Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Jan 11;16(1):e0241022. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241022

Isolation and characterization of lumpy skin disease virus from cattle in India

Naveen Kumar 1,*, Yogesh Chander 1, Ram Kumar 1, Nitin Khandelwal 1, Thachamvally Riyesh 1, Khushboo Chaudhary 1, Karuppusamy Shanmugasundaram 1, Sanjit Kumar 2, Anand Kumar 3, Madhurendu K Gupta 2, Yash Pal 1, Sanjay Barua 1,*, Bhupendra N Tripathi 1,*
Editor: Pierre Roques4
PMCID: PMC7799759  PMID: 33428633

Abstract

Lumpy skin disease (LSD) has devastating economic impact. During the last decade, LSD had spread to climatically new and previously disease-free countries, which also includes its recent emergence in the Indian subcontinent (2019). This study deals with the LSD outbreak(s) from cattle in Ranchi (India). Virus was isolated from the scabs (skin lesions) in the primary goat kidney cells. Phylogenetic analysis based on nucleotide sequencing of LSD virus (LSDV) ORF011, ORF012 and ORF036 suggested that the isolated virus (LSDV/Bos taurus-tc/India/2019/Ranchi) is closely related to Kenyan LSDV strains. Further, we adapted the isolated virus in Vero cells. Infection of the isolated LSDV to Vero cells did not produce cytopathic effect (CPE) until the 4th blind passage, but upon adaptation, it produced high viral titres in the cultured cells. The kinetics of viral DNA synthesis and one-step growth curve analysis suggested that Vero cell-adapted LSDV initiates synthesizing its genome at ~24 hours post-infection (hpi) with a peak level at ~96 hpi whereas evidence of progeny virus particles was observed at 36–48 hours (h) with a peak titre at ~120 h. To the best of our knowledge, this study describes the first successful isolation of LSDV in India, besides providing insights into the life cycle Vero cell-adapted LSDV.

Introduction

Lumpy skin disease (LSD) is a trans-boundary animal viral disease which causes considerable financial losses to the livestock industry. It was observed for the first time in Zambia in 1929 [1] and spread rapidly in the cattle population across African countries [reviewed in reference [2]]. Until 1984, LSD was maintained within the countries of sub-Sahara Africa [2]. The first confirmed transcontinental spread of LSD from the African to Middle-East Asian countries occurred when the disease was reported in Israel in 1989 [3]. In 2013, it was confirmed in Turkey. By 2015–16, the disease was reported in South-East Europe, the Balkans and the Caucasus [4]. Of late the disease was reported for the first time from India in November 2019 [5].

Clinically, LSD has been reported in cattle only. The incubation period of the disease is 4–12 days. The clinical picture starts with fever (40–41.5°C) which persists for 1–3 days [6]. This is accompanied by increased nasal and pharyngeal secretions, lachrymation, enlargement of lymph nodes, anorexia, dysgalactia, general depression and a disinclination to move [7]. The skin nodules appear within 1–2 days, which gradually become harder and necrotic thereby inducing severe discomfort, pain and lameness. In 2–3 weeks, the nodules either regress, or necrosis of the skin results in hard, raised areas (sit-fasts) clearly separated from the surrounding skin. Some of the sit-fasts may slough away, leaving a full skin thickness hole in the skin which usually gets infected by bacteria or becomes liable to myasis [8]. Some animals become extremely emaciated, and euthanasia may be warranted. Besides, the bulls may become temporarily or permanently infertile and may secrete the virus for a prolonged period. The morbidity in LSD varies from 50–100% [9]. The mortality rate is usually low (1–5%) but occasionally reported to be much higher [10].

The occurrence of LSD causes decreased milk production, loss of hide and draft. An economic loss of 20.9 million Euros was estimated in the 2016 outbreak of LSD in Balkan countries, i. e. Albania, Bulgaria, Macedonia [10]. In several African countries, LSD causes serious problems because it occurs during season, a time when draught oxen are required for cultivation of crops and thereby resulting in failure to cultivate and plant crops [11]. This constituted a serious hazard to the food security of the people in the affected areas [11].

LSD virus (LSDV) belongs to the genus capripoxvirus within the family Poxviridae. LSDV genome is ~151 kbp in length [12]. Two other capripoxviruses, sheepox virus (SPV) and goatpox virus (GPV) which cause devastating disease in sheep and goats respectively, are also antigenically similar to LSDV [13]. Capripoxviruses are cross-reactive within the genus; therefore SPV- or GPV-based vaccines have been used to provide cross protection against LSDV [1315]. LSDV is usually isolated and quantified (tissue culture infective dose; TCID50) in primary cells. LSDV also infects Madin-Darby bovine kidney (MDBK) cells where it forms foci (multifocal areas of hyperplastic cells). These foci can be counted under microscope in an agar-overlay medium. However, a plaque assay to precisely quantify infectious LSDV is still lacking.

The recent and unprecedented spread of LSD in India and several other countries has highlighted the need for better research efforts into this rapidly emerging pathogen. Our study describes alternative cells for isolation and in vitro propagation of LSDV, besides providing insights on LSDV life cycle.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

The study involves collection of biological specimens from cattle (field animals). Scabs and blood samples (3 ml each) were collected from the LSD suspected cattle (n = 22) as per the standard practices without using anaesthesia. College of Veterinary Sciences, Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi (India) granted the permission to collect the biological specimens. A due consent was also taken from the farmer (animal owner) before collection of the specimens.

Cells

Primary goat testicle (PGT) cells [16], primary goat kidney (PGK) cells [17], primary lamb testicle (PLT) cells [16] and Madin-Darby bovine kidney (MDBK) cells [18] were available at National Centre for Veterinary Type Cultures (NCVTC), Hisar and grown in Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle’s Medium (DMEM) supplemented with antibiotics and 10% foetal calf serum.

Clinical specimens

The samples were collected from in and around Ranchi, Jharkhand, India (23.3441° North, 85.3096° East) which includes an organized cattle dairy farm and small dairy units in villages namely Tussum, Nagri, Khemra and Gadgaon. The first evidence of the disease was reported about 2 months prior to the sampling. Scabs from the nodular lesions were collected in 3 ml Minimum Essential Medium (MEM, transport medium) and transported on ice to the laboratory. At least 2 scabs were taken from each individual animal. The samples (scabs) were triturated to make ~10% suspension in MEM followed by filtration through 0.45 μM syringe filter and storage at -80°C until use. Serum/blood samples were also collected from infected as well as apparently healthy animals after taking a due consent from the farmers.

Identification of the agent(s)

Typical nodular lesions on the body surface were primarily suggestive of LSD. Therefore, initially we investigated for the presence of capripoxvirus and LSDV-specific gene segments by PCR (Table 1). Briefly, total DNA was extracted from swab samples by DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kits as per the instructions of the manufacturer (Qiagen, Valencia, CA, USA) and resuspended in nuclease free water. The DNA was subjected to amplify capripoxvirus-specific and LSDV-specific DNA segments by PCR. Primers, melting temperatures and extension times for amplification of various agents are given in Table 1. For PCR amplification, each reaction tube of 20 μl contained 10 μl of Q5 High-Fidelity 2× Master Mix (New England BioLabs Inc.), 20 pmol of forward and reverse primer, and 5 μl of DNA (template). The thermocycler conditions were as follows: a denaturation step of 5 min at 98°C followed by 35 cycles of amplification [(30 sec at 98°C, 30 s at 52–55°C (Table 1) and 30–80 s (Table 1) at 72°C], and a final extension step at 72°C for 10 min. The PCR products were separated in a 1% agarose gel.

Table 1. Primers used to amplify capripoxvirus- and LSDV-specific gene segments.

Oligos Gene/ORF Primers Product size (bp) Thermocycler
Capripoxvirus P32 Forward: 5'-GGAATGATGCCRTCTARATTC-3' 199 Annealing = 55°C
Reverse: 5'-CCCTGAAACATTAGTATCTGT-3' Extension = 30 s
LSDV ORF 011 Forward: 5'-ATGAATTATACTCTTAGYACAGTTAG-3' 1134 Annealing = 52°C
Reverse: 5'-TTATCCAATGCTAATACTACCAG-3' Extension = 80 s
ORF 012 Forward: 5’- ATGGAAAAGGAAAAATTATGTAGCG -3’ 636 Annealing = 52°C
Reverse: 5’- TTATTGTTTGTCAAAAAAGGTGAGATTTC -3’ Extension = 40 s
ORF 036 Forward: 5’- ATGGATGATGATAATACTAATTCATATAG -3’ 606 Annealing = 52°C
Reverse: 5’- TTATTTTTCTACAGCTCTAAACTTCG -3’ Extension = 40 s

Nucleotide sequencing

In order to further confirm the identity of the virus (LSDV/India/2019/Ranchi), ORF011, ORF012 and ORF036 encoding G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), Ankyrin repeat (ANK) and RNA polymerase subunit (RPO30) respectively, were amplified by PCR, gel purified using QIAquick Gel Extraction Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) and subjected to direct sequencing using both forward and reverse PCR primers. Duplicate samples were submitted for sequencing and only high-quality sequences were deposited in GenBank database with Accession Numbers of MN967004 (ORF011), MN967004 (ORF12) and MN967004 (ORF036).

Phylogenetic analysis

The nucleotide sequences from LSDV ORF011, ORF012 and ORF036 were edited to 1029, 622 and 579 bp fragments respectively using BioEdit version 7.0. These sequences, together with the representative nucleotide sequences of LSDV, sheeppox virus (SPV) and goatpox virus (GPV) available in the public domain (GenBank) were subjected to multiple sequence alignments using CLUSTALW (http://www.ebi.ac.uk/clustalw/index.html). Phylogenetic analysis was carried out by constructing a concatemeric Neighbor-Joining tree. Test of phylogeny was performed using Maximum Composite Likelihood method and the confidence intervals were estimated by a bootstrap algorithm applying 1,000 iterations.

Virus isolation

For virus isolation, an aliquot of the virus (500 μl filtrate) was used to infect confluent monolayer of PGT, PGK and PLT cells for 2 h followed by addition of fresh growth medium. The cells were observed daily for the appearance of cytopathic effect (CPE).

Adaptation of LSDV to Vero cells

In order to adapt LSDV to Vero cells, 500 μl inoculum of the PGK amplified virus was used to infect Vero cells for 4 h followed by addition of fresh growth medium and observance of CPE during sequential passage(s). Fifteen sequential passages in Vero cells were made. The growth curve and kinetics of synthesis of LSDV genome of the P15 virus was studied in Vero and MDBK cells. Virus titres were determined by TCID50 assay and converted to estimated plaque-forming units (PFU) by the conversion TCID50 ≈ 0.7 PFU as described previously [19].

Plaque assay

Plaque was performed as per the previously described methods along with some modifications [17, 20]. The confluent monolayers of Vero cells, grown in 6 well tissue culture plates, were infected with 10-fold serial dilutions of virus for 1 h at 37°C, after which the infecting medium was replaced with an agar-overlay containing equal volume of 2X L-15 medium and 1% agar. Upon development of plaques, the agar-overlay was removed, and the plaques were stained by 1% crystal violet.

Virus neutralization assay

Serum samples were initially heated at 56°C for 30 min to inactivate the complements. PGK cells were grown in 96 well tissue culture plates at ~90 confluency. Two-fold serum dilutions (in 50 μl volume) were made in phosphate buffered saline (PBS) and incubated with equal volume of LSDV (104 PFU/ml) for 1 h. Thereafter, virus-antibody mixture was used to infect PGK cells. The cells were observed daily for the appearance of CPE. Final reading was taken at 96 hours post-infection (hpi) for the determination of antibody titres.

Kinetics of LSDV genome synthesis (qRT-PCR)

Vero cells, in triplicates, were infected with LSDV (Vero cell-adapted) at MOI of 5 for 2 h followed by washing with PBS and addition of fresh DMEM. Cells were scraped at various times post-infection. The levels of viral DNA in the infected cells were quantified by qRT-PCR. Viral RNA/DNA Purification Kit (Thermo Scientific, Vilnius, Lithuania) was used for extraction of viral DNA from the infected cell lysate. qRT-PCR was carried out with a 20 μl reaction mixture containing LSDV ORF036 or specific primers (Table 1), template and Sybr green DNA dye (Promega, Madison, USA). Thermal cycler conditions were as follows: a denaturation step of 5 min at 94°C followed by 40 cycles of amplification (30 s at 94°C, 30 s at 52°C, and 40 s at 72°C). The levels of LSDV DNA, expressed as threshold cycle (Ct) values, were normalized with β-actin gene to determine relative fold-change in copy number of viral DNA [21].

Results

Clinical findings

In the initial stages, the affected animals showed fever (up to 41.5°C) which persisted for 3–4 days which was followed by oedema (swelling) of legs, enlarged lymph node, lameness and anorexia. The most prominent clinical finding was the appearance of skin nodules all over the body surface (Fig 1A) immediately after the febrile stage. The nodules were well circumscribed, round, slightly raised, firm, painful and were 1–3 cm in size (Fig 1B). Some of the nodules ruptured to create a deep-seated wound (Fig 1C and 1D). Wounds were frequently invaded by secondary bacterial infections which led to extensive suppuration and sloughing. The lesions were particularly extensive in the fetlock region, extended up to the underlying subcutis and muscle (Fig 1E). Some of the nodules regressed and in some the necrosis of the skin resulted in hard, raised areas (sit-fasts) clearly separated from the surrounding skin (Fig 1F). Nasal discharge was apparent only in few animals. Few pregnant animals aborted. Morbidity was ~8% in the organized dairy farm (college dairy farm) and up to ~25% in small dairy units in the villages. Most of the animals recovered except few which died due to extensive lesions, anorexia and emaciation. During the course of writing this manuscript, the disease has spread into several states in India including Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Odisha, Jharkhand, West Bengal, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh.

Fig 1. Clinical findings.

Fig 1

(a) Nodules all over the body surface in cattle (b) Nodules are circumscribed, round, slightly raised, firm, painful and are 1–3 cm in size. (c) Ruptured nodules that created a deep-seated wound. (d). Wounds invaded by secondary bacterial infection leading to suppuration and sloughing. (e) Extensive lesions in the fetlock region extending up to the underlying subcuitis and muscle. (f) Necrosis of the skin nodule resulting in hard, raised areas “sit-fasts”.

Identification of the agent

In order to demonstrate the etiological agent, DNA was extracted from the scabs and subjected to amplification of capripoxvirus-specific and LSDV-specific DNA segments by PCR. An amplification of 199 bp DNA fragment with capripoxvirus-specific primers indicated the presence of capripoxvirus in the scabs (S1 Fig). All except two scab specimens were positive for capripoxvirus genome (Table 2). However, viremia could not be detected; neither in the clinically affected animals with skin nodules nor in the healthy in-contact susceptible animals (Table 2). Collectively, based on characteristic clinical signs, and amplification of capripoxvirus- and LSDV-specific genome, the identity of the virus was confirmed as LSDV.

Table 2. Detection of virus and virus-specific antibodies in clinically affected and in-contact healthy animals.

S. No. Place Skin nodules LSDV genome (scab) LSDV genome (blood) Antibody titre
1 Tussum (+) (+) (-) 1:64
2 Tussum Healthy* NA (-) 1:16
3 Tussum (+) (-) (-) 1:128
4 Tussum (+) (+) (-) 1:32
5 Tussum (+) (+) (-) >1:1024
6 Tussum Healthy* NA (-) 1:128
7 Nagri (+) (+) (-) >1:1024
8 Nagri (+)# (-) (-) 1:128
9 Khemra (+)# (+) (-) 1:512
10 Khemra (+)# (+) (-) 1:512
11 Gadgaon (+) (+) (-) 1:512
12 Gadgaon (+)# (-) (-) >1:1024
13 Gadgaon Healthy* NA (-) <1:4
14 Gadgaon (+)# (+) (-) 1:128
15 Ranchi (+) (+) (-) 1:128 (>1:1024$)
16 Ranchi (+) (+) (-) >1024
17 Ranchi (+) (+) (-) 1:32
18 Ranchi Healthy* NA (-) <1:4
19 Ranchi Healthy* NA (-) <1: 4
20 Ranchi (+) (+) (-) 1:64
21 Ranchi Healthy* NA (-) 1:128

*In contact susceptible animals

#Lesions towards recovery

$ One month after initial sampling; NA: Scabs not collected

Reactivity of LSDV to the sera from LSDV-infected animals

Serum samples from all the clinically affected animals that showed presence of skin nodules and some in-contact susceptible animals were also subjected for determination of anti-LSDV antibody titre in a virus neutralization assay. Clinically affected animals showed an antibody titre of 1:64 to 1:1024 (Table 2). However, few healthy in-contact susceptible animals were also found positive for anti-LSDV antibodies suggesting subclinical infection (Table 2).

Phylogenetic analysis

In order to compare and determine the phylogenetic relationship of LSDV/India/2019/Ranchi with other LSDV/SPV/GPV strains, ORF011, ORF012 and ORF036 were amplified by PCR and subjected to direct sequencing. The sequences were edited to 1029, 622 and 579 bp and deposited to GenBank with Accession Number of MN967004 (ORF011), MN967004 (ORF12) and MN967004 (ORF036). These sequences together with the corresponding nucleotide sequences from other LSDV/SPV/GPV strains retrieved from the GenBank were used to prepare a consensus linear phylogenetic tree (Fig 2). Nucleotide sequences of LSDV/India/2019/Ranchi showed highest similarity to the Kenyan LSDV strains.

Fig 2. Phylogenetic analysis: ORF011, ORF012 and ORF036 of LSDV/India/2019/Ranchi encoding GPCRs, Ank and RPO030 proteins respectively, were amplified by PCR and subjected to direct nucleotide sequencing.

Fig 2

The sequences were edited to 1029, 622 and 579 bp fragments respectively using BioEdit version 7.0. For evolutionary analysis, corresponding sequences of other LSDV strains, SPV stains and GPV strains were retrieved from GenBank. Phylogenetic analyses were carried out by constructing a concatemeric Neighbor-Joining tree. Test of phylogeny was performed using Maximum Composite Likelihood method and the confidence intervals were estimated by a bootstrap algorithm applying 1,000 iterations. The tree is drawn to scale, with branch lengths in the same units as those of the evolutionary distances used to infer the phylogenetic tree.

Virus isolation

The virus recovered from the scabs was used to infect PGT, PGK and PLT cells. One scab sample positive for LSDV-specific gene segment in PCR was considered for virus isolation. Infection of the clinical specimen did not reveal any CPE up to 7 days post-infection in any of the cell lines tested except in PGK cells which showed cell shrinking but no clear CPE. Thereafter, the infected cells were freeze-thawed twice and the resulting supernatant (called first blind passage) was used to infect fresh cells. Upon second blind passage, PGK cells started showing shrinking at 48–72 hpi and a clear CPE, characterized by cell rounding, ballooning and degeneration was evident at 96–120 hpi (S2A Fig). The other cell types did not produce any CPE in second blind passage, even up to 5–7 days post infection (dpi). PLT cells produced CPE in third blind (S2A Fig) passage whereas PGT cells did not show CPE even up to the fourth blind passage, suggesting PGK cells are the most sensitive cells for LSDV isolation, among the three primary cells employed in this study. The virus was amplified in PGK cells at a titre of ~107 PFU/ml. The virus was deposited in the repository at NCVTC with an Accession Number VTCCAVA288 and named as LSDV/Bos taurus-tc/India/2019/Ranchi.

Adaptation to Vero cells

Primary cells usually do not survive for long time. Therefore, it is desirable to adapt the virus in established cell lines. The clinical specimens did not produce any CPE in Vero cells at least up to 3rd blind passages. For adaptation to Vero cells, 500 μl inoculum of the PGK amplified virus was used to infect Vero cells but no CPE was observed up to 8 days post-infection after which the cells were freeze-thawed twice and used to re infect fresh Vero cells. CPE characterized by cell clustering (foci) (S2B Fig) was observed at 6 days post-infection on 4th passage (P4) in Vero cells. However, P4 virus did not form plaques. At P15, rather than producing only foci, the virus began producing a clear CPE, characterized by clustering, cell rounding and degeneration (S2B Fig). Unlike P4, P15 virus also formed plaques but were of small size (S2B Fig).

LSDV life cycle

Little is known about the life cycle of LSDV. In order to determine the length of LSDV life cycle, Vero/MDBK cells were infected with LSDV (Vero cell-adapted) and the progeny virus particles released in the infected cell culture supernatant at various time points post-infection were quantified. As shown in Fig 3A no significant progeny virus particles were observed at 6 hpi and 24 hpi (Vero cells). The small amount of virus particles at these time points represents the input used to infect cells which remained attached with the cells/flask even upon washing. However, a sudden increase in the viral titres (progeny virus particles) was observed at 36 hpi which further increased from 48 hpi to 120 hpi finally becoming stable at 144 hpi onward and then declining at 192 hpi. The kinetics of virus replication was somewhat similar in MDBK cells, however the first evidence of progeny virus particles in infected cell culture supernatant was observed at 48 hpi. In addition, Vero cell-adapted LSDV in MDBK cells did not attain a stationary phase even up to 192 hpi and the overall viral titres were ~10-fold lower compared to the Vero cells.

Fig 3. LSDV life cycle.

Fig 3

Vero/MDBK cells, in triplicates, were infected with Vero cell-adapted LSDV at MOI of 5 for 2 h followed by washing with PBS and addition of fresh DMEM. Growth curve. Supernatant was collected from the infected cells at indicated time points and quantitated by determination of TCID50 (expressed as PFU/ml) in Vero cells. Values are means ± SD and representative of the result of at least 3 independent experiments. Growth curve in Vero and MDBK cells (a) is shown. Kinetics of viral genome synthesis. Cells were scraped at indicated times points and the levels of viral DNA/β-actin (house-keeping control) gene in the infected cells (pellet) were measured by qRT-PCR. The levels of LSDV DNA, expressed as threshold cycle (Ct) values, were normalized with β-actin to determine relative fold-change in copy number of viral DNA. Kinetics of DNA synthesis in Vero (b) and MDBK cells (c) is shown. To directly compare the levels of viral DNA in Vero and MDBK cells at different times post infection, Ct values are also shown (d). Values are means ± SD and representative of the result of at least 3 independent experiments. Pair-wise statistical comparisons in the viral titres/Ct values between Vero and MDBK cells (at each time point), were performed using Student’s t test. * = P<0.05, ** = P<0.01, *** = P<0.001. The differences in the viral titres between Vero and MDBK cells are apparently significant at each time point except the lag phase (up to24 hpi). However, the statistical calculation is only possible at certain time points viz; 96 hpi, 144 hpi and 192 hpi where there are variations in the biological replicates.

In order to provide insights on the kinetics of LSDV (Vero cell-adapted) genome synthesis, Vero/MDBK cells were infected with LSDV (Vero cell-adapted) and the viral DNA was quantified in the infected cells (pellet) at various time points post-infection. As shown in Fig 3, the levels of LSDV DNA were comparable at various time points in the lag phase (at 6 hpi, 12 hpi, 18 hpi and 24 hpi), in both Vero (Fig 3B) and MDBK cells (Fig 3C). However, the levels of viral DNA progressively increased from 24 hpi to 96 hpi and finally stabilizing at 120 hpi (Fig 3B and 3C). Interestingly, higher LSDV particles adsorbed in Vero cells as compared to MDBK cells (Ct values in were in the range of 19 and 22 in Vero and MDBK cells respectively, Fig 3D). Besides, the stationary phase in Vero cells was achieved at ~72 hpi as compared to >120 hpi in MDBK cells. The experiment was not followed after 120 hpi because most of the MDBK cells died at this stage.

Discussion

For several decades, lumpy skin disease was restricted to Africa wherein it led to several devastating pandemics in several countries, thereby threatening food security and consequently increasing poverty [22, 23]. Since the year 2000, it spread to several countries of the Middle East and was confirmed in Turkey in 2013. In 2015–16, the disease was reported in several European countries, viz; Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro and Albania [4, 12]. LSD was reported for the first time from India in 2019 [5]. The disease has already spread to several states viz; Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Odisha, Jharkhand, West Bengal, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh of the country and has caused considerable economic losses to the livestock industry. This recent and unprecedented spread of LSDV in India and several other countries has highlighted the need for better research efforts into this rapidly emerging pathogen. India is currently lacking in the reagents required to develop diagnostic/therapeutic/prophylactic reagents, besides lacking established laboratories for LSDV research.

Clinically, all classical symptoms of LSD viz; fever, generalized skin nodules, enlargement of lymph nodes, anorexia, oedema of legs and lameness [6] were observed in most of the cases we observed in the outbreak in Ranch (India). Disease was not observed in buffaloes; however, a deer exhibited skin nodules. The morbidity was ~25% without any significant mortality which is in agreement with the previous findings [9, 10]. Presence of anti-LSDV neutralizing antibodies in some of the healthy in-contact susceptible animals (Table 2) suggests that certain animals may undergo subclinical infection in a typical LSD outbreak. Most of the collected scabs revealed the presence of LSDV genome (Table 2), however viremia was not apparent in any animal. The duration of viremia in LSDV varies between 1 to 10 days, though the virus may survive in the skin lesions for 4–6 months or longer [4]. It is quite possible that the viremic phase would have been over by the time the samples were collected.

Upon phylogenetic analyses, LSDV/India/2019/Ranchi showed the highest similarity to the Kenyan LSDV strains. The only previous study on LSDV from India also reported that Indian LSDV strains (from Odisha state of India) were closely related with Kenyan LSDV strains [5], suggesting a single LSDV strain is circulating in the country. The disease is primarily transmitted mechanically by arthropod vectors [24] and is capable of spreading across countries or even across continents by the movement of live animals [22]. It is likely that the disease could have been introduced in India by way of import of animals or animal products from Africa. There is potential for further geographic spread of LSD which necessitates increased surveillance. Although the virus isolated in this study was ~100% identical with the Kenyan LSDV strains, its complete genetic characterization (whole genome sequencing) as well as its ability to produce clinical disease needs to be further elucidated which is beyond the scope of this manuscript.

Primary cells of ovine, caprine and bovine origin are usually employed for LSDV isolation [4, 2528]. However, primary bovine dermis and PLT cells are considered to be the most susceptible [4]. In this study, PGK cells exhibited CPE in the very first passage. PLT cells showed CPE in third blind passage whereas PGT cells did not exhibit any CPE even up to the fourth blind passage. Taken together, it can be concluded that the PGK cells are the most sensitive cells for LSDV isolation among the three primary cell lines employed. However, primary cells are prone to contamination, time consuming and expensive to produce and are not considered appropriate with current efforts to reduce the use of animals in science. MDBK cells have been commonly used for the in vitro propagation of LSDV at high titres [28, 29]. Some studies also suggest the use of MDBK cells for LSDV isolation [28] but it seems uncertain whether these are more sensitive than the primary cells for virus isolation.

LSDV quantitation is currently based on determination of TCID50 in primary cells [26]. However, TCID50 may not represent the accurate virus titre as manual observation of CPE under microscope could lead to deviations in the results partly due to the possible subjective (eye) effect. Emerging evidences also suggest use of MDBK cell line for propagation of LSDV [2932]. A focus forming assay (in MDBK cells) has been described for LSDV [25, 29] but precise counting of foci under microscope is a tedious task. Although MDBK cells are considered sensitive for in vitro propagation of LSDV [28, 29], like in other cell types, virus does not produce plaques in MDBK cells. We for the first time adapted the LSDV in Vero cells by presuming that the LSDV may form plaques in an alternative cell line. No CPE could be observed upon immediate infection of LSDV (isolated in PGK cells) to Vero cells. Later on, CPE characterized by cell clustering (foci), like those observed previously in MDBK cells [29] was observed at P4. However, virus did not form any plaques at this stage (P4). On subsequent passage (P15), virus started producing a clear CPE, characterized by cell clustering, rounding and degeneration. P15 virus also produced plaques but were of small size and could not be precisely counted after crystal violet staining. Vero cell-adapted LSDV grown at a titre of ~107 PFU/ml which is similar to the virus titre obtained in primary cells [25] and MDBK cells [29], suggesting their suitability for the propagation of LSDV. Further passage(s) of LSDV (P>15) and some modifications in the plaque assay protocol are underway to enhance the plaque size. Although long-term adaptation of the LSDV in Vero cells enabled it to grow at high titres in the cultured cells, unlike primary cells, clinical specimens did not produce CPE in Vero cells (at least up to 3 passages we followed), which suggests their unsuitability for virus isolation.

LSDV has been relatively poorly studied and very little is known about its life cycle. In this study, we also provided some insights on the life cycle of cell culture adapted LSDV. In one-step growth curve analysis, LSDV (Vero cell-adapted) was shown to start synthesizing its DNA at ~24 hpi with peak level of viral DNA at ~96 hpi. Concomitantly the progeny virus particles started appearing in the infected cell culture supernatant at ~36 hpi with a peak viral titre at ~120 hpi. The kinetics of virus replication was somewhat similar in MDBK cells, however first evidence of progeny virus particles in infected cell culture supernatant was observed at 48 hpi. In addition, LSDV titres in MDBK infected cell culture supernatant did not attain a stationary phage even up to 192 hpi and overall viral titres were ~10-fold lower than Vero cells suggesting suitability of Vero cells for the propagation of Vero cell-adapted LSDV strain. Taken together, these lines of evidence in both Vero and MDBK cells suggest that the life cycle of LSDV (Vero cell-adapted) is 36–48 h in cultured cells. These finding on LSDV which were lacking in the literature are likely to facilitate our understanding about various aspects of virus replication and pathogenesis.

This study describes the first successful isolation of LSDV in India, besides providing insights into the life cycle and in vitro propagation of LSDV in some primary and established cell lines.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Identification of LSDV.

Virus was recovered from the scabs in DMEM followed by DNA extraction and PCR to amplify capripoxvirus-specific P32 gene.

(TIFF)

S2 Fig

Virus isolation (a) Virus isolation. An aliquot of the virus (500 μl filtrate) was used to infect confluent monolayer of PGT, PGK and PLT cells for 2 h followed by addition of fresh growth medium. The cells were observed daily for appearance of the CPE. The CPE observed in PGK, PLT and MDBK cells is shown. (b) Adaptation to Vero cells. An aliquot (500 μl) of the LSDV isolated in PGK cells was used to infect confluent monolayers of Vero cells for 2 h followed by followed by addition of fresh growth medium without serum. The cells were observed daily for appearance of CPE. The CPE observed at P4 and P15 is shown.

(TIFF)

S1 Raw image

(PDF)

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Science and Engineering Research Board, Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, Grant number CRG/2018/004747 and CVD/2020/000103 to NKu and Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Grant Number IXX11882 to SB. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.RAS M (1931) Pseudo-Urticaria of Cattle. Government of Northern Rhodesia: Department of Animal Health: 20–21. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Tuppurainen ES, Oura CA (2012) Review: lumpy skin disease: an emerging threat to Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Transbound Emerg Dis 59: 40–48. 10.1111/j.1865-1682.2011.01242.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Yeruham I, Nir O, Braverman Y, Davidson M, Grinstein H, et al. (1995) Spread of lumpy skin disease in Israeli dairy herds. Vet Rec 137: 91–93. 10.1136/vr.137.4.91 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.OIE (2017) Lumpy skin Disease OIE Terrestrial Mannual 2017 Chapter 2.4.13.
  • 5.Sudhakar SB, Mishra N, Kalaiyarasu S, Jhade SK, Hemadri D, et al. (2020) Lumpy skin disease (LSD) outbreaks in cattle in Odisha state, India in August 2019: Epidemiological features and molecular studies. Transbound Emerg Dis. 10.1111/tbed.13579 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Woods JA (1988) Lumpy skin disease—a review. Trop Anim Health Prod 20: 11–17. 10.1007/BF02239636 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Tasioudi KE, Antoniou SE, Iliadou P, Sachpatzidis A, Plevraki E, et al. (2016) Emergence of Lumpy Skin Disease in Greece, 2015. Transbound Emerg Dis 63: 260–265. 10.1111/tbed.12497 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Edelsten M (2014) Threat to European cattle from lumpy skin disease. Vet Rec 175: 330 10.1136/vr.g5969 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Molla W, de Jong MCM, Gari G, Frankena K (2017) Economic impact of lumpy skin disease and cost effectiveness of vaccination for the control of outbreaks in Ethiopia. Prev Vet Med 147: 100–107. 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2017.09.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Casal J, Allepuz A, Miteva A, Pite L, Tabakovsky B, et al. (2018) Economic cost of lumpy skin disease outbreaks in three Balkan countries: Albania, Bulgaria and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (2016–2017). Transbound Emerg Dis 65: 1680–1688. 10.1111/tbed.12926 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.CABI (2019) Lumpy skin Disease. https://wwwcabiorg/isc/datasheet/76780.
  • 12.Lojkic I, Simic I, Kresic N, Bedekovic T (2018) Complete Genome Sequence of a Lumpy Skin Disease Virus Strain Isolated from the Skin of a Vaccinated Animal. Genome Announc 6 10.1128/genomeA.00482-18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Abutarbush SM, Tuppurainen ESM (2018) Serological and clinical evaluation of the Yugoslavian RM65 sheep pox strain vaccine use in cattle against lumpy skin disease. Transbound Emerg Dis 65: 1657–1663. 10.1111/tbed.12923 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kitching RP (2003) Vaccines for lumpy skin disease, sheep pox and goat pox. Dev Biol (Basel) 114: 161–167. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Tuppurainen ES, Pearson CR, Bachanek-Bankowska K, Knowles NJ, Amareen S, et al. (2014) Characterization of sheep pox virus vaccine for cattle against lumpy skin disease virus. Antiviral Res 109: 1–6. 10.1016/j.antiviral.2014.06.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kumar N, Wadhwa A, Chaubey KK, Singh SV, Gupta S, et al. (2014) Isolation and phylogenetic analysis of an orf virus from sheep in Makhdoom, India. Virus Genes 48: 312–319. 10.1007/s11262-013-1025-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kumar N, Khandelwal N, Kumar R, Chander Y, Rawat KD, et al. (2019) Inhibitor of Sarco/Endoplasmic Reticulum Calcium-ATPase Impairs Multiple Steps of Paramyxovirus Replication. Front Microbiol 10: 209 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00209 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Khandelwal N, Chander Y, Rawat KD, Riyesh T, Nishanth C, et al. (2017) Emetine inhibits replication of RNA and DNA viruses without generating drug-resistant virus variants. Antiviral Res 144: 196–204. 10.1016/j.antiviral.2017.06.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Coves-Datson EM, King SR, Legendre M, Gupta A, Chan SM, et al. (2020) A molecularly engineered antiviral banana lectin inhibits fusion and is efficacious against influenza virus infection in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 117: 2122–2132. 10.1073/pnas.1915152117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kumar R, Khandelwal N, Chander Y, Riyesh T, Tripathi BN, et al. (2018) MNK1 inhibitor as an antiviral agent suppresses buffalopox virus protein synthesis. Antiviral Res 160: 126–136. 10.1016/j.antiviral.2018.10.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Kumar N, Barua S, Riyesh T, Chaubey KK, Rawat KD, et al. (2016) Complexities in Isolation and Purification of Multiple Viruses from Mixed Viral Infections: Viral Interference, Persistence and Exclusion. PLoS One 11: e0156110 10.1371/journal.pone.0156110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Sprygin A, Pestova Y, Wallace DB, Tuppurainen E, Kononov AV (2019) Transmission of lumpy skin disease virus: A short review. Virus Res 269: 197637 10.1016/j.virusres.2019.05.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Saegerman C, Bertagnoli S, Meyer G, Ganiere JP, Caufour P, et al. (2019) Risk of introduction of Lumpy Skin Disease into France through imports of cattle. Transbound Emerg Dis 66: 957–967. 10.1111/tbed.13111 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Tuppurainen ES, Venter EH, Coetzer JA, Bell-Sakyi L (2015) Lumpy skin disease: attempted propagation in tick cell lines and presence of viral DNA in field ticks collected from naturally-infected cattle. Ticks Tick Borne Dis 6: 134–140. 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2014.11.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Babiuk S, Parkyn G, Copps J, Larence JE, Sabara MI, et al. (2007) Evaluation of an ovine testis cell line (OA3.Ts) for propagation of capripoxvirus isolates and development of an immunostaining technique for viral plaque visualization. J Vet Diagn Invest 19: 486–491. 10.1177/104063870701900505 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.House JA, Wilson TM, el Nakashly S, Karim IA, Ismail I, et al. (1990) The isolation of lumpy skin disease virus and bovine herpesvirus-4 from cattle in Egypt. J Vet Diagn Invest 2: 111–115. 10.1177/104063879000200205 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Binepal YS, Ongadi FA, Chepkwony JC (2001) Alternative cell lines for the propagation of lumpy skin disease virus. Onderstepoort J Vet Res 68: 151–153. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Salnikov N, Usadov T, Kolcov A, Zhivoderov S, Morgunov Y, et al. (2018) Identification and characterization of lumpy skin disease virus isolated from cattle in the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania in 2015. Transbound Emerg Dis 65: 916–920. 10.1111/tbed.12818 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Fay PC, Cook CG, Wijesiriwardana N, Tore G, Comtet L, et al. (2020) Madin-Darby bovine kidney (MDBK) cells are a suitable cell line for the propagation and study of the bovine poxvirus lumpy skin disease virus. J Virol Methods 285: 113943 10.1016/j.jviromet.2020.113943 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Moller J, Moritz T, Schlottau K, Krstevski K, Hoffmann D, et al. (2019) Experimental lumpy skin disease virus infection of cattle: comparison of a field strain and a vaccine strain. Arch Virol 164: 2931–2941. 10.1007/s00705-019-04411-w [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Wallace DB, Viljoen GJ (2002) Importance of thymidine kinase activity for normal growth of lumpy skin disease virus (SA-Neethling). Arch Virol 147: 659–663. 10.1007/s007050200016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Munyanduki H, Douglass N, Offerman K, Carulei O, Williamson AL (2020) Influence of the lumpy skin disease virus (LSDV) superoxide dismutase homologue on host transcriptional activity, apoptosis and histopathology. J Gen Virol 101: 645–650. 10.1099/jgv.0.001423 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Pierre Roques

9 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-31124

Isolation and characterization of lumpy skin disease virus from cattle in India

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kumar,

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 take in account the comments of the two reviewers and take care to the spelling errors in some place. As noted by the two reviewers, please provide a few more information/ explanation in the comparison of VERO and MDBK cells cultures used in this study. In addition, please check the repository status. please provide a full explanation refering to page and line for modification in the manuscript corresponding to the answers to the reviewers in your rebutal letter.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 24 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're 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.

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). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Pierre Roques, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

1. 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

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional location information of the study area, including geographic coordinates for the data set if available.

3. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

4. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

5.  We note that Figure 2 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

5.1.    You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 2 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

5.2.    If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: The authors describe the first successful isolation of LSDV from a natural outbreak in India. LSDV as causative agent was confirmed by clinical observation, PCR, partial sequencing and serum neutralization assay. In addition, three different primary cell lines were examined regarding their susceptibility towards LSDV, and utilization of an alternative permanent cell line (Vero cells) for propagation of LSDV was analyzed. Moreover, authors compared viral genome load and virus titer in cell culture systems at different time points post infection to gain insight in the life cycle of LSDV.

General

• l. 184: phosphate buffered saline

• l. 211: subcutis

• l. 236: LSDV/SPV/GPV

• l. 255: PGT

• l. 256: Why the MDBK cells were not used for virus isolation in comparison?

• l. 257: brackets should be deleted

• l. 295: maybe better “Serum samples from all the clinically affected animals that showed presence of…” instead of brackets

• l. 298: titer of 1:64 to 1:1024

• l. 308: “from India in 2019”

• l. 311: “(until this paper is being written)” is not necessary

• l. 352: TCID50

• l. 379: phase

• be consistent with spelling “titer” (AE) or titre (BE) during the manuscript

Figures and Tables

• Figure 2: brackets not necessary

• Figure 3: could be given as supplemental information

• Figure 5: cold be given as supplemental information

• Table 2

o footnotes (*, #) should be described

o information about how many scabs were taken from an individual and how many scabs were taken at the same farm would be helpful

o please specify scab 22 “1 month later”, is this related to an individual animal/farm (which one?) or in general?

o In place of Viremia, better: LSDV genome (blood)

o Antibody titer

o Antibody titer should be indicated as 1:xx or transferred into ND50/ml

• Figure legend Figure 2: explain red triangles

Results

• Structure outbreak and later cell culture work together – in detail:

o “reactivity of LSDV to the sera from LSDV-infected animals” should be between “Identification of the agent” and “phylogenetic analysis” as it belongs to the examination of the outbreak and results are additionally presented in Table 2

Reviewer #2: What are the main claims of the paper and how significant are they for the discipline?

• The paper describes outbreaks of LSDV in India, and contains interesting details such as the existence of serologically positive animals which display no clinical signs, morbidity data, and phylogenetic analyses of the virus isolated. This information will be important to researchers in the field and policy makers who are trying to control the current LSD epidemic in Asia.

Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature? Have the authors treated the literature fairly?

• The literature is cited well, and most of the claims are properly placed in the context. However the utility and widespread use of MDBK cells to isolate and analyse capripoxviruses is not highlighted sufficiently.

Do the data and analyses fully support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

• The majority of the claims are well supported. The only unsupported claim is the use of Vero cells for the propagation of LSDV (line 367-370 and elsewhere). The authors clearly show that Vero cells cannot support propagation of field strains of LSDV (line 264-269). The virus had to be passaged 15 times in order for CPE and viral plaques to be detected on Vero cells. The literature, however, shows that MDBK cells do not require such virus adaptation and CPE can be detected on first passage. The authors should therefore have concluded that Vero cells are not permissive for LSDV isolation and are inferior to MDBK cells in this respect. Their conclusion that Vero cells are suitable for the propagation of LSDV is incorrect and not supported by their results.

• Figure 5C is very indistinct, can the authors provide a better quality one? The plaques are not distinguishable on the current figure

• Please provide statistical analyses for the comparisons between Vero cells and MDBK cells in Figure 6. Are the differences reported statistically significant?

• Please re-examine the legend for Figure 6. It is not correct. A and B are growth curves. C and D (not currently mentioned in the legend) are PCRs.

• Make it clear in the legend and text for Figure 6 that the data presented is for the cell culture adapted strain of LSDV, not a field strain. This is very important for diagnosticians who may read the manuscript and not realise straight away that Vero cells do not support LSDV isolation.

• Do not use PFU/ml as a synonym for TCID50, as described in the legend of Figure 6. They are very different things. If you counted plaques (or foci) then use PFU. If you examined cells for CPE, use TCID50.

PLOS ONE encourages authors to publish detailed protocols and algorithms as supporting information online. Do any particular methods used in the manuscript warrant such treatment? If a protocol is already provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

• Not applicable

If the paper is considered unsuitable for publication in its present form, does the study itself show sufficient potential that the authors should be encouraged to resubmit a revised version?

• Not application

Are original data deposited in appropriate repositories and accession/version numbers provided for genes, proteins, mutants, diseases, etc.?

• The LSDV strain has been deposited in a repository (lines 261-262) although this could not be confirmed on the website of the depository

Are details of the methodology sufficient to allow the experiments to be reproduced?

• Yes

Is the manuscript well organized and written clearly enough to be accessible to non-specialists?

• Yes, it is very nicely written.

**********

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.]

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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jan 11;16(1):e0241022. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241022.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


26 Nov 2020

Journal Requirements:

1. 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

Revised manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional location information of the study area, including geographic coordinates for the data set if available.

Additional geographic coordinates for the data set have been provided in the text (Line 117 in the revised manuscript).

3. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

Blot/gel image data are in supporting information [S1_Fig-Raw Image (pdf file) provided in the revised manuscript]

4. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

Phrases containing “data not shown” have been removed

5. We note that Figure 2 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth).

Figure 2 has been deleted

Responses to the Reviewer’s comments

Reviewer #1:

The authors describe the first successful isolation of LSDV from a natural outbreak in India. LSDV as causative agent was confirmed by clinical observation, PCR, partial sequencing and serum neutralization assay. In addition, three different primary cell lines were examined regarding their susceptibility towards LSDV, and utilization of an alternative permanent cell line (Vero cells) for propagation of LSDV was analyzed. Moreover, authors compared viral genome load and virus titer in cell culture systems at different time points post infection to gain insight in the life cycle of LSDV.

General

• l. 184: phosphate buffered saline

Corrected as suggested (Line 85 in the revised manuscript)

• l. 211: subcutis

Corrected as suggested (Line 213 in the revised manuscript).

• l. 236: LSDV/SPV/GPV

Corrected as suggested (Line 243 in the revised manuscript).

• l. 255: PGT

Corrected as suggested (Line 262 in the revised manuscript).

• l. 256: Why the MDBK cells were not used for virus isolation in comparison?

Primary cells of ovine, caprine and bovine origin are considered to be the most sensitive cells for LSDV isolation (OIE, 2017, Babiuk et al., 2007, House et al., 1990, Binepal et al., 2001, Salnikov et al., 2018). MDBK cells have been used to propagate the LSDV at high titres (Fay et al., 2020, Salnikov et al., 2018). Some studies also suggest use of MDBK cells for LSDV isolation (Salnikov et al., 2018). However, it is uncertain whether these are more sensitive than primary cells for LSDV isolation. We had primary goat kidney cells, primary lamb kidney cells and primary lamb testicle cells already in hand, so it’s not worth employing MDBK cells for virus isolation. However, later (as per the suggestions of the Reviewer), we also infected the MDBK cells with the clinical specimen(s) but CPE could not be observed at the first passage as it was observed in PGK (primary goat kidney) cells. This suggests that MDBK cells may not be as sensitive as PGK cells for virus isolation. However, we believe that this cannot be used as proof of principle as virus isolation from clinical specimens may be influenced by several factors such as (i) virus titre in the clinical specimens (ii) nature of cryptic (unknown) agents present in the cell culture system (iii) co infecting (unknown) agents present in the clinical specimens.

• l. 257: brackets should be deleted

Corrected as suggested (Line 256 in the revised manuscript).

• l. 295: maybe better “Serum samples from all the clinically affected animals that showed presence of…” instead of brackets

Corrected as suggested (Line 235-236 in the revised manuscript).

• l. 298: titer of 1:64 to 1:1024

Corrected as suggested (Line 238 in the revised manuscript).

• l. 308: “from India in 2019”

Corrected as suggested (Line 314 in the revised manuscript).

• l. 311: “(until this paper is being written)” is not necessary

Corrected as suggested

• l. 352: TCID50

Corrected as suggested (Line 362 in the revised manuscript).

• l. 379: phase be consistent with spelling “titer” (AE) or titre (BE) during the manuscript

“Titre” has been followed in the entire manuscript

Figures and Tables

• Figure 2: brackets not necessary

Figure 2 has been deleted in the revised manuscript

• Figure 3: could be given as supplemental information

Figure 3 has been shifted to supplementary information (S1 Fig in the revised manuscript)

• Figure 5: cold be given as supplemental information

Figure 5 has been shifted to Supplemental information (S2 Fig in the revised manuscript)

• Table 2

o footnotes (*, #) should be described

Foot notes have been described (Line 232-233 in the revised manuscript).

o information about how many scabs were taken from an individual and how many scabs were taken at the same farm would be helpful

At least 2 scabs were taken from each individual animal. The number of animals from an individual farm varies, depending on the availability of the affected animals. Please see Table 2 (Line 232-233 in the revised manuscript).

o please specify scab 22 “1 month later”, is this related to an individual animal/farm (which one?) or in general?

This is in relation to the individual animal (serial number 15). It has been mentioned in the Table 2 accordingly (Line 232-233 in the revised manuscript).

o In place of Viremia, better: LSDV genome (blood)

Viremia replaced with LSDV genome (blood) (Line 232-233 in the revised manuscript).

o Antibody titer

Corrected as suggested (Line 232-233 in the revised manuscript).

o Antibody titer should be indicated as 1:xx or transferred into ND50/ml

Corrected as suggested (written as 1:XX) (Line 232-233 in the revised manuscript).

• Figure legend Figure 2: explain red triangles

Figure 2 has been deleted in the revised manuscript

Results

• Structure outbreak and later cell culture work together – in detail:

Structured as suggested

o “reactivity of LSDV to the sera from LSDV-infected animals” should be between “Identification of the agent” and “phylogenetic analysis” as it belongs to the examination of the outbreak and results are additionally presented in Table 2

Rearranged the text as per the suggestions

Reviewer #2:

What are the main claims of the paper and how significant are they for the discipline?

• The paper describes outbreaks of LSDV in India, and contains interesting details such as the existence of serologically positive animals which display no clinical signs, morbidity data, and phylogenetic analyses of the virus isolated. This information will be important to researchers in the field and policy makers who are trying to control the current LSD epidemic in Asia.

We thank the Reviewer for his/her enthusiasm towards this study.

Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature? Have the authors treated the literature fairly?

• The literature is cited well, and most of the claims are properly placed in the context. However the utility and widespread use of MDBK cells to isolate and analyse capripoxviruses is not highlighted sufficiently.

Use of MDBK cells for LSDV isolation and propagation has been described in detail in the revised manuscript. (Line 349-362 and 368-371 in the revised manuscript).

Do the data and analyses fully support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

• The majority of the claims are well supported. The only unsupported claim is the use of Vero cells for the propagation of LSDV (line 367-370 and elsewhere). The authors clearly show that Vero cells cannot support propagation of field strains of LSDV (line 264-269). The virus had to be passaged 15 times in order for CPE and viral plaques to be detected on Vero cells. The literature, however, shows that MDBK cells do not require such virus adaptation and CPE can be detected on first passage.

The authors should therefore have concluded that Vero cells are not permissive for LSDV isolation and are inferior to MDBK cells in this respect. Their conclusion that Vero cells are suitable for the propagation of LSDV is incorrect and not supported by their results.

We thank the Reviewer for this important suggestion. In fact we realised that some of our conclusions about the Vero cells were somewhat improperly written. In the revised manuscript, comparison on Vero and MDBK cell culture has been elaborated and some of the over interpretations made about Vero cells have been removed/rewritten. Also the suitability of MDBK cells for LSDV isolation and propagation has been discussed in detail. (Line 382-385 and 297-206 in the revised manuscript).

• Figure 5C is very indistinct, can the authors provide a better quality one? The plaques are not distinguishable on the current figure

Our main aim of propagating the LSDV in Vero cells was to produce plaques. Unlike the primary cells, Vero-adapted LSDV produced plaques but were of small size to capture a good image. Therefore, in the revised manuscript, we have removed Fig 5c.

• Please provide statistical analyses for the comparisons between Vero cells and MDBK cells in Figure 6. Are the differences reported statistically significant?

We have provided statistical analysis wherever applicable. The differences in the viral titres between Vero and MDBK cells are apparently significant. However, the statistical calculation is only possible at certain time points (96hpi, 144 hpi and 196hpi) wherever there are variations in the biological replicates. The absence of any variations in three the biological replicates limits the calculation of significant statistical difference.

However, we have provided the statistical analysis for the levels of viral DNA in Vero and MDBK cells at different time points. Pair-wise statistical comparisons were performed using Student’s t test. (Fig 3 and Line 542-548 in the revised manuscript).

• Please re-examine the legend for Figure 6. It is not correct. A and B are growth curves. C and D (not currently mentioned in the legend) are PCRs.

We thank the Reviewer for pointing out this mistake. The legend has been corrected (Line 528-534 in the revised manuscript).

• Make it clear in the legend and text for Figure 6 that the data presented is for the cell culture adapted strain of LSDV, not a field strain. This is very important for diagnosticians who may read the manuscript and not realise straight away that Vero cells do not support LSDV isolation.

We have mentioned in the Figure legend and discussion section that this is applicable to cell culture adapted strain of LSDV (Line 190, 378, 388 and 529 in the revised manuscript).

• Do not use PFU/ml as a synonym for TCID50, as described in the legend of Figure 6. They are very different things. If you counted plaques (or foci) then use PFU. If you examined cells for CPE, use TCID50.

We thank the Reviewer for pointing out this issue. Virus titres were determined by TCID50 assay and converted to estimated plaque-forming units (PFU) by the conversion TCID50 ≈ 0.7 PFU as per the standard conversion formula described previously by Coves-Datson EM et al (2020, PNAS, USA). This was carried out to ensure homogeneity in the expression of viral titres (PFU/ml or TCID50/ml).

PLOS ONE encourages authors to publish detailed protocols and algorithms as supporting information online. Do any particular methods used in the manuscript warrant such treatment? If a protocol is already provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

• Not applicable

We thank the Reviewer

If the paper is considered unsuitable for publication in its present form, does the study itself show sufficient potential that the authors should be encouraged to resubmit a revised version?

• Not applicable

We thank the Reviewer

Are original data deposited in appropriate repositories and accession/version numbers provided for genes, proteins, mutants, diseases, etc.?

• The LSDV strain has been deposited in a repository (lines 261-262) although this could not be confirmed on the website of the depository

We have asked the concerned repository to update the information of our deposited LSDV strain. In fact the information has been updated. Please visit at www.ncvtc.org.in (Under Distribution of Microbes)

Are details of the methodology sufficient to allow the experiments to be reproduced?

• Yes

We thank the Reviewer

Is the manuscript well organized and written clearly enough to be accessible to non-specialists?

• Yes, it is very nicely written.

We thank the Reviewer

Attachment

Submitted filename: Responswes to the Reviewers comments.doc

Decision Letter 1

Pierre Roques

22 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-31124R1

Isolation and characterization of lumpy skin disease virus from cattle in India

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kumar,

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.

As stated by the reviewer 2, the usage of VERO cells to isolation and propagation of wild type LSDV is still a mater of debate. Thus you have to clearly indicate as requested that adaptation to this cell line is needed to allow usage of VERO cells until you were able to shown multiple isolation of LSDV from field sampling using this cell line and not the classical MDBK cells. The fact that amplification of a reference adaptated LSDV strain in VERO can be done is of interest but the limitation of such a strain remains to be highlighted to people that are more interested in the epidemiological aspect of the LSDV emergence in India to avoid any missinterpretation.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 05 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're 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.

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). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Pierre Roques, Ph.D.

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: (No Response)

**********

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: Partly

**********

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: The performed changes in the revised manuscript are fine for me. This revised version is acceptable for publication.

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed the majority of the comments by the reviewers. However they need to make very clear throughout the manuscript that they are analysing their laboratory adapted strain of LSDV in figure 3, and not a wildtype strain. The inability of Vero cells to support propagation of LSDV needs to be clearly stated. The authors also need to make clear that MDBK cells are a suitable and widely used cell line for LSDV isolation and propagation. This information is very important for diagnosticians who may read the manuscript and not realise straight away that Vero cells do not support LSDV isolation. Thus please take in account the comments from the reviewer 2.

Please correct “LSDV” to “Vero-cell adapted strain of LSDV” on line 35, 39, 292, 295, 298, 302, 394, 398 (twice) and 536. Also in the legend to Figure 3.

Add MDBK cells to the list of cells used for LSDV isolation on line 349-350.

Delete lines 379-380 and 396 which state that Vero cells are suitable for the propagation of LSDV. They are clearly not.

Line 95-96 Delete the statement “However, a plaque assay to precisely quantify infectious LSDV is still lacking.” This plaque assay has been described in Fay et al 2020.

Figure S2 (b) the images are out of focus, which precludes examination of the CPE at p15. Do the authors have a better image?

Figure S2 (b) LSDV is spelt incorrectly in the figure heading.

**********

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.]

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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jan 11;16(1):e0241022. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241022.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


23 Dec 2020

To,

Pierre Roques, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONEPLOS One

December 23, 2020

Subject: Submission of revised manuscript for publication

Dear Dr. Roques,

We are indebted for your help to facilitate the review of our manuscript entitled “Isolation and characterization of lumpy skin disease virus from cattle in India”. We wish to thank the reviewers for their careful evaluation of our manuscript.

Nowhere in the entire manuscript had we described that Vero cells may be used for virus isolation/propagation of wild-type LSDV strain. We just described that LSDV, in fact can be adapted to Vero cells and adapted virus can be grown in high titers in Vero cells.

Phillipa M. Beard’s group (Fay et al., 2020) has published a paper about propagation of LSDV in MDBK cells which has been cited by us as well. Although MDBK cells have been used for LSDV propagation but there is no mention in the literature that MDBK cells are better than primary cells for LSDV isolation. Therefore, we used primary cells (primary goat kidney cells) for LSDV isolation in this study.

After isolation in primary cells, we adapted the virus in Vero cells with two major objectives (i) Attempting whether Vero adapted LSDV can form plaques because a plaque assay for LSDV has not yet been described (ii) The current LSDV vaccine is based upon attenuation of the LSDV in primary cells/MDBK cells but it has disadvantage of producing a local reaction at the site of inoculation. Therefore, we hypothesized that attenuation in a different cell line (such as Vero cell used by us) may overcome with this problem. However, testing vaccine efficacy of Vero cell-adapted LSDV strain needs further investigations.

In the previous version of the manuscript, we had already described (Line number 357-361) that MDBK cells are also sensitive for LSDV isolation. Similarly, we had clearly mentioned that Vero cells are not suitable for virus isolation from the clinical specimens (Line number 382-385). Raising this issue again and again suggests that Reviewer 2 has either not read the revised manuscript carefully or has conflict of interest with this study.

All the corrections in the revised manuscript are highlighted in red. Our responses to the reviewer’s specific comments are outlined below in bold letters. We hope that you and the reviewers will find this revised version acceptable for publication in your esteemed Journal.

Yours sincerely

Naveen Kumar, Ph.D.

Principal Scientist (Veterinary Virology)

National Center for Veterinary Type Cultures

Sirsa Road, Hisar, Haryana-125001

India

email: naveenkumar.icar@gmail.com

Reviewer #1:

The performed changes in the revised manuscript are fine for me. This revised version is acceptable for publication.

We thank the Reviewer for considering our manuscript acceptable for publication

Reviewer #2:

The authors have addressed the majority of the comments by the reviewers. However they need to make very clear throughout the manuscript that they are analysing their laboratory adapted strain of LSDV in figure 3, and not a wild-type strain.

We have mentioned “Vero cell-adapted LSDV” instead of LSDV wherever it’s required (please see line number 35, 40, 190, 292, 295, 296, 388, 396, 398, 528-529 in the revised manuscript).

The inability of Vero cells to support propagation of LSDV needs to be clearly stated.

Even in the previous version of the manuscript we had clearly mentioned (Line number 382-385 in the current and previous version of the manuscript) that Vero cells are not suitable for LSDV isolation from the clinical specimens.

The authors also need to make clear that MDBK cells are a suitable and widely used cell line for LSDV isolation and propagation. This information is very important for diagnosticians who may read the manuscript and not realise straight away that Vero cells do not support LSDV isolation. Thus please take in account the comments from the reviewer 2.

In the previous version of the manuscript, we had already described (Line number 357-361 in the current and previous version of the manuscript) that MDBK cells are also sensitive for LSDV isolation. We never compared Vero cells with MDBK/primary cells for virus isolation. We just compared the growth of Vero cell-adapted LSDV in Vero and MDBK cells (Fig. 3) where Vero cells were certainly found better than MDBK cells for the growth of LSDV (Vero cell-adapted).

Please correct “LSDV” to “Vero-cell adapted strain of LSDV” on line 35, 39, 292, 295, 298, 302, 394, 398 (twice) and 536. Also in the legend to Figure 3.

We have mentioned “Vero cell-adapted LSDV” instead of LSDV wherever it’s required (please see line number 35, 40, 190, 292, 295, 296, 388, 396, 398, 528-529 in the revised manuscript).

Add MDBK cells to the list of cells used for LSDV isolation on line 349-350.

Again, in the previous version of the manuscript, we had already described (Line number 357-361 in the current and previous version of the manuscript) that MDBK cells may also be used for LSDV isolation.

Delete lines 379-380 and 396 which state that Vero cells are suitable for the propagation of LSDV. They are clearly not.

We totally disagree with the Reviewer about deleting this statement because this is about the growth of Vero cell-adapted LSDV (not wild type LSDV) where Vero cells produced higher titer than MDBK cells.

Line 95-96 Delete the statement “However, a plaque assay to precisely quantify infectious LSDV is still lacking.” This plaque assay has been described in Fay et al 2020.

The paper by Beard’s group (Fay et al., 2020) describes focus forming assay. Unlike plaque assay, the foci (formed in this assay) need to be counted under microscope, thereby it is not considered as good as plaque assay where plaques can be directly counted with naked eyes.

Figure S2 (b) the images are out of focus, which precludes examination of the CPE at p15. Do the authors have a better image?

We have provided a different better image

Figure S2 (b) LSDV is spelt incorrectly in the figure heading.

Corrected

Attachment

Submitted filename: R2 Responswes to the Reviewers comments.doc

Decision Letter 2

Pierre Roques

23 Dec 2020

Isolation and characterization of lumpy skin disease virus from cattle in India

PONE-D-20-31124R2

Dear Dr. Kumar,

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

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. 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 help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- 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.

Kind regards,

Pierre Roques, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

thank you for your comments and have a good new year and a happy Christmas

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Pierre Roques

28 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-31124R2

Isolation and characterization of lumpy skin disease virus from cattle in India

Dear Dr. Kumar:

I'm 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 let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, 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.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Pierre Roques

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 Fig. Identification of LSDV.

    Virus was recovered from the scabs in DMEM followed by DNA extraction and PCR to amplify capripoxvirus-specific P32 gene.

    (TIFF)

    S2 Fig

    Virus isolation (a) Virus isolation. An aliquot of the virus (500 μl filtrate) was used to infect confluent monolayer of PGT, PGK and PLT cells for 2 h followed by addition of fresh growth medium. The cells were observed daily for appearance of the CPE. The CPE observed in PGK, PLT and MDBK cells is shown. (b) Adaptation to Vero cells. An aliquot (500 μl) of the LSDV isolated in PGK cells was used to infect confluent monolayers of Vero cells for 2 h followed by followed by addition of fresh growth medium without serum. The cells were observed daily for appearance of CPE. The CPE observed at P4 and P15 is shown.

    (TIFF)

    S1 Raw image

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Responswes to the Reviewers comments.doc

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: R2 Responswes to the Reviewers comments.doc

    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