Abstract
The latest outbreak of a coronavirus disease in 2019 (COVID‐19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2), evolved into a worldwide pandemic with massive effects on health, quality of life, and economy. Given the short period of time since the outbreak, there are several knowledge gaps on the comparative and zoonotic aspects of this new virus. Within the One Health concept, the current EAACI position paper dwells into the current knowledge on SARS‐CoV‐2’s receptors, symptoms, transmission routes for human and animals living in close vicinity to each other, usefulness of animal models to study this disease and management options to avoid intra‐ and interspecies transmission. Similar pandemics might appear unexpectedly and more frequently in the near future due to climate change, consumption of exotic foods and drinks, globe‐trotter travel possibilities, the growing world population, the decreasing production space, declining room for wildlife and free‐ranging animals, and the changed lifestyle including living very close to animals. Therefore, both the society and the health authorities need to be aware and well prepared for similar future situations, and research needs to focus on prevention and fast development of treatment options (medications, vaccines).
Keywords: companion animals and pets, coronavirus, disease transmission, One Health, (reverse) zoonosis
Short abstract
Abbreviations
- ACE2
angiotensin‐converting enzyme‐2
- ACEI
angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors
- APN
aminopeptidase N
- ARB
angiotensin receptor blockers
- ARDS
acute respiratory distress syndrome
- B0AT1
neutral amino acid transporter (SLC6A19)
- BatCoV‐HKU4
bat coronavirus HKU4
- BCoV
bovine coronavirus
- BSG
basigin
- CCoV
canine coronavirus
- CD147
cluster of differentiation 147
- CEACAM1
carcinoembryonic antigen‐related cell adhesion molecule 1
- CECoV
canine enteric coronavirus
- CoV
coronavirus
- COVID
coronavirus‐induced disease
- CRCoV
canine respiratory coronavirus
- DC‐SIGN
dendritic cell‐specific intercellular adhesion molecule‐3‐grabbing non‐integrin
- DIC
disseminated intravascular coagulation
- DPP4
dipeptidyl‐peptidase 4
- EAACI
European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
- ECoV
equine coronavirus
- fAPN
feline aminopeptidase‐N receptor
- FCoV
feline coronavirus
- FIP
feline infectious peritonitis
- GRADE
grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation
- HCoV‐HKU1
human coronavirus HKU1
- HCoV‐OC43
human coronavirus OC43
- HLA‐1
human leukocyte antigen class I
- IBV
infectious bronchitis virus
- L‐SIGN
Liver/lymph node‐specific intercellular adhesion molecule‐3‐grabbing integrin
- MERS
middle east respiratory syndrome
- NRP‐1
neuropilin‐1
- OIE
World Organisation for Animal Health
- PHEV
porcine hemagglutinating encephalitis virus
- RBD
receptor‐binding domain
- RT‐PCR
real‐time polymerase chain reaction
- S1
spike protein 1
- SARS
severe acute respiratory syndrome
- TMPRSS2
transmembrane protease serine subtype 2
- WHO
World Health Organization
1. INTRODUCTION
In 2019, an outbreak of a new coronavirus (CoV) disease (COVID‐19) was reported in China as a cluster of pneumonia cases originating from an unknown source in the city of Wuhan. 1 In the subsequent COVID‐19 pandemic, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported 172,630,637 confirmed cases all around the world, including 3,718,683 deaths (as of 4:07pm CEST, 6 June 2021). 2 This new virus was named "severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2" (SARS‐CoV‐2). 3
In the past, two other coronaviruses arose, causing pandemic situations (Figure 1): severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS‐CoV‐1) in 2002 in China, and middle east respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS‐CoV) in 2012 in Saudi Arabia, 4 , 5 both responsible for less than 1000 deaths. 3 , 6
FIGURE 1.
Timeline of the three coronaviruses causing pandemic events in the last 20 year. 3 , 10 Numbers for SARS‐CoV‐2 taken from the WHO homepage (accessed 6 June 2021) 2
Orthocoronavirinae is a subfamily of Coronaviridae (order Nidoviridae) and were divided into four different genera: alpha‐, beta‐, gamma‐, and delta‐coronaviruses. 7 , 8 Coronaviruses are enveloped viruses and their genome consists of single‐stranded positive RNA (Figure 2). 7 , 9 SARS‐CoV‐1, MERS‐CoV, and SARS‐CoV‐2 all are members of the genera beta‐coronavirus, 10 with similar structure of spike‐, envelope‐, membrane‐, and nucleocapsid proteins (Figure 2). 11 Next‐generation sequencing of the whole genome of SARS‐CoV‐2 showed 79% and 50% nucleotide sequence identities to SARS‐CoV‐1 and MERS‐CoV, respectively. 12
FIGURE 2.
Schematic structure of coronaviruses
This EAACI position paper summarizes knowledge (published until 7 June 2021) on COVID in different species, with a special emphasis on COVID‐19 among humans and animals living in close vicinity. The paper describes receptors, symptoms, susceptibility, potential transmission routes, and management strategies.
2. CORONAVIRUS RECEPTORS AND ASSOCIATED PROTEINS IN HUMAN AND OTHER SPECIES
2.1. Receptors involved in coronavirus infection in people
The primary receptor for SARS‐CoV‐2 in humans and several animal species is angiotensin‐converting enzyme‐2 (ACE2). 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ACE2 is a transmembrane glycoprotein, which physiologically functions as a peptidase, cleaving angiotensin 2 into vasodilator heptapeptide angiotensin‐(1–7). The receptor‐binding domain (RBD) of the viral envelope spike protein (S) binds to ACE2, independently of its catalytic enzymatic site. The S protein in SARS‐CoV‐2 has a polybasic furin cleavage site, which enables its cleavage into S1 and S2 subunits, which activates spike proteins and facilitates virus fusion with cellular membranes and entrance to the host cells. 13 Various cellular proteases, such as furin, transmembrane protease serine subtype 2 (TMPRSS2), cathepsin L and B, can cleave the S protein and thus facilitate viral entry into the host cells. 17 , 18 The cleavage process also provides the C‐terminal sequence, which can bind to neuropilin‐1 (NRP‐1), and provides an additional entrance receptor for SARS‐CoV‐2. 19 , 20 Other host proteins stabilize ACE2 structure and prevent its utilization as entry site, for example, B0AT1, an amino acid transporter in enterocytes. 21 ACE2 in humans is highly expressed in ciliated epithelial cells of respiratory tract, pneumocytes type II, small intestine, endothelial cells, heart, and kidney, but not on innate and adaptive immune cells. 22 , 23 , 24 , 25
Various CoVs can utilize also other host proteins and infect cells that do not express the primary receptor. For SARS‐CoV‐1 such additional receptors include cluster of differentiation 147 (CD147, basigin, BSG), dendritic cell‐specific intercellular adhesion molecule‐3‐grabbing non‐integrin (DC‐SIGN), and liver/lymph node‐specific intercellular adhesion molecule‐3‐grabbing integrin (L‐SIGN). 26 Each of them has been proposed to serve as an additional receptor for SARS‐CoV‐2. 27 , 28 , 29 CD147, a transmembrane immunoglobulin‐like receptor, forms a membrane complex with many other proteins implicated in the coronavirus‐induced pathogenesis, such as cyclophilins A and B, CD44, integrins, and membrane transporters. 30 , 31 Even if CD147 does not serve as infection entry, 32 it could be responsible for many aberrant immune responses. 33 Moreover, many viruses (including some beta‐coronaviruses) use cell surface polysaccharides and sialic acids as cellular attachment co‐receptors, resulting in increase of viral particles, and intensification of infection rates. 34 Therefore, cell surface polysaccharides and sialic acids play an important role in pathogenicity and tropism of the CoV and other viruses such as influenza virus in many mammalian species. Sialic acid serves as an additional host receptor for MERS‐CoV in humans and camels, 35 , 36 while the 9‐O‐acetylated sialic acids facilitate the attachment of bovine Cov (BCoV), human virus OC43 (HCoV‐OC43), HCoV‐HKU1, and porcine hemagglutinating encephalitis virus (PHEV). 37 Binding to sialic acids and carbohydrates has also been proposed for SARS‐CoV‐2, 38 yet this requires more studies. SARS‐CoV‐2 spike protein can also bind to heparan sulfate, 34 , 39 which is a glycosaminoglycan found in majority of mammalian cells. Also, heparin, widely used as anticoagulant, apparently can bind to SARS‐CoV‐2 using this mechanism and thus significantly ameliorate the disease. 40 A comprehensive review of coronavirus host cell entry receptors is published by Millet et al 37
2.2. ACE2 expression and function in other species
ACE2 from rhesus monkey, Chinese horseshoe bat (R. sinicus), Mexican free‐tailed bat (T. brasiliensis), palm civet, raccoon dog, ferret badger, hog badger, dog, cat, rabbit, and pangolin serve as receptor for SARS‐CoV‐2 or even for a mutant lacking the cleavage site. 41 ACE2 from humans and rhesus monkey is utilized by SARS‐CoV‐2 with the highest efficiency. ACE2 from rabbit, pangolin, cat, and dog can support SARS‐CoV‐2 entry above 50% of the human ACE2 level, with N82 of pangolin ACE2 showing closer contact with RBD than human ACE2. 42 Multiple sequence alignments of the ACE2 proteins show high homology and complete conservation of the five amino acid residues 353‐KGDFR‐357 with humans, dogs, cats, tigers, minks, and structural remodeling also suggested that the G354H substitution in the surface motif of mink ACE2 increased the binding affinity of the RBD of SARS‐CoV‐2. 43 Other studies found that “SARS‐CoV‐2 may not be especially adapted to ACE2 of any of its putative intermediate hosts”. 44
Limited published comparisons of sequences and derived structures of ACE2 in different species resulted in discrepant predictions regarding the susceptibility of horses to SARS‐Cov‐2 infection, ranging from high risk 45 to low risk. 46
Due to few nucleotide changes in the RBD 41 mouse and rat ACE2 does not serve as SARS‐CoV‐2 receptor.
ACE2 is also utilized by SARS‐CoV‐1 and certain SARS‐related bat CoVs (BatCoV‐SARSe‐WIV1 or BatCoV‐SARSr‐RaTG13). 37 Other CoVs from different genera utilize various mammalian receptors to infect the host. Several viruses from the alpha‐coronavirus genus, responsible for infections in cats, dogs and swine, use the aminopeptidase N (APN, CD13) as the main receptor. 47 Carcinoembryonic antigen‐related cell adhesion molecule 1 (CEACAM1) is used by murine hepatitis virus (MHV) from the beta‐coronaviruses genus. 48 MERS‐CoV, camel MERS‐CoV, and related BatCoV‐HKU4 utilize dipeptidyl‐peptidase 4 (DPP4) (CD26) as primary receptor. 37 , 48 DPP4 has been suggested as an entry receptor for SARS‐CoV‐2 as well. 49 , 50
3. CORONAVIRUSES IN DIFFERENT SPECIES
3.1. Coronaviruses in human beings
3.1.1. Clinical manifestations
Most humans are infected by coronaviruses annually, leading to mild symptoms like a common cold. Such infections are caused by human coronaviruses 229E or NL63 (both alpha‐viruses), or OC43 and HKU1 (both beta‐viruses). In contrast to these mild diseases, SARS‐CoV leads to the severe acute respiratory syndrome. The current SARS‐CoV‐2 was preceded by two more coronavirus epidemics in this millennium: in 2003, SARS coronavirus, now denoted SARS‐CoV‐1, and another in September 2012, when the WHO reported the first cases of pneumonia caused by the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS‐CoV). 51
SARS is a respiratory viral disease caused by SARS‐CoV‐1, with protracted (3–7 days) prodrome, characterized by fever (temperature ≥38ºC present in 100% of patients), malaise, headache (39%), and myalgia (49%). 52 , 53 Unlike other respiratory viral infections, most patients have no upper airways prodrome and start directly with lower airways symptoms at this stage, with a nonproductive cough (66%), which intensifies at the end of prodrome. Subsequently, dyspnea develops (46%), which usually progresses to respiratory failure, requiring mechanical ventilation with progressive pulmonary infiltrates on chest imaging. 53
MERS‐CoV has an incubation period of ca. 5–6 days. Most patients with MERS‐CoV infection were adults with severe pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Some developed acute kidney injury. 54 The most prevalent symptoms include fever (>38℃, 98% of patients), cough (83%), shortness of breath (72%), and myalgias (32%) as well as abnormal chest radiograph (100%). Other clinical manifestations were gastrointestinal symptoms (anorexia, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhea), pericarditis, disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), and shock. 54
Patients suffering from COVID‐19 experience numerous different symptoms due to organ‐specific expression patterns of SARS‐CoV‐2 receptors (Section 2.1) and immunological changes, some of them applicable for prediction of disease severity. 55 The percentage of patients remaining completely asymptomatic after real‐time polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR)‐confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection varies largely, ranging from 1.6% in a Chinese study including 72,314 tested patients to over 50% in two studies including 3711 or 76 patients, respectively. 56 The median incubation period is 5.1 days, and 97.5% of patients show symptoms within 11.5 days after infection. 57 During the early pandemic in spring 2020, fever (88.7% of patients), cough (57.6%), and dyspnea (45.6%) were the most prevalent clinical manifestations. 58 To date, it is well recognized that also upper respiratory symptoms including pharyngodynia, nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, anosmia, or ageusia 59 might appear, preceding the onset of lower airway disease, usually interstitial pneumonia. 60 Fatigue, headache, and myalgia are frequently reported. 61 Gastrointestinal complaints such as nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea are usually experienced, sometimes even prior to fever or lower respiratory tract symptoms. 62 Progression toward the severe and fatal forms include severe pneumonia complicated by ARDS, cardiovascular involvement with cardiac injury, myocarditis, ischemia, cardiac arrhythmias, and DIC. 33 In some cases, COVID‐19 was associated with neurological symptoms (acute necrotizing hemorrhagic encephalopathy). 63
Preexisting comorbidities pose a special risk for accelerated progress of disease and development of ARDS, multi‐organ failure, and high mortality. Male gender and an age above 65 are risk factors for more severe COVID‐19 disease and inpatient admission. 64 In developed countries, a disproportionally higher morbidity and mortality were reported for non‐caucasians, with socioeconomic deprivation as an explanation besides genetic factors. 65
Type 2 diabetes patients, usually at advanced age, with hyperlipidemia, obesity, hypertension, renal and/or cardiovascular and/or hepatic disease had similar poor outcome. 66 , 67 The underlying chronic inflammation in these diseases facilitates the development of a virulent cytokine storm. End‐stage renal disease 68 and associated anemia were also reported risk factors, 64 together with chronic lung diseases (with the exception of asthma), smoking, pulmonary, and hematologic malignancies. 69 , 70 , 71
Among the pediatric population, more adolescents with comorbidities develop ARDS. 72
Surprisingly, there was no increased prevalence in allergic patients (details in supplement and in compendium 73 ).
3.2. Coronaviruses in selected animal species with close contact to humans
3.2.1. Coronaviruses in cats
Clinical manifestations
Feline coronavirus (FCoV), an alpha‐coronavirus, is a common but generally harmless coronavirus, 74 that however sometimes causes the fatal disease feline infectious peritonitis (FIP). 75 , 76 FCoV is extremely common in the cat population worldwide, especially in multi‐cat environments, with up to 80% of cats in catteries being infected. 77 FCoV is transmitted by fecal‐oral route between felids, but is not infectious for other species (including humans). FCoV usually does not cause clinical signs, and only rarely is considered responsible for transient and mild diarrhea. 78 As mentioned, sporadically, in about 5% of FCoV‐infected cats in multi‐cat environments, FIP occurs, 79 a fatal disease if untreated, with a median survival time of 8 days, 80 and the most common infectious cause of death in cats. FIP develops after spontaneous mutations of the genome of the less virulent FCoV within infected cats. 81 Mainly mutations of the spike gene are considered responsible for the switch in pathogenicity. 82 These mutations allow for successful virus replication in macrophages, 83 which is the key event in FIP pathogenesis, 84 leading to an immune‐mediated reaction with overproduction of pro‐inflammatory cytokines 85 resulting in (peri‐)vasculitis and granulomatous lesions in various organs, such as central nervous system, eyes, and parenchymatous organs. 86 Vasculitis leads to fluid accumulation in body cavities, including pleural space, peritoneum, and pericardium. Thus, the clinical picture of FIP varies considerably, reflecting the variability in the distribution of vasculitis and granulomatous lesions combined with non‐specific clinical signs, such as lethargy, anorexia, and weight loss. 75 Furthermore, uveitis, hyphaema, change of color of the iris, keratic precipitate or reversed D‐shape of pupils can occur in FIP. 87
Despite the high divergence between feline coronaviruses and SARS‐CoV‐2, 88 , 89 cats can get infected with SARS‐CoV‐2, 90 become RT‐PCR‐positive, shed the virus, and develop antibodies. Under natural conditions (details Supporting Information), domestic cats as well as tigers and lions tested positive for SARS‐CoV‐2. 91 Cats infected in the field usually stay healthy, and if clinical signs are detected they are likely caused by unrelated comorbidities. Several reports of SARS‐CoV‐2‐infected cats, that were presumably or definitively infected from SARS‐CoV‐2‐infected humans, have been published from different countries (updated list at OIE 92 ). In most of the cases, cats were infected by their owners, but there is also evidence of mink‐to‐cat transmission. The question whether cats with pre‐existing metabolic, pulmonary, neuronal, or cardiovascular diseases are more prone to infection remains to be studied. Some of the medications described as potential risk factors in humans are also used in veterinary medicine, including ACE inhibitors (ACEI) 93 or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), 94 but there are no data so far that these medication would influence the outcome of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, neither in human nor in feline patients. Concerning the prevalence of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in the general cat population, a study in USA testing swabs (over 5000 feline, canine, and equine samples) by RT‐PCR for SARS‐CoV‐2 did not detect positive cats. 95 In a Chinese study, 15 out of 102 (14.7%) cat sera collected following the outbreak in Wuhan tested positive for antibodies against the RBD, 11 cats having neutralizing antibody‐titers ranging from 20 to 1080. In 2 cats monitored over 130 days, serum antibodies peaked 10 days after first sampling and declined below detection limit within 110 days. 96 In the Netherlands, 2 out of 500 evaluated cats (0.4%) had anti‐RBD antibodies. 97 In a large‐scale study including 817 companion animals in Northern Italy at a time of frequent human infections, no cat tested RT‐PCR‐positive, but 3.9% of cats had anti‐RBD antibodies. 98 In France, among 20 students (2 out of 20 testing positive for SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA, with 11 out of 18 with symptoms of COVID‐19), none of the 9 cats living in the community tested positive for RNA or antibodies. 99 In Rio de Janeiro, 39 pets (29 dogs and 10 cats) of 21 patients were tested, where 9 dogs (31%) and 4 cats (40%) from 10 (47.6%) households were infected with or seropositive for SARS‐CoV‐2; the study also showed that neutering and sharing of bed posed the highest risk factors for pet infection. 100
Receptors involved in coronavirus infection in feline species
FCoV can be classified based on differences in antigenic and genomic properties in type I FCoV (more common worldwide) and type II FCoV. Both type I and type II FCoV can occur as less virulent FCoV and as FIP‐associated FCoV. Type II FCoV results from double recombination between type I FCoV and canine enteric coronavirus (CECoV). 101 , 102 Type II FCoV uses the feline aminopeptidase‐N receptor (fAPN) present on the intestinal villi and the monocyte. 103 , 104 The receptor for type I FCoV remains unknown, 104 , 105 but FIPV I infection of monocytes depends on fDC‐SIGN. 106
Management/treatment in feline species
No effective treatment was available (so every cat with FIP died) until recently when specific antiviral compounds showed intense promise. The most promising compound, GS‐441524, is not only effective in vitro and in experimentally induced FIP, it also was shown to cure cats with FIP in the field. 107 , 108 , 109 GS‐441524 is the active derivative of remdesivir, which together with medications for treatment of Hepatitis C virus has shown promising results also in treatment of COVID‐19 in humans. 110
One intranasal vaccine against FIP is commercially available in the USA and some European countries. It contains a temperature‐sensitive mutant of the type II FCoV. The efficacy of this vaccine has been questioned and expert groups generally do not recommend its use. 75 Early experiments using vaccines based on canine coronaviruses or porcine coronaviruses (transmissible gastroenteritis virus, TGEV) did not provide protection but induced antibody‐dependent enhancement (ADE). 111 ADE was also observed after experimental infections in cats with pre‐existing antibodies against the S protein resulting in a more rapid disease course and earlier death. 112 This enhancement was observed irrespective of whether cats had acquired antibodies through passive or active immunization using some experimental vaccines. 113 , 114 However, ADE, a feature of some experimental vaccine trials, 115 , 116 , 117 in which more vaccinated cats than control cats developed FIP, has not been observed in field studies, suggesting that the vaccine that is currently on the market does not cause ADE. 118 , 119 , 120 Since FCoV is transmitted predominantly via fecal‐oral route and infection is maintained in a household by continual cycles of infection and re‐infection, 121 , 122 hygiene is the mainstay of FIP control in any multi‐cat environment.
