Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Feb 11;16(2):e0246503. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246503

Transmission of the atypical/Nor98 scrapie agent to Suffolk sheep with VRQ/ARQ, ARQ/ARQ, and ARQ/ARR genotypes

Eric D Cassmann 1, Najiba Mammadova 1, S Jo Moore 1, Sylvie Benestad 2, Justin J Greenlee 1,*
Editor: Gianluigi Zanusso3
PMCID: PMC7877616  PMID: 33571246

Abstract

Scrapie is a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy that occurs in sheep. Atypical/Nor98 scrapie occurs in sheep that tend to be resistant to classical scrapie and it is thought to occur spontaneously. The purpose of this study was to test the transmission of the Atypical/Nor98 scrapie agent in three genotypes of Suffolk sheep and characterize the distribution of misfolded prion protein (PrPSc). Ten sheep were intracranially inoculated with brain homogenate from a sheep with Atypical/Nor98 scrapie. All sheep with the ARQ/ARQ and ARQ/ARR genotypes developed Atypical/Nor98 scrapie confirmed by immunohistochemistry, and one sheep with the VRQ/ARQ genotype had detectable PrPSc consistent with Atypical/Nor98 scrapie at the experimental endpoint of 8 years. Sheep with mild early accumulations of PrPSc in the cerebellum had concomitant retinal PrPSc. Accordingly, large amounts of retinal PrPSc were identified in clinically affected sheep and sheep with dense accumulations of PrPSc in the cerebellum.

Introduction

Atypical/Nor98 scrapie (AS) is a fatal prion disease of sheep caused by a misfolded form of the prion protein. Unlike classical scrapie (CS), AS is thought to be a spontaneously occurring disease [13]. This is supported by the presence of AS in countries that are free of classical scrapie [4, 5]. It typically affects a single older sheep within a flock, and cases of AS are sporadic and isolated suggesting that natural transmission is unlikely.

The susceptibility of sheep to CS is closely related to polymorphisms in the prion protein gene (PRNP) [6, 7]. Polymorphisms associated with susceptibility or resistance to CS occur at codons 136, 154, and 171. Sheep with the V136R154Q171 and A136R154Q171 haplotypes are susceptible to CS; however, the amino acid polymorphisms A136, R154, and R171 are associated with relative resistance [810]. Conversely, naturally occurring cases of AS arise in sheep with the AHQ, ARQ, and ARR haplotypes, and a polymorphism substituting phenylalanine (F) at codon 141 in the PRNP gene increases the risk of AS [1113].

Several experiments have demonstrated the ability of the AS agent to transmit within the natural host after intracranial inoculation [1416]. One study found that the AS agent could transmit after a high oral dose of AS brain homogenate [17]. Nonetheless, AS is still considered unlikely to transmit under field conditions; therefore, eradication and surveillance programs for CS have allowed exceptions for AS. As research into AS unfolds, the biological relevance of this disease is gaining attention. Two studies have demonstrated phenotype changes in AS that imply a possible origin for classical scrapie [18] and classical BSE [19]. The present study was designed to generate AS brain material for subsequent projects to investigate interspecies transmission events. Herein, we report our findings after the experimental transmission of AS in sheep with the VRQ/ARQ, ARQ/ARQ, and ARQ/ARR genotypes. This study validates previous work on these genotypes and documents the early accumulation of PrPSc in the retina of sheep with AS.

Results and discussion

All three genotypes of sheep, VRQ/ARQ, ARQ/ARQ, and ARQ/ARR, were susceptible to the AS agent after intracranial inoculation of donor brain homogenate. The diagnosis of AS was confirmed by enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) with the latter being confirmative. Previous studies have demonstrated experimental transmission of AS to AHQ/AHQ [14, 15] and ARQ/ARQ [16] genotype sheep after intracerebral transmission. Another study showed a phenotypic shift from AS to CH1641-like classical scrapie in a sheep with the AHQ/AHQ genotype [18]. In this study, sheep with the ARQ/ARR genotype had the shortest incubation period ranging from 4.9 years to the experimental endpoint of 8 years (Table 1), and the attack rate was 100% (5/5). Clinical signs were observed in all ARQ/ARR sheep except for a single wether that was culled early to help establish experimental endpoints. Three ARQ/ARR genotype sheep were euthanized due to clinical neurologic disease 4.9–6.7 years post-inoculation. Out of the three genotypes examined, only the ARQ/ARR genotype sheep developed clinical neurologic disease within the eight-year incubation period. In clinically neurologic sheep, we observed stiff legged and hypermetric ataxia (dysmetria), abnormal rear stance, generalized tremors, tremors of the lips, weight loss, and generalized malaise. The spectrum of clinical signs was comparable to other reports of experimental AS in sheep [14, 15]. Three ARQ/ARR genotype sheep (804, 927 and 948) with the most severe dysmetria also had the greatest amount of cerebellar PrPSc. Since dysmetria is typical of animals with cerebellar disease [20], the tendency to observe this as the most consistent and severe neurologic sign is likely related to the characteristic cerebellar accumulation of PrPSc in sheep with AS. The ARQ/ARQ genotype had a long incubation period and remained clinically asymptomatic, as also reported by Okada et al. [16].

Table 1. Results of atypical scrapie transmission in Suffolk sheep.

Animal no. PRNP genotype Years post-inoculation Death status Clinical signs Retina Cerebellum
IHC IHC EIA
937 ARQ/ARQ 3.9* Euthanized No + + +
958 ARQ/ARQ 8.1 End of study No + + +
804 ARQ/ARR 6.7 Euthanized Yes + + +
927 ARQ/ARR 4.9 Euthanized Yes + + +
929 ARQ/ARR 8.1 End of Study Yes‡ + + +
933 ARQ/ARR 6.4† Euthanized No + + +
948 ARQ/ARR 6.7 Euthanized Yes + + +
926 VRQ/ARQ 1.2* Found dead No neg neg neg
943 VRQ/ARQ 8.1 End of study No + + neg
971 VRQ/ARQ 2.9* Euthanized No neg neg neg

A summary of results from three different genotypes of Suffolk sheep inoculated with atypical scrapie brain homogenate. Years post-inoculation indicates the incubation period in sheep with clinical disease or the survival times in sheep with early intercurrent disease (*). Sheep 933 was preliminarily culled to help determine an appropriate study endpoint since only a single sheep (937) was IHC positive up to that point and no clinical disease had been observed in any sheep yet (†). Sheep 929 was noted to have early mild non-specific clinical signs at the end of the study (‡). Abbreviations: PRNP, prion protein gene; IHC, immunohistochemistry; EIA, enzyme immunoassay.

Sheep with the ARQ/ARQ genotype were positive for AS PrPSc by IHC (2/2). One positive wether remained asymptomatic and was necropsied at the experimental endpoint; whereas, the other sheep was culled due to intercurrent disease around four years post-inoculation. Out of the three original VRQ/ARQ genotype sheep, a single presymptomatic wether had PrPSc in the cerebellum and retina at the experimental endpoint of 8.1 years. The other two sheep succumbed to intercurrent disease, and they did not have detectable PrPSc by means of IHC or EIA at 1.2- and 2.9-years post-inoculation. The VRQ allele, that is generally associated with susceptibility to classical scrapie, is usually absent from naturally occurring AS cases [5, 12, 21]. However, in a study of AS cases from Great Britain, a single VRQ/ARQ case was reported [22]. The prolonged incubation period after intracranial inoculation of AS in a VRQ/ARQ genotype sheep is compatible with the low prevalence in field cases of AS. In fact, field cases of AS often have a polymorphism substituting phenylalanine (F) at codon 141 in the PRNP gene, and most cases have either the AF141RQ or AHQ alleles [12]. All of the sheep in this study contained the amino acid leucine (L) at codon 141.

In order to confirm that sheep had AS and rule out concomitant infection with classical scrapie, all tissues were examined by IHC for PrPSc. The distribution of PrPSc in the brains of sheep was consistent with AS. Immunolabeling of PrPSc appeared as granular and punctate deposits and was largely restricted to the molecular layer of the cerebellum (Fig 1A). Small amounts of punctate and granular staining were also seen in the cerebral cortex, basal nuclei, thalamus, and midbrain. In classical scrapie, PrPSc is found in the dorsal motor nucleus of the vagus nerve (DMNV), one of the early sites of central nervous system accumulation, and in the lymphoid tissue [3]. In the present experiment, PrPSc was observed in the spinal trigeminal tract (Fig 1B), and there was a lack of staining for PrPSc in the DMNV (Fig 1C). Additionally, no PrPSc was detectable by IHC in the lymphoid or peripheral tissues of any sheep; it remained confined to the CNS. Other studies have demonstrated infectivity in peripheral and lymphoid tissues that were IHC negative [17, 23]. This distribution of PrPSc in the present study was consistent with AS in sheep [1, 14]. Furthermore, all genotypes of sheep had similar PrPSc distributions; however, the density of staining was less severe in asymptomatic ARQ/ARQ and VRQ/ARQ genotype sheep. Given a longer incubation period culminating in clinical disease, it is expected that these genotypes would develop more severe PrPSc deposition similar to ARQ/ARR genotype sheep. PrPSc was also found in the spinal cords of each genotype of sheep. Staining of PrPSc appeared as small particulate or fine granular deposits in the dorsal horn. In sheep with the ARQ/ARR genotype, there was minimal PrPSc and it was usually observed in the cervical cord alone. Sheep 929 that lived to the experimental endpoint had PrPSc in both the cervical and thoracic cord segments. In sheep 958 (ARQ/ARQ) and 943 (VRQ/ARQ), there was a mild amount of PrPSc in the dorsal horn of the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spinal cord segments. This differs from classical scrapie that involves the entire grey matter of the spinal cord in late stage disease [24].

Fig 1. Immunoreactivity of PrPSc in sheep with atypical scrapie.

Fig 1

(A) There is a large amount of PrPSc (red color) within the molecular layer of cerebellum in sheep 958 (ARQ/ARQ). (B) PrPSc (red color) is confined to the spinal trigeminal tract in the medulla oblongata in sheep 948 (ARQ/ARR). (C) The dorsal motor nucleus of the vagus nerve (circle) is devoid of PrPSc in sheep 948. (D) There are multifocal patchy aggregates of PrPSc (red color) in the molecular layer of the cerebellum in sheep 943 (VRQ/ARQ). (E) A small amount of PrPSc (red color) is present in the retina of sheep 943. (F) In sheep 958 there are large amounts of PrPSc (red color) in the plexiform layers of the retina.

We performed both IHC and EIA on cerebellum, cerebrum (parietal cortex), and medulla oblongata at the level of the obex. For the ARQ/ARR and ARQ/ARQ genotype sheep, there was 100% (7/7) agreement between IHC and EIA at detecting PrPSc in the cerebellum. In contrast, the single positive VRQ/ARQ sheep was IHC positive and EIA negative in the cerebellum. This discrepancy was presumably due to the patchy and sparse distribution of PrPSc in the cerebellum (Fig 1D). PrPSc was rarely observed in other brain regions of this animal; however, PrPSc was detected in the retina with IHC (Fig 1E). Moreover, retinal PrPSc was present in each genotype of sheep with atypical scrapie PrPSc in the cerebellum. In clinical sheep with abundant cerebellar PrPSc, there were large amounts of PrPSc in the retina (Fig 1F). PrPSc occurred mostly in the inner and outer plexiform layers, but some minimal labeling was seen in the ganglion and nuclear cell layers. Other reports that describe atypical scrapie do not report retinal PrPSc [15, 1416, 25, 26]. In this study, sheep intracranially inoculated with the atypical scrapie agent accumulated retinal PrPSc in the early stages of disease concomitant with cerebellar PrPSc. This is significant because, sequentially, retinal PrPSc accumulates early in disease; therefore, IHC of retinal tissue may be more sensitive compared to non-cerebellar brain regions.

This experiment demonstrated the transmission of atypical scrapie to three genotypes of sheep after intracranially inoculation, and it is the first study demonstrating experimental transmission to sheep with a VRQ/ARQ PRNP genotype. Additionally, atypical scrapie is further characterized by demonstrating early accumulation of PrPSc in the retina of experimentally inoculated sheep.

Materials and methods

Animals for this experiment were derived from a known scrapie-free flock at the United States Department of Agriculture National Animal Disease Center in Ames, IA. This study used ten Suffolk sheep, nine wethers and one ewe. Nine sheep were 1 year old at the time of inoculation. A single sheep, #958, was 2 years old. Sheep in this study had three distinct PRNP genotypes: ARQ/ARQ, ARQ/ARR, and VRQ/ARQ. The genotypes were determined using polymerase chain reaction and Sanger sequencing as previously described [27]. Sheep were homozygous at other known polymorphic sites M112, G127, M137, S138, L141, R151, M157, N176, H180, Q189, T195, T196, R211, Q220, and R223.

The inoculum for this experiment was cerebral homogenate from an AHQ/ARH genotype sheep with atypical scrapie from Norway (Hedalen). The inoculum was obtained through a collaboration with Sylvie Benestad at the Norwegian Veterinary Institute. The brain homogenate was prepared as a 10% w/v homogenate. Sheep were intracranially inoculated with 1 ml (0.1 grams) of brain homogenate. The procedure has been described previously [28]. Briefly, the sheep were anesthetized with xylazine and a surgical field was prepped over the junction of parietal and frontal bones. A 1-cm skin incision was made, and then a 1-mm hole was drilled along the midline of the calvaria. A 9-cm spinal needle was inserted through the hole, and the inoculum was injected into the cranium. Sheep were kept in a biosecurity level 2 indoor pen for two weeks following inoculation and then moved to an outdoor area. They were fed a daily ration of pelleted and loose alfalfa hay. Sheep were monitored daily for any maladies or other clinical signs consistent with scrapie. The experimental endpoint for this experiment included the earliest of either unequivocal neurologic disease or 8 years post-inoculation. The final 8-year endpoint was established by performing a preliminarily cull of sheep 933 to help determine an appropriate endpoint. Sheep were euthanized at the onset of clinical disease or untreatable intercurrent disease. The method of euthanasia was intravenous administration of sodium pentobarbital as per label directions or as directed by an animal resources attending veterinarian. Clinical signs of disease included abnormalities in gate and/or stance, and ataxia.

A full post-mortem examination was performed on each sheep, and a routine set of tissues were collected consistent with previous experiments [29, 30]. A duplicate set of the following tissues were frozen or saved to 10% buffered neutral formalin: brain, spinal cord, pituitary, trigeminal ganglia, eyes, sciatic nerve, third eyelid, palatine tonsil, pharyngeal tonsil, lymph nodes (mesenteric, retropharyngeal, prescapular, and popliteal), spleen, esophagus, forestomaches, intestines, rectal mucosa, thymus, liver, kidney, urinary bladder, pancreas, salivary gland, thyroid gland, adrenal gland, trachea, lung, turbinate, nasal planum, heart, tongue, masseter, diaphragm, triceps brachii, biceps femoris, and psoas major. Formalin fixed tissues were processed, paraffin embedded, and sectioned at optimal thickness (brain, 4 μm; lymphoid, 3 μm; and other, 5 μm) for hematoxylin and eosin staining and IHC. For IHC, a cocktail of the monoclonal anti-PrPSc antibodies F89/160.1.5 [31] and F99/97.6.1 [32] was applied at a concentration of 5 μg/mL using an automated stainer. Frozen portions of cerebellum, parietal cerebral cortex, and brainstem at the level of the obex were homogenized and tested for the presence of PrPSc using a commercially available EIA (HerdChek; IDEXX Laboratories, Westbrook, ME) according to kit instructions.

Ethics statement

The laboratory and animal experiments were conducted in Biosafety Level 2 spaces that were inspected and approved for importing prion agents by the US Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Veterinary Services. The studies were done in accordance with the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, USA) and the Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Research and Teaching (Federation of Animal Science Societies, Champaign, IL, USA). The protocols were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at the National Animal Disease Center (protocol numbers: 3908 and ARS-2777), which require species-specific training in animal care for all staff handling animals.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Rylie Frese, Kevin Hassall, Joe Lesan, Leisa Mandell, and Trudy Tatum for excellent technical support. The findings and conclusions in this publication are those of the author(s) and should not be construed to represent any official USDA or U.S. Government determination or policy. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this article is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the Department of Agriculture. The Department of Agriculture is an equal-opportunity provider and employer.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

This research was funded in its entirety by congressionally appropriated funds to the United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. The funders of the work did not influence study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or the preparation of the manuscript. The findings and conclusions in this publication are those of the author(s) and should not be construed to represent any official USDA or U.S. Government determination or policy. This research was supported in part by appointments (N. Mammadova and S. Jo Moore) to the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Research Participation Program administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) through an interagency agreement between the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). ORISE is managed by ORAU under DOE contract number DESC0014664. All opinions expressed in this paper are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the policies and views of USDA, ARS, DOE, or ORAU/ORISE.

References

  • 1.Benestad SL, Sarradin P, Thu B, Schonheit J, Tranulis MA, Bratberg B. Cases of scrapie with unusual features in Norway and designation of a new type, Nor98. Vet Rec. 2003;153(7):202–8. 10.1136/vr.153.7.202 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Benestad SL, Arsac JN, Goldmann W, Noremark M. Atypical/Nor98 scrapie: properties of the agent, genetics, and epidemiology. Vet Res. 2008;39(4):19 10.1051/vetres:2007056 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Greenlee JJ. Review: Update on Classical and Atypical Scrapie in Sheep and Goats. Vet Pathol. 2019;56(1):6–16. Epub 2018/09/12. 10.1177/0300985818794247 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Cook RW, Bingham J, Besier AS, Bayley CL, Hawes M, Shearer PL, et al. Atypical scrapie in Australia. Aust Vet J. 2016;94(12):452–5. Epub 2016/11/04. 10.1111/avj.12529 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kittelberger R, Chaplin MJ, Simmons MM, Ramirez-Villaescusa A, McIntyre L, MacDiarmid SC, et al. Atypical scrapie/Nor98 in a sheep from New Zealand. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2010;22(6):863–75. 10.1177/104063871002200604 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bossers A, Schreuder BE, Muileman IH, Belt PB, Smits MA. PrP genotype contributes to determining survival times of sheep with natural scrapie. The Journal of general virology. 1996;77(10):2669–73. 10.1099/0022-1317-77-10-2669 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Goldmann W, Hunter N, Foster JD, Salbaum JM, Beyreuther K, Hope J. Two alleles of a neural protein gene linked to scrapie in sheep. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990;87(7):2476–80. 10.1073/pnas.87.7.2476 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Belt PB, Muileman IH, Schreuder BE, Bos-de Ruijter J, Gielkens AL, Smits MA. Identification of five allelic variants of the sheep PrP gene and their association with natural scrapie. The Journal of general virology. 1995;76(3):509–17. 10.1099/0022-1317-76-3-509 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hunter N, Goldmann W, Foster JD, Cairns D, Smith G. Natural scrapie and PrP genotype: case-control studies in British sheep. Vet Rec. 1997;141(6):137–40. 10.1136/vr.141.6.137 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Tongue SC, Pfeiffer DU, Warner R, Elliott H, Vilas VD. Estimation of the relative risk of developing clinical scrapie: the role of prion protein (PrP) genotype and selection bias. Vet Rec. 2006;158(2):43-+. 10.1136/vr.158.2.43 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Luhken G, Buschmann A, Brandt H, Eiden M, Groschup MH, Erhardt G. Epidemiological and genetical differences between classical and atypical scrapie cases. Vet Res. 2007;38(1):65–80. 10.1051/vetres:2006046 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Moum T, Olsaker I, Hopp P, Moldal T, Valheim M, Moum T, et al. Polymorphisms at codons 141 and 154 in the ovine prion protein gene are associated with scrapie Nor98 cases. The Journal of general virology. 2005;86(Pt 1):231–5. 10.1099/vir.0.80437-0 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Simmons HA, Simmons MM, Spencer YI, Chaplin MJ, Povey G, Davis A, et al. Atypical scrapie in sheep from a UK research flock which is free from classical scrapie. BMC Vet Res. 2009;5:8 Epub 2009/02/12. 10.1186/1746-6148-5-8 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Simmons MM, Konold T, Simmons HA, Spencer YI, Lockey R, Spiropoulos J, et al. Experimental transmission of atypical scrapie to sheep. BMC Vet Res. 2007;3:20 10.1186/1746-6148-3-20 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Simmons MM, Konold T, Thurston L, Bellworthy SJ, Chaplin MJ, Moore SJ. The natural atypical scrapie phenotype is preserved on experimental transmission and sub-passage in PRNP homologous sheep. BMC Vet Res. 2010;6:14 10.1186/1746-6148-6-14 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Okada H, Miyazawa K, Imamura M, Iwamaru Y, Masujin K, Matsuura Y, et al. Transmission of atypical scrapie to homozygous ARQ sheep. J Vet Med Sci. 2016;78(10):1619–24. Epub 2016/11/03. 10.1292/jvms.16-0259 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Simmons MM, Moore SJ, Konold T, Thurston L, Terry LA, Thorne L, et al. Experimental oral transmission of atypical scrapie to sheep. Emerg Infect Dis. 2011;17(5):848–54. 10.3201/eid1705.101654 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Simmons MM, Moore SJ, Lockey R, Chaplin MJ, Konold T, Vickery C, et al. Phenotype shift from atypical scrapie to CH1641 following experimental transmission in sheep. PLoS One. 2015;10(2):e0117063 10.1371/journal.pone.0117063 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Huor A, Espinosa JC, Vidal E, Cassard H, Douet JY, Lugan S, et al. The emergence of classical BSE from atypical/Nor98 scrapie. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019. Epub 2019/12/18. 10.1073/pnas.1915737116 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Mayhew J. Large Animal Neurology: Wiley; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Buschmann A, Biacabe AG, Ziegler U, Bencsik A, Madec JY, Erhardt G, et al. Atypical scrapie cases in Germany and France are identified by discrepant reaction patterns in BSE rapid tests. Journal of virological methods. 2004;117(1):27–36. 10.1016/j.jviromet.2003.11.017 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Saunders GC, Cawthraw S, Mountjoy SJ, Hope J, Windl O. PrP genotypes of atypical scrapie cases in Great Britain. The Journal of general virology. 2006;87(Pt 11):3141–9. 10.1099/vir.0.81779-0 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Andreoletti O, Orge L, Benestad SL, Beringue V, Litaise C, Simon S, et al. Atypical/Nor98 scrapie infectivity in sheep peripheral tissues. PLoS Pathog. 2011;7(2):e1001285 10.1371/journal.ppat.1001285 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.van Keulen LJ, Vromans ME, van Zijderveld FG. Early and late pathogenesis of natural scrapie infection in sheep. APMIS. 2002;110(1):23–32. 10.1034/j.1600-0463.2002.100104.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Dagleish MP, Rodger SM, Simmons MM, Finlayson J, Buxton D, Chianini F. Atypical scrapie in a sheep in Scotland. Vet Rec. 2008;162(16):518–9. 10.1136/vr.162.16.518 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Matsuura Y, Miyazawa K, Imamura M, Yokoyama T, Iwamaru Y. First case of atypical scrapie in a goat in Japan. J Vet Med Sci. 2019;81(7):986–9. Epub 2019/05/17. 10.1292/jvms.18-0710 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Greenlee JJ, Smith JD, Hamir AN. Oral inoculation of neonatal Suffolk sheep with the agent of classical scrapie results in PrPSc accumulation in sheep with the PRNP ARQ/ARQ but not the ARQ/ARR genotype. Res Vet Sci. 2016;105:188–91. 10.1016/j.rvsc.2016.02.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Hamir AN, Kunkle RA, Richt JA, Miller JM, Cutlip RC, Jenny AL. Experimental transmission of sheep scrapie by intracerebral and oral routes to genetically susceptible suffolk sheep in the united states. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2005;17(1):3–9. 10.1177/104063870501700103 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Cassmann ED, Moore SJ, Smith JD, Greenlee JJ. Sheep With the Homozygous Lysine-171 Prion Protein Genotype Are Resistant to Classical Scrapie After Experimental Oronasal Inoculation. Vet Pathol. 2019;56(3):409–17. Epub 2018/12/19. 10.1177/0300985818817066 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Cassmann ED, Moore SJ, Smith JD, Greenlee JJ. Sheep Are Susceptible to the Bovine Adapted Transmissible Mink Encephalopathy Agent by Intracranial Inoculation and Have Evidence of Infectivity in Lymphoid Tissues. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2019;6(430). 10.3389/fvets.2019.00430 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.O’Rourke KI, Baszler TV, Miller JM, Spraker TR, Sadler-Riggleman I, Knowles DP. Monoclonal antibody F89/160.1.5 defines a conserved epitope on the ruminant prion protein. J Clin Microbiol. 1998;36(6):1750–5. 10.1128/JCM.36.6.1750-1755.1998 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Spraker TR, O’Rourke KI, Balachandran A, Zink RR, Cummings BA, Miller MW, et al. Validation of monoclonal antibody F99/97.6.1 for immunohistochemical staining of brain and tonsil in mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) with chronic wasting disease. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2002;14(1):3–7. 10.1177/104063870201400102 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Gianluigi Zanusso

18 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-36348

Transmission of the atypical/Nor98 scrapie agent to Suffolk sheep with VRQ/ARQ, ARQ/ARQ, and ARQ/ARR genotypes

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Justin Greenlee,  

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.

The reviewers raised several and important criticisms which need to be addressed. I think that following their indications the study will be consistently improved. Please, consider also the quality of the immunohistochemical pictures which need to be . 

Please submit your revised manuscript by January 15th, 2021. 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,

Gianluigi Zanusso

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. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript:

"This research was funded in its entirety by congressionally appropriated funds to the United States

 Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. The funders of the work did not

influence study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or the preparation of the

manuscript.

This research was supported in part by an appointment to the Agricultural Research Service

(ARS) Research Participation Program administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and

Education (ORISE) through an interagency agreement between the U.S. Department of Energy

(DOE) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). ORISE is managed by ORAU under DOE

contract number DE-SC0014664. All opinions expressed in this paper are the author's and do not

necessarily reflect the policies and views of USDA, ARS, DOE, or ORAU/ORISE."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"This research was funded in its entirety by congressionally appropriated funds to the United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. The funders of the work did not influence study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or the preparation of the manuscript."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: This manuscript describes the outcome in ten sheep of three different prion protein genotypes after intracranial inoculation with atypical scrapie homogenate from a single source. The authors describe clinical presentation (if any), survival times and pathological results in a range of tissues collected. The study was carried out to provide brain material for subsequent interspecies transmissions (so the lack of controls is excusable) and is thus not a typical research article exploring a hypothesis but provides nevertheless useful information worth publishing. The study confirms previous work and is the first to show transmission to ARQ/VRQ sheep. In addition, the study demonstrates early accumulation of PrPSc in the retina.

As this study does not test a hypothesis the question arises why the authors used sheep with prion protein genotypes where the outcome was not known at all. Surely, if tissue generation was the main purpose one would have selected sheep with genotypes with known susceptibility. Overall, there are some issues that I feel require further clarification, which I outline below:

1) What is the significance of early accumulation of PrPSc in the retina? Is it to suggest that there may be ERG changes that may be detectable in the live animal? Could it be used as a simple test in dead animals where aqueous humor could be collected post-mortem and checked for PrPSc? This may be worth discussing.

2) What was the reasoning for the sample size? Why selecting two ARQ/ARQ sheep, five ARQ/ARR sheep and two VRQ/ARQ sheep?

3) What was the rationale for selecting a single brain as inoculum from a sheep that had an AHQ/ARH genotype, basically none of the haplotypes matching those of the recipient sheep? The only experimental study where heterologous donor and recipient genotypes were used (Simmons et al.; reference 18) demonstrated a potential shift of the prion strain, so would it not be ‘safer’ to use homologous donor and recipient genotypes for atypical scrapie tissue generation? The effect of different genotypes between donor and recipient on survival time and phenotype is certainly known for classical scrapie so I would have expected at least some discussion about this. An alternative study design could have included a group of sheep that had a least some matched haplotype, e.g. AHQ or ARH.

In addition, please consider the following:

Line 26. An ‘a’ is missing after ‘is’.

Line 59. The early cull is not mentioned in M&M.

Table 1. This table is too wide to fit on the page so I cannot read all the columns. Is there a column for EIA results? In general, I prefer survival times displayed in either months or even days because it is difficult to interpret decimals in years.

Lines 153+. More detail is needed to comply at least with the ARRIVE guidelines. Sex and age are not mentioned; the use of a wether is mentioned in line 58 – were all sheep of the same sex? It is common to refer to previous publications when describing experimental procedures but I would prefer more detail in this manuscript: more detail about donor brain (from fallen stock? Active surveillance? Was it heat treated or treated with antibiotics?). I am slightly concerned about the pharmaceutical treatment of the sheep; xylazine causes sedation rather than anaesthesia and has limited analgesic properties, which is dose-dependent, so stating the dose would be beneficial. I would have assumed that area preparation and drilling a hole would require some anaesthesia, even if it is just local. There is no indication of analgesia, which I found astonishing, because the use of opiates or NSAID is now common for surgical procedures. The study was reviewed by an ethics committee (to my surprise the authors entered N/A in the Ethics statement in the submission form) and I would have assumed that analgesia is used – please provide more detail.

Lastly, I found that the quality of the photos could be improved, particularly c, but it may be the resolution in the pdf file.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

Your manuscript, "Transmission of the atypical/Nor98 scrapie agent to Suffolk sheep with VRQ/ARQ,

ARQ/ARQ, and ARQ/ARR genotypes" provides additional data regarding susceptibility of sheep with known genotypes to AS. The description of retinal involvement of AS is novel.

A few comments to consider:

1. Addition of the susceptibility status of ARQ sheep to CS near line 34 would help provide a more complete history.

2. Line 53, insert the words "of AS" after "transmission" and before "to"

3. Table 1 is cutoff in the PDF version provided by PLoS One. I could not view all the data. I am not sure if this is an author or journal oversite. Unfortunately a table only file was not available.

4. Lines 87-89 should be included in the introduction after line 37 to help set-up the study. Similar information could be provided as needed again in 87.

5. In the VRQ group the authors claim only 1 of 3 sheep developed AS based on testing. It is almost unfair to include the two negative sheep in this group, as they left the study very early on. This is discussed, but perhaps they should be excluded from the ratio used in the abstract?

Reviewer #3: In this manuscript the Authors describe the transmission of atypical scrapie to Suffolk sheep with different genotypes. The manuscript can be of interest for scientists working on prions and can be published on PLOS One. However, before publication, the text should be amended with minor revisions to make it more clear in some points.

Here the requested changes:

- Please move lines 67-71 to line 65, after the sentence citing the references 14 and 15.

- Please move the sentence at lines 65-66 to lines 70-71 and rewrite the sentence as follows: The ARQ/ARQ genotype had a long incubation period and remained clinically asymptomatic, as also reported by Okada et al.

- Delete "In the presente study"

- Line 68: I think that the term degree is not appropriate.

- Line 83 please write "Out of the three"

- Line 84 please write correctly the term wether

- Lines 91-92: this sentence is more appropriate in the introduction

- Line 93: this sentence is more appropriate when animals are described

- Lines 108-109: I do not understand the meaning of this sentence...is it an hypothesis or a statement? I do not think it can be a statement

- Lines 140-141: I think that it is more correct to say....demonstrating the possibility of an early accumulation of PrPsc in the retina.....it is an experimental challenge via i.c. route thus it cannot be excluded that this could have influenced the deposition in the retina

- Line 160: I never heard the term maladies in English, but I am not an English mother tongue.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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 Feb 11;16(2):e0246503. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246503.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


7 Jan 2021

Our responses also are available in a separate file with formatting that makes it easier to distinguish comments from responses.

Atypical Scrapie_PONE-20-45383_Response to reviewers

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

The following changes were made on our resubmission: the title was centered, and the headings were changed to sentence case.

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript:

"This research was funded in its entirety by congressionally appropriated funds to the United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. The funders of the work did not influence study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or the preparation of the manuscript.

This research was supported in part by an appointment to the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Research Participation Program administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) through an interagency agreement between the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). ORISE is managed by ORAU under DOE contract number DE-SC0014664. All opinions expressed in this paper are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the policies and views of USDA, ARS, DOE, or ORAU/ORISE."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"This research was funded in its entirety by congressionally appropriated funds to the United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. The funders of the work did not influence study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or the preparation of the manuscript."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

This research was funded in its entirety by congressionally appropriated funds to the United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. The funders of the work did not influence study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or the preparation of the manuscript. The findings and conclusions in this publication are those of the author(s) and should not be construed to represent any official USDA or U.S. Government determination or policy.

This research was supported in part by appointments (N. Mammadova and S. Jo Moore) to the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Research Participation Program administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) through an interagency agreement between the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). ORISE is managed by ORAU under DOE contract number DE-SC0014664. All opinions expressed in this paper are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the policies and views of USDA, ARS, DOE, or ORAU/ORISE.

3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

The ethics statement is included as a subheading in the Materials and methods section.

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

Reviewer #1: This manuscript describes the outcome in ten sheep of three different prion protein genotypes after intracranial inoculation with atypical scrapie homogenate from a single source. The authors describe clinical presentation (if any), survival times and pathological results in a range of tissues collected. The study was carried out to provide brain material for subsequent interspecies transmissions (so the lack of controls is excusable) and is thus not a typical research article exploring a hypothesis but provides nevertheless useful information worth publishing. The study confirms previous work and is the first to show transmission to ARQ/VRQ sheep. In addition, the study demonstrates early accumulation of PrPSc in the retina. As this study does not test a hypothesis the question arises why the authors used sheep with prion protein genotypes where the outcome was not known at all. Surely, if tissue generation was the main purpose one would have selected sheep with genotypes with known susceptibility. Overall, there are some issues that I feel require further clarification, which I outline below:

1) What is the significance of early accumulation of PrPSc in the retina? Is it to suggest that there may be ERG changes that may be detectable in the live animal? Could it be used as a simple test in dead animals where aqueous humor could be collected post-mortem and checked for PrPSc? This may be worth discussing.

Thank you for your input. In order to clarify the significance of early retinal accumulation, added the following text:

“This is significant because, sequentially, retinal PrPSc accumulates early in disease; therefore, IHC of retinal tissue may be more sensitive compared to non-cerebellar brain regions.”

2) What was the reasoning for the sample size? Why selecting two ARQ/ARQ sheep, five ARQ/ARR sheep and two VRQ/ARQ sheep?

These were the sheep that were available from our scrapie free breeding herd the year the experiment commenced.

3) What was the rationale for selecting a single brain as inoculum from a sheep that had an AHQ/ARH genotype, basically none of the haplotypes matching those of the recipient sheep?

This is the inoculum that was provided by collaborators in Norway. The collaboration (import of samples) began prior to atypical scrapie being described in the US.

This was the only inoculum we had with L141 that matched our recipient sheep.

The only experimental study where heterologous donor and recipient genotypes were used (Simmons et al.; reference 18) demonstrated a potential shift of the prion strain, so would it not be ‘safer’ to use homologous donor and recipient genotypes for atypical scrapie tissue generation?

It seems it would be safer if we wanted to “guarantee” transmission, however, a homologous genotype recipient was not available in our scrapie free flock.

A paper from Loiacono et al in 2009 described the diagnostic results from 6 sheep in the US with atypical scrapie. None of the six sheep had the ARH haplotype and only one had the AHQ haplotype, so it also seems reasonable to study atypical scrapie in sheep with haplotypes that were represented in the first 6 US cases (ARQ and ARR). Note: both FL and LL 141 were represented in these six sheep as well.

The effect of different genotypes between donor and recipient on survival time and phenotype is certainly known for classical scrapie so I would have expected at least some discussion about this. An alternative study design could have included a group of sheep that had a least some matched haplotype, e.g. AHQ or ARH.

Matched haplotype sheep were not available for use from our scrapie free breeding flock.

In addition, please consider the following:

Line 26. An ‘a’ is missing after ‘is’.

Thank you for pointing this out. The suggestion was incorporated.

Line 59. The early cull is not mentioned in M&M.

Thank you for your input. We incorporated the following text in our methods section.

The methods now read “The experimental endpoint for this experiment included the earliest of either unequivocal neurologic disease or 8 years post-inoculation. The final 8-year endpoint was established by performing a preliminarily cull of sheep 933 to help determine an appropriate endpoint.”

Table 1. This table is too wide to fit on the page so I cannot read all the columns. Is there a column for EIA results? In general, I prefer survival times displayed in either months or even days because it is difficult to interpret decimals in years.

Yes, there are EIA results.

We regret that you were unable to see the whole table. We are not sure how to rectify this within the manuscript, since we followed the author guidelines to not force tables within margins. We have submitted an additional file with the contents of this table specifically to make it easier for reviewers to view.

Lines 153+. More detail is needed to comply at least with the ARRIVE guidelines. Sex and age are not mentioned; the use of a wether is mentioned in line 58 – were all sheep of the same sex? It is common to refer to previous publications when describing experimental procedures but I would prefer more detail in this manuscript: more detail about donor brain (from fallen stock? Active surveillance? Was it heat treated or treated with antibiotics?).

Thank you for pointing out that we neglected to include the information about sex and age. We have modified our methods section to include sex and age information in accordance with ARRIVE.

I am slightly concerned about the pharmaceutical treatment of the sheep; xylazine causes sedation rather than anesthesia and has limited analgesic properties, which is dose-dependent, so stating the dose would be beneficial. I would have assumed that area preparation and drilling a hole would require some anesthesia, even if it is just local. There is no indication of analgesia, which I found astonishing, because the use of opiates or NSAID is now common for surgical procedures.

This protocol was approved over ten years ago when these sheep were inoculated. Our current procedure includes the use of Banamine. We avoid opioids in sheep. Opioid agonists have less analgesic effects in sheep and can cause excitation and behavioral changes (Kastner, 2006).

The most painful part of the procedure is the small skin incision. Some innervation of the periosteum may also result in minimal to mild bone pain. We now provide some Banamine, but it should be noted that neither now nor before did any sheep display behaviors consistent with post-inoculation discomfort (head shaking, pressing, rubbing, decreased appetite). Therefore, the previous protocol seemed to adequately provide analgesia even with the analgesic properties of Xylazine alone. In sheep, xylazine has been shown to have significant antinociceptive effects to painful electrical stimuli even at low doses that have minimal sedative effects (Grant, 2004). The sedative effectives of xylazine are dose dependent.

“Use of xylazine as a sole agent can be a practical method of inducing recumbency for completion of nonpainful procedures. (Reza, 2016)” At the level of sedation we use, sheep do not respond to any stimulus from the procedure during inoculation; therefore, the concurrent use of a dissociative anesthetic like ketamine seems unnecessary. Inoculation is a short procedure, so the incorporation of ketamine may actually increase the chances for side effects by prolonging the sedation. Sheep are known to be susceptible to pulmonary effects from xylazine. Furthermore, use of ketamine for neuroanesthesia is debated due to the possibility of deleterious effects on cerebral circulation.

Kästner, S. B. A2‐agonists in sheep: a review. Vet Anaesth Analg 33, 79–96 (2006).

GRANT, C. & UPTON, R. Comparison of the analgesic effects of xylazine in sheep via three different administration routes. Aust Vet J 82, 304–307 (2004).

Reza Seddighi, Thomas J. Doherty, Field Sedation and Anesthesia of Ruminants, Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice, Volume 32, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 553-570.

The study was reviewed by an ethics committee (to my surprise the authors entered N/A in the Ethics statement in the submission form) and I would have assumed that analgesia is used – please provide more detail.

Our ethics statement was provided in the manuscript under the sub-heading “ethics statement”, and the study was approved by an ethics committee. The committee and professional evaluation of multiple veterinarians concluded that the analgesic effects of xylazine were sufficient for the pain elicited by a 1 cm skin incision and a 1 mm hole in skull. Again, currently we are also using Banamine, but that was not the case 10 years ago when these sheep were inoculated.

Lastly, I found that the quality of the photos could be improved, particularly c, but it may be the resolution in the pdf file.

Per the editorial manager instructions:

All PDF files are created at 72 dpi resolution to make the file size manageable for downloading. Each image in the PDF file link to a higher resolution image is available for each image in the PDF file.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

Your manuscript, "Transmission of the atypical/Nor98 scrapie agent to Suffolk sheep with VRQ/ARQ, ARQ/ARQ, and ARQ/ARR genotypes" provides additional data regarding susceptibility of sheep with known genotypes to AS. The description of retinal involvement of AS is novel.

A few comments to consider:

1. Addition of the susceptibility status of ARQ sheep to CS near line 34 would help provide a more complete history.

Thank you for this comment. We have incorporated the suggested change.

2. Line 53, insert the words "of AS" after "transmission" and before "to"

Thank you for this comment. We incorporated the suggested change.

3. Table 1 is cutoff in the PDF version provided by PLoS One. I could not view all the data. I am not sure if this is an author or journal oversite. Unfortunately a table only file was not available.

We regret that you were unable to see the whole table. We are not sure how to rectify this within the manuscript, since we followed the author guidelines to not force tables within margins. We have submitted this as an individual file for the reviewers.

4. Lines 87-89 should be included in the introduction after line 37 to help set-up the study. Similar information could be provided as needed again in 87.

Thank you for your suggestion. In the introduction, we set up the study by noting a difference in the genetic susceptibility of sheep to atypical scrapie by indicating what genotypes are typically represented (AHQ, ARQ, ARR) – new Lines 39-41. The rarity of VRQ genotype sheep with atypical scrapie is noted in the discussion.

5. In the VRQ group the authors claim only 1 of 3 sheep developed AS based on testing. It is almost unfair to include the two negative sheep in this group, as they left the study very early on. This is discussed, but perhaps they should be excluded from the ratio used in the abstract?

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree and have changed the abstract accordingly.

Reviewer #3: In this manuscript the Authors describe the transmission of atypical scrapie to Suffolk sheep with different genotypes. The manuscript can be of interest for scientists working on prions and can be published on PLOS One. However, before publication, the text should be amended with minor revisions to make it more clear in some points.

Here the requested changes:

- Please move lines 67-71 to line 65, after the sentence citing the references 14 and 15.

- Please move the sentence at lines 65-66 to lines 70-71 and rewrite the sentence as follows: The ARQ/ARQ genotype had a long incubation period and remained clinically asymptomatic, as also reported by Okada et al.

- Delete "In the presente study"

- Line 68: I think that the term degree is not appropriate.

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. We have incorporated them in the revised manuscript.

- Line 83 please write "Out of the three"

Completed as suggested.

- Line 84 please write correctly the term wether

Thank you for catching this. We have added this word to the MS Word dictionary, so it doesn’t get autocorrected again.

- Lines 91-92: this sentence is more appropriate in the introduction

Thank you for your comments. We think that this information as written in the discussion is appropriate. In the introduction, we already discussed the increased risk for atypical scrapie associated with F141. In both locations, the information is technically/scientifically sound. No changes were made.

- Line 93: this sentence is more appropriate when animals are described

This information is included in the methods section already. The discussion reiterates this information for the purposes of discussing the lack of F141 sheep in this study. It seems like a relevant discussion point to highlight this. No changes were made.

- Lines 108-109: I do not understand the meaning of this sentence...is it an hypothesis or a statement? I do not think it can be a statement

This is consistent with a hypothesis. We simply are discussing what we expect would happen if the incubation period was allowed to continue in sheep with ARQ/ARQ and VRQ/ARQ genotypes.

- Lines 140-141: I think that it is more correct to say....demonstrating the possibility of an early accumulation of PrPsc in the retina.....it is an experimental challenge via i.c. route thus it cannot be excluded that this could have influenced the deposition in the retina

Thanks for your comment. We have made changes to this paragraph to address your concerns.

- Line 160: I never heard the term maladies in English, but I am not an English mother tongue.

No changes were made.

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

Reviewer #3: 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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-20-45383_Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Gianluigi Zanusso

21 Jan 2021

Transmission of the atypical/Nor98 scrapie agent to Suffolk sheep with VRQ/ARQ, ARQ/ARQ, and ARQ/ARR genotypes

PONE-D-20-36348R1

Dear Dr. Greenlee,

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,

Gianluigi Zanusso

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Gianluigi Zanusso

29 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-36348R1

Transmission of the atypical/Nor98 scrapie agent to Suffolk sheep with VRQ/ARQ, ARQ/ARQ, and ARQ/ARR genotypes

Dear Dr. Greenlee:

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. Gianluigi Zanusso

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-20-45383_Response to reviewers.docx

    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