Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Jan 9;15(1):e0219805. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219805

Identifying maintenance hosts for infection with Dichelobacter nodosus in free-ranging wild ruminants in Switzerland: A prevalence study

Gaia Moore-Jones 1, Flurin Ardüser 2, Salome Dürr 3, Stefanie Gobeli Brawand 4,¤, Adrian Steiner 2, Patrik Zanolari 2, Marie-Pierre Ryser-Degiorgis 1,*
Editor: Simon Russell Clegg5
PMCID: PMC6952115  PMID: 31917824

Abstract

Footrot is a worldwide economically important, painful, contagious bacterial foot disease of domestic and wild ungulates caused by Dichelobacter nodosus. Benign and virulent strains have been identified in sheep presenting with mild and severe lesions, respectively. However, in Alpine ibex (Capra ibex ibex), both strains have been associated with severe lesions. Because the disease is widespread throughout sheep flocks in Switzerland, a nationwide footrot control program for sheep focusing on virulent strains shall soon be implemented. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to estimate the nationwide prevalence of both strain groups of D. nodosus in four wild indigenous ruminant species and to identify potential susceptible wildlife maintenance hosts that could be a reinfection source for domestic sheep. During two years (2017–2018), interdigital swabs of 1,821 wild indigenous ruminant species (Alpine ibex, Alpine chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), red deer (Cervus elaphus)) were analysed by Real-Time PCR. Furthermore, observed interspecies interactions were documented for each sample. Overall, we report a low prevalence of D. nodosus in all four indigenous wild ruminants, for both benign (1.97%, N = 36, of which 31 red deer) and virulent (0.05%, N = 1 ibex) strains. Footrot lesions were documented in one ibex with virulent strains, and in one ibex with benign strains. Interspecific interactions involving domestic livestock occurred mainly with cattle and sheep. In conclusion, the data suggest that wild ungulates are likely irrelevant for the maintenance and spread of D. nodosus. Furthermore, we add evidence that both D. nodosus strain types can be associated with severe disease in Alpine ibex. These data are crucial for the upcoming nationwide control program and reveal that wild ruminants should not be considered as a threat to footrot control in sheep in this context.

Introduction

Footrot is an economically important, painful, contagious bacterial disease that affects feet of both domestic and wild ungulates [1,2]. Among domestic ruminants, mainly sheep are affected. Footrot is endemic in sheep flocks worldwide, including Switzerland [3]. In free-ranging wildlife, footrot has been documented in several European countries, affecting Alpine ibex (Capra ibex ibex) and mufflon (Ovis orientalis orientalis) [1,46] (Meneguz, Frey and Ryser, unpublished data). Since the treatment of wild ungulates in the field is challenging, expensive, and neither feasible nor desired by wildlife managers, severe lesions do not just affect animal welfare but typically result in death [4,6]. Considering that Alpine ibex in Switzerland have just recovered from the verge of extinction in the 20th century [7], outbreaks of footrot may be relevant to species conservation.

The main etiologic agent of footrot is Dichelobacter nodosus [8]. Lesions begin as a mild interdigital inflammation (mild form) and may progress to a severe interdigital ulceration up to the separation of the horn from the underlying skin (severe form) [9]. In sheep, mild and severe clinical forms of footrot have been shown to be associated with the presence of strains of D. nodosus carrying either the AprB2 or AprV2 genes, respectively, which encode for the subtilisin-like extracellular proteases playing a key role as virulence factors [8,10], thus referred to as "benign" and "virulent". However, in Alpine ibex, the benign strain was also found in association with severe lesions [4]. Furthermore, both types of strains of D. nodosus have been detected in the absence of lesions in sheep, cattle, goats and swine [1114], suggesting the existence of species-specific differences in disease susceptibility and the involvement of other individual or environmental risk factors in the disease course. Among others, bacterial invasion is favored by interdigital skin damage caused by trauma or environmental conditions such as humid and wet pastures [15]. Unusually mild and wet weather conditions contribute to the persistence of D. nodosus in the environment [1,5]. In sheep, co-infection with anaerobic bacteria such as Fusobacterium necrophorum has been suggested to increase disease severity [9,11,16].

Due to an absence of long-term immunity, reinfections and clinical relapses are frequent in sheep [17]. Healthy carriers are known to occur in sheep, cattle and goats [11,12,14,18] and the bacteria can survive up to two weeks in the environment [11]. Virulent isolates may persist up to 10 months on bovine feet after co-grazing with sheep [12]. Furthermore, a single grazing season without contact with sheep is insufficient to eliminate all pathogenic isolates from cattle feet [12]. Thus, D. nodosus may be maintained in domestic ruminants even in the absence of clinical disease.

In the Swiss Alps, and to a lesser extent in the Jura Mountains, transhumance-grazing is a common practice and interactions between wild and domestic ruminants regularly occur on summer grazing pastures [1921]. Pastures are often shared not only among cattle, sheep, goats and South American camelids (Lama glama and Vicugna pacos) [22], but also with indigenous free-ranging wild ruminants such as ibex (Capra ibex ibex), chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra), red deer (Cervus elaphus) and roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) [21]. All of the hoof stock represents potential hosts of D. nodosus and may play a role in pathogen maintenance and spread. Based on the widespread occurrence of the disease in sheep and its sporadic occurrence in ibex and mufflon, it has been postulated that sheep are the source of infection for wildlife, with transmission occurring on alpine pastures during the summer grazing season [1].

Currently, countrywide prevalence estimations for D. nodosus are available only for potential domestic hosts [14], while information on wildlife is virtually nonexistent. Importantly, further insight in the processes governing the epidemiology of D. nodosus infections in wild and domestic ruminants and into the infection dynamics at the wildlife-livestock interface are needed to propose appropriate disease prevention and management measures in both domestic and wild animals. For this purpose, it is crucial that data obtained on wildlife and domestic animals can be directly compared [23], which requires the use of harmonized methods, from the sampling strategy to laboratory analyses [24]. Therefore, a nationwide survey on infections with D. nodosus in free-ranging ungulates was conducted, following the same study design and methodology as a parallel study in domestic livestock and South-American camelids in Switzerland [14].

The aim was to estimate the prevalence of D. nodosus infections, distinguishing between benign and virulent strains, in four species, namely Alpine ibex, Alpine chamois, roe deer and red deer during a two-year period (2017–18) in all of Switzerland. We hypothesized that wild ungulates do not maintain D. nodosus and that domestic ruminants act as the main infection source for wildlife. The obtained results enabled us to provide information on the likely role of the studied species in the epidemiology of footrot.

Materials & methods

Ethics statement

This study did not involve purposeful killing of animals. All samples originated from dead wildlife legally hunted during hunting seasons, found dead, or legally shot because of severe debilitation. According to the Swiss legislation (992.0 hunting law and 455 animal protection law, including the legislation on animal experiments; www.admin.ch), no ethical approval or permit for carcass /sample collection or animal experimentation was required.

Study area, species of interest, study design and sampling strategy

The study area comprised the whole territory of Switzerland (41,285 km2), which consists of three main bioregions: the Jura Mountains (a limestone mountain chain with an elevation up to 1,679m that separates the Alps to the southwest and forms an arc to the northeast), the Midlands (characterized by a low altitude and a high human population density), and the Alps (having the highest elevation up to 4,632m above sea level, which creates a climate wall separating the south from central Europe). Species of interest were indigenous free-ranging wild ruminants (roe deer, red deer, chamois and ibex). Deer species are mostly found below the timberline—roe deer mainly in the foothill zone and red deer in the mountain zone; chamois live between the subalpine and alpine zone; and ibex above the timberline.

The study was based on a cross-sectional convenient sampling strategy with the aim of estimating a nationwide prevalence of D. nodosus infections on an animal level in each of the four wild ruminant species. Sampling was carried out from August 2017 to December 2018, with most (89% N = 1622) samples collected during the hunting seasons (i.e. August-December) of 2017 and 2018.

Sample size was calculated for each species separately, assuming simple random sampling. The free online tool by AusVet Animal Health Services (http://epitools.auvet.com) was used for the calculation, and in there, the method for the estimation of true prevalence using imperfect diagnostic test characteristics was applied. For all species the design prevalence was set at 50% because no prior information on prevalence of infection was available. The precision was set at 5% and the level of confidence at 95%. The following estimated population sizes were used for the sample size calculation [25]: roe deer (113,000), red deer (28,500), chamois (91,500) and ibex (15,500). Diagnostic test characteristics (qPCR) were estimated to a mean sensitivity of 93.8% and a specificity of 98.3% [26]. We aimed to sample 440–451 animals per species over two years, i.e. 1,786 individuals in total, distributed across the country and local political borders (cantons), according to species occurrence and hunting plans.

Sample collection and animals

Sampling was mainly done by professional game wardens and hunters and in a few cases by the first and the second authors. Sampling kits included one SV Lysis buffer (4 M guanindinethiocyanate, 0.01 M Tris-HL, β-mercaptoethanol) in a tube with a screw-on lid, a cotton swab, a pair of latex gloves and a data sheet to record the sampling date, biological data of the animal sampled (sex, age, geographical origin, body condition) and the presence of foot lesions. Documentation of foot lesions were recorded for each foot separately, including lesions in the interdigital space, the feet and the carpal area based on the most common lesions that are used in footrot scoring systems [27]. If lesions were present, the sample submitters were asked to submit the affected feet in addition to the swabs.

The study participants were also asked to report previously observed interspecies interactions involving both wild and domestic species within a radius of 5 km around the sampling location. This distance was roughly estimated considering the home range size of the investigated species [28,29]. Four categories of contacts were used as previously described [21]: physical contact; encounter of less than 50 m distance between animals; encounters of more than 50 m; and non-simultaneous occupation of the same area. These categories were not relevant for D. nodosus transmission but corresponded to those used in earlier studies and helped specifying the notion of interaction for the respondents. Each data sheet included two tables, one for contacts among wild ruminants and the other one for contacts between wild and domestic ungulates. For each type of contact, the frequency of observation was recorded as follows: 0) never, 1) no more than once a year, 2) more than once a year.

All sampling kits were sent to the cantonal hunting authorities, which subsequently distributed the material to game wardens or hunters who then collected the samples from hunted game in the field. Animals that were sent as routine diagnostic cases (without footrot lesions) to the Centre for Fish and Wildlife Health (FIWI, University of Bern) for post-mortem examination were also sampled for this study (N = 54).

A four-feet sample was taken from each animal, i.e. the interdigital space of each of the four feet of each animal was sampled with the same cotton swab (2 mm 15 cm, Heinz Herenz, Medizinalbedarf GmbH, Hamburg, Germany). Each clean quarter of the swab was used for each foot as previously described [18,26], i.e. there was one swab per animal for laboratory analysis.

Immediately after swabbing the feet, each swab was immersed for at least 1 min in a tube containing SV lysis buffer with a hermetic lid. Samples were then either sent directly to the FIWI without cooling or stored at refrigerator temperature until transportation and subsequent analysis [10].

In total 1,821 samples were taken, of which 91.4% (N = 1,664) by game wardens/hunters; 4.5% (N = 83) by field biologists; 3.3% (N = 60) by veterinarians (FIWI) and for 0.7% (N = 14) of the samples the profession of the sampler was not given. The feet of five ibex, one red deer, three chamois and two roe deer with presumptive footrot lesions were sent to the FIWI for macroscopic examination. All 26 cantons contributed to the achieved sample number. 37.7%of the samples (N = 686) were received in 2017 and 62.3% (N = 1135) in 2018.

There were 961 males, 807 females and 53 animals without sex information. We used three age categories for the age estimation: juvenile (< 1 year, N = 167), yearling (1-<2 year; N = 245) and adult (≥ 2 years, N = 1,335). Age estimation was based on acquired knowledge of the sample submitters during their formal training (hunters and professional game wardens). For roe deer and red deer, this was based on the tooth replacement and wear, while for ibex and chamois it was based on the growth rings of the horns [30]. No age information was provided for 74 animals.

Laboratory analysis

All collected samples were tested for the presence of benign or/and virulent strains of D. nodosus by PCR [10]. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) was extracted from the buffer solution by an automated method using a KingFisher Duo Prime purification automat (Thermo Scientific, Finland). A competitive real-time PCR was performed on all samples, which allows the simultaneous detection of virulent and benign strains of D. nodosus by distinguishing the extracellular protease AprV2 found in the more virulent strains from the subtly different protease AprB2 that is found in strains associated with benign disease signs in sheep [10]. Reagents used for the PCR included:TaqMan Fast Advanced Master Mix (Fisher Scientific, Reinach), Primers (Microsynth, AG Balgach), two probes Probe DnAprTM-v (Fisher Scientific) and Probe DnAprTM-b (Fisher Scientific), as well as a LIZ Assay Mix (Fisher Scientific). Amplification was done in a 7500 Real-Time PCR system with cycle conditions of 2 min at 50° C, 10 min at 95° C followed by 40 cycles of 15s at 95°C and 1 min at 60° C. Samples that showed no fluorescent signal were considered negative; samples showing a positive fluorescent signal for either strain were classified as positive. Results were then analyzed using the Sequence Detector 7500.

Data management and statistical analysis

Data handling, validating, cleaning and coding were done in MS Excel spreadsheets followed by transfer to R software version 3.5.1. (https://cran.r-project.org) for all statistical analyses. Apparent and true prevalence were calculated using the “epi.prev” function of the package “epiR” considering imperfect test characteristics, with a test sensitivity of 93.8% and test specificity of 98.3% [26] and a confidence interval of 95%. The function calculates the true prevalence (TP; prevalence obtained from the apparent prevalence after correction and considering the non-perfect diagnostic test characteristics) from the apparent prevalence (AP; proportion of animals from a representative sample of the population that are positive to the diagnostic method used) using the Rogan-Gladen estimator, based in the formula TP = (AP + specificity − 1)/(sensitivity + specificity − 1) [31].