3.2.2. Coronaviruses in dogs
Symptoms
Two coronaviruses are commonly found in dogs, CECoV (an alpha‐coronaviruses) and canine respiratory coronavirus (CRCoV) (a beta‐coronavirus). 74 CECoV is widespread in the dog population, primarily in kennels and shelters. Infection is usually asymptomatic, 123 and if clinical signs occur they are restricted to the gastrointestinal tract with signs of acute appetite loss, vomiting, diarrhea, and dehydration. Clinical importance of CECoV as a pathogen is unclear, since many clinically healthy dogs shed CECoV. Changes in virulence and tissue tropisms through genetic variations are discussed as reasons for outbreaks of clinical disease, 124 and even highly virulent CECoV strains (pantropic canine CoV, CCoV) have been sporadically reported causing fatal systemic disease in puppies. 125
CRCoV was first identified in the respiratory tract of kennel‐housed dogs with respiratory disease. 126 CRCoV is very closely related to bovine coronavirus (BCoV), 126 and cross‐species transmission from cattle to dogs has been suggested. 127 CRCoV is detected worldwide with antibody prevalence of up to 60% in the general dog population and presence of RNA in the lower respiratory tract in 1%–27% dogs with respiratory disease. CRCoV can be responsible for mild respiratory signs and is one of the etiological agents of the canine infectious respiratory disease (CIRD) complex. 128 , 129 The true role of CRCoV as primary single pathogen is not completely clear, 128 but its replication in the respiratory epithelium can damage the mucociliary system 129 leading to a more severe clinical course of infections caused by other respiratory pathogens.
Dogs also can get infected with SARS‐CoV‐2, 90 become RT‐PCR‐positive, shed the virus, and develop antibodies; however, dogs are less susceptible than cats and virus shedding is less common. Under natural conditions (details in Supporting Information), several dogs in the field‐tested positive for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. 91 These dogs usually stay healthy, and if clinical signs are detected they are likely caused by unrelated disease problems. Several reports of SARS‐CoV‐2‐positive dogs that were presumably or definitively infected from SARS‐CoV‐2‐infected humans have been published from several different countries (updated list 92 ). In most of the cases, dogs were infected by their owners. Concerning the prevalence of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in the general dog population, a study in USA testing swabs (over 5000 canine, feline, and equine samples) by RT‐PCR for SARS‐CoV‐2 did not detect positive dogs. 95 In the Netherlands, 1 out of 500 dogs (0.2%) had anti‐RBD antibodies. 97 In a large‐scale study including 817 companion animals in Northern Italy at a time of frequent human infections, no dog tested RT‐PCR‐positive, but 3.4% of dogs had anti‐RBD antibodies. 98 Dogs from households with COVID‐19 patients were significantly more likely to be antibody‐positive than those from COVID‐19‐negative households. In France, among 20 students (2 out of 20 testing positive for SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA, with 11 out of 18 with symptoms of COVID‐19), none of the 12 dogs living in the community tested positive for RNA or antibodies. 99
Receptors involved in coronavirus infection in canine species
CECoV uses aminopeptidase‐N as receptor. 103 CRCoV, like BCoV, binds to the cell surface via sialic acids (preferentially to α‐2,3‐linked sialic acids rather than α‐2,6‐linked sialic acids), and leukocyte antigen class I (HLA‐1) molecules serve as entry receptors. 130
Management/treatment in canine species
Treatment for both, CECoV and CRCoV, is only necessary if the dog has clinical signs. Symptomatic treatment usually leads to complete cure. Antiviral treatment is not recommended.
Inactivated and modified live virus vaccines are available for CECoV in the USA (but not in Europe). Their usefulness has been questioned, because they only provide incomplete protection, 131 do likely not protect against pantropic CCoV, 132 and because CECoV usually causes no or only mild clinical signs. A vaccine against CRCoV is not available.
3.2.3. Coronavirues in avian species
Symptoms
The avian infectious bronchitis virus (IBV) belongs to genus gamma‐coronaviruses, being a single‐stranded, and positive‐sense RNA virus. 133 , 134 , 135 This extremely contagious disease causes serious economic losses worldwide in the poultry industry affecting meat‐type (broilers) and egg‐laying birds (layers). 136 , 137 The respiratory and reproductive tract are affected, together with the renal system due to the broad tissue tropism of galliform and non‐galliform birds for the IBV, causing morbidity up to 100%. Mortality is low but can reach 50% with some strains that cause nephritis or when opportunistic pathogens, for example, Escherichia coli complicate the disease. 133 , 136 , 138 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 The economic impact includes decreased egg production, reduced hatchability in breeders, poor external, and internal egg quality in layers as well in breeders, retarded growth, poor carcass weight, and increased condemnation rates in broilers. 133 , 134 , 137 , 138 When affected with damage of the reproductive tract, in young pullets (layers and breeders) failure of production can occur. 133 , 136 , 138 IBV has an incubation period of 24 to 48 hours, and the virus spreads rapidly among chickens in a flock via aerosol and mechanical routes. IBV is shedded in feces and nasal secretions. 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138
Currently, avian species and poultry unlikely play a role as reservoir, host, or in transmission of either SARS‐CoV‐2 or MERS‐CoV. 143
Receptors involved in coronavirus infection in avian species
The IBV receptor‐binding domain (RBD) in the surface S1‐spike glycoprotein is most important for the attachment to host cells. 138 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 144 Variation in S1‐glycoprotein partly influences tissue tropism, virulence, and virus entry. 138 , 141 , 142 IBV infects trachea, kidney, and the reproductive tract through interaction of the S1‐glycoproteins RBD with α‐2,3‐linked sialic acid receptors on the cell surface. 133 , 138 , 141 , 142
Management/treatment in avian species
Different serotypes and genetic types of IBV have been identified worldwide and mostly do not cross‐protect. 136 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 140 , 144 , 145 Moreover, new variant types of the viruses continue to arise due to mutations and recombinations in the viral genome, making this virus difficult to identify by the immune system and to control via regular vaccination program. 136 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 142
Epidemiological surveillance, strict biosecurity, and hygienic measures improved knowledge on the circulating and newly emerging field variants of IBV, and vaccines effective against various serotypes are necessary for better control and prevention of IBV in chickens. 134 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 144 , 145 Both live attenuated and killed vaccines are used to control IBV in commercial poultry farms. 137 , 138 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 144 , 145 , 146 Since serotypes of IBV do not cross‐protect, genotypes responsible for field infection should be detected and if available, attenuated strains homolog to field strains is an ideal strategy. If homolog‐vaccine strains are not available, multivalent vaccine containing two or more antigenic types (classic and variant strains) would be beneficial in providing broad protection (the protectotype concept). 135 , 136 , 137 , 140 , 141 , 144 , 145
3.2.4. Coronaviruses in cattle
Symptoms
Bovine coronavirus (BCoV) belongs to the genus “beta‐coronavirus” of the Coronaviridae family. BCoV classified in Group 2 appears specific to the bovine species. 147 , 148 , 149 Wild ruminants, sheep, and goats can become infected by cattle BCoV. 148 , 149 , 150 , 151 BCoV causes digestive and respiratory disease due to tissue tropism in young and adult cattle, and was first identified as the agent of severe diarrhea in neonatal calves (neonatal calf diarrhea), as well as in adult cattle (winter dys‐entery). 147 , 148 , 149 , 151 , 152 , 153 , 154 , 155 , 156 , 157 The respiratory syndrome is frequently observed during or after transportation because the shipping of cattle represents a stress factor that can facilitate the onset of BCoV‐induced respiratory disease (shipping fever), mainly in feedlot calves. 147 , 149 , 151 Considerable milk losses may be observed in a herd affected by winter dysentery. 148 , 153 Only one serotype has been identified among BCoV isolates, but some antigenic and genetic differences have been observed between isolates. 148 , 153 The incubation period in young calves is estimated to be 24–48 hours, and clinical signs usually occur after five days of age, when the level of maternal virus‐specific colostrum‐derived antibodies decreases in the digestive tract of the calf. 148 The morbidity rate is high, varying between 50 and 100%, and the mortality rate varies according to the level of maternally or actively derived antibodies and the severity of dehydration. 148 , 153 , 154 BCoV shedding occurs in feces and nasal secretions. 147 , 148 , 149 , 157
For SARS‐CoV‐2, under experimental conditions, cattle show low susceptibility, and there was no intraspecies transmission to in‐contact infection observed. 158 Therefore, there is no indication that cattle play a role in the human pandemic, and no reports of naturally infected bovines exist to date.
Receptors involved in coronavirus infection in bovine species
BCoV is an enteric/respiratory virus, using the 9–0‐acetylated sialic acid as a receptor to infect cultured cells. 149 , 151 , 156 The initiation of a BCoV infection possibly involves the recognition of different types of receptors: an initial receptor for primary attachment and a second facilitating the fusion between the viral envelope spike (S) protein and the membrane of the host cell. 149 , 150 , 151 , 155
Management/treatment in bovine species
The symptomatic treatment is directed against the dehydration and acid‐base disequilibrium, which follows the diarrhea. 152 Prevention of infection is based on biosecurity, sanitary, and medical measures. 152 Clinical signs can be reduced by following sound husbandry rules. 152 , 153 , 157 , 159 The preferred strategy is vaccination of the mother with live and inactivated vaccines to enrich the maternal colostrum with specific antibodies against BCoV. 150 , 152 , 159
3.2.5. Coronaviruses in horses
Symptoms
Equine coronavirus (ECoV) is a beta‐coronavirus phylogenetically related to BCoV, human coronavirus OC43, and porcine hemagglutinating encephalomyelitis virus. It is an emerging virus, first isolated and characterized in 2000, 160 although sporadic observations of coronavirus‐like particles by electron microscopy have been reported since 1970s. 161 , 162 , 163 Since its isolation, increasing numbers of sporadic cases and outbreaks in adult sports and show horses have been reported in the USA, Japan, and Europe. 164 , 165 , 166 , 167 Epidemiologic data suggest fecal‐oral route of transmission, confirmed by experimental infection. 168 Most frequent clinical signs include fever, anorexia, lethargy, and colic. 169 Neurological signs have also been observed. 170
There is no evidence that SARS‐CoV‐2 can infect or cause a disease in horses, or that they could transmit the virus to other species.
Receptors involved in coronavirus infection in equine species
Limited published comparisons of sequences and derived structures of ACE2 in different species resulted in discrepant predictions regarding the susceptibility of horses to SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, ranging from high risk 45 to low risk. 46
Management/treatment in equine species
Most horses recover spontaneously. Those with persistent fever and anorexia are treated with anti‐inflammatory drugs. More intensive treatment with intravenous fluids is needed for horses with colic or diarrhea. 171 Prevention of ECoV infection was tested using BCoV vaccine in horses to induce antibodies against ECoV, but it has not been shown to be protective. 172
3.2.6. Coronaviruses in pigs
Symptoms
Coronaviruses from three genera have been identified in pigs: Alphacoronavirus (porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV), transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV), porcine respiratory coronavirus (PRCV) and severe acute diarrhea syndrome virