 2^nd passage using a group of n = 9 *Prnp*.Cer.138NN mice for i.c. inoculation. Survival times are depicted as Kaplan-Meyer curve, and the log-rank test was used for statistical analysis. *** p-value = 0.0006. (B) Brain homogenates of 1^st and 2^nd passage were digested with 50 μg/ml of PK and subjected to western blot using anti-PrP antibody 4H11 (1:500), and 12B2 (**Fig D in S1 Text**).

Prion transport to the CNS in Prnp.Cer.138NN mice inoculated i.p. with M-NO3

Upon i.p. inoculation, brains and spleens of H-NO1-inoculated Prnp.Cer.138NN mice did not harbor detectable prion seeding activity. As expected, seeding activity was detectable in both brains and spleens of mice infected i.p. with R-NO16 (Table 2).

Notably, Prnp.Cer.138NN mice inoculated i.p. with M-NO3 showed prion seeding activity using RT-QuIC, in their brains and spinal cords, but not their spleens (Figs 5, E in S1 Text and Table 2). Serial protein misfolding cyclic amplification (sPMCA) up to 5 rounds was consistently negative when brain or spleen homogenates were analyzed using brain homogenates of either Prnp.Cer.Wt or Prnp.Cer.138NN as a substrate (representative result shown in Fig F in S1 Text), indicating a lower sensitivity of detection by serial PMCA compared to RT-QuIC under the experimental conditions used here. Notably, PrP^res was detectable by western blot in the spinal cord sample of the i.p. inoculated Prnp.Cer.138NN mouse displaying the highest seeding activity. This finding supports the RT-QuIC results (Figs 5 and G in S1 Text) and demonstrates the transport of M-NO3 prions to the CNS. These findings suggest that M-NO3 prions are capable of neuroinvasion upon peripheral infection in Prnp.Cer.138NN, but not Prnp.Cer.Wt mice. This was specific to M-NO3 prions, since Prnp.Cer.138NN mice inoculated i.p. with H-NO1 prions did not produce the same outcome (Table 2).

Fig 5 — **(A)** Ten percent spinal cord homogenates were subjected to serial dilutions from 2 x 10⁻¹ to 2 x 10⁻⁶ in RT-QuIC seed dilution buffer. Samples were considered positive when a minimum of two out of four wells crossed the threshold relative fluorescence unit (RFU). Threshold is the average RFU of all negative control reactions plus five times their standard deviation. Negative control was a naïve spinal cord homogenate of a *Prnp*.Cer.138NN mouse. The y-axis represents the RFU, and the x-axis represents time in hours (h). Mouse recombinant PrP was used as substrate for the RT-QuIC reactions. (B) Spinal cord homogenates were digested with 50 μg/ml of PK and subjected to western blot analysis using anti-PrP antibodies 4H11 (1:500) and Sha31 (1:10,000); see also overexposed western blot in **Fig G in S1 Text**).

Norwegian red deer isolate is transmissible to transgenic mice expressing elk PrP^C

The Norwegian red deer isolate H-NO1 was inoculated i.c. into transgenic mice expressing elk PrP^C [30,31], on the basis that this red deer was homozygous for glutamic acid (E) at Prnp codon 226 [21], which is identical to elk Prnp (226EE). The H-NO1 red deer isolate was able to transmit disease in TgElk mice, albeit at a low attack rate of 25%, where only one out of the four mice inoculated developed disease at 166 dpi (Table 1). PrP^res was present in the brain of this singular mouse (Fig 6). Upon second passage, the attack rate increased to 80% (four out of five mice) while the average survival time remained comparable at 149.3 ± 44.5 dpi (Table 2). The four terminally ill TgElk mice from the second passage accumulated PrP^res in their brains (Fig 6). Of note, M-NO3 was also inoculated into TgElk for comparison, and none of the mice developed disease up to 258 dpi (Table 1). The effective propagation of H-NO1 prions in TgElk mice, along with the subclinical presence of H-NO1 prions with seeding activity in the brains and spleens of Prnp.Cer.Wt, and in the brains of Prnp.Cer.138NN mice, suggests that codon 226 may influence the transmission of Norwegian red deer prions. Specifically, homozygosity for glutamic acid at this codon (226EE) appears to facilitate the development of full-fledged CWD, whereas the presence of glutamine (226QQ) may only allow for subclinical prion propagation upon first passage.

Fig 6 — Ten percent brain homogenates were digested with 50 μg/mL PK for one hour at 37°C. Anti-PrP antibodies used were 4H11 (1:500, upper panel) and 12B2 (1:1000, lower panel). Lanes 1–4 corresponds to TgElk mice inoculated i.c. with the H-NO1 brain homogenate. Lanes 5–9 correspond to TgElk mice inoculated with brain homogenate from the TgElk in lane 4. pos = PrP^res-positive TgElk control; neg = non-inoculated TgElk; kDa = kilodalton.

Discussion

We have previously shown that gene-targeted mice expressing cervid PrP^C homozygous for asparagine at codon 138 (Prnp.Cer.138NN) and inoculated with North American CWD isolates do not develop clinical CWD, but harbor seeding-capable prions, mostly in their spleens [29]. Here we report that the Norwegian moose isolate M-NO3 was able to break the genotypic transmission barrier into Prnp.Cer.138NN mice upon i.c. inoculation, resulting in clinical CWD and accumulation of PrP^res in their brains.

M-NO3 was shown to propagate in bank voles and several transgenic mouse models, and to possess different properties compared to North American and other Norwegian CWD isolates [18,35]. Here, in all Prnp.Cer.Wt and one of the clinical Prnp.Cer.138NN mice, M-NO3 retained an ~18 kDa unglycosylated PrP^res fragment, detectable by the N-terminal 12B2 antibody [20,35]. Interestingly, although we did not consistently observe other unglycosylated PrP^res fragments reported previously [18,20], we mainly detected a ~17 kDa fragment in the second PrP^res-positive Prnp.Cer.138NN mouse, not recognized by 12B2 antibody. Similar to previous reports [14,36], this implies the existence of a minor sub-strain within M-NO3, which selectively propagated in one Prnp.Cer.138NN mouse, while Prnp.Cer.Wt mice and the other clinically affected Prnp.Cer.138NN mouse only propagated the major strain. Alternatively, the variant with the lower molecular weight might have evolved upon passage in the Prnp.Cer.138NN mice. However, in 2^nd passage, the majority of PrP^res detected in the mouse brains appeared comparable to the ~18 kDa variant detectable by 12B2, indicating that the ~17 kDa variant might be less stable upon passage, or replicating less efficiently, considering that the group of mice was inoculated with a pool of the two PrP^res-positive brain homogenates from the 1^st passage.

We previously demonstrated that North American CWD strains propagated in spleens of both Prnp.Cer.Wt and Prnp.Cer.138NN mice inoculated i.c. and i.p. [29]. Propagation of the Norwegian moose isolate M-NO3 was confined to the brain in both mouse lines, with no seeding activity detectable in the spleen by RT-QuIC, even upon i.p. inoculation, at the endpoints of our experiments. This corroborates previous reports that M-NO3 is not lymphotropic [18,20] and extends these findings for the first time to peripheral infection. Intraperitoneal inoculation of both Prnp.Cer.Wt and Prnp.Cer.138NN mice with M-NO3 did not result in clinical disease up to ~750 dpi, but Prnp.Cer.138NN mice had seeding activity in their brains and spinal cords, as well as detectable PrP^res in the spinal cord of one mouse. Prion seeding activity was not evident in Prnp.Cer.Wt mice infected i.p. with M-NO3, and we argue that 138N-PrP^C might be more efficiently converted by M-NO3 prions than 138S-PrP^C. This is supported by the shorter survival times of i.c.-inoculated Prnp.Cer.138NN mice, compared to their wild-type (138SS) counterparts.

Our results suggest that M-NO3 prions are capable of neuroinvasion from peripheral sites of infection. The lack of detectable prion seeding activity in the spleens of these mice suggests that replication in the spleen either does not occur during pathogenesis and therefore, does not play a role in neuroinvasion, or that replication in the spleen is transient and may not necessarily contribute to neuroinvasion. The absence of prion seeding activity in spleen contrasts with findings in the majority of CWD cases and our gene-targeted mouse models. In these instances, prion seeding activity and/or PrP^res are consistently detected in lymphatic tissue, e.g., tonsil, lymph node, spleen, at the terminal stage of the disease [29,37,38]. This discrepancy suggests variations in prion/strain behavior and disease progression across different models. Furthermore, prions are frequently detected in the lymphatic tissues of infected cervids but not their brain, and not vice versa [37,39]. Overall, these reports suggest that in CWD, lymphatic tissue replication precedes neuroinvasion and that detectable levels of prions persist in lymphatic tissue until terminal disease. Additional experiments to study kinetics of prion replication and transport in different tissues throughout the incubation period in Prnp.Cer.138NN mice are needed to rule out the possibility of early or rapid prion clearance in the spleen following neuroinvasion [40–42]. It is important to note though that a minor pathway of neuroinvasion independent of the spleen or the immune system with direct spread from the peritoneum via visceral nerve fibers has been described [43,44], consistent with our detection of prion seeding activity and PrP^res in spinal cords. These data do not contradict the proposition that CWD in Norwegian moose started spontaneously at an advanced age but may suggest that infected animals propagate prions at peripheral sites other than lymphatic tissues [41]. It also indicates that environmental contamination from deceased infected moose might result in transmission to other cervids, even though in an inefficient manner and restricted to certain PrP^C genotypes [9,10,45–47]. The Prnp of European fallow deer (Dama dama) is not polymorphic at codon 138 and encodes asparagine (138NN), in contrast to serine in the wild-type PrP of the majority of cervid species, and harbors glutamate at position 226 (226EE; 27,48). Fallow deer were resistant to mule deer CWD upon natural exposure, but not to intracerebral inoculation [47–49]. It remains to be determined whether fallow deer are more susceptible to peripheral infection with Norwegian moose CWD, or whether they would be protected by the glutamate at residue 226 (226EE), as shown in gene-targeted mice expressing cervid 138SS/226EE (elk) PrP^C [18]. Furthermore, the presence of prions within uncharacterized peripheral reservoirs in the Norwegian moose might provide a source of prion exposure if consumed [50–52].

For R-NO16, the PrP^res profile was identical to R-CA1 upon passaging into Prnp.Cer.Wt mice. However, R-NO16 resulted in prolonged incubation periods, lower attack rates, as well as the absence of hippocampal abnormal PrP deposition, confirming previous findings that R-NO16 and R-CA1 are different CWD strains [18,35]. Of note, a higher attack rate in animals inoculated i.p. was observed. Although this could be due to enhanced peripheral replication resulting in more ‘efficient’ prion neuroinvasion or selection of more ‘replicable’ prions [53,54], it could also simply be due to individual mouse differences, given the small difference in the number of animals testing positive, i.e., 7 out of 8 in i.p.- vs 5 out of 7 in i.c-inoculated groups. Upon i.c. and i.p. inoculation with R-NO16, most Prnp.Cer.Wt mice showed positive seeding activity in their spleens. However, this was not the case for Prnp.Cer.138NN mice inoculated i.c., indicating a possible restriction in prion spread within these animals when inoculated with R-NO16. This might be due to inefficient anterograde transport, very low prion replication in the brain, or prion degradation [40–42]. It is crucial to note that this observation is unique to the Norwegian CWD isolates examined in this study, as the same mouse line readily replicated North American CWD prions in their spleens following i.c. inoculation [29]. The majority of the Prnp.Cer.138NN mice inoculated i.p. with R-NO16 harbored seeding activity in their spleens and brains, demonstrating that R-NO16 can replicate within the spleens of this mouse line, and is transported efficiently to the brain.

We also report for the first time that the Norwegian red deer isolate H-NO1 is infectious and transmissible. Identical PrP^Sc and PrP^C genotypes were required for H-NO1 to induce clinical disease. The differential transmissibility of M-NO3 and H-NO1 to TgElk indicates that these two isolates harbor different CWD strains; however, further characterization is needed for confirmation. A genotype match between the host PrP^C and incoming prions often results in the most efficient prion disease transmission [55–58]. While H-NO1 (226EE) successfully transmitted full-fledged CWD to TgElk mice (226EE), albeit with incomplete attack rates, it failed to cause clinical prion disease in both Prnp.Cer.Wt (226QQ) and Prnp.Cer.138NN (226QQ) mice. It is important to note that 226QQ hosts tend to generate fewer stable strains than those expressing 226EE [17], suggesting more stable H-NO1 prion propagation in TgElk mice, which was confirmed upon second passage. Nevertheless, we detected prion seeding activity in the brains of both mouse lines inoculated i.c., and in the spleen of one Prnp.Cer.Wt mouse. Peripheral infection of Prnp.Cer.138NN mice with H-NO1 was even less effective, with no detectable prions in their brains and spleens. Unfortunately, we did not have the Prnp.Cer.Wt group inoculated i.p. to directly compare, due to limited resources. Nevertheless, these findings still support previous reports that H-NO1 is poorly, if at all, lymphotropic, indicated by the absence of abnormal PrP deposits in this red deer’s lymph nodes and tonsils [21].

In summary, we confirmed that the transmission of CWD prions is not merely a matter of host genotype. Rather, it is the unique traits of each prion strain guiding the course of transmission. One of our most intriguing findings is that neuroinvasion of Norwegian moose CWD prions can occur possibly without, or only with minor/transient, involvement of prion replication in the spleen, which has not been reported for CWD prions [37–39,59,60]. Even though it is, arguably, possible that spleen prion clearance occurred early on, the absence of detection upon terminal disease is still an uncommon trait of CWD prions [37,38], which also suggests the absence of prion dissemination from the CNS to the periphery and subsequent shedding. These observations broaden the spectrum of atypical features of Norwegian moose CWD prions. They underscore the intricate interplay between prion strains and host PrP genotypes that define transmission barriers, thus reminding us of the diversity and complexity inherent in the world of prions.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

This study was performed under animal care protocols AC19-0047 and AC22-0015 approved by the University of Calgary Health Sciences Animal Care Committee and in compliance with the guidelines of the Canadian Council for Animal Care.

CWD isolates

Reindeer isolate R-NO16 (ID #18-CD2788) was from a free-ranging reindeer in the Nordfjella region and was not characterized previously. R-NO16 had the A/C PrP genotype, i.e., alleles A (Ser225)/C (deletion) and 109KK [61]. Moose isolate M-NO3 (ID #17-CD11399) was described previously [18,20,35]. Both the reindeer and moose isolates were homozygous for serine and glutamine at codons 138 (138SS) and 226 (226QQ), respectively [18,20,35,61]. Red deer isolate H-NO1 (ID #17-CD14501) was from a free-ranging animal from the Gjemnes region, Norway, and was homozygous for serine and glutamic acid at codons 138 (138SS) and 226 (226EE), respectively [21]. WTD-Wisc-1, WTD-116AG, and R-CA1 isolates were described previously [14,16,34]. Brains were homogenized as 10% (w/v) in sterile 1X PBS using the gentleMACS Dissociator (Miltenyi Biotec) and stored at -80°C.

Bioassays

Gene-targeted mice expressing deer PrP^C with either serine (Prnp.Cer.Wt; 138SS/226QQ) or asparagine (Prnp.Cer.138NN; 138NN/226QQ) at residue 138 and transgenic TgElk mice expressing 2.5-fold elk PrP^C (138SS/226EE) have been described [29–32].

Eight female mice per group were i.c. inoculated between six to eight weeks of age with 20 μl of 1% BH or i.p. inoculated with 100 μl of 5% BH, as previously described [14]. For 2^nd passage of M-NO3 in Prnp.Cer.138NN mice, equal volumes of the two PrP^res positive brain homogenates were pooled for i.c. inoculation. Mice were monitored weekly for signs of prion disease and then daily at the onset of at least one confirmatory sign, including rigid tail, hind limb clasping, front and/or hind limb ataxia, loss of righting reflex, circling, occasional tremors, and weight loss. At that point, mice were euthanized by isoflurane overdose followed by cardiac perfusion [29]. Survival time or dpi was defined as the number of days from the date of inoculation to the date of euthanasia. Humane endpoint euthanasia was performed on sick or injured mice showing no clinical signs of prion disease. Animal experiments were terminated at ~700 to 750 dpi for gene-targeted mice, and ~250 dpi for TgElk mice to prevent non-prion related health issues with this mouse line. Mice euthanized prior to 100 dpi due to humane reasons or found dead were excluded from the analyses.

Mouse tissue collection and homogenization

Brains and spleens were harvested, immediately frozen on dry ice, and stored at -80°C, or fixed in formalin. Frozen brains and spleens were homogenized as 20% and 10% (w/v) homogenates, respectively, using the FastPrep-24 Tissue Homogenizer system (MP Biomedicals, Canada).

RT-QuIC

For RT-QuIC, we tested 10% (w/v) brain, spinal cord, or spleen homogenates diluted in a buffer containing 0.1% SDS and 1X N2 media supplement, in serial dilutions from 2 x 10⁻¹ up to 10⁻⁶, with four replicates each. Recombinant mouse PrP (aa 23–231) preparation, RT-QuIC reactions, and analyses were performed as previously described [33].

Serial Protein Misfolding Cyclic Amplification (sPMCA)

sPMCA was performed as described previously [29]. Briefly, brains from non-inoculated Prnp.Cer.Wt, and Prnp.Cer.138NN were prepared as 10% (w/v) BH in cold PMCA conversion buffer (4 mM EDTA, 1% Triton X-100 and 1 tablet cOmplete Protease Inhibitor Mini [Roche] in 1X PBS, pH of 7.4). Samples were tested at a 2x10^-2 dilution, with R-CA1-infected Prnp.Cer.Wt mouse brain homogenate serving as a positive control. Sonication was set for 30 s at 375–395 W followed by 29.5 min rest and run for 24 h for a total of 48 sonication-rest cycles, corresponding to one round of PMCA. For sPMCA, 10 μl of sample was transferred into 90 μl of fresh PMCA substrate. A total of five rounds were conducted for each substrate.

SDS-PAGE and western blotting

Mouse BH (20% w/v) was diluted at a 1:1 ratio in 2X lysis buffer (100 mM of Tris-HCl pH 7.5, 100 mM of NaCl, 10 mM of EDTA, 1% Triton-X, 1% sodium deoxycholate, H₂O). Fifty μg/ml PK was added into the mix, incubated at 37°C for one hour, followed by boiling for 10 min at 95°C in SDS sample buffer. To remove N-linked glycans, PK-digested samples were incubated with PNGase-F enzyme for 24 h at 37°C. Samples were subjected to SDS-PAGE and immunoblotting using anti-PrP antibodies 4H11, 9A2 (aa 102–104, sheep PrP numbering), 12B2 (aa 93–97, sheep PrP numbering), 8H4 (aa 145–180, human PrP numbering) and Sha31 (aa 145–152, human PrP numbering) as previously described [29].

Immunohistochemistry

Immunohistochemistry was performed as previously described [16,29]. Briefly, formalin-fixed brains and spleens embedded in paraffin were mounted on positively-charged slides, deparaffinized, autoclaved in antigen retrieval buffer, incubated in 98% formic acid, and treated with 4 M of guanidine thiocyanate. Abnormal PrP deposits were detected using the BAR224 anti-PrP antibody (aa 141–151, human PrP numbering).

Supporting information

S1 Data. Raw data file.

(XLSX)

ppat.1012350.s001.xlsx^{(60.2KB, xlsx)}

S1 Text. Supplementary Information.

Fig A. PrP^res in brain homogenates of gene-targeted mice and various CWD isolates. PrP^res-positive brain homogenates of gene-targeted mice as indicated inoculated i.c. with R-CA1, R-NO16, and M-NO3 were analyzed by western blot along with CWD isolates from North America (Elk-CWD2, WTD-Wisc-1, WTD-116AG, and R-CA1) and Norway (R-NO16, M-NO3, and H-NO1) digested with 50 μg/ml of PK using anti-PrP antibodies 12B2. R-NO16 and H-NO1 did not harbor detectable amounts of PrP^res. Fig B. Seeding activity in PrP^res-negative brains of Prnp.Cer.Wt mice inoculated with R-NO16 and M-NO3. Left column shows RT-QuIC results from individual Prnp.Cer.Wt mice inoculated i.c. (n = 2) and i.p. (n = 1) with R-NO16 that were negative for PrP^res on western blotting (Fig 2). Right column shows RT-QuIC results from individual Prnp.Cer.Wt mice inoculated i.p. with M-NO3 (n = 2) that were negative for PrP^res on western blotting (Fig 2). Samples were considered positive when a minimum of two out of four reactions crossed the threshold relative fluorescence unit (RFU), indicated by the violet line. Positive dilutions are highlighted in black rectangles. The threshold is the average RFU of all negative control reactions plus five times their standard deviation. Negative control was a non-inoculated Prnp.Cer.Wt mouse brain. The y-axis represents the RFU, and the x-axis represents time in hours (h). Fig C. Representative immunohistochemistry of brain and spleen sections from gene-targeted mice inoculated i.p. with the R-NO16 and M-NO3 isolates. Abnormal PrP deposits were detected in the frontal cortex, cerebellum, and spleen of the Prnp.Cer.Wt mouse inoculated with R-NO16 (row 3, highlighted with the black rectangle), but not M-NO3 (row 5). No abnormal PrP deposits were detected in Prnp.Cer.138NN mice tissues inoculated with both isolates (rows 2 and 4). No abnormal PrP deposits were detected in the hippocampus of all mice tested. Detection of abnormal PrP deposits was performed using the anti-PrP antibody BAR224 (1:2000) with hematoxylin counterstain. Fig D. Western blot analysis of Prnp.Cer.138NN brain homogenates inoculated with M-NO3. Brain homogenates of M-NO3 1^st and 2^nd passage were digested with 50 μg/ml of PK and subjected to western blot analysis using anti-PrP antibody 12B2. Non-infected Prnp.Cer.138NN brain homogenate served as a negative control. Fig E. RT-QuIC analysis of PrP^res-negative brains and spleens of Prnp.Cer.138NN mice inoculated i.p. with M-NO3. (A) Brain (n = 5) and (B) spleen (n = 4) homogenates of Prnp.Cer.138NN mice inoculated i.p. with M-NO3 that were negative for PrP^res in western blot (Fig 2) were serially diluted and analyzed by RT-QuIC using mouse recombinant PrP as a substrate. Samples were considered positive when a minimum of two out of four reactions crossed the threshold relative fluorescence unit (RFU), indicated by the black line. The threshold is the average RFU of all negative control reactions plus five times their standard deviation. Negative control was non-inoculated Prnp.Cer.138NN mouse brain and spleen, respectively. The y-axis represents the RFU, and the x-axis represents time in hours (h). Fig F. Serial PMCA of brain and spleen homogenates of Prnp.Cer.138NN mice inoculated i.p. with M-NO3. 2 x 10–2 dilutions of brain (n = 5) and spleen (n = 3) homogenates of Prnp.Cer.138NN mice inoculated with M-NO3 were subjected to 5 rounds of PMCA using naïve brain homogenates of either Prnp.Cer.Wt (A) or Prnp.Cer.138NN (B) mice as a substrate. sPMCA products of rounds 4 and 5 were digested with PK (50 μg/ml) for 1 hour and analyzed by western blot using anti-PrP mAb 4H11 (1:500). Naïve brain homogenate was used as a negative control, brain homogenate of Prnp.Cer.Wt mice inoculated with R-CA1 served as a positive control. Fig G. Western blot analysis of spinal cord homogenates. Spinal cord homogenates of Prnp.Cer.138NN mice inoculated i.p. with M-NO3 were digested with 50 μg/ml of PK and analyzed by western blot using anti-PrP antibody Sha31 (1:10,000). This is an overexposed version of the western blot shown in Fig 4B (lower panel).

(DOCX)

ppat.1012350.s002.docx^{(5MB, docx)}

Acknowledgments

Portions of the paper were developed from the thesis of M.I.A. We would like to thank the staff and veterinarians at the Prion-Virology Animal Facility and Clara Christie Centre for Mouse Genomics for excellent animal care. We would also like to acknowledge Keegan McDonald for helping with tissue homogenization, Yo-Ching Cheng for producing the recombinant PrP used in our RT-QuIC runs, and Dr. Gordon Mitchell (Canadian Food Inspection Agency Ottawa, Canada) for providing us with the North American reindeer isolate. We are grateful to Dr. Debbie McKenzie (University of Alberta, Canada) for sharing the TgElk mouse model and the WTD-Wisc-1 isolate, to Dr. Trent Bollinger (Canadian Wildlife Health Cooperative, Canada) for sharing the WTD-116AG isolate, and to Dr. Stefanie Czub (Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Lethbridge, Canada) for providing the Elk-CWD2 isolate.

Data Availability

All data are available in the manuscript and supplementary information.

Funding Statement

Alberta Prion Research Institute (https://albertainnovates.ca/alberta-prion-research-institute/; Grant #201800003 and #212200712 to SG, #201600023 to SG and HMS), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Canada (https://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/index_eng.asp; Grant #RGPIN/05309 to SG), Margaret Gunn Endowment for Animal Research (https://research.ucalgary.ca/conduct-research/funding/apply-grants/internal-grants/margaret-gunn-endowment-animal-research-mgear) to SG, Parks Canada Agency (https://parks.canada.ca/agence-agency) to SG, and Genome Canada (https://genomecanada.ca/;Grant #10205 to SG). SG received salary support through the Canada Research Chairs program (https://www.chairs-chaires.gc.ca/home-accueil-eng.aspx). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

1.Koutsoumanis K, Allende A, Alvarez-Ordoňez A, Bolton D, Bover-Cid S, Chemaly M, et al. Update on chronic wasting disease (CWD) III. EFSA J. 2019. Nov 11;17(11):e05863. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5863 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Sohn HJ, Kim JH, Choi KS, Nah JJ, Joo YS, Jean YH, et al. A Case of Chronic Wasting Disease in an Elk Imported to Korea from Canada. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science. 2002;64(9):855–8. doi: 10.1292/jvms.64.855 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.National Wildlife Health Center. Expanding Distribution of Chronic Wasting Disease [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 Apr 6]. Available from: https://www.usgs.gov/centers/nwhc/science/expanding-distribution-chronic-wasting-disease
4.Prusiner SB. Novel proteinaceous infectious particles cause scrapie. Science. 1982. Apr 9;216(4542):136–44. doi: 10.1126/science.6801762 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Prusiner SB. Prions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998. Nov 10;95(23):13363–83. doi: 10.1073/pnas.95.23.13363 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Haley NJ, Seelig DM, Zabel MD, Telling GC, Hoover EA. Detection of CWD Prions in Urine and Saliva of Deer by Transgenic Mouse Bioassay. PLOS ONE. 2009. Mar 18;4(3):e4848. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004848 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Cheng YC, Hannaoui S, John TR, Dudas S, Czub S, Gilch S. Early and Non-Invasive Detection of Chronic Wasting Disease Prions in Elk Feces by Real-Time Quaking Induced Conversion. PloS one. 2016;11(11):e0166187. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166187 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Mammadova N, Cassmann E, Greenlee JJ. Successful transmission of the chronic wasting disease (CWD) agent to white-tailed deer by intravenous blood transfusion. Research in Veterinary Science. 2020. Dec 1;133:304–6. doi: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2020.10.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Pritzkow S, Morales R, Lyon A, Concha-Marambio L, Urayama A, Soto C. Efficient prion disease transmission through common environmental materials. J Biol Chem. 2018. Mar 2;293(9):3363–73. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M117.810747 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Miller MW, Williams ES, Hobbs NT, Wolfe LL. Environmental Sources of Prion Transmission in Mule Deer. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2004. Jun;10(6):1003. doi: 10.3201/eid1006.040010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Georgsson G, Sigurdarson S, Brown P. Infectious agent of sheep scrapie may persist in the environment for at least 16 years. Journal of General Virology. 2006. Dec 1;87(12):3737–40. doi: 10.1099/vir.0.82011-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Government of Saskatchewan [Internet]. [cited 2020 Apr 20]. CWD map of positive tests | Chronic Wasting Disease. Available from: https://www.saskatchewan.ca/residents/environment-public-health-and-safety/wildlife-issues/fish-and-wildlife-diseases/chronic-wasting-disease/cwd-map
13.Otero A, Duque Velasquez C, McKenzie D, Aiken J. Emergence of CWD strains. Cell Tissue Res [Internet]. 2022. Oct 6 [cited 2023 Apr 5]; Available from: doi: 10.1007/s00441-022-03688-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Hannaoui S, Triscott E, Velásquez CD, Chang SC, Arifin MI, Zemlyankina I, et al. New and distinct chronic wasting disease strains associated with cervid polymorphism at codon 116 of the Prnp gene. PLOS Pathogens. 2021. Jul 26;17(7):e1009795. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1009795 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Moore J, Tatum T, Hwang S, Vrentas C, West Greenlee MH, Kong Q, et al. Novel Strain of the Chronic Wasting Disease Agent Isolated From Experimentally Inoculated Elk With LL132 Prion Protein. Scientific Reports. 2020. Feb 21;10(1):3148. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-59819-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Velásquez CD, Kim C, Herbst A, Daude N, Garza MC, Wille H, et al. Deer Prion Proteins Modulate the Emergence and Adaptation of Chronic Wasting Disease Strains. Journal of Virology. 2015. Dec 15;89(24):12362–73. doi: 10.1128/JVI.02010-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Angers RC, Kang HE, Napier D, Browning S, Seward T, Mathiason C, et al. Prion Strain Mutation Determined by Prion Protein Conformational Compatibility and Primary Structure. Science. 2010. May 28;328(5982):1154–8. doi: 10.1126/science.1187107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Bian J, Kim S, Kane SJ, Crowell J, Sun JL, Christiansen J, et al. Adaptive selection of a prion strain conformer corresponding to established North American CWD during propagation of novel emergent Norwegian strains in mice expressing elk or deer prion protein. PLOS Pathogens. 2021. Jul 26;17(7):e1009748. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1009748 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Benestad SL, Mitchell G, Simmons M, Ytrehus B, Vikøren T. First case of chronic wasting disease in Europe in a Norwegian free-ranging reindeer. Veterinary Research [Internet]. 2016. Dec [cited 2017 Jan 11];47(1). Available from: http://veterinaryresearch.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13567-016-0375-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Pirisinu L, Tran L, Chiappini B, Vanni I, Bari MAD, Vaccari G, et al. Novel Type of Chronic Wasting Disease Detected in Moose (Alces alces), Norway. Emerging Infectious Diseases Journal [Internet]. 2018. Dec [cited 2020 May 5];24(12). Available from: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/24/12/18-0702_article doi: 10.3201/eid2412.180702 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Vikøren T, Våge J, Madslien KI, Røed KH, Rolandsen CM, Tran L, et al. First Detection of Chronic Wasting Disease in a Wild Red Deer (Cervus elaphus) in Europe. Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 2019. Oct 9;55(4):970. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Benestad SL, Sarradin P, Thu B, Schönheit J, Tranulis MA, Bratberg B. Cases of scrapie with unusual features in Norway and designation of a new type, Nor98. Veterinary Record. 2003;153(7):202–8. doi: 10.1136/vr.153.7.202 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Casalone C, Zanusso G, Acutis P, Ferrari S, Capucci L, Tagliavini F, et al. Identification of a second bovine amyloidotic spongiform encephalopathy: Molecular similarities with sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2004. Mar 2;101(9):3065–70. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0305777101 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Biacabe AG, Laplanche JL, Ryder S, Baron T. Distinct molecular phenotypes in bovine prion diseases. EMBO reports. 2004. Jan 1;5(1):110–5. doi: 10.1038/sj.embor.7400054 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Haley NJ, Merrett K, Stein AB, Simpson D, Carlson A, Mitchell G, et al. Estimating relative CWD susceptibility and disease progression in farmed white-tailed deer with rare PRNP alleles. PLOS ONE. 2019. Dec 2;14(12):e0224342. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224342 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Johnson C, Johnson J, Vanderloo JP, Keane D, Aiken JM, McKenzie D. Prion protein polymorphisms in white-tailed deer influence susceptibility to chronic wasting disease. Journal of General Virology. 2006;87(7):2109–14. doi: 10.1099/vir.0.81615-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Arifin MI, Hannaoui S, Chang SC, Thapa S, Schatzl HM, Gilch S. Cervid Prion Protein Polymorphisms: Role in Chronic Wasting Disease Pathogenesis. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;24. doi: 10.3390/ijms22052271 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Arifin MI, Staskevicius A, Shim SY, Huang Y, Fenton H, McLoughlin PD, et al. Large-scale prion protein genotyping in Canadian caribou populations and potential impact on chronic wasting disease susceptibility. Mol Ecol. 2020. Aug 18;mec.15602. doi: 10.1111/mec.15602 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Arifin MI, Kaczmarczyk L, Zeng D, Hannaoui S, Lee C, Chang SC, et al. Heterozygosity for cervid S138N polymorphism results in subclinical CWD in gene-targeted mice and progressive inhibition of prion conversion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2023. Apr 11;120(15):e2221060120. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2221060120 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.LaFauci G, Carp RI, Meeker HC, Ye X, Kim JI, Natelli M, et al. Passage of chronic wasting disease prion into transgenic mice expressing Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) PrPC. Journal of General Virology,. 2006;87(12):3773–80. doi: 10.1099/vir.0.82137-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31.Abdelaziz DH, Thapa S, Brandon J, Maybee J, Vankuppeveld L, McCorkell R, et al. Recombinant prion protein vaccination of transgenic elk PrP mice and reindeer overcomes self-tolerance and protects mice against chronic wasting disease. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2018. Nov 5;jbc.RA118.004810. doi: 10.1074/jbc.RA118.004810 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Ness A, Zeng D, Kuznetsova A, Otero A, Kim C, Saboraki K, et al. Chronic wasting disease prions in mule deer interdigital glands. PLOS ONE. 2022. Oct 3;17(10):e0275375. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275375 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.Cheng YC, Hannaoui S, John TR, Dudas S, Czub S, Gilch S. Real-time Quaking-induced Conversion Assay for Detection of CWD Prions in Fecal Material. JoVE (Journal of Visualized Experiments). 2017. Sep 29;(127):e56373. doi: 10.3791/56373 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.Mitchell GB, Sigurdson CJ, O’Rourke KI, Algire J, Harrington NP, Walther I, et al. Experimental Oral Transmission of Chronic Wasting Disease to Reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarandus). PLOS ONE. 2012. Jun 18;7(6):e39055. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039055 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35.Nonno R, Bari MAD, Pirisinu L, D’Agostino C, Vanni I, Chiappini B, et al. Studies in bank voles reveal strain differences between chronic wasting disease prions from Norway and North America. PNAS. 2020. Dec 8;117(49):31417–26. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2013237117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Barrio T, Filali H, Otero A, Sheleby-Elías J, Marín B, Vidal E, et al. Mixtures of prion substrains in natural scrapie cases revealed by ovinised murine models. Scientific Reports. 2020. Mar 19;10(1):5042. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-61977-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Hoover CE, Davenport KA, Henderson DM, Denkers ND, Mathiason CK, Soto C, et al. Pathways of Prion Spread during Early Chronic Wasting Disease in Deer. J Virol. 2017. May 15;91(10):e00077–17. doi: 10.1128/JVI.00077-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.Fox KA, Jewell JE, Williams ES, Miller MW. Patterns of PrPCWD accumulation during the course of chronic wasting disease infection in orally inoculated mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Journal of General Virology,. 2006;87(11):3451–61. doi: 10.1099/vir.0.81999-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39.Sigurdson CJ, Williams ES, Miller MW, Spraker TR, O’Rourke KI, Hoover EA. Oral transmission and early lymphoid tropism of chronic wasting disease PrPres in mule deer fawns (Odocoileus hemionus). Journal of General Virology. 1999;80(10):2757–64. doi: 10.1099/0022-1317-80-10-2757 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Shikiya RA, Langenfeld KA, Eckland TE, Trinh J, Holec SAM, Mathiason CK, et al. PrPSc formation and clearance as determinants of prion tropism. PLOS Pathogens. 2017. Mar 29;13(3):e1006298. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1006298 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41.Urayama A, Morales R, Niehoff ML, Banks WA, Soto C. Initial fate of prions upon peripheral infection: half-life, distribution, clearance, and tissue uptake. FASEB J. 2011. Aug;25(8):2792–803. doi: 10.1096/fj.11-180729 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42.Chen B, Soto C, Morales R. Peripherally administrated prions reach the brain at sub-infectious quantities in experimental hamsters. FEBS Lett. 2014. Mar 3;588(5):795–800. doi: 10.1016/j.febslet.2014.01.038 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43.Kimberlin RH, Walker CA. The role of the spleen in the neuroinvasion of scrapie in mice. Virus Research. 1989. Mar 1;12(3):201–11. doi: 10.1016/0168-1702(89)90039-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44.Lasmézas CI, Cesbron JY, Deslys JP, Demaimay R, Adjou KT, Rioux R, et al. Immune system-dependent and -independent replication of the scrapie agent. J Virol. 1996. Feb;70(2):1292–5. doi: 10.1128/JVI.70.2.1292-1295.1996 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45.Mathiason CK, Hays SA, Powers J, Hayes-Klug J, Langenberg J, Dahmes SJ, et al. Infectious Prions in Pre-Clinical Deer and Transmission of Chronic Wasting Disease Solely by Environmental Exposure. PLoS One [Internet]. 2009. Jun 16 [cited 2020 Dec 30];4(6). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2691594/ doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005916 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46.Yuan Q, Telling G, Bartelt-Hunt SL, Bartz JC. Dehydration of prions on environmentally relevant surfaces protects them from inactivation by freezing and thawing. Journal of Virology. 2018. Jan 31;JVI.02191-17. doi: 10.1128/JVI.02191-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47.Rhyan JC, Miller MW, Spraker TR, McCollum M, Nol P, Wolfe LL, et al. Failure of Fallow Deer (Dama dama) to Develop Chronic Wasting Disease When Exposed to a Contaminated Environment and Infected Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 2011. Jul;47(3):739–44. doi: 10.7589/0090-3558-47.3.739 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48.Hamir AN, Kunkle RA, Nicholson EM, Miller JM, Hall SM, Schoenenbruecher H, et al. Preliminary observations on the experimental transmission of chronic wasting disease (CWD) from elk and white-tailed deer to fallow deer. J Comp Pathol. 2008. Apr;138(2–3):121–30. doi: 10.1016/j.jcpa.2007.12.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49.Hamir AN, Greenlee JJ, Nicholson EM, Kunkle RA, Richt JA, Miller JM, et al. Experimental transmission of chronic wasting disease (CWD) from elk and white-tailed deer to fallow deer by intracerebral route: Final report. Can J Vet Res. 2011. Apr;75(2):152–6. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50.Angers RC, Browning SR, Seward TS, Sigurdson CJ, Miller MW, Hoover EA, et al. Prions in Skeletal Muscles of Deer with Chronic Wasting Disease. Science. 2006. Feb 24;311(5764):1117–1117. doi: 10.1126/science.1122864 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51.Selariu A, Powers JG, Nalls A, Brandhuber M, Mayfield A, Fullaway S, et al. In utero transmission and tissue distribution of chronic wasting disease-associated prions in free-ranging Rocky Mountain elk. J Gen Virol. 2015. Nov;96(Pt 11):3444–55. doi: 10.1099/jgv.0.000281 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52.Haley NJ, Mathiason CK, Carver S, Zabel M, Telling GC, Hoover EA. Detection of Chronic Wasting Disease Prions in Salivary, Urinary, and Intestinal Tissues of Deer: Potential Mechanisms of Prion Shedding and Transmission. Journal of Virology. 2011. Jul 1;85(13):6309–18. doi: 10.1128/JVI.00425-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53.Beringue V, Herzog L, Jaumain E, Reine F, Sibille P, Le Dur A, et al. Facilitated Cross-Species Transmission of Prions in Extraneural Tissue. Science. 2012. Jan 27;335(6067):472–5. doi: 10.1126/science.1215659 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54.Igel-Egalon A, Béringue V, Rezaei H, Sibille P. Prion Strains and Transmission Barrier Phenomena. Pathogens. 2018. Mar;7(1):5. doi: 10.3390/pathogens7010005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
55.Scott M, Groth D, Foster D, Torchia M, Yang SL, DeArmond SJ, et al. Propagation of prions with artificial properties in transgenic mice expressing chimeric PrP genes. Cell. 1993. Jun;73(5):979–88. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(93)90275-u [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56.Scott M, Foster D, Mirenda C, Serban D, Coufal F, Wälchli M, et al. Transgenic mice expressing hamster prion protein produce species-specific scrapie infectivity and amyloid plaques. Cell. 1989. Dec 1;59(5):847–57. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(89)90608-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57.Kurt TD, Jiang L, Fernández-Borges N, Bett C, Liu J, Yang T, et al. Human prion protein sequence elements impede cross-species chronic wasting disease transmission. J Clin Invest. 2015. Apr 1;125(4):1485–96. doi: 10.1172/JCI79408 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58.Kurt TD, Bett C, Fernández-Borges N, Joshi-Barr S, Hornemann S, Rülicke T, et al. Prion Transmission Prevented by Modifying the β2-α2 Loop Structure of Host PrPC. J Neurosci. 2014. Jan 15;34(3):1022–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
59.Sigurdson CJ. A prion disease of cervids: Chronic wasting disease. Vet Res. 2008. Jul;39(4):41. doi: 10.1051/vetres:2008018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
60.Sigurdson CJ, Barillas-Mury C, Miller MW, Oesch B, van Keulen LJM, Langeveld JPM, et al. PrPCWD lymphoid cell targets in early and advanced chronic wasting disease of mule deer. Journal of General Virology. 2002;83(10):2617–28. doi: 10.1099/0022-1317-83-10-2617 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
61.Güere ME, Våge J, Tharaldsen H, Benestad SL, Vikøren T, Madslien K, et al. Chronic wasting disease associated with prion protein gene (PRNP) variation in Norwegian wild reindeer (Rangifer tarandus). Prion. 2020. Jan 1;14(1):1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS Pathog. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1012350.r001

Decision Letter 0

Suzette A Priola, Surachai Supattapone

22 Dec 2023

Dear Dr. Gilch,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Norwegian moose CWD induces clinical disease and spleen-independent neuroinvasion in gene-targeted mice expressing cervid S138N prion protein" for consideration at PLOS Pathogens. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

While Reviewers 1 and 3 were largely positive about the manuscript, Reviewer 2 had significant reservations about the data and asked for additional experiments. In your response, please be sure to address the comments of Reviewer 1, who was concerned that the conclusion that Norwegian moose CWD can be neuroinvasive in the absence of replication in the spleen was a bit strong in the absence of any timepoint analysis or longer incubation times. Please also be sure to address the concerns of Reviewer 2 with regard to further support for the RT-QuIC data in non-clinical brain and spleen and the addition of western blot data comparing PrPSc in the original inocula. Reviewer 2 also asked for a second passage in transgenic mice to further characterize and confirm the isolation of different strains. However, if these data are not readily available, this issue might be satisfactorily addressed by careful discussion of data already in the paper.

We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

Thank you again for your submission. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Suzette A. Priola

Guest Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Surachai Supattapone

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Kasturi Haldar

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0001-5065-158X

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

***********************

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Part I - Summary

Please use this section to discuss strengths/weaknesses of study, novelty/significance, general execution and scholarship.

Reviewer #1: These study compares a North American strain of CWD to mouse, reindeer, and red deer isolates of CWD from Norway in gene targeted mice with various PRNPs. This work is interesting and important because it adds to the evidence that there are multiple CWD strains, including one that may have some overall features similar to Nor-98 scrapie or atypical BSE.

The authors compare interesting isolates of CWD in appropriate mouse models. There are a few weaknesses (detailed in the sections below) that would make it a better paper. In some instances, the claims made seem overstated for the work that was done, for example because the length of time that mice were allowed to incubate was short or because timepoint samples were not examined.

Reviewer #2: The main purpose of this study is to evaluate the transmission properties of three European CWD isolates. This was tested in three different animal models expressing deer, elk and caribou PrP, and two different routes of transmission (intra-cerebral and intra-peritoneal). The results show novel properties for these isolates, including host range, tissue tropism, and biochemical properties of the agent. In general, the study is informative by providing information of the host range of these isolates, and demonstrating the potential susceptibility of caribou to European CWD. By comparing with previous studies, they confirm that these European strains are different compared with their North American counterparts. As mentioned, the experiment is informative. However, the experiments are incomplete and no solid conclusions can be drawn with the current data. In addition, the experiment is incremental, building on previous characterizations already made for these isolates. These, and other weaknesses identified in this manuscript, are listed below.

Reviewer #3: This is a very detailed [a[er and should be published. I have no corrections

**********

Part II – Major Issues: Key Experiments Required for Acceptance

Please use this section to detail the key new experiments or modifications of existing experiments that should be absolutely required to validate study conclusions.

Generally, there should be no more than 3 such required experiments or major modifications for a "Major Revision" recommendation. If more than 3 experiments are necessary to validate the study conclusions, then you are encouraged to recommend "Reject".

Reviewer #1: Title and elsewhere: A claim is made that Norwegian moose CWD gets to the brain independent of the spleen, but no timepoint samples are analyzed and the potential for some degree of PrP Sc degradation is not addressed. This other work should be done or these claims should be softened and these other caveats should be explained somewhere in the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: 1. The current study is incremental, as it provides additional information on isolates that have been described in other publications.

2. Detection of prions in brain and spleen of non-clinical animals is provided by RT-QuIC. To provide more convincing evidence of subclinical infection, these samples should also be tested in a secondary method (e.g., PMCA, cell assays, bioassay).

3. Western blot of the original inocula used for this study should be included. The PrPSc generated in mice upon inoculation of the European CWD strains should be compared, side by side, with this inocula and with other CWD strains already characterized.

4. The potential isolation of different strains is a relevant result. As such, this needs to be further characterized, including second passages in transgenic mice. Although it is understandable that these experiments take long time, they are needed to draw solid conclusions (as presented and discussed by the authors).

Reviewer #3: I have no major issues.

**********

Part III – Minor Issues: Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications

Please use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity.

Reviewer #1: Abstract- a couple of suggestions that may be difficult depending on word limits-

Line 32-33- What do you mean by subclinical infection? Evidence of PrPSc, but not clinical signs at time of euthanasia?

Line 35: can you address the potential titer issue here? RT-QuIC suggests maybe we could have expected reindeer to incubate faster if amount only.

Line 52: again, what is subclinical infection to you? This can be misleading if mice were euthanized prior to the time that would be required to develop clinical signs.

Introduction- associated with paragraph startint at line 81-

Could you introduce what you are referring to for the various genotypes (wt, deer, caribou, elk) how they are the same/different and put the terminology here that will be used throughout because this isn't actually clearly explained until the methods, which occurs at the end.

Line 86: which deer?

Line 94: one potential place to address difference between spleen independent vs transient splenic replication.

Line 100: please add the substrate used here. It is not in the M&M and only appears in the figure legend.

Line 106-107: Is it an expectation that all of these will replicate equally in the substrate and the differences are due to amount of PrPSc present?

Line 118: Thoughts on the higher attack rate after IP inoculation (maybe a comment in the discussion)?

Line 120: Please comment on the incubation period allowed for the wt mice with the M-NO3 inoculum. This does not seem long enough ensure that all of these were negative since the IC incubation period was 700 +/- 108 days.

Line 129: (doesn't require a response) Western blot may not be sensitive to identify cases that would be detectable by other methods (ELISA, for example). It takes a relatively high OD/strong positive by ELISA before WBs are positive without some enrichment method. It would be better to call these non-detect rather than negative.

Line 137: ... activity in either their brains or spleens

Line 151: suggest omitting strong

Line 160: omit was able to break this transmission barrier and

Line 179: please add something to the title of this section, so it is clear that you're talking about WB's

Line 209: Is 258 days enough to make a claim? This isolate took 700 days in the other mouse strain.

Line 212-213: Worth looking at Angers, Science, 2010 and considering a reference as this codon has been identified with strain-associated replication differences.

Line starting 216: is there a way to add something about the inoculum (species of origin) from the previous studies, so the reader knows how to categorize the information?

Line 237: no clinical disease at what DPI?

line 239: again there is the potential that at some point clean up outpaces accumulation

Line 245: What about hematogenous spread?

Line 271: please clarify this sentence- you can transmit CWD prions (but not clinical disease)

Line 286: as above, is without involvement of the spleen is not the same as not being able to detect PrPSc at the endpoint.

Line 288: strains and genotypes that define. . .

Line 299: please describe this genotype in the same way as for the mouse strains. This is hard to follow.

Figure 4: how would these migrations compare to the reindeer and moose isolates in figure 3?

Reviewer #2: 1. M-NO3 is mentioned in the abstract. Specific information should be avoided in this section, as it is confusing at this point. A more general message, and no specific data (on a specific isolate) should be mentioned in this section.

2. In Table 1, Elk should be listed in the last column to agree with the flow of the manuscript.

3. Table 1. It is not clear why the animals noted with "b" are included in the table.

Reviewer #3: I have no minor issues.

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here on PLOS Biology: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

PLoS Pathog. 2024 Jul 1;20(7):e1012350. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1012350.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

27 Apr 2024

Attachment

Submitted filename: Arifin Hannaoui et al PLoS Pathogens_response.pdf

ppat.1012350.s003.pdf^{(297KB, pdf)}

PLoS Pathog. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1012350.r003

Decision Letter 1

Neil A Mabbott, Suzette A Priola

18 Jun 2024

Dear Dr. Gilch,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Norwegian moose CWD induces clinical disease and neuroinvasion in gene-targeted mice expressing cervid S138N prion protein' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Pathogens.

Best regards,

Suzette A. Priola

Guest Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Neil Mabbott

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Part I - Summary

Please use this section to discuss strengths/weaknesses of study, novelty/significance, general execution and scholarship.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: I have reviewed this article before and have no changes. It is a well written paper and should be published.

**********

Part II – Major Issues: Key Experiments Required for Acceptance

Please use this section to detail the key new experiments or modifications of existing experiments that should be absolutely required to validate study conclusions.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

Part III – Minor Issues: Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications

Please use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Terry Spraker

PLoS Pathog. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1012350.r004

Acceptance letter

Neil A Mabbott, Suzette A Priola

22 Jun 2024

Dear Dr. Gilch,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Norwegian moose CWD induces clinical disease and neuroinvasion in gene-targeted mice expressing cervid S138N prion protein," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the pre-publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Pearls, Reviews, Opinions, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript, if you opted to have an early version of your article, will be published online. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Pathogens.

Best regards,

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

S1 Data. Raw data file.

(XLSX)

ppat.1012350.s001.xlsx^{(60.2KB, xlsx)}

S1 Text. Supplementary Information.

(DOCX)

ppat.1012350.s002.docx^{(5MB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Arifin Hannaoui et al PLoS Pathogens_response.pdf

ppat.1012350.s003.pdf^{(297KB, pdf)}

Data Availability Statement

All data are available in the manuscript and supplementary information.

[ppat.1012350.ref001] 1.Koutsoumanis K, Allende A, Alvarez-Ordoňez A, Bolton D, Bover-Cid S, Chemaly M, et al. Update on chronic wasting disease (CWD) III. EFSA J. 2019. Nov 11;17(11):e05863. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5863 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref002] 2.Sohn HJ, Kim JH, Choi KS, Nah JJ, Joo YS, Jean YH, et al. A Case of Chronic Wasting Disease in an Elk Imported to Korea from Canada. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science. 2002;64(9):855–8. doi: 10.1292/jvms.64.855 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref003] 3.National Wildlife Health Center. Expanding Distribution of Chronic Wasting Disease [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 Apr 6]. Available from: https://www.usgs.gov/centers/nwhc/science/expanding-distribution-chronic-wasting-disease

[ppat.1012350.ref004] 4.Prusiner SB. Novel proteinaceous infectious particles cause scrapie. Science. 1982. Apr 9;216(4542):136–44. doi: 10.1126/science.6801762 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref005] 5.Prusiner SB. Prions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998. Nov 10;95(23):13363–83. doi: 10.1073/pnas.95.23.13363 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref006] 6.Haley NJ, Seelig DM, Zabel MD, Telling GC, Hoover EA. Detection of CWD Prions in Urine and Saliva of Deer by Transgenic Mouse Bioassay. PLOS ONE. 2009. Mar 18;4(3):e4848. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004848 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref007] 7.Cheng YC, Hannaoui S, John TR, Dudas S, Czub S, Gilch S. Early and Non-Invasive Detection of Chronic Wasting Disease Prions in Elk Feces by Real-Time Quaking Induced Conversion. PloS one. 2016;11(11):e0166187. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166187 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref008] 8.Mammadova N, Cassmann E, Greenlee JJ. Successful transmission of the chronic wasting disease (CWD) agent to white-tailed deer by intravenous blood transfusion. Research in Veterinary Science. 2020. Dec 1;133:304–6. doi: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2020.10.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref009] 9.Pritzkow S, Morales R, Lyon A, Concha-Marambio L, Urayama A, Soto C. Efficient prion disease transmission through common environmental materials. J Biol Chem. 2018. Mar 2;293(9):3363–73. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M117.810747 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref010] 10.Miller MW, Williams ES, Hobbs NT, Wolfe LL. Environmental Sources of Prion Transmission in Mule Deer. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2004. Jun;10(6):1003. doi: 10.3201/eid1006.040010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref011] 11.Georgsson G, Sigurdarson S, Brown P. Infectious agent of sheep scrapie may persist in the environment for at least 16 years. Journal of General Virology. 2006. Dec 1;87(12):3737–40. doi: 10.1099/vir.0.82011-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref012] 12.Government of Saskatchewan [Internet]. [cited 2020 Apr 20]. CWD map of positive tests | Chronic Wasting Disease. Available from: https://www.saskatchewan.ca/residents/environment-public-health-and-safety/wildlife-issues/fish-and-wildlife-diseases/chronic-wasting-disease/cwd-map

[ppat.1012350.ref013] 13.Otero A, Duque Velasquez C, McKenzie D, Aiken J. Emergence of CWD strains. Cell Tissue Res [Internet]. 2022. Oct 6 [cited 2023 Apr 5]; Available from: doi: 10.1007/s00441-022-03688-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref014] 14.Hannaoui S, Triscott E, Velásquez CD, Chang SC, Arifin MI, Zemlyankina I, et al. New and distinct chronic wasting disease strains associated with cervid polymorphism at codon 116 of the Prnp gene. PLOS Pathogens. 2021. Jul 26;17(7):e1009795. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1009795 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref015] 15.Moore J, Tatum T, Hwang S, Vrentas C, West Greenlee MH, Kong Q, et al. Novel Strain of the Chronic Wasting Disease Agent Isolated From Experimentally Inoculated Elk With LL132 Prion Protein. Scientific Reports. 2020. Feb 21;10(1):3148. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-59819-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref016] 16.Velásquez CD, Kim C, Herbst A, Daude N, Garza MC, Wille H, et al. Deer Prion Proteins Modulate the Emergence and Adaptation of Chronic Wasting Disease Strains. Journal of Virology. 2015. Dec 15;89(24):12362–73. doi: 10.1128/JVI.02010-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref017] 17.Angers RC, Kang HE, Napier D, Browning S, Seward T, Mathiason C, et al. Prion Strain Mutation Determined by Prion Protein Conformational Compatibility and Primary Structure. Science. 2010. May 28;328(5982):1154–8. doi: 10.1126/science.1187107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref018] 18.Bian J, Kim S, Kane SJ, Crowell J, Sun JL, Christiansen J, et al. Adaptive selection of a prion strain conformer corresponding to established North American CWD during propagation of novel emergent Norwegian strains in mice expressing elk or deer prion protein. PLOS Pathogens. 2021. Jul 26;17(7):e1009748. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1009748 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref019] 19.Benestad SL, Mitchell G, Simmons M, Ytrehus B, Vikøren T. First case of chronic wasting disease in Europe in a Norwegian free-ranging reindeer. Veterinary Research [Internet]. 2016. Dec [cited 2017 Jan 11];47(1). Available from: http://veterinaryresearch.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13567-016-0375-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref020] 20.Pirisinu L, Tran L, Chiappini B, Vanni I, Bari MAD, Vaccari G, et al. Novel Type of Chronic Wasting Disease Detected in Moose (Alces alces), Norway. Emerging Infectious Diseases Journal [Internet]. 2018. Dec [cited 2020 May 5];24(12). Available from: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/24/12/18-0702_article doi: 10.3201/eid2412.180702 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref021] 21.Vikøren T, Våge J, Madslien KI, Røed KH, Rolandsen CM, Tran L, et al. First Detection of Chronic Wasting Disease in a Wild Red Deer (Cervus elaphus) in Europe. Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 2019. Oct 9;55(4):970. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref022] 22.Benestad SL, Sarradin P, Thu B, Schönheit J, Tranulis MA, Bratberg B. Cases of scrapie with unusual features in Norway and designation of a new type, Nor98. Veterinary Record. 2003;153(7):202–8. doi: 10.1136/vr.153.7.202 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref023] 23.Casalone C, Zanusso G, Acutis P, Ferrari S, Capucci L, Tagliavini F, et al. Identification of a second bovine amyloidotic spongiform encephalopathy: Molecular similarities with sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2004. Mar 2;101(9):3065–70. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0305777101 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref024] 24.Biacabe AG, Laplanche JL, Ryder S, Baron T. Distinct molecular phenotypes in bovine prion diseases. EMBO reports. 2004. Jan 1;5(1):110–5. doi: 10.1038/sj.embor.7400054 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref025] 25.Haley NJ, Merrett K, Stein AB, Simpson D, Carlson A, Mitchell G, et al. Estimating relative CWD susceptibility and disease progression in farmed white-tailed deer with rare PRNP alleles. PLOS ONE. 2019. Dec 2;14(12):e0224342. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224342 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref026] 26.Johnson C, Johnson J, Vanderloo JP, Keane D, Aiken JM, McKenzie D. Prion protein polymorphisms in white-tailed deer influence susceptibility to chronic wasting disease. Journal of General Virology. 2006;87(7):2109–14. doi: 10.1099/vir.0.81615-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref027] 27.Arifin MI, Hannaoui S, Chang SC, Thapa S, Schatzl HM, Gilch S. Cervid Prion Protein Polymorphisms: Role in Chronic Wasting Disease Pathogenesis. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;24. doi: 10.3390/ijms22052271 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref028] 28.Arifin MI, Staskevicius A, Shim SY, Huang Y, Fenton H, McLoughlin PD, et al. Large-scale prion protein genotyping in Canadian caribou populations and potential impact on chronic wasting disease susceptibility. Mol Ecol. 2020. Aug 18;mec.15602. doi: 10.1111/mec.15602 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref029] 29.Arifin MI, Kaczmarczyk L, Zeng D, Hannaoui S, Lee C, Chang SC, et al. Heterozygosity for cervid S138N polymorphism results in subclinical CWD in gene-targeted mice and progressive inhibition of prion conversion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2023. Apr 11;120(15):e2221060120. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2221060120 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref030] 30.LaFauci G, Carp RI, Meeker HC, Ye X, Kim JI, Natelli M, et al. Passage of chronic wasting disease prion into transgenic mice expressing Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) PrPC. Journal of General Virology,. 2006;87(12):3773–80. doi: 10.1099/vir.0.82137-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref031] 31.Abdelaziz DH, Thapa S, Brandon J, Maybee J, Vankuppeveld L, McCorkell R, et al. Recombinant prion protein vaccination of transgenic elk PrP mice and reindeer overcomes self-tolerance and protects mice against chronic wasting disease. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2018. Nov 5;jbc.RA118.004810. doi: 10.1074/jbc.RA118.004810 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref032] 32.Ness A, Zeng D, Kuznetsova A, Otero A, Kim C, Saboraki K, et al. Chronic wasting disease prions in mule deer interdigital glands. PLOS ONE. 2022. Oct 3;17(10):e0275375. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275375 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref033] 33.Cheng YC, Hannaoui S, John TR, Dudas S, Czub S, Gilch S. Real-time Quaking-induced Conversion Assay for Detection of CWD Prions in Fecal Material. JoVE (Journal of Visualized Experiments). 2017. Sep 29;(127):e56373. doi: 10.3791/56373 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref034] 34.Mitchell GB, Sigurdson CJ, O’Rourke KI, Algire J, Harrington NP, Walther I, et al. Experimental Oral Transmission of Chronic Wasting Disease to Reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarandus). PLOS ONE. 2012. Jun 18;7(6):e39055. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039055 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref035] 35.Nonno R, Bari MAD, Pirisinu L, D’Agostino C, Vanni I, Chiappini B, et al. Studies in bank voles reveal strain differences between chronic wasting disease prions from Norway and North America. PNAS. 2020. Dec 8;117(49):31417–26. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2013237117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref036] 36.Barrio T, Filali H, Otero A, Sheleby-Elías J, Marín B, Vidal E, et al. Mixtures of prion substrains in natural scrapie cases revealed by ovinised murine models. Scientific Reports. 2020. Mar 19;10(1):5042. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-61977-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref037] 37.Hoover CE, Davenport KA, Henderson DM, Denkers ND, Mathiason CK, Soto C, et al. Pathways of Prion Spread during Early Chronic Wasting Disease in Deer. J Virol. 2017. May 15;91(10):e00077–17. doi: 10.1128/JVI.00077-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref038] 38.Fox KA, Jewell JE, Williams ES, Miller MW. Patterns of PrPCWD accumulation during the course of chronic wasting disease infection in orally inoculated mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Journal of General Virology,. 2006;87(11):3451–61. doi: 10.1099/vir.0.81999-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref039] 39.Sigurdson CJ, Williams ES, Miller MW, Spraker TR, O’Rourke KI, Hoover EA. Oral transmission and early lymphoid tropism of chronic wasting disease PrPres in mule deer fawns (Odocoileus hemionus). Journal of General Virology. 1999;80(10):2757–64. doi: 10.1099/0022-1317-80-10-2757 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref040] 40.Shikiya RA, Langenfeld KA, Eckland TE, Trinh J, Holec SAM, Mathiason CK, et al. PrPSc formation and clearance as determinants of prion tropism. PLOS Pathogens. 2017. Mar 29;13(3):e1006298. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1006298 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref041] 41.Urayama A, Morales R, Niehoff ML, Banks WA, Soto C. Initial fate of prions upon peripheral infection: half-life, distribution, clearance, and tissue uptake. FASEB J. 2011. Aug;25(8):2792–803. doi: 10.1096/fj.11-180729 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref042] 42.Chen B, Soto C, Morales R. Peripherally administrated prions reach the brain at sub-infectious quantities in experimental hamsters. FEBS Lett. 2014. Mar 3;588(5):795–800. doi: 10.1016/j.febslet.2014.01.038 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref043] 43.Kimberlin RH, Walker CA. The role of the spleen in the neuroinvasion of scrapie in mice. Virus Research. 1989. Mar 1;12(3):201–11. doi: 10.1016/0168-1702(89)90039-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref044] 44.Lasmézas CI, Cesbron JY, Deslys JP, Demaimay R, Adjou KT, Rioux R, et al. Immune system-dependent and -independent replication of the scrapie agent. J Virol. 1996. Feb;70(2):1292–5. doi: 10.1128/JVI.70.2.1292-1295.1996 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref045] 45.Mathiason CK, Hays SA, Powers J, Hayes-Klug J, Langenberg J, Dahmes SJ, et al. Infectious Prions in Pre-Clinical Deer and Transmission of Chronic Wasting Disease Solely by Environmental Exposure. PLoS One [Internet]. 2009. Jun 16 [cited 2020 Dec 30];4(6). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2691594/ doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005916 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref046] 46.Yuan Q, Telling G, Bartelt-Hunt SL, Bartz JC. Dehydration of prions on environmentally relevant surfaces protects them from inactivation by freezing and thawing. Journal of Virology. 2018. Jan 31;JVI.02191-17. doi: 10.1128/JVI.02191-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref047] 47.Rhyan JC, Miller MW, Spraker TR, McCollum M, Nol P, Wolfe LL, et al. Failure of Fallow Deer (Dama dama) to Develop Chronic Wasting Disease When Exposed to a Contaminated Environment and Infected Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 2011. Jul;47(3):739–44. doi: 10.7589/0090-3558-47.3.739 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref048] 48.Hamir AN, Kunkle RA, Nicholson EM, Miller JM, Hall SM, Schoenenbruecher H, et al. Preliminary observations on the experimental transmission of chronic wasting disease (CWD) from elk and white-tailed deer to fallow deer. J Comp Pathol. 2008. Apr;138(2–3):121–30. doi: 10.1016/j.jcpa.2007.12.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref049] 49.Hamir AN, Greenlee JJ, Nicholson EM, Kunkle RA, Richt JA, Miller JM, et al. Experimental transmission of chronic wasting disease (CWD) from elk and white-tailed deer to fallow deer by intracerebral route: Final report. Can J Vet Res. 2011. Apr;75(2):152–6. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref050] 50.Angers RC, Browning SR, Seward TS, Sigurdson CJ, Miller MW, Hoover EA, et al. Prions in Skeletal Muscles of Deer with Chronic Wasting Disease. Science. 2006. Feb 24;311(5764):1117–1117. doi: 10.1126/science.1122864 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref051] 51.Selariu A, Powers JG, Nalls A, Brandhuber M, Mayfield A, Fullaway S, et al. In utero transmission and tissue distribution of chronic wasting disease-associated prions in free-ranging Rocky Mountain elk. J Gen Virol. 2015. Nov;96(Pt 11):3444–55. doi: 10.1099/jgv.0.000281 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref052] 52.Haley NJ, Mathiason CK, Carver S, Zabel M, Telling GC, Hoover EA. Detection of Chronic Wasting Disease Prions in Salivary, Urinary, and Intestinal Tissues of Deer: Potential Mechanisms of Prion Shedding and Transmission. Journal of Virology. 2011. Jul 1;85(13):6309–18. doi: 10.1128/JVI.00425-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref053] 53.Beringue V, Herzog L, Jaumain E, Reine F, Sibille P, Le Dur A, et al. Facilitated Cross-Species Transmission of Prions in Extraneural Tissue. Science. 2012. Jan 27;335(6067):472–5. doi: 10.1126/science.1215659 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref054] 54.Igel-Egalon A, Béringue V, Rezaei H, Sibille P. Prion Strains and Transmission Barrier Phenomena. Pathogens. 2018. Mar;7(1):5. doi: 10.3390/pathogens7010005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref055] 55.Scott M, Groth D, Foster D, Torchia M, Yang SL, DeArmond SJ, et al. Propagation of prions with artificial properties in transgenic mice expressing chimeric PrP genes. Cell. 1993. Jun;73(5):979–88. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(93)90275-u [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref056] 56.Scott M, Foster D, Mirenda C, Serban D, Coufal F, Wälchli M, et al. Transgenic mice expressing hamster prion protein produce species-specific scrapie infectivity and amyloid plaques. Cell. 1989. Dec 1;59(5):847–57. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(89)90608-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref057] 57.Kurt TD, Jiang L, Fernández-Borges N, Bett C, Liu J, Yang T, et al. Human prion protein sequence elements impede cross-species chronic wasting disease transmission. J Clin Invest. 2015. Apr 1;125(4):1485–96. doi: 10.1172/JCI79408 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref058] 58.Kurt TD, Bett C, Fernández-Borges N, Joshi-Barr S, Hornemann S, Rülicke T, et al. Prion Transmission Prevented by Modifying the β2-α2 Loop Structure of Host PrPC. J Neurosci. 2014. Jan 15;34(3):1022–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref059] 59.Sigurdson CJ. A prion disease of cervids: Chronic wasting disease. Vet Res. 2008. Jul;39(4):41. doi: 10.1051/vetres:2008018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref060] 60.Sigurdson CJ, Barillas-Mury C, Miller MW, Oesch B, van Keulen LJM, Langeveld JPM, et al. PrPCWD lymphoid cell targets in early and advanced chronic wasting disease of mule deer. Journal of General Virology. 2002;83(10):2617–28. doi: 10.1099/0022-1317-83-10-2617 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ppat.1012350.ref061] 61.Güere ME, Våge J, Tharaldsen H, Benestad SL, Vikøren T, Madslien K, et al. Chronic wasting disease associated with prion protein gene (PRNP) variation in Norwegian wild reindeer (Rangifer tarandus). Prion. 2020. Jan 1;14(1):1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Norwegian moose CWD induces clinical disease and neuroinvasion in gene-targeted mice expressing cervid S138N prion protein

Maria Immaculata Arifin

Samia Hannaoui

Raychal Ashlyn Ng

Doris Zeng

Irina Zemlyankina

Hanaa Ahmed-Hassan

Hermann M Schatzl

Lech Kaczmarczyk

Walker S Jackson

Sylvie L Benestad

Sabine Gilch

Roles

Abstract

Author summary

Introduction

Results

Propagation of Norwegian CWD isolates in Prnp.Cer.Wt mice

Fig 1. Comparison of Norwegian isolates seeding activity in RT-QuIC.

Table 1. Survival times of Prnp.Cer.Wt, Prnp.Cer.138NN and TgElk mice following intracerebral (i.c.) and intraperitoneal (i.p.) inoculation with Norwegian CWD isolates.

Fig 2.

Table 2. Number of mouse brains and spleens positive for PrPres on WB and/or prion seeding activity in RT-QuIC per total number of samples tested within each respective group.

Norwegian moose CWD isolate causes clinical disease in Prnp.Cer.138NN mice

Divergent PrPres patterns in brains of Prnp.Cer.138NN mice inoculated i.c. with M-NO3

Fig 3. Comparison of PrPres in brain homogenates of Prnp.Cer.Wt and Prnp.Cer.138NN mice inoculated i.c. with R-CA1, R-NO16, or M-NO3.

Fig 4. Second passage of M-NO3 in Prnp.Cer.138NN mouse model.

Prion transport to the CNS in Prnp.Cer.138NN mice inoculated i.p. with M-NO3

Fig 5. RT-QuIC and western blot analysis of spinal cord homogenates of Prnp.Cer.138NN mice inoculated i.p. with M-NO3.

Norwegian red deer isolate is transmissible to transgenic mice expressing elk PrPC

Fig 6. PrPres detection in brain homogenates of TgElk mice inoculated with H-NO1.

Discussion

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

CWD isolates

Bioassays

Mouse tissue collection and homogenization

RT-QuIC

Serial Protein Misfolding Cyclic Amplification (sPMCA)

SDS-PAGE and western blotting

Immunohistochemistry

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Suzette A Priola

Surachai Supattapone

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Neil A Mabbott

Suzette A Priola

Roles

Acceptance letter

Neil A Mabbott

Suzette A Priola

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases

Table 2. Number of mouse brains and spleens positive for PrP^res on WB and/or prion seeding activity in RT-QuIC per total number of samples tested within each respective group.

Divergent PrP^res patterns in brains of Prnp.Cer.138NN mice inoculated i.c. with M-NO3

Fig 3. Comparison of PrP^res in brain homogenates of Prnp.Cer.Wt and Prnp.Cer.138NN mice inoculated i.c. with R-CA1, R-NO16, or M-NO3.

Norwegian red deer isolate is transmissible to transgenic mice expressing elk PrP^C

Fig 6. PrP^res detection in brain homogenates of TgElk mice inoculated with H-NO1.