A risk factor analysis for presence of D. nodosus on wild animal feet was performed with the PCR status of the animals (positive or negative) as dependent variable and potential risk factors as independent variables. Because only one sample was positive for virulent strains, the risk factor analysis was performed for benign strains only. The presence of foot lesions (presence vs absence) was not considered in the analysis because lesions were reported in only five PCR-positive animals and confirmed as footrot-like in only one ibex; the four red deer had either unconfirmed footrot-like lesions or merely overgrown hooves, which is not consistent with footrot. The factor "canton" was tested only for wild ungulates from cantons with PCR-positive animals because there were too many cantons without PCR-positive animals. Logistic regression models were used first in a univariable analysis, followed by a multivariable analysis. The variables interactions with either roe deer or with chamois were tested using Fisher’s Exact Test because zero interactions were observed for PCR-positive animals. Variables with p-values < 0.2 were further considered in the multivariable analysis, where a manual backward elimination procedure was performed with a cut-off level at p-value <0.05. To be able to compare the prevalence for benign strains of D. nodosus in sheep and cattle (domestic ungulate study; Ardüser et al., 2019) with the prevalence of infection for benign strains in all wild ungulates (all species pooled; this study), we used a logistic regression model in a multivariable analysis with a cut-off level at a p-value <0.05.

All maps were generated with QGIS 2.18.16 Las Palmas (Free Software Foundation Inc., Boston, USA).

Results

Detection of Dichelobacter nodosus

Out of 1,821 sampled animals (Fig 1), 37 were found positive for D. nodosus (Fig 2). Virulent strains were only found in one animal, an adult male ibex with severe disease signs (see also the section "Foot lesions" below). Benign strains were found in 36 animals, including 31 red deer (20 males and 11 females; 8 juveniles, 5 yearlings, 17 adults, and 1 animal of unknown age), one roe deer (yearling female), one Alpine chamois (adult male) and three Alpine ibex (all adult males). The estimated apparent prevalence for the benign and virulent strains by species is given in Table 1 (wild animals) and Table 2 (domestic animals for comparison). Due to the low prevalence of D. nodosus per species, the true prevalence (TP) could only be calculated for red deer (TP = 6.08%, CI95% = 3.5–9.3).

Fig 1. Map of Switzerland showing the distribution of the sampled wild animals.

Fig 1

Shades of grey illustrate the mountainous shape. Lakes are in blue. Colored dots correspond to wild ungulates of different species: Yellow: roe deer; Red: red deer; Blue: chamois; and Green: ibex.

Fig 2. Map of Switzerland showing the geographical origin of PCR positive animals.

Fig 2

Shades of grey illustrate the mountainous shape. Lakes are in blue. Violet dots correspond to wild ungulates positive for benign strains and red dots to wild ungulates positive for virulent strains.

Table 1. Prevalence of D. nodosus in Swiss wild ungulates.

Species Tested samples Positive benign Benign % AP Positive virulent Virulent % AP
Alpine ibex 589 3 0.50%
(0.13–1.46)
1 0.16%
(0.00–0.94)
Alpine chamois 410 1 0.24%
(0.00–1.35)
0 0.00%
(0.00–0.87)
Red deer 408 31 7.59%
(5.29–10.58)
0 0.00%
(0.00–0.88)
Roe deer 409 1 0.24%
(0.00–1.35)
0 0.00%
(0.00–0.87)
TOTAL 1821* 36 1.97%
(1.39–2.72)
1 0.05%
(0.00–0.30)

Number of sampled wild ungulates in all of Switzerland (August till December, 2017 and 2018), positive PCR results and estimated apparent prevalence (AP) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals indicated in parentheses.

*For five samples the species was not indicated by the submitter.

Table 2. Prevalence of D. nodosus in Swiss domestic ungulates for comparison.

Species Tested samples Positive benign Benign % AP Positive virulent Virulent % AP
Sheep 690 58 7.80%
(3.40–12.10)
94 17.60%
(10.70–24.40)
Cattle 849 694 83.30%
(79.10–87.50)
0 0.00%
(0.00–0.40)
Goats 790 23 2.30%
(0.00–5.10)
0 0.00%
(0.00–0.50)
SAC 591 13 0.90%
(0.30–1.50)
3 0.20%
(0.00–0.40)
TOTAL 2920 788 26.98%
(23.38–28.62)
97 3.21%
(2.70–4.02)

Ardüser et al., 2019

Number of sampled domestic ungulates in all of Switzerland (May 2017 till June 2018), positive PCR results and estimated apparent prevalence (AP) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals indicated in parentheses.

South American Camelids

All positive samples originated from animals from six out of 26 Swiss cantons (S1 Table), all of them located in subalpine to alpine zones (> 1000 m above sea level) except for five red deer and one roe deer from the mountain and foothill zones. The majority (N = 27, 68%) of the positive animals originated from the canton of Grisons (23 red deer with benign strains; and two ibex: one positive for benign and the other one for virulent strains). Positive samples were found in both sampling years (14 in 2017; 23 in 2018). Most animals positive for benign D. nodosus (78%, N = 28) were reported to be in good body condition and a few animals were reported to be in moderate (19%, N = 7) and poor (3%, N = 1) body condition. The single ibex positive with the virulent strain was in a moderate body condition.

Foot lesions

Four of the 31 (12.9%) red deer positive for benign strains of D. nodosus were reported by the sample submitters as having foot lesions. Two of them were reported to present with changes consisting in overgrown hooves, one of which was submitted for veterinary examination. The anomaly concerned the lateral digits only, without noticeable interdigital inflammation (i.e. no signs suggestive of footrot). In the other two red deer, an interdigital grey malodorous exudate and rotting of the sole of one of the forelimbs was reported. However, these observations could not be confirmed as neither photographs nor any of the affected feet were submitted with the samples. One ibex positive for benign strains presented with severe footrot lesions of the hind feet (Fig 3). All other animals positive for benign strains were not reported to have any signs of disease (including two ibex).

Fig 3. D. nodosus positive feet of two ibex.

Fig 3

Front feet of an ibex, positive for virulent D. nodosus: (A) severely overgrown hooves with (B) ulceration and greyish discoloration of the interdigital space. Hind feet of an ibex, positive for benign D. nodosus: (C) greyish discoloration of the interdigital space with (D) severely overgrown and fissurated hooves.

The ibex with virulent D. nodosus showed severe footrot lesions in the front feet (Fig 3), including a severe ulcerative interdigital pododermatitis with greyish discoloration associated with an unpleasant odor, and severely multifocally fissured and overgrown hooves. The severity of the lesions were similar in the two ibex infected with benign and virulent strains, respectively.

Interspecies interactions

In total, 68% (N = 1236) of the field partners answered the questions listed on the data sheet regarding interspecies interactions in their sampling area, either partially (58%) or fully (10%). Data on reported proximity among wild and domestic ungulates (ibex, chamois, red deer, roe deer, sheep, cattle, goats and South American camelids) are summarized in Fig 4.

Fig 4. Relative frequency of observations of different types of interspecies contacts between wild and domestic ruminants in Switzerland.

Fig 4

Proximity between species: 100% relates to all samples collected (information from respondents who did not report observations and lacking information due to non-reporting are not included in the graph). Colored bars indicate the following types of interactions: PC: physical contact; <50 m: encounter of <50 m; >50 m: encounter of >50 m; NS: non-simultaneous occupation of the same pasture.

Encounters involving both wildlife and domestic ungulates were reported for all four investigated wild ungulates in all possible categories. Encounters of <50m, >50m and the non-simultaneous occupation of the same pasture were reported more frequently with cattle and sheep than with goats and South American camelids.

For ibex and chamois more specifically, about a third of the respondents reported encounters of <50m and >50m with sheep as well as with cattle in ibex. Regarding chamois only, half of the respondents reported encounters of <50m and >50m with cattle. As for the non-simultaneous occupation of pastures, 11% of the respondents mentioned the use of pastures in wildlife habitat by cattle and 8% by sheep. Physical contact between ibex and domestic ungulates was not frequent and reported mainly with sheep and goats (8% of the respondents). For chamois, a similar percentage of physical contact was reported with sheep and goats (9%), as well as with cattle (8%). With reference to red deer, encounters of <50m (25%) and >50m (24%) were observed with cattle, and 4% of the respondents even reported physical contact between the two species. Regarding roe deer, patterns of encounters of <50m (23%) and >50m (14%) with cattle were similar to the observed interactions that were reported for red deer. The non-simultaneous occupation of the same pasture by deer and domestic ungulates was reported more frequently with cattle (red deer: 13%; roe deer: 6%) than with the other three domestic species.

Considering wild species only, interspecific interactions were reported mainly within the same taxonomic family, i.e. among caprids (ibex and chamois) and among cervids (roe deer and red deer). Interactions between red deer and chamois were also frequently reported and occasionally included physical contacts (5% of the respondents). By contrast, only a few interactions between ibex and cervids were reported, even though rare physical contacts between ibex and red deer (2%) were documented.

Focusing on positive samples, 83% of the submitters of the 28 red deer and the single roe deer samples positive for benign D. nodosus reported having observed direct or indirect contacts with deer and cattle in the sampling area. Regarding the single positive chamois, contacts among all wild and domestic ungulates, except domestic goats, were reported to have been observed in the sampling area. As concerns the four positive ibex, interspecies interactions were recorded only in the sampling area of two of them (both positive for the benign strain but without lesions), with all four domestic ungulates and with sheep only, respectively. As for the two ibex with severe footrot lesions, no information regarding interspecies interactions was provided.

Analysis of risk factors for infection with D. nodosus

For benign strains, univariable analysis indicated that the variables sex (male vs female), age (adult vs yearling and juvenile), species (ibex vs red deer, chamois and roe deer), and interspecies interactions in the sampling area (report vs no report) were somewhat associated with the detection of benign D. nodosus considering the threshold of p = 0.2 (Table 3).

Table 3. Univariable risk factor analysis for presence of benign Dichelobacter nodosus on wild ruminant feet.
Variables Tested/total (%) p-value OR95%
positive for benign D. nodosus negative for benign D. nodosus
Sex Female 12/807 (1.5%) 795/807 (98.5%) - Baseline
Male 24/961 (2.5%) 937/961 (97.5%) 0.138 1.69 (0.85–3.53)
Age Juvenile 8/167 (4.8%) 159/167 (95.2%) - Baseline
Yearling 6/245 (2.4%) 239/245 (97.6%) 0.205 0.49 (0.16–1.46)
Adult 21/1335 (1.6%) 1314/1335 (98.4%) 0.006 0.31 (0.14–0.77)
Species Ibex 3/589 (0.5%) 586/589 (99.5%) - Baseline
Red deer 31/408 (7.6%) 377/408 (92.4%) < 0.001 16.06 (5.68–67.24)
Chamois 1/410 (0.2%) 409/410 (99.8%) 0.523 0.47 (0.03–3.74)
Roe deer 1/409 (0.2%) 408/409 (99.8%) 0.524 0.47 (0.02–3.75)
††Contacts No report with cattle 5/254 (1.6%) 249/254 (98.4%) - Baseline
With cattle 26/751 (3.5%) 725/751 (96.5%) 0.240 1.78 (0.73–5.32)
No report with goats 7/387 (1.6%) 380/387 (98.4%) - Baseline
With goats 10/322 (3.1%) 312/322 (96.9%) 0.267 1.73 (0.66–4.84)
No report with ibex 1/107 (0.9%) 106/107 (99.1%) - Baseline
With ibex 7/99 (7.0%) 92/99 (93.0%) 0.052 4.01 (0.70–75.46)
No report with chamois 0/68 (0.00%) 68/68 (100%) 0.123 Inf.
With chamois 10/231 (4.3%) 221/231 (95.7%)
No report with roe deer 0/68 (0.00%) 68/68 (100%) 0.066 Inf.
With roe deer 10/189 (5.3%) 179/189 (94.7%)

Level of comparison.

††The variable “contacts” refers to reported interspecies interactions with wild and domestic ungulates (all D. nodosus positive wild animal species pooled) within a radius of 5km around the sampling location.

All factors with a p value < 0.2, except “interspecies contacts” due to the large number of missing values, were additionally tested in a multivariable analysis, which revealed that the species "red deer" was a significant risk factor for D. nodosus carriage (Table 4). The model showed that red deer were 13.84 times more likely to be carriers of benign strains than ibex (CI: 4.70–59.08, estimate: 2.6277, standard error: 0.6230, z-value: 4.218, Pr (|z|) = < 0.001***).

Table 4. Multivariable analysis of risk factors for infection with benign Dichelobacter nodosus in wild ungulates.
Variables p-value OR95%
Species Ibex Baseline -
Red deer <0.001 13.84 (4.70–59.08)
Chamois 0.514 0.47 (0.02–3.40)
Roe deer 0.463 0.46 (0.02–3.70)

Level of comparison.

In a further univariable analysis, the prevalence of infection in the four wild indigenous ruminants (all species pooled; this study) was compared to that found in sheep and cattle from the domestic ungulate study (Ardüser et al., 2019). The model revealed that compared to all indigenous wild ruminants both "cattle" and "sheep" were respectively 221.38 (95% CI 2.97–7.00) and 4.53 (95% CI 154.52–326.43) times more likely to carry benign strains of D. nodosus.

Discussion

In this study, the prevalence of D. nodosus in wild ungulates in Switzerland was assessed for the first time, more specifically in all four indigenous wild ruminant species. These results provide a baseline necessary for the planning of a nationwide footrot control program in domestic livestock in Switzerland. Although the number of investigated animals was too low to provide strong data on a local level (e.g. cantonal), the sample size fulfilled the criteria for prevalence estimation per species on a country level. The occurrence of interspecies interactions among wild and domestic ruminants in an Alpine environment was additionally documented. Importantly, the study was conducted in parallel to a nationwide survey of D. nodosus in possibly susceptible domestic livestock species (May until June 2017–2018) [14]. The comparison of these data together with the reported interspecies interactions is of crucial importance in providing information on disease dynamics at the wildlife-livestock interface. [32].

Dichelobacter nodosus-associated lesions

Two adult male Alpine ibex, the one infected with benign strains and the other with virulent strains, showed severe lesions consistent with footrot. These findings are in line with previous reports documenting that the presence of benign and virulent strains of D. nodosus can be associated with severe foot lesions in Alpine ibex that are comparable to typical lesions of footrot in sheep [1,4]. The classification into benign and virulent strains was developed in the framework of a study conducted in sheep [10,33] and may only be applicable to sheep. The occurrence of severe lesions associated with both groups of strains in ibex but not in other wild and domestic species suggests the existence of a species-specific difference in disease susceptibility, as it occurs for other pathogens such as Mycoplasma conjunctivae in wild (mostly with marked disease signs) vs domestic Caprinae (mostly without or with only mild signs) and Brucella abortus in North American elk (Cervus canadensis) and Bison (Bison bison) (with signs) vs cattle (without signs) [4,3436]. As for the other two Alpine ibex that were found positive for benign strains without reported foot lesions but were not sent for veterinary examination, it cannot be ruled out that they may have been in an early stage of infection. Nevertheless, it is not known whether infection with D. nodosus (benign and virulent) requires the contribution of other factors (e.g. severe traumatic foot lesions, reduced fitness of the animal, co-infection with other microorganisms) for lesions to develop.

Two red deer with reported foot lesions were tested positive for benign D. nodosus. Whether these lesions were footrot-like could not be confirmed because neither the affected feet nor photographs were submitted for veterinary evaluation. However, D. nodosus has already been isolated from sole ulcers in farmed red deer in New Zealand [35]. Although strain differentiation was not performed, it is likely that it was the benign type based on proteolytic effects observed in bacterial culture and because subsequent experimental infection of sheep resulted in the development of mild footrot lesions only. In cattle and free-ranging reindeer, foot diseases with similar clinical findings can involve pathogens such as Fusobacterium necrophorum (cattle and reindeer) and Treponema sp. (cattle) [3739]. Infection with Treponema sp. was also recently shown to be associated with a dramatic outbreak of severe foot lesions including osteomyelitis in free-ranging North American elk (Cervus canadensis) [4042]. Therefore, since all samples of the present study were tested via qPCR for the presence of D. nodosus only, we cannot exclude that other pathogens causing foot disease in domestic and wild ruminants may have been involved in the development of the observed lesions.

Interspecies interactions

Since only 68% of the respondents answered (partially or fully) the questions regarding interspecies interactions on the data sheet, and because wildlife is most often active at dawn or dusk [7,43,44], it is likely that the frequency and intensity of reported interactions was underestimated. Furthermore, these data rely on reports of numerous voluntary participants and mainly on memorized events. Therefore, the information provided may be biased due to a lack of reporting or to misreporting. Nevertheless, the observers were wildlife professionals and this method represents the only feasible and efficient way of recruiting such data on a large geographical scale. Importantly, the reported interspecies interactions at the wildlife/domestic animal interface were in agreement with previous findings [20,21]. The most frequent interactions between wild and domestic ungulates were involving cattle or sheep. This is not surprising as these two livestock species are by far the most common ones on alpine pastures. Such data are useful to understand the epidemiology of infectious diseases in natural habitats, which are shared during certain periods by multiple species, wild and domestic.

Identifying maintenance hosts

The present study revealed a very low prevalence of infection in all considered wild ungulate species. All prevalences calculated for wild species were significantly lower than those reported in both cattle (benign strains) and sheep (benign and virulent strains) [14]. There is no given threshold of prevalence to conclude that a pathogen is maintained in a population or not. Pathogen persistence in a population has been demonstrated to rely on the critical community size of a given population considering that the number of susceptible individuals does not drop under a certain threshold [45]. Nevertheless, in smaller wildlife populations, it has been previously reported that some infections agents can persist at low prevalence, provided that the pathogen can circulate between subpopulations of several species and that recurrent interspecific transmission occurs [34,46]. However, in the case of D. nodosus the difference in prevalence between wild and domestic ungulates is striking. Additional points to consider are: 1) the endemic disease status of the Swiss sheep population [3,14]; 2) the recently gained knowledge on the widespread occurrence of D. nodosus in asymptomatic livestock in Switzerland (88% of cattle positive for benign strains) [3,14]; 3) the much larger sizes of cattle and sheep populations compared to wild ungulate populations [25,47]; 4) the more continuous distribution of domestic than wild animals over the country (ibex in particular occur in fairly isolated colonies [25,41]; 5) the more frequent and intense intraspecific contacts among domestic animals and mixing of herds (grazing, shows, markets) and movements throughout the country (alpine summering, commercial exchanges); 6) the absence of healthy carriers for the virulent strain in wild ungulates; and 7) the reported interspecies interactions at the domestic animal/wildlife interface regarding mainly sheep and cattle. Therefore, taking into consideration the previously mentioned points together with the comparison of the wild and domestic ungulate study, the results suggest that sheep are maintenance hosts for both virulent and benign D. nodosus and cattle for benign strains only. Thus, both may represent the main source of infection for domestic and wild ungulates. By contrast, our results suggest that wild ruminants are occasional spillover hosts without epidemiological significance. Nevertheless, the sample size used in this study does not allow to exclude potential differences in prevalence of infection on a local level. For example, the occurrence of previous outbreaks of footrot in wildlife, wildlife population management and densities, frequency and intensity of interspecific interactions on summer pastures and livestock practices such as already existing sanitation programs (for virulent strains) are all factors that likely vary among regions.

Regarding benign strains, infections were detected in at least one animal per wild ungulate species, with red deer showing the highest prevalence of infection (TP 6.08%). Risk factor analysis indicated that red deer are at a significantly higher risk of being carriers of benign D. nodosus than ibex, chamois and roe deer. This is in line with the fact that interspecies interactions involving red deer are most commonly observed with cattle (this study; 20) and that the prevalence of benign D. nodosus is highest in cattle (AP 83.3%; [14]. Therefore, cattle may act as source of infection for susceptible wild ungulates, as previously suspected [4]. Nevertheless, further molecular studies are needed to univocally prove that interspecies transmission of D. nodosus occurs between wildlife and domestic livestock. Since the upcoming nationwide control program will only focus on virulent D. nodosus in sheep, it is unclear whether it will influence the prevalence of benign D. nodosus in any species, i.e. the control program is not expected to significantly decrease the risk of footrot outbreaks caused by the benign strain of D. nodosus in ibex populations in the future.

Conclusion

This study delivers crucial information for the design of the upcoming nationwide control program of virulent D. nodosus in sheep. Furthermore, the simultaneous, harmonized investigation of both wild and domestic species contributes to a better understanding of the epidemiology of footrot in Switzerland. This will help targeting disease prevention measures, as it revealed that combatting virulent strains does not need specific wildlife management measures. The obtained data suggest that infections in wild ruminants are sporadic despite the high prevalence of infection in sheep and cattle, and despite the widespread occurrence of interactions between wildlife and livestock. Overall, wildlife seems to be an incidental spillover host and not a maintenance host that may infect healthy sheep or re-infect sanitized herds. Since footrot lesions in ibex were also associated with benign strains and the upcoming control program will only focus on virulent strains in sheep, this program is expected to only partially influence disease occurrence in ibex in the future, especially when taking into consideration the high prevalence of benign D. nodosus in the Swiss cattle population. Further research is needed to evaluate the impact of footrot in ibex and assess whether it would be appropriate to take disease management actions to prevent outbreaks.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Cantons with PCR positive animals.

Estimated true**/apparent* prevalence of D. nodosus, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals indicated in parentheses and number of tested animals.

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to all game wardens, hunters and cantonal hunting inspectors who contributed to sample collection. We also thank all students and FIWI collaborators, especially Stefania Vannetti and Simone Pisano, for their contributions to sample collection and processing. Many thanks go to the staff of the Institute of Bacteriology, especially Simon Feyer and Anita Jaussi, for their contributions to laboratory analyses.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This study was financially supported by a grant of the Swiss Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office (www.blv.admin.ch) together with the hunting authorities of the cantons of Fribourg, Grisons, Ticino, Schwyz and Nidwalden to MPRD and PZ (principal investigators), SD, SG, AS (grant Nr. 1.17.05). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Belloy L, Giacometti M, Boujon P, Waldvogel A. Detection of Dichelobacter nodosus in wild ungulates (Capra ibex ibex and Ovis aries musimon) and domestic sheep suffering from foot rot using a two-step polymerase chain reaction. J Wildl Dis. 2007. January 1;43(1):82–8. 10.7589/0090-3558-43.1.82 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Rogdo T, Hektoen L, Slettemeås J, Jørgensen H, Østerås O, Fjeldaas T. Possible cross-infection of Dichelobacter nodosus between co-grazing sheep and cattle. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica. 2012;54(1):19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Zingg D, Steinbach S, Kuhlgatz C, Rediger M, Schüpbach-Regula G, Aepli M, et al. Epidemiological and economic evaluation of alternative on-farm management Scenarios for ovine footrot in Switzerland. Front Vet Sci [Internet]. 2017. [cited 2017 Sep 26];4 Available from: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fvets.2017.00070/full [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Wimmershoff J, Ryser-Degiorgis M, Marreros N, Frey J, Romanens P, Gendron K, et al. Outbreak of severe foot rot associated with benign Dichelobacter nodosus in an Alpine ibex colony in the Swiss Prealps. Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd. 2015. May 5;157(5):277–84. 10.17236/sat00021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Delétraz C. Le piétin chez les ongulés sauvages: Etude clinique et épidémiologique chez le bouquetin des Alpes. DVM Thesis, Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire de Lyon, Lyon, France. 2002;
  • 6.Volmer K, Hecht W, Weiß R, Grauheding D. Treatment of foot rot in free-ranging mouflon (Ovis gmelini musimon) populations—does it make sense? Eur J Wildl Res. 2008. October 1;54(4):657–65. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Meile P, Giacometti M, Ratti P. Der Steinbock: Biologie und Jagd. Salm; 2003. 269 p. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kennan RM, Han X, Porter CJ, Rood JI. The pathogenesis of ovine footrot. Vet Microbiol. 2011. November;153(1–2):59–66. 10.1016/j.vetmic.2011.04.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Frosth S, König U, Nyman A-K, Pringle M, Aspán A. Characterisation of Dichelobacter nodosus and detection of Fusobacterium necrophorum and Treponema spp. in sheep with different clinical manifestations of footrot. Vet Microbiol. 2015. August;179(1–2):82–90. 10.1016/j.vetmic.2015.02.034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Stäuble A, Steiner A, Normand L, Kuhnert P, Frey J. Molecular genetic analysis of Dichelobacter nodosus proteases AprV2/B2, AprV5/B5 and BprV/B in clinical material from European sheep flocks. Vet Microbiol. 2014. January;168(1):177–84. 10.1016/j.vetmic.2013.11.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Green LE, George TRN. Assessment of current knowledge of footrot in sheep with particular reference to Dichelobacter nodosus and implications for elimination or control strategies for sheep in Great Britain. Vet J. 2008. February 1;175(2):173–80. 10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.01.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Knappe-Poindecker M, Gilhuus M, Jensen TK, Vatn S, Jørgensen HJ, Fjeldaas T. Cross-infection of virulent Dichelobacter nodosus between sheep and co-grazing cattle. Vet Microbiol. 2014. June;170(3–4):375–82. 10.1016/j.vetmic.2014.02.044 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Jubb, Kennedy & Palmer’s Pathology of Domestic Animals: Volume 1 [Internet]. Elsevier; 2016. [cited 2019 Feb 19]. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/C20120007910 [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ardüser F, Moore-Jones G, Gobeli Brawand S, Dürr S, Steiner A, Ryser-Degiorgis M-P, et al. Dichelobacter nodosus in sheep, cattle, goats and South American camelids in Switzerland-Assessing prevalence in potential hosts in order to design targeted disease control measures. Prev Vet Med. 2019. May 6;104688. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Zuba JR. Hoof disorders in nondomestic artiodactylids In: Fowler’s Zoo and Wild Animal Medicine [Internet]. Elsevier; 2012. [cited 2019 Feb 19]. p. 619–27. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B9781437719864000809 [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Witcomb LA, Green LE, Kaler J, Ul-Hassan A, Calvo-Bado LA, Medley GF, et al. A longitudinal study of the role of Dichelobacter nodosus and Fusobacterium necrophorum load in initiation and severity of footrot in sheep. Prev Vet Med. 2014. July 1;115(1–2):48–55. 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2014.03.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Egerton JR, Roberts DS. Vaccination against ovine foot-rot. J Comp Path. 1971. April;81(2):179–85. 10.1016/0021-9975(71)90091-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Locher I, Greber D, Holdener K, Lüchinger R, Haerdi-Landerer C, Schüpbach-Regula G, et al. Longitudinal Dichelobacter nodosus status in 9 sheep flocks free from clinical footrot. Small Rumin Res. 2015. November;132:128–32. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ryser-Degiorgis M-P, Bischof DF, Marreros N, Willisch C, Signer C, Filli F, et al. Detection of Mycoplasma conjunctivae in the eyes of healthy, free-ranging Alpine ibex: possible involvement of Alpine ibex as carriers for the main causing agent of infectious keratoconjunctivitis in wild Caprinae. Vet Microbiol. 2009. March 2;134(3–4):368–74. 10.1016/j.vetmic.2008.08.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ryser-Degiorgis M-P, Ingold P, Tenhu H, Less AMT, Ryser A, Giacometti M. Encounters between Alpine ibex, Alpine chamois and domestic sheep in the Swiss Alps. Hystrix Int J Mamm [Internet]. 2002. December 20 [cited 2018 Jul 17];13(1–2). Available from: http://www.italian-journal-of-mammalogy.it/Encounters-between-Alpine-ibex-Alpine-chamois-and-domestic-sheep-in-the-Swiss-Alps,77615,0,2.html [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Casaubon J, Vogt H-R, Stalder H, Hug C, Ryser-Degiorgis M-P. Bovine viral diarrhea virus in free-ranging wild ruminants in Switzerland: low prevalence of infection despite regular interactions with domestic livestock. BMC Vet Res. 2012. October 29;8:204 10.1186/1746-6148-8-204 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.2013_nutztiere_schlussbericht.pdf [Internet]. [cited 2019 Feb 19]. http://www.alpfutur.ch/src/2013_nutztiere_schlussbericht.pdf
  • 23.Gortazar C, Diez-Delgado I, Barasona JA, Vicente J, De La Fuente J, Boadella M. The wild side of disease control at the wildlife-livestock-human interface: a review. Front Vet Sci [Internet]. 2015. January 14 [cited 2017 Nov 13];1 Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4668863/ [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Sonnenburg J, Ryser-Degiorgis M-P, Kuiken T, Ferroglio E, Ulrich RG, et al. Harmonizing methods for wildlife abundance estimation and pathogen detection in Europe—a questionnaire survey on three selected host-pathogen combinations. BMC Vet Res [Internet]. 2016. December [cited 2018 Oct 7];13(1). Available from: http://bmcvetres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12917-016-0935-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Jagdstatistik [Internet]. [cited 2019 Jun 20]. https://www.uzh.ch/wild/static/jagdstatistik/?page=wildtiere&dt=1&gr=1&tr=1&th=1&ca=CH&co=CH&caco=1&ys=2009&ye=2016&lang=de
  • 26.Greber D, Locher I, Kuhnert P, Butty M-A, Holdener K, Frey J, et al. Pooling of interdigital swab samples for PCR detection of virulent Dichelobacter nodosus. J of Vet Diagn Invest. 2018. March;30(2):205–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Stewart DJ, Claxton PD. Ovine footrot. Clinical diagnosis and bacteriology. Australian Standard Diagnostic Techniques for Animal Diseases. LA Corner and TJ Bagust. Melbourne, Standing Committee on Agriculture and Resource Management Sub-committee on Animal Health Laboratory Standards. CSIRO; 1993.
  • 28.Reimoser F, Duscher T, Duscher A, Jenny H, Nigsh N. Rothirsch im Rätikon–drei Länder, drei Jagdsysteme, eine Wildart Hohenems: Vorarlberger Jägerschaft, Amt für Umwelt Fürstentum Liechtenstein, Amt für Jagd und Fischerei Graubünden; 2015; [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Andersen R, Duncan P, Linnell JDC. The European roe deer: the biology of success. Scandinavian University Press; 1998. 384 p. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Baumann M, Muggli J, Thiel D, Thiel-Egenter C, Thürig M, Volery P, et al. Jagen in der Schweiz; Auf dem Weg zur Jagdprüfung. Salm Verlag, Wohlen; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Rogan WJ, Gladen B. Estimating prevalence from the results of a screening test. Am J Epidemiol. 1978. January;107(1):71–6. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a112510 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Martin C, Pastoret P-P, Brochier B, Humblet M-F, Saegerman C. A survey of the transmission of infectious diseases/infections between wild and domestic ungulates in Europe. Vet Res. 2011;42(1):70. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Niggeler A, Tetens J, Stäuble A, Steiner A, Drögemüller C. A genome-wide significant association on chromosome 2 for footrot resistance/susceptibility in Swiss white Alpine sheep. Anima Genet. 2017;48(6):712–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Gelormini et al. Infectious keratoconjunctivitis in wild Caprinae: merging field observations and molecular analyses sheds light on factors shaping outbreak dynamics | BMC Vet Res | Full Text [Internet]. [cited 2019 Jun 3]. Available from: https://bmcvetres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12917-017-0972-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Godfroid J. Brucella spp. at the wildlife-livestock interface: an evolutionary trajectory through a livestock-to-wildlife “host jump”? Vet Sci [Internet]. 2018. September 18 [cited 2019 May 24];5(3). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6165296/ [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Olsen SC, Johnson C. Comparison of abortion and infection after experimental challenge of pregnant bison and cattle with Brucella abortus strain 2308. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2011. December 1;18(12):2075–8. 10.1128/CVI.05383-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Klitgaard K, Boye M, Capion N, Jensen TK. Evidence of multiple Treponema phylotypes involved in bovine digital dermatitis as shown by 16S rRNA gene analysis and fluorescence in situ hybridization. J Clin Microbiol. 2008. September;46(9):3012–20. 10.1128/JCM.00670-08 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Nielsen MW, Strube ML, Isbrand A, Al-Medrasi WDHM, Boye M, Jensen TK, et al. Potential bacterial core species associated with digital dermatitis in cattle herds identified by molecular profiling of interdigital skin samples. Vet Microbiol. 2016. April;186:139–49. 10.1016/j.vetmic.2016.03.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Handeland K, Boye M, Bergsjø B, Bondal H, Isaksen K, Agerholm JS. Digital necrobacillosis in Norwegian wild tundra reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarandus). J Comp Pathol. 2010. July 1;143(1):29–38. 10.1016/j.jcpa.2009.12.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Clegg SR, Mansfield KG, Newbrook K, Sullivan LE, Blowey RW, Carter SD, et al. Isolation of digital dermatitis treponemes from hoof lesions in wild North American elk (Cervus elaphus) in Washington State, USA. Fenwick BW, editor. J Clin Microbiol. 2015. January;53(1):88–94. 10.1128/JCM.02276-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Han S, Mansfield KG. Severe hoof disease in free-ranging Roosevelt elk (Cervus elaphus roosevelti) in southwestern Washington, USA. J Wildl Dis. 2014. April;50(2):259–70. 10.7589/2013-07-163 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Han S, Mansfield KG, Bradway DS, Besser TE, Read DH, Haldorson GJ, et al. Treponeme-Associated Hoof Disease of Free-Ranging Elk (Cervus elaphus) in Southwestern Washington State, USA. Vet Pathol. 2019;56(1):118–32. 10.1177/0300985818798108 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Cederlund Göran. Activity patterns in moose and roe deer in a north boreal forest. Holarctic Ecology. 1989;12(1):39–45. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Georgii B, Schröder W. Home range and activity patterns of male red deer (Cervus elaphus L.) in the Alps. Oecologia. 1983. May;58(2):238–48. 10.1007/BF00399224 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Bartlett MS. Measles periodicity and community size. J R Stat Soc A. 1957;120(1):48–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Almberg ES, Cross PC, Smith DW. Persistence of canine distemper virus in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem’s carnivore community. Ecol Appl. 2010;20(7):2058–74. 10.1890/09-1225.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Schweizer Bauernverband—der Dachverband der Schweizer Landwirtschaft—Schweizer Bauernverband [Internet]. [cited 2019 Jun 21]. https://www.sbv-usp.ch/de/

Decision Letter 0

Simon Russell Clegg

9 Aug 2019

PONE-D-19-18147

Identifying maintenance hosts and risk factors for infection with Dichelobacter nodosus in free-ranging wild ruminants in Switzerland: a prevalence study

PLOS ONE

Dear Prof. Ryser-Degiorgis,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Many thanks for submitting your interesting article to PLOS One

It was reviewed by two expert reviewers, and major revisions were recommended

Both reviewers made some very useful comments to aid revision

Please provide a detailed rebuttal to reviewers comments and then the revised manuscript will be sent back to the same two reviewers

Wishing you the best of luck with your modifications

Many thanks

Simon

  •  

==============================

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Sep 23 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable 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. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled '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.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Simon Russell Clegg, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a very interesting, well written paper which investigates the risk of the footrot bacteria, Dichelobacter nodosus on wild populations of ruminants in Switzerland. Using PCR assays, the authors show a low level of infection, and link this to a previous study of farmed animals.

Although the paper is very well written, I have a few minor comments, mainly grammatical, and a few questions which I thought of during reading the paper.

None of my comments are particularly major, nor do I feel too strongly over any, so if you disagree with any of them, then please just say.

Abstract

Line 17- D. nodosus in brackets isn’t needed. This is common bacterial nomenclature

Line 19, comma after (Capra ibex)

Line 19- fatal lesions? Can you be sure that the foot lesions killed the animal? Maybe remove it as this sounds a bit strange.

Line 19, add a comma after ‘In Switzerland’

You also refer to the benign and virulent strain throughout. It is my understanding that there are a variety of subtypes/ strains which are virulent, and others which are benign. Maybe this need some clarification within the document?

Introduction

Line 42-44. You discuss previous infection of other free ranging ruminants. It may be useful to state where in the world this was, as if it was local to Switzerland, then it may be beneficial to your study.

Line 44-46- I presume that the lame animals would be subject to increased predation? This maybe worth discussing as I am not sure what predators are seen in Switzerland. This may remove the number of lame animals by predation.

Line 49- D. nodosus in brackets isn’t needed. This is common bacterial nomenclature

Line 52. Comma needed between ibex and the

Line 56 ‘animal-individual’ is a bit unclear. Maybe you could reword it?

Line 74-75 – Sporadic character sounds slightly unusual. Maybe consider rewording?

Line 90 It may be helpful to state the four different wild ruminants here.

Line 92-94- not sure that this is needed.

Materials and methods

Line 56- Make it materials and methods

Line 99- You mention the use of dead animals. Would you know how long they had been dead for? I only ask as this may affect colonisation of the feet by the pathogens. If you have the data for the dead animals, would it be possible to analyse the prevalence in these animals to ascertain if death is an issue in skewing the results? I doubt it will be, but worth a look.

Line 100- You use the phrase including roe deer, red deer etc…. In reality I think this isn’t including, it is limited to as you only test the 4 different wild animals

Lines 155-157. This is a methodology I have not encountered before in my footrot work. Is there a risk that you are diluting out the bacteria on a swab from foot one by rubbing it onto other feet? Just wondered how accurate that method was? (doesn’t mean a change on the manuscript, more a question out of interest)

And did this methodology change when a lesion was seen to prevent spreading the bacteria, or equally to prevent losing it?

Line 160. You mention that it involves storage and transportation without cooling? How does that work when it is only put into a lysis buffer? Is it that you try to keep it temperature stable?

Lines 162- 173 I would say should be in the results section

Line 178- is it possible to state the PCR reagents so anyone else could follow it?

Line 190-191- You mention the apparent and true prevalence. Could you please define what these are?

Lines 194-195- the equation looks to be in a different type font

Results

Line 213- you mention severe clinical signs. Could you mention what these were? Or direct the reader to where they are mentioned as I believe they are mentioned further on in the document.

Lines 213-216. Again, it would be nice to know if any clinical signs were seen here, or point the reader to where this is discussed

Figure 1 legend. Line 222. I am not sure what you mean by the relief?

Within the results there are a lot of images and tables which are very close together. Some narrative between these may make it easier to follow (although this may change with editing).

In table 1a, the virulent column doesn’t really say much as many of the results are negative. Is this column worthwhile? Happy to be led by you, if you feel that you want it to stay then I wont argue with you.

The legends for table 1a and 1b would benefit from a bit more detail as to what the tables show. Also please define what SAC means in table 1b.

Line 241. A comma between S1 table) and all may aid flow here

Line 249, again, a comma between red deer and positive would aid flow.

Line 256, benign strain presented with severe

Line 264. Front feet of an ibex which was/ were positive. Alternatively a comma would suffice

And line 266- hind feet of an ibex which were positive. Alternatively a comma would suffice

Line 269- You discuss interspecies interactions. How clear would this be? Is it obvious and noticeable when they interact, or is it more that the animals were found in the same area? I think it is very interesting, but just want to try and understand it a little more.

Line 282 and 283. You mention small domestic ruminants. Do you mean cattle and sheep here? Or others too? Could you be more specific?

Line 283-284- As concerns seems slightly strange wording. Maybe with reference to?

Line 288. You switch her to domestic ungulates? Could you stick to the same terms as used previously, and maybe specific sheep and cattle, or others. Or even a link to table 1b may be useful?

Line 293- physical contacts. How do you define this?

Line 299. A pair of commas around except domestic goats, maybe help flow here

Line 317- what made you choose a cut off value of 0.2?

Table 2. If you could merge the top two lines where possible it would make the table clearer

Also it is clearer and more helpful not to leave gaps in the table, maybe an N/A would be more beneficial?

Line 330, you mentioned the species red deer- is that being of that species or encountering it?

Table 3. Maybe discuss in the legend what you mean by baseline?

Discussion

Line 256. A full stop is needed between livestock species, and The comparison

Line 361- Insertion of strain after the word benign may aid reading

Line 372- ‘As for the other two Alpine ibex that harboured the benign strain’ This sounds a bit colloquial. Maybe consider rewording.

Lines 382-389- you discuss the potential involvement of Treponema species. The academic editor handling this manuscript is an expert in Treponema species, so it maybe worth a discussion with him to see if he would be willing to run the samples for you as a collaboration to further this work? Just a thought

Line 400- maybe be biased? But how?

Line 400. You discuss the interactions, but would the presence of people (possibly hunters) affect this?

Line 404. You talk about interactions mainly being with cattle and sheep- but is this not due to the fact that these are the most abundant animals?

Line 412-415- I read this a few times, but never fully understood what you were trying to say. Maybe consider rewording it?

Line 419- comma after nodosus would aid reading flow.

Line 434- avoid the use of our.

Line 457- does not necessitate to involve wildlife doesn’t seem to make sense, and is unclear- consider rewording

Line 458- you use prevalence previously to be plural, so I would avoid prevalence’s

Line 461- what do you mean by a sanitised herd?

Figure 1 and 2. Would it be possible to combine these? Possibly by using a thicker black border around the circles which appear on both figures?

The graphs are a little unclear- but that may just be my print out

I hope my comments are useful and helpful for you.

Many thanks for the opportunity to review this paper

Reviewer #2: A manuscript entitled “Identifying maintenance hosts and risk factors for infection with Dichelobacter nodosus in free-ranging wild ruminants in Switzerland: a prevalence study” had the goal of identifying cases of benign and virulent D. nodosus in common wild ungulates.

Strengths: The authors report the PCR results of 1821 sampled wild ungulates collected between 2017-2018, which is an impressive number of animals representing the most common wild ungulates with ranges covering most of Switzerland, and in a short enough time period, such that results likely reflect the general overall trend of this organism. The number of species sampled were mostly balanced. The method of foot swabbing, field preservation and D. nodosus PCR has been well elaborated in previous publications and was likely effective. Authors were able to deduce that prevalence of D. nodosus was very low in wild ungulates despite common wild -domestic ungulate interface in most of the regions sampled. This is novel and valuable information and timely as Switzerland moves to report and control virulent D. nodosus in domestic livestock. This work was done in parallel with similar published work on domestic livestock, which strongly demonstrates that domestic livestock prevalence of D. nodosus is common and significant in comparison to wild ungulates.

Weaknesses:

• The title suggests that “risk factors” for Footrot in non-domestic ungulates will be evaluated, though risk factors are only loosely suggested in the text with no data in the study design to make an observation or conclusion as to risk. If this is meant to broadly encompass domestic-wild population interface, this should be worded differently.

• This manuscript relies heavily on observations and sample collection using untrained participants. This is worrisome for accuracy of specimens (were negative swabs truly negative cases?) and overall identification and interpretation of lesions, especially early lesions. This is particularly of concern when detailing wild – domestic animal interface, which was determined entirely from historic memory of untrained participants. The weaknesses of this data are well detailed by the authors in a paragraph starting Ln 395, and the authors should be careful to draw conclusions about transmission between livestock and wildlife, Ln 446. Further molecular work may need to be done comparing ibex and cattle / sheep isolates to make these conclusions.

• Authors attempt to correlate gross and lack of gross lesions with PCR results in wild ungulates but rely mostly on participants reports and a very small subset of feet submitted for professional evaluation. This limitation should be considered throughout the text when discussing the relevance of species contact.

• Discussion of pathogenesis and progression of foot lesions is not appropriate from the small subset of feet attained and is also not within the stated scope of the manuscript. The gross ibex foot lesions demonstrated are impressive and similar to that described by Wimmershoff et al 2015, but are these caused by D. nodosus? Histopathology, a larger subset of hooves representing various degrees of disease, along with a more detailed analysis of associated microorganisms would be necessary to call these primary D. nodosus lesions. D. nodosus associated? Please keep this deficit of information in mind when discussing disease development.

• There is no mention of season of data collection and particularly seasonal correlation with positive D. nodosus cases in wildlife, though this would likely have an influence in disease occurrence and progression. Could this be determined from the data?

• This study was done in parallel with a similar published study in domestic livestock. Where there is spacial overlap of wild D. nodosus cases with positive domestic cases, would it be possible to perform more detailed molecular work (sequencing, etc.) comparing the wild and domestic D. nodosus to demonstrate or exclude the possibility of a shared microorganism passing from domestic animals to wildlife?

Below are addition comments:

Ln 16 Footrot is a disease of feet and not specifically the hoof. Unless the lesion is being described only within the structures of the hoof, these references should be changed to foot / feet.

Ln 18, 51, 256 Please add …presenting “with” mild and …..

Ln 19 The sentence starting “In Switzerland..” seems out of place, as no correlation is established in the abstract between Ibex and domestic sheep. The abstract needs to be organized so that this information falls into logical place and leads to why wild ruminants are to be examined.

Ln 21 Please clearly note if “maintenance hosts” are wild or domestic or both, and if “sheep” are domestic or wild.

Ln 31 This appears a big jump to implement domestic animals as the cause of disease in wild animals. That was not the focus of the study and appears to be something that would need to be proven under controlled lab conditions and with specific molecular work to prove identical type stains. Noting that there is a low incidence of wild carriers and results in severe disease in wild hoofstock appears more in line with the aims and outline work, at least in the abstract.

Ln 45 Please change to “practical”

Ln 51 Introduce the molecular or other difference between “benign” and “virulent” strains here. How do you differentiate these organisms.

Ln 56 How does co-infection play into D. nodosus infection and susceptibility in domestic animals? This would be appropriate to discuss here.

Ln 72 Replace “of them” with “hoof stock”

Ln 131 Do the authors have a sense of reproducibility and agreement on lesion scoring, description and swabbing technique between game wardens, hunters, etc.? If so, please note how that agreement was determined. My experience is that there is a very big difference between lesion grading done by biologists, lay people and veterinarians and particularly with interpretation of early lesions. Were wardens and hunters trained in appropriate swabbing and handling techniques? If not, could this have confounded the findings? Explain.

Ln 134 Was season taken into account for sampled collected? Was this information recorded? It seems environmental conditions would play importantly into risk of foot rot and general overall health of the animal.

Ln 138 How were affected feet submitted? What was time elapsed between collection and receipt in the lab and how were the feet handed / analyzed once in the lab?

Ln 139 Is this a historical report generated by the participant? Over what period of time are these observations of a 5 km radius representing? At the time of animal collection? Over what season?

Ln 229, 237 These table legends should stand alone and clearly delineate these as Swiss wildlife and domestic ungulates, and the period for which the data was collected. Are these domestic ungulate results taken in the same time interval as wildlife? This will be important to state or explain how different time points are comparable.

Ln 256 Were gross feet available to the authors in all cases with positive D. nodosus PCR? Or is this statement based on participant reports?

Ln 263 Were cases only evaluated by PCR for D. nodosus with gross examination of a small subset of cases with lesions?

Ln 264 These are impressive gross lesions. For the outlined study, finding of D. nodosus and specifically the virulent strain is important, but what other organisms are associated with this lesion? Treponema? Fusobacterium? Most foot diseases are far more complex than a single microorganism. Perhaps beyond the scope of this article, but it would be nice to see representative sections of this lesion histologically and perhaps demonstrating the microorganism and any associated pathogens. What time of year was this animal collected? Were there other conditions found on processing the cadavers?

Ln 269 The observations by participants is helpful, but could there not be structured information by trained wardens / biologists to more objectively report wild and domestic animal interface in these cantons? Clarify here as well, during what time period and season are these observations taken? Make sure that abbreviations are decoded in a foot note on all figures and tables and that titles and legends are descriptive sufficiently so that the items can stand alone when read separate from the text.

Ln 386 This citation should include Treponema associated hoof disease in free-ranging elk Vet Pathol 2019.

Ln 390 Since this work evaluated a one-time PCR for D. nodosus with no controlled gross observations and missing data on subjects, it does not seem appropriate to discuss pathogenesis and progression of D. nodosus lesions in ibex.

**********

6. 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

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

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. Registration is free. 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. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Jan 9;15(1):e0219805. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219805.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


27 Sep 2019

We sincerely thank the two reviewers for their thorough assessment of our manuscript. We have carefully considered all their comments and believe that the manuscript has improved. We would like to point out that the answers to the reviewer's comments refer to the manuscript without track changes.

Reviewer #1:

This is a very interesting, well written paper which investigates the risk of the footrot bacteria, Dichelobacter nodosus on wild populations of ruminants in Switzerland. Using PCR assays, the authors show a low level of infection, and link this to a previous study of farmed animals.

Although the paper is very well written, I have a few minor comments, mainly grammatical, and a few questions which I thought of during reading the paper.

None of my comments are particularly major, nor do I feel too strongly over any, so if you disagree with any of them, then please just say.

I hope my comments are useful and helpful for you.

Many thanks for the opportunity to review this paper.

1) Line 17- D. nodosus in brackets isn’t needed. This is common bacterial nomenclature

Ans: Done.

2) Line 19, comma after (Capra ibex)

Ans: Done.

3) Line 19- fatal lesions? Can you be sure that the foot lesions killed the animal? Maybe remove it as

this sounds a bit strange.

Ans: Field observations have shown that impairment in movement in these free ranging wild ruminants means that their spatial movement is strongly reduced as they end moving on their carpal joints or stay still. Thus, their foraging abilities are reduced as well. If they are not found dead (e.g. in avalanches), they are mostly shot by game wardens for animal welfare reasons. Therefore, we think that underlying the fact that these lesions have serious consequences is important but we have re-worded the sentence.

4) Line 19, add a comma after ‘In Switzerland’

Ans: Done.

5) You also refer to the benign and virulent strain throughout. It is my understanding that there are a variety of subtypes/ strains which are virulent, and others which are benign. Maybe this need some clarification within the document?

We have added extra clarification in the introduction .

Line 48-52 " In sheep, mild and severe clinical forms of footrot have been shown to be associated with the presence of strains of D. nodosus carrying either the AprB2 or AprV2 genes, respectively, which encode for the subtilisin-like extracellular proteases playing a key role as virulence factors (8,10), thus referred to as “benign” and “virulent”. Indeed, in both cases (mild and severe), it is a group of strains and not a single strain each. " We adapted the manuscript as appropriate, i.e. replacing “strain” by “strains” or “strain group/type”.

6) Line 42-44. You discuss previous infection of other free ranging ruminants. It may be useful to state where in the world this was, as if it was local to Switzerland, then it may be beneficial to your study.

Ans: The manuscript was adapted accordingly.

7) Line 44-46- I presume that the lame animals would be subject to increased predation? This maybe worth discussing as I am not sure what predators are seen in Switzerland. This may remove the number of lame animals by predation.

Ans: So far, predation on ibex in Switzerland has been limited to juveniles attacked by eagles or lynx. Of course, it may well be that not all animals with lesions were found. This issue is inherent in all investigations on free-ranging wildlife. Nevertheless, the main population of interest for this prevalence study consisted in non-affected animals (potential healthy carriers).

8) Line 49- D. nodosus in brackets isn’t needed. This is common bacterial nomenclature

Ans: Done.

9) Line 52. Comma needed between ibex and the

Ans: Done.

10) Line 56 ‘animal-individual’ is a bit unclear. Maybe you could reword it?

Ans: Done.

11) Line 74-75 – Sporadic character sounds slightly unusual. Maybe consider rewording?

Ans: Done ("sporadic occurrence" instead of sporadic character)

12) Line 90 It may be helpful to state the four different wild ruminants here.

Ans: Done.

13) Line 92-94- not sure that this is needed.

Ans: Since the other reviewer did not suggest removing this section, we would prefer to keep our work hypothesis here.

14) Line 56- Make it materials and methods

Ans: Done.

15) Line 99- You mention the use of dead animals. Would you know how long they had been dead for? I only ask as this may affect colonisation of the feet by the pathogens. If you have the data for the dead animals, would it be possible to analyse the prevalence in these animals to ascertain if death is an issue in skewing the results? I doubt it will be, but worth a look.

Ans: Regarding animals found dead, it would not be possible to find out how long the animals have been dead for. This may have affected D. nodosus survival but as PCR detect bacterial DNA (even if bacteria are dead), this should not have affected the PCR results. Hunted animals (the large majority of our samples) were sampled right after death. We verified the difference in prevalence between animals found dead and animals that were shot. Out of 1821 sampled animals, 1632 (89%) were shot and 121 (6.6 %) were found dead. For 68 (4.4%) animals, this information was not given. A comparison was not possible in ibex as only 3 animals were positive for the benign strain (all shot). A potential difference could only be tested for red deer, in which the prevalence of D. nodosus was 15.4% (2/13) in animals found dead and 7.7% (29/376) in animals that were shot. No statistical significant difference was found (p value = 0.327; CI =2. (0.3- 8.6) between these two groups.

16) Line 100- You use the phrase including roe deer, red deer etc…. In reality I think this isn’t including, it is limited to as you only test the 4 different wild animals

Ans: We reworded the sentence as follows:

Line 112-113: "Species of interest were indigenous free-ranging wild ruminants (roe deer, red deer, chamois and ibex)."

17) Lines 155-157. This is a methodology I have not encountered before in my footrot work. Is there a risk that you are diluting out the bacteria on a swab from foot one by rubbing it onto other feet? Just wondered how accurate that method was? (doesn’t mean a change on the manuscript, more a question out of interest)

And did this methodology change when a lesion was seen to prevent spreading the bacteria, or equally to prevent losing it?

Ans: The methodology we used has been previously described in a study conducted in Switzerland (Greber et. Al 2018, Pooling of interdigital swab samples for PCR detection of virulent D. nodosus). This study compared sampling individual feet to a 4-feet sample as done in our study. The results of Greber et al. show that with the 4-feet sample the sensitivity and specificity for the detection of aprV2 were 93.8% and 98.3, respectively. Wildlife samples were taken on dead animals only (found dead or shot), therefore a potential spreading of the bacteria during sampling was irrelevant. A loss of bacteria was possible but instructions were provided to sample the healthy feet first and since animals with observed footrot like lesions were all PCR-positive, the sampling procedure does not seem to have interfered with the results.

18) Line 160. You mention that it involves storage and transportation without cooling? How does that work when it is only put into a lysis buffer? Is it that you try to keep it temperature stable?

Ans: We used the method described in a previous study conducted at our Faculty (Stäuble et. al 2014; Molecular genetic analysis of Dichelobacter nodosus proteases AprV2/B2, AprV5/B5 and BprV/B in clinical material from European sheep flocks). Before shipment of the material to the field partners, the tubes with lysis buffer were kept away from sunlight and the sampling protocol stated that the samples should be sent back no later than 2 weeks after sampling, and that until then the samples should be stored at refrigerator temperature. Transportation back to our laboratory was done without cooling, since components of the buffer solution allow for a stabilization of the DNA without cooling requirement.

19) Lines 162- 173 I would say should be in the results section

Ans: We prefer to leave this text in the Materials and Methods section since this was the material collected for testing, and not results of analyzes. Since the other reviewer did not have any objections to where this section is placed, we left the text as it was.

20) Line 178- is it possible to state the PCR reagents so anyone else could follow it?

Ans: We chose not to list all the reagents needed for the PCR to avoid the manuscript to become lengthy and distract the reader from the focus of the article. Detailed information can be found in the paper of Stäuble, et. al (2014, Molecular genetic analysis of Dichelobacter nodosus proteases AprV2/B2, AprV5/B5 and BprV/B in clinical material from European sheep flocks. Veterinary Microbiology) which is indicated as a reference and lists all the details concerning the molecular biological procedures needed to perform the Real Time PCR to detect D. nodosus.

21) Line 190-191- You mention the apparent and true prevalence. Could you please define what these are?

Ans:

1) The apparent prevalence is the proportion of animals from a representative sample of the population that are positive to the diagnostic method used. It does not consider non-perfect test characteristics (i.e. sensitivity and specificity below 100%).

2) The true prevalence is the prevalence obtained from the apparent prevalence after correction considering the non-perfect diagnostic test characteristics (sensitivity and specificity).

We furthermore added a short definition of the AP and TP in the manuscript.

22) Lines 194-195- the equation looks to be in a different type font

Ans: Done.

23) Line 213- you mention severe clinical signs. Could you mention what these were? Or direct the reader to where they are mentioned as I believe they are mentioned further on in the document.

We added in the introduction a specification as to what are mild and severe lesions:

Line 46-48 " Lesions begin as a mild interdigital inflammation (mild form) and may progress to a severe interdigital ulceration up to the separation of the horn from the underlying skin (severe form).

24) Lines 213-216. Again, it would be nice to know if any clinical signs were seen here, or point the reader to where this is discussed

Ans: No particular clinical signs were reported by the submitters, foot lesions of D. nodosus positive animals are described in the results section "foot lesions". We have added a specification in the manuscript for further clarification.

Line 223-225: " Virulent strains were only found in one animal, an adult male ibex with severe disease signs (see also the section "Foot lesions" below)."

25) Figure 1 legend. Line 222. I am not sure what you mean by the relief?

Ans: “Relief” has several meanings. We meant “raising shapes above a flat surface so that they appear to stand out slightly from it”. For more clarity, we reworded relief with "mountainous shape" throughout the whole manuscript.

26) Within the results there are a lot of images and tables which are very close together. Some narrative between these may make it easier to follow (although this may change with editing).

Ans: We understand the issue but formatted the manuscript according to the guidelines for author. Most likely the article in its final format will be nicer to read.

27) In table 1a, the virulent column doesn’t really say much as many of the results are negative. Is this column worthwhile? Happy to be led by you, if you feel that you want it to stay then I wont argue with you.

Ans: Indeed, we think that this column is relevant because it clearly shows that only one animal (adult male Alpine ibex) was found to be positive for the virulent strain and showed severe lesions. It is striking when comparing this Table 1b, which presents the corresponding data in domestic animals. Since the upcoming nationwide control program in sheep will be only focusing on the virulent strain, table 1a clearly illustrates that wild ruminants should not be considered as a significant infection source for sheep and are therefore not expected to jeopardize the management measures that will be put in place for the Swiss sheep population.

28) The legends for table 1a and 1b would benefit from a bit more detail as to what the tables show. Also please define what SAC means in table 1b.

Ans: Done.

29) Line 241. A comma between S1 table) and all may aid flow here

Ans: Done.

30) Line 249, again, a comma between red deer and positive would aid flow.

Ans: Done.

31) Line 256, benign strain presented with severe

Ans: Done.

32) Line 264. Front feet of an ibex which was/ were positive. Alternatively a comma would suffice

Ans: Done.

33) And line 266- hind feet of an ibex which were positive. Alternatively a comma would suffice

Ans: Done.

34) Line 269- You discuss interspecies interactions. How clear would this be? Is it obvious and noticeable when they interact, or is it more that the animals were found in the same area? I think it is very interesting, but just want to try and understand it a little more.

Ans: Four different types of interactions were recorded according to the definitions below, relying on former observations of experienced field partners:

1) Direct contact (i.e., physical contact).

2) Indirect contact < and > 50 m of distance, respectively

3) Non simultaneous occupation of the same pasture

35) Line 282 and 283. You mention small domestic ruminants. Do you mean cattle and sheep here? Or others too? Could you be more specific?

Ans: Small domestic ruminants typically refers to sheep and goats. For more clarity, we replaced small domestic ruminants by "sheep and goats".

36) Line 283-284- As concerns seems slightly strange wording. Maybe with reference to?

Ans: Done.

37) Line 288. You switch her to domestic ungulates? Could you stick to the same terms as used previously, and maybe specific sheep and cattle, or others. Or even a link to table 1b may be useful?

Ans: We have taken into account your remark and changed the manuscript accordingly. We added specific clarification as to which wild and domestic ungulates we intended.

Line 292-294:"Data on reported proximity among wild and domestic ungulates (ibex, chamois, red deer, roe deer, sheep, cattle, goats and South American camelids) are summarized in figure 4."

We however do not feel that a link to table 1b is useful here.

38) Line 293- physical contacts. How do you define this?

Ans: The type of interspecies contacts that were used in this study rely on previous studies (field observations, questionnaire survey) conducted in the Canton of Grisons in Switzerland. Physical contacts mean direct body contact between two individuals (without any space between them).

39) Line 299. A pair of commas around except domestic goats, maybe help flow here

Ans: Done.

40) Line 317- what made you choose a cut off value of 0.2?

Ans: For our statistical analysis we decided to use a two-step approach. In a first step, we conducted a univariable analysis with a cut off value of 0.2. This value was chosen arbitrary, but lays within the range of commonly used values ranging from 0.10 to 0.25 (Bursace et. al 2008; Purposeful selection of variables in logistic regression, Source code for biology and Medicine; 3:17). The procedure consists in using a cut off that is less strict than 0.05 to be able to identify variables that are meaningful to further explore them.

41) Table 2. If you could merge the top two lines where possible it would make the table clearer

Also it is clearer and more helpful not to leave gaps in the table, maybe an N/A would be more beneficial?

Ans: Done.

42) Line 330, you mentioned the species red deer- is that being of that species or encountering it?

Ans: The results of the multivariable analysis showed that red deer (as a species and not the encounter with red deer) were more likely to be carriers of D. nodosus in comparison to ibex.

43) Table 3. Maybe discuss in the legend what you mean by baseline?

Ans: Baseline is a commonly used term in risk factor analysis and signifies the level of comparison within an explored variable. We added in the table captions "(level of comparison)" to clarify this.

44) Line 256. A full stop is needed between livestock species, and The comparison

Ans: Done.

45) Line 361- Insertion of strain after the word benign may aid reading

Ans: Done.

46) Line 372- ‘As for the other two Alpine ibex that harboured the benign strain’ This sounds a bit colloquial. Maybe consider rewording.

We reworded the sentence as follows:

Line 389-390 " As for the other two Alpine ibex that were found positive for benign strains…"

47) Lines 382-389- you discuss the potential involvement of Treponema species. The academic editor handling this manuscript is an expert in Treponema species, so it maybe worth a discussion with him to see if he would be willing to run the samples for you as a collaboration to further this work? Just a thought

Ans: We have already considered this option and frozen samples of the available affected feet for potential later testing, but it is out of the scope of this manuscript. In a previous study conducted at our group on footrot in Alpine ibex (Wimmershof et. Al 2015; Outbreak of severe foot rot associated with benign Dichelobacter nodosus in an Alpine ibex colony in the Swiss Prealps, Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd; 157(5)) histology was performed on affected feet and there was no suspicion of Treponema sp. Nevertheless, we agree that PCR testing would be better, therefore the decision to freeze new samples for later testing.

48) Line 400- maybe be biased? But how?

Ans: Since the information collected on interspecies contacts relied mainly on memorized events of the professional participants it is possible that it may have resulted in misreporting or a lack of reporting. We rephrased the sentence for more clarity.

49) Line 400. You discuss the interactions, but would the presence of people (possibly hunters) affect this?

Ans: Since observations of interspecies interactions were not limited to the hunting season but reflect interactions throughout the year (except with domestic ungulates, present in wildlife habitat only during the grazing season), it is unlikely that hunting influenced the data. However, presence of people (tourists, observer) may of course have had an influence on interactions observed at other times of the year. Human disturbance may have prevented interactions rather than fostered them. Therefore, the reported occurrence of interactions is most likely underestimated; this is also true as the observers have not always been present in the field, and interactions may occur at night.

50) Line 404. You talk about interactions mainly being with cattle and sheep- but is this not due to the fact that these are the most abundant animals?

Ans: It is indeed true that the most abundant domestic ungulates in Switzerland are cattle and sheep. This however does not change the fact that most interactions were observed with these two species, meaning that pathogen transmission between wild ungulates and livestock is most likely to occur with sheep and cattle, i.e., with the ruminants susceptible to act as a source of D. nodosus infection.

51) Line 412-415- I read this a few times, but never fully understood what you were trying to say. Maybe consider rewording it?

Ans: We revised the sentence and added a punctuation for better word flow.

52) Line 419- comma after nodosus would aid reading flow.

Ans: Done.

53) Line 434- avoid the use of our.

Ans: Done.

54) Line 457- does not necessitate to involve wildlife doesn’t seem to make sense, and is unclear- consider rewording

Ans: We have reworded this sentence as follows:

Line 472 " … does not need specific wildlife management measures"

55) Line 458- you use prevalence previously to be plural, so I would avoid prevalence’s

Ans: Done.

56) Line 461- what do you mean by a sanitised herd?

We mean herds that have been already treated for footrot and have been tested negative for D. nodosus.

57) Figure 1 and 2. Would it be possible to combine these? Possibly by using a thicker black border around the circles which appear on both figures?

Ans: We would prefer to keep the images separate as it clearly demonstrates how few D. nodosus positive animals were found on the whole Swiss territory compared to the large amount and wide distribution of collected samples. Due to the marked overlapping of the collected samples (figure 1), the difference in numbers between D. nodosus positive and negative would not stand out as clearly if the two figures were merged.

58) The graphs are a little unclear- but that may just be my print out

Ans: We re-checked the graph and noticed that Figure 4 was indeed of low resolution. We made the necessary changes and controlled again all figures with the PlosONE Figure check.

Reviewer #2:

A manuscript entitled “Identifying maintenance hosts and risk factors for infection with Dichelobacter nodosus in free-ranging wild ruminants in Switzerland: a prevalence study” had the goal of identifying cases of benign and virulent D. nodosus in common wild ungulates.

Strengths: The authors report the PCR results of 1821 sampled wild ungulates collected between 2017-2018, which is an impressive number of animals representing the most common wild ungulates with ranges covering most of Switzerland, and in a short enough time period, such that results likely reflect the general overall trend of this organism. The number of species sampled were mostly balanced. The method of foot swabbing, field preservation and D. nodosus PCR has been well elaborated in previous publications and was likely effective. Authors were able to deduce that prevalence of D. nodosus was very low in wild ungulates despite common wild -domestic ungulate interface in most of the regions sampled. This is novel and valuable information and timely as Switzerland moves to report and control virulent D. nodosus in domestic livestock. This work was done in parallel with similar published work on domestic livestock, which strongly demonstrates that domestic livestock prevalence of D. nodosus is common and significant in comparison to wild ungulates.

Weaknesses:

1) The title suggests that “risk factors” for Footrot in non-domestic ungulates will be evaluated, though risk factors are only loosely suggested in the text with no data in the study design to make an observation or conclusion as to risk. If this is meant to broadly encompass domestic-wild population interface, this should be worded differently.

Ans: Indeed our study design was not set up to evaluate risk factors for foot rot, but was calculated to estimate the prevalence of infection with D. nodosus in wild ungulates in Switzerland. Our focus was not disease but infection with D. nodosus. We attempted to identify risk factors for infection in a second step, although for wild ungulates it was only possible for begnin D. nodosus. We now changed the title of our study to: "Identifying maintenance hosts for infection with Dichelobacter nodosus in free-ranging wild ruminants in Switzerland: a prevalence study". We agree that it is better suited, since the "risk factors" part was only a supplementary analysis and not the main objective of our study.

2) This manuscript relies heavily on observations and sample collection using untrained participants. This is worrisome for accuracy of specimens (were negative swabs truly negative cases?) and overall identification and interpretation of lesions, especially early lesions. This is particularly of concern when detailing wild – domestic animal interface, which was determined entirely from historic memory of untrained participants. The weaknesses of this data are well detailed by the authors in a paragraph starting Ln 395, and the authors should be careful to draw conclusions about transmission between livestock and wildlife, Ln 446. Further molecular work may need to be done comparing ibex and cattle / sheep isolates to make these conclusions.

Ans: In previous studies carried out by the FIWI, Swiss game wardens and hunters were asked to collect swab samples (conjunctiva, lung) for the detection of Mycoplasma conjunctivae and M. pneumoniae, revealing a high prevalence for both bacteria. The fact that the professionally trained game wardens (present in all large Swiss cantons) and hunters had already successfully contributed to similar studies, together with their basic education in wildlife health, makes us feel confident that they were capable to carry out the sampling correctly.

Importantly, a detailed sampling instruction sheet was provided with every sampling kit, explaining how to take the samples, with detailed illustrations of the different steps.

Last but not least, to make sure that the samples would be collected following the same standards as in the parallel study conducted in domestic ungulates (Ardüser et. Al 2019; Dichelobacter nodosus in sheep, cattle, goats and South American camelids in Switzerland—Assessing prevalence in potential hosts in order to design targeted disease control measures; Prev Vet Med. ;104688) we gave lectures and courses in three of the largest Swiss cantons (Bern, Grisons and Vaud) before the start of the sampling season in 2017. In total, these three cantons made up 42 % of the collected samples.

Actually, we suspect that prevalence is less likely to be underestimated in wildlife than in domestic animals, because wildlife feet (incl. the interdigital space) are generally clean, in contrast to domestic animal feet, which are often covered by mud and feces and need to be roughly cleaned before sampling.

Regarding the identification and interpretation of the lesions, in every sampling kit a data sheet was provided where lesions of the interdigital space, the hooves and the carpal joints could be noted. It was presented as a checklist with the description of the different disease stages and associated lesions. This procedure has already been successfully used for another disease. It would have not been practicable to require from our field partners to submit every foot to be sampled at the lab and this additional work would have dramatically increased the risk that we would not achieve the targeted sample size. We therefore only asked of our field partners to send us feet of animals with foot lesions.

Overall, although we cannot guarantee that all the sampling procedures were always respected and that the detailed information was 100% correct, we are confident that the obtained data are reliable.

Regarding the observation of intraspecies interactions under free-ranging conditions, the professional training and field experience of game wardens is best suited and certainly adequate for the observation of wildlife. Here they are even expected to make more reliable observations than scientists, who are typically less familiar with the study area and less used to observe wildlife. We agree that reports based on memorized events always entail a risk of error. However, previous similar studies carried out by our group on interspecific interactions between Caprinae and Ovinae (Ryser-Degiorgis et. al 2002; Encounters between Alpine ibex, Alpine chamois and domestic sheep in the Swiss Alps; Hystrix the Italian Journal of Mammalogy; Vol 13) as well as well a study conducted in the Canton of Grisons regarding interactions at the wildlife livestock interface (Casaubon et. al 2012, Bovine viral diarrhea virus in free-ranging wild ruminants in Switzerland: low prevalence of infection despite regular interactions with domestic livestock; BMC Vet Res; 8:204) have provided former training in this field. Most recently, we could also show in a study on sarcoptic mange (Pisano et al. 2019, revised; Spatiotemporal spread of sarcoptic mange in the red fox in Switzerland over more than 60 years: lessons learnt from comparative analysis of multiple surveillance tools revised) that data retrospectively collected by questionnaire among field partners (memorized events) were reliable, by “validating” the data with another, independent information source.

The results we obtained on interspecies interactions are in agreement with previously conducted studies, which support the validity of our data.

We fully agree that further molecular work needs to be done to draw conclusions about the transmission of D. nodosus between livestock and wildlife. We therefore changed the text in the manuscript accordingly:

Line 459-462 " Therefore, cattle may act as source of infection for susceptible wild ungulates, as previously suspected (4). Nevertheless, further molecular studies are needed to univocally prove that interspecies transmission of D. nodosus occurs between wildlife and domestic livestock."

3) Authors attempt to correlate gross and lack of gross lesions with PCR results in wild ungulates but rely mostly on participants reports and a very small subset of feet submitted for professional evaluation. This limitation should be considered throughout the text when discussing the relevance of species contact.

Ans: We would like to point out that the majority of our samples (85% N = 1556) were collected by professionally trained game wardens who routinely help with the surveillance of wildlife diseases in Switzerland. See also the comment above (nr. 2). Out of 1821 samples, 76 animals were reported to have foot changes, consisting mainly in overgrown hooves. Out of these 76, five were positive for benign D. nodosus and one for virulent D. nodosus.

Severe footrot-like lesions were confirmed in two ibex via veterinary examination; as indicated in the manuscript, while marked lesions in two red deer could not be confirmed since these feet were unfortunately not sent for examination.

While we agree that the data on foot lesions are few, we don’t understand in which regard the evaluation of foot lesions could affect the discussion on the relevance of species contacts.

Line 395 – 397 " Two red deer with reported foot lesions tested positive for benign D. nodosus. Whether these lesions were footrot-like could not be confirmed because neither the affected feet nor photographs were submitted for veterinary evaluation."

4) Discussion of pathogenesis and progression of foot lesions is not appropriate from the small subset of feet attained and is also not within the stated scope of the manuscript. The gross ibex foot lesions demonstrated are impressive and similar to that described by Wimmershoff et al 2015, but are these caused by D. nodosus? Histopathology, a larger subset of hooves representing various degrees of disease, along with a more detailed analysis of associated microorganisms would be necessary to call these primary D. nodosus lesions. D. nodosus associated? Please keep this deficit of information in mind when discussing disease development.

Ans: We agree with the fact that we cannot discuss the pathogenesis and progression of foot lesions from the small subset of samples we have obtained and adapted the passage as follows:

Line 389-391 " As for the other two Alpine ibex that were found positive for benign strains without reported foot lesions but were not sent for veterinary examination, it cannot be ruled out that they may have been in an early stage of infection."

In the paper by Wimmershoff et al 2015, it was purposely not stated that the gross lesions observed in the two Alpine ibex were*caused* by D. nodosus but as you correctly pointed out, that they were *associated* with a D. nodosus infection. Furthermore, the potential involvement of other infectious agents is discussed.

Line 380 – 382 "These findings are in line with previous reports documenting that the presence of benign and virulent strains of D. nodosus can be*associated* with severe foot lesions in Alpine ibex that are comparable to typical lesions of footrot in sheep (1,4)."

We agree that we would need to have a greater subset of feet representing various degrees of disease severity and a more detailed analysis of associated microorganisms. Unfortunately, a larger subset of feet was not available to us since only a few animals with foot lesions were observed. From the four Alpine ibex found positive (1 virulent , 3 benign) only the limbs of the animals with severe lesions were sent to our laboratory for veterinary examination (2/4). It is important to remember that the Alpine ibex is a protected species and animals are culled only in case of severe disease signs. Since additional data collected within a side study indicate that footrot occurs only sporadically in ibex, it is unlikely that it will ever be possible to perform such a study, unless samples are stored over many years. In any case, a definitive proof of the causal relationship between D. nodosus (whether benign or virulent) and lesions on ibex feet could only be provided through an experimental infection. As regarding further analysis to rule out co-infection with other microorganisms, this would indeed be interesting but it is beyond the scope of our study, which aimed to determine the occurrence of D. nodosus in the Swiss wild ungulate population in order to better plan the upcoming nationwide control program in sheep.

5) There is no mention of season of data collection and particularly seasonal correlation with positive D. nodosus cases in wildlife, though this would likely have an influence in disease occurrence and progression. Could this be determined from the data?

Ans: Please note that we mentioned the season of data collection in the Materials & Methods section:

Line 118 – 119: "Sampling was carried out from August 2017 to December 2018, with most samples collected during the hunting seasons (i.e. August-December) of 2017 and 2018."

Regarding the seasonality, it would have indeed been interesting to examine whether D. nodosus carriage was associated with any season. However, on the one hand only very few samples turned out to be positive, making questionable an analysis for this variable. On the other hand, most of the samples (89 % N = 1622 ) were collected during the hunting season (August-December 2017-2018), preventing a meaningful grouping of samples according to seasons; finally, most (86 % N = 31/36) of the D. nodosus positive samples were also found during the hunting season. Overall, this variable could not be evaluated due to both the unbalanced number and the distribution of positive and negative samples. We tried to better explain the distribution of the collected samples over the year in the Materials and Methods section.

6) This study was done in parallel with a similar published study in domestic livestock. Where there is spacial overlap of wild D. nodosus cases with positive domestic cases, would it be possible to perform more detailed molecular work (sequencing, etc.) comparing the wild and domestic D. nodosus to demonstrate or exclude the possibility of a shared microorganism passing from domestic animals to wildlife?

Ans: Given the sampling plan (samples from all over the country in both wild and domestic ungulates) and the data collected on observed interactions, we consider indeed that there was a spatial overlap. As concerns potential molecular work, please see the end of the comment above (nr. 2).

Below are addition comments:

7) Ln 16 Footrot is a disease of feet and not specifically the hoof. Unless the lesion is being described only within the structures of the hoof, these references should be changed to foot / feet.

Ans: Done.

8) Ln 18, 51, 256 Please add …presenting “with” mild and …..

Ans: Done.

9) Ln 19 The sentence starting “In Switzerland..” seems out of place, as no correlation is established in the abstract between Ibex and domestic sheep. The abstract needs to be organized so that this information falls into logical place and leads to why wild ruminants are to be examined.

Ans: We would like to keep this sentence because it is the link between the wild and domestic investigations and it shows the main motivation behind the study (future upcoming nationwide footrot control program in sheep). The main objective was therefore to investigate whether other ungulates (domestic and wild) possibly susceptible to D. nodosus could jeopardize the upcoming control program.

We have however adapted the sentence to try to make the transition smoother:

Line 18-20: "Because the disease is widespread throughout sheep flocks in Switzerland, a nationwide footrot control program for sheep focusing on virulent strains shall soon be implemented."

10) Ln 21 Please clearly note if “maintenance hosts” are wild or domestic or both, and if “sheep” are domestic or wild.

We modified the manuscript accordingly:

Line 22 – 23 " …potential susceptible wildlife maintenance hosts that could be a reinfection source for domestic sheep."

11) Ln 31 This appears a big jump to implement domestic animals as the cause of disease in wild animals. That was not the focus of the study and appears to be something that would need to be proven under controlled lab conditions and with specific molecular work to prove identical type stains. Noting that there is a low incidence of wild carriers and results in severe disease in wild hoofstock appears more in line with the aims and outline work, at least in the abstract.

Ans:

We modified the sentence in the abstract as follows:

Line 30-31 " In conclusion, the data suggest that wild ungulates are likely irrelevant for the maintenance and spread of D. nodosus.

We discuss the potential transmission from domestic to wild ruminants in the discussion because it is very relevant to disease management in ibex, which is a protected species. So far, sheep have been incriminated as the source of infection and managers considered separating more strictly ibex from sheep, but our study reveals that as concerns the benign strain group, cattle are more likely to be the source of infection. We fully agree that a proof for this suspected scenario can't be delivered till further molecular work is done. Please note that we don’t speak of proof in our manuscript but of suggestions and likelihood

See also the end of comment nr. 2 as concerns molecular work.

12) Ln 45 Please change to “practical”

Ans: Thank you for this suggestion. However, we have decided to change the word "practicable" into "feasible" which we think is more appropriate in its meaning.

13) Ln 51 Introduce the molecular or other difference between “benign” and “virulent” strains here. How do you differentiate these organisms.

Ans: We modified the sentence as follows:

Line 48-52 "In sheep, mild and severe clinical forms of footrot have been shown to be associated with the presence of strains of D. nodosus carrying either the AprB2 or AprV2 genes, respectively, which encode for the subtilisin-like extracellular proteases playing a key role as virulence factors (8,10), thus referred to as "benign" and "virulent". We also added additional information about the definition of mild and severe lesions.

14) Ln 56 How does co-infection play into D. nodosus infection and susceptibility in domestic animals? This would be appropriate to discuss here.

Ans: We have added a sentence as suggested.

Line 59-61 " In sheep, co-infection with anaerobic bacteria such as Fusobacterium necrophorum has been suggested to increase disease severity (9,11,16)."

15) Ln 72 Replace “of them” with “hoof stock”

Ans: Done.

16) Ln 131 Do the authors have a sense of reproducibility and agreement on lesion scoring, description and swabbing technique between game wardens, hunters, etc.? If so, please note how that agreement was determined. My experience is that there is a very big difference between lesion grading done by biologists, lay people and veterinarians and particularly with interpretation of early lesions. Were wardens and hunters trained in appropriate swabbing and handling techniques? If not, could this have confounded the findings? Explain.

Ans: We did not calculate an agreement among the results obtained by sample collectors with different professional backgrounds for this study but as stated in comment nr. 2 we have good reasons to believe that the data are reliable.

17) Ln 134 Was season taken into account for sampled collected? Was this information recorded? It seems environmental conditions would play importantly into risk of foot rot and general overall health of the animal.

Ans: Yes, the date of sample collection was systematically recorded. See also comment nr. 5. For more clarity, we slightly modified the text as follows:.

Line 136- 137 : " …a data sheet to record the sampling date, biological data of the animal sampled (species, sex, age, geographical origin, body condition) and the presence of foot lesions".

Winter conditions typically impact the general health status of wild ungulates (esp. body condition due to poor food resources), which could result in higher susceptibility to infection; spring and fall are expected to be more humid, i.e. more favorable to D. nodosus survival; summer is the period when wild ungulates co-graze with domestic animals, i.e. when the exposure to D. nodosus is expected to be highest, but most PCR-positive and the two diseased ibex ( both adult males) were found during the hunting season, i.e. right after the period with the highest exposure to domestic ruminants. Anyway, we could not carry out a risk analysis for footrot with just two cases of disease, and it would not even be possible for PCR-positive animals.

18) Ln 138 How were affected feet submitted? What was time elapsed between collection and receipt in the lab and how were the feet handed / analyzed once in the lab?

Ans: The affected feet were submitted via rapid post mail (delivery within 2 days) right after collection. Upon receival we examined the feet (veterinary macroscopic examination), filled out the animal data sheet like our partners in the field, took the swabs (as specified in the protocol that was also sent to the sample submitters). We then took photographs of the lesions and stored samples in a -20° C freezer as well as in formalin (for potential later additional investigations, see comment nr. 4). The swabs were then transmitted directly to the Institute for Veterinary Bacteriology (IVB) at the Vetsuisse faculty of the University of Bern (located just a floor above our institute) for DNA extraction and subsequent Real Time PCR analysis.

The average time elapsed between swab collection in the field whose feet were not sent to the lab (i.e., mostly in animals without lesions) and shipment to the lab was of 4.53 days. The samples (lysis buffer) were then directly stored (refrigerator) at the IVB and the DNA extracted. The time elapsed between arrival of the lysis buffer at the laboratory and Real Time PCR analysis was in average 67 days.

19) Ln 139 Is this a historical report generated by the participant? Over what period of time are these observations of a 5 km radius representing? At the time of animal collection? Over what season?

Ans: The reports on interspecies interactions rely on memorized events (unlimited time period) of the professional game wardens. However, recent episodes are most likely reported, especially for young game wardens who have been in service for only a few years. The participants were asked to report interspecies interactions in the area where they had sampled the animal regarding the sampled species.

We did not ask to specify during which seasons the observations needed to be made, as it was a simplified questionnaire, but interactions with domestic ruminants are expected to occur mostly (if not only) during the summer grazing season (June till September).

20) Ln 229, 237 These table legends should stand alone and clearly delineate these as Swiss wildlife and domestic ungulates, and the period for which the data was collected. Are these domestic ungulate results taken in the same time interval as wildlife? This will be important to state or explain how different time points are comparable.

Ans: We changed the table legend as suggested.

Wild ungulates were sampled during two consecutive hunting seasons (August till December of 2017 and 2018). Further few samples were also collected throughout the year to make sure the sample size was achieved.

Samples from domestic ungulates were collected in parallel to ensure the comparability of the results but for logistical reasons (large number of farms to be visited; animals always accessible) sampling took place all year round (from May 2017 till June 2018). Therefore, all seasons could be taken into consideration in the domestic animal part of the study.

We added clarification to this sentence in the discussion:

Line 372-374 " Importantly, the study was conducted in parallel to a nationwide survey on infections with D. nodosus in possibly susceptible domestic livestock species (May until June 2017- 2018) (14)."

21) Ln 256 Were gross feet available to the authors in all cases with positive D. nodosus PCR? Or is this statement based on participant reports?

Ans: We asked participants to submit feet only in case of gross lesions (see comment nr. 2) . Therefore, from the 37 PCR-positive wild animals (36 benign and 1 virulent) we received the feet from 3 animals only: the single PCR-positive for the virulent strain (ibex with severe foot lesions) and two PCR-positive for the benign strain, one of which concerned an ibex with severe lesions and the other a red deer with changes concerning the lateral digits only ).

To make this clearer, we modified the sentence accordingly.

Line 270-273 " Two of them were reported to present with changes consisting in overgrown hooves, one of which was submitted for veterinary examination. The anomaly concerned the lateral digits only, without noticeable interdigital inflammation (i.e. no signs suggestive of footrot)."

22) Ln 263 Were cases only evaluated by PCR for D. nodosus with gross examination of a small subset of cases with lesions?

Ans: We analyzed all samples that were submitted to us (n= 1821 swabs), most of which originated from wild animals without noticeable lesions. Of all sampled animals, 3.3% (N = 60) were sampled by veterinarians (FIWI), including a thorough inspection of the feet. However, all field participants were asked to follow the same detailed sampling protocol, data sheet and checklist to assess the presence of feet lesions See also comment nr 2 for more details on data collection.

23) Ln 264 These are impressive gross lesions. For the outlined study, finding of D. nodosus and specifically the virulent strain is important, but what other organisms are associated with this lesion? Treponema? Fusobacterium? Most foot diseases are far more complex than a single microorganism. Perhaps beyond the scope of this article, but it would be nice to see representative sections of this lesion histologically and perhaps demonstrating the microorganism and any associated pathogens. What time of year was this animal collected? Were there other conditions found on processing the cadavers?

Ans: It is true that in foot diseases multiple organisms often play a role, such as Fusobacterium or Treponema. We try to underline this fact in the discussion, which we have completed as follows:

Line 401-407 "In cattle and free-ranging reindeer, foot diseases with similar clinical findings can involve pathogens such as Fusobacterium necrophorum (cattle and reindeer) and Treponema sp. (cattle) (37–39). … "Therefore, since all samples of the present study were tested via qPCR for the presence of D. nodosus only, we cannot exclude that other pathogens causing foot disease in domestic and wild ruminants may have been involved in the development of the observed lesions."

Regarding the histology, Wimmershof et al. presented the microscopic lesions found in ibex with severe lesions associated with benign D. nodosus. No other infectious agents were detected in the tissue sections. See also comment nr. 4.

As for the adult male ibex with severe lesions and PCR-positive for virulent strains, the animal was sampled in late summer 2017 (23.08.2017), and the adult male ibex with severe lesions PCR-positive for benign strains in the autumn of 2018 (20.10.2018).

Ibex are large animals living at high altitude, with males bearing large horns and weighting up to 80-100 kg. For logistical reasons we did not ask for the whole carcass and could not perform a complete pathological examination of the affected animals.

The submitters of the samples from the two ibex positive to D. nodosus (virulent and benign strains) both mentioned a moderate body condition and severe feet lesions but no other abnormalities.

24) Ln 269 The observations by participants is helpful, but could there not be structured information by trained wardens / biologists to more objectively report wild and domestic animal interface in these cantons? Clarify here as well, during what time period and season are these observations taken? Make sure that abbreviations are decoded in a foot note on all figures and tables and that titles and legends are descriptive sufficiently so that the items can stand alone when read separate from the text.

Ans: Most observations reported by our field partners were from professionally trained game wardens (85 % ;N = 1556), with a few number from wildlife biologists (4.5% ;N = 83). This is indicated in the Materials and Methods section.

Line 165-167. " In total 1,821 samples were taken, of which 91.4% (N = 1,664) by game wardens/hunters; 4.5% (N = 83) by field biologists; 3.3% (N = 60) by veterinarians (FIWI) and for 0.7% (N = 14) of the samples the profession of the sampler was not given."

There were former field studies performed by people of our team as well as by other scientists (Ryser-Degiorgis et. al 2002, Encounters between Alpine ibex, Alpine chamois and domestic sheep in the Swiss Alps, Hystrix the Italian Journal of Mammalogy; Vol 13, Richomme et. al 2006, Contact rates and exposure to inter-species disease transmission in mountain ungulates, Epidemiol. Infect., 134; R. Tschopp et. al 2005, Outbreaks of infectious keratoconjunctivitis in alpine chamois and ibex in Switzerland between 2001 and 2003, Veterinary Record, Vol 157); which were congruent with data recorded among game wardens by questionnaire, in this and in former studies (e.g. Casaubon et. al 2012, Bovine viral diarrhea virus in free-ranging wild ruminants in Switzerland: low prevalence of infection despite regular interactions with domestic livestock; BMC Vet Res; 8:204refs). For the present study, which was carried out in all of Switzerland, it would have not been doable to have scientists in all sampling areas to record occasional interspecies interactions. Based on own experiences, a questionnaire survey among wildlife professionals is the most efficient way to gather sufficient information on the occurrence of such interactions (Ryser-Degiorgis et. al 2002, Encounters between Alpine ibex, Alpine chamois and domestic sheep in the Swiss Alps, Hystrix the Italian Journal of Mammoogy, Vol 13; Casaubon et. al 2012, Bovine viral diarrhea virus in free-ranging wild ruminants in Switzerland: low prevalence of infection despite regular interactions with domestic livestock, BMC Vet Res 8:204).

For the questions on the sampling, please see comment nr. 5. Whenever appropriate, we adapted figure titles and legends as requested.

25) Ln 386 This citation should include Treponema associated hoof disease in free-ranging elk Vet Pathol 2019.

Ans: Done.

26) Ln 390 Since this work evaluated a one-time PCR for D. nodosus with no controlled gross observations and missing data on subjects, it does not seem appropriate to discuss pathogenesis and progression of D. nodosus lesions in ibex.

Ans: We agree that from the few samples we have obtained we cannot discuss pathogenesis and progression of D. nodosus lesions in ibex. It had not been our objective but in accordance with your comment, we removed the following paragraph (Line 438-441; track change manuscript).

" The presence of foot lesions was identified as a factor associated with the infection of benign D. nodosus. Obviously, the reported lesions were rather the consequence of the infection than a risk factor. This result from the risk factor analysis is also questionable because these lesions were only confirmed as footrot-like in the ibex."

We also decided to remove the lesions as a variable from our risk analysis since reported lesions were not consistent with footrot lesions or, if reported as consistent, could not all be confirmed by veterinary examination.

Decision Letter 1

Simon Russell Clegg

12 Nov 2019

PONE-D-19-18147R1

Identifying maintenance hosts for infection with Dichelobacter nodosus in free-ranging wild ruminants in Switzerland: a prevalence study

PLOS ONE

Dear Marie-Pierre Ryser-Degiorgis

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please note the revisions are very minor.

==============================

Many thanks for your resubmission to PLOS One

The manuscript was reviewed by the same reviewers as the original, and one came back with some very minor comments- mainly typographical and grammatical.

If you could modify these minor points and resubmit it, I can then recommend it for publication.

I would do them for you, but I cant edit a PDF.

Please don't worry about a response to reviewers letter. If you can just write that all comments were addressed, then I can have a quick read and expedite its publication

Many thanks

Simon

==============================

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Dec 27 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable 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. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled '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.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Simon Russell Clegg, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for making the changes suggested last time. I really enjoyed reading the manuscript again. I have made a few more, very minor comments, but I don’t feel that I need to review it again. They are mainly just grammatical bits

Line 40 – concerning may be better worded as affecting

Line 50- the gene names should be in italics

Line 54- have been detected in the absence of ….

Line 117- on an animal level

Line 123- For all species, the design prevalence

Line 169-170- maybe reword this sentence as starting with a decimal place in words seems strange

Line 174- for roe deer and red deer, this was …

Line 181- a manufacturer and place of manufacture for the Kingfisher product maybe good

Laboratory analysis section- the reagents used for the PCR maybe useful

Line 206- 5 should be in words

Throughout, every time you use et al it should be followed by a full stop and a comma and in italics

Line 305- comma after goats (9%)

Line 351- risk factor

Table 3 looks untidy. Can it be tidied up so there isn’t a lot of empty boxes?

Line 411- dawn or dusk (xx, xx), it is…..

Line 431- smaller wildlife populations, it has been previously …

Line 449- remove allow to

Reviewer #2: This article “Identifying maintenance hosts for infection with Dichelobacter nodosus in free-ranging wild ruminants in Switzerland: a prevalence study” is a revision of a previously submitted manuscript with major revisions.

The manuscript has a clear and important objective to determine the prevalence of D. nodosus in Swiss wild ruminants, which it accomplished with an impressive number of animal samples covering much of the country, and concluding that wild ruminants in fact have a very low level of D. nodosus, compared to a sister study of domestic ruminants, which showed a high prevalence of the bacteria.

This manuscript is well written and used established protocols for collection and processing of samples. The interpretation of the data is legitimate and well-represented with statistically sound and significant conclusions “In conclusion, the data suggest that wild ungulates are likely irrelevant for the maintenance and spread of D. nodosus. Furthermore, we add evidence that both D. nodosus strain types can be associated with severe disease in Alpine ibex.”

The authors did a thorough job of addressing all reviewers’ comments with excellent elaboration of justifications and many appropriate clarifications and improvements to the manuscript. This is much appreciated and this manuscript will be an excellent addition to the current literature on foot disease in wild ruminants.

A minor point that may be detected by the photo editor, on Fig. 3 there is significant variation on white balance in the hoof background. Perhaps this can be tweaked to be better balanced? The lesions are well represented.

**********

7. 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

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

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. Registration is free. 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. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 2

Simon Russell Clegg

17 Dec 2019

Identifying maintenance hosts for infection with Dichelobacter nodosus in free-ranging wild ruminants in Switzerland: a prevalence study

PONE-D-19-18147R2

Dear Dr. Ryser-Degiorgis,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Simon Russell Clegg, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Many thanks for your resubmission to PLOS One

I have recommended your manuscript for publication. thank you for completing the comments which the reviewers stated last time.

I wish you the best of luck for your future research, and will keep an eye out for future papers from your group

Many thanks

Simon

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Simon Russell Clegg

23 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-18147R2

Identifying maintenance hosts for infection with Dichelobacter nodosus in free-ranging wild ruminants in Switzerland: a prevalence study

Dear Dr. Ryser-Degiorgis:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Simon Russell Clegg

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Cantons with PCR positive animals.

    Estimated true**/apparent* prevalence of D. nodosus, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals indicated in parentheses and number of tested animals.

    (PDF)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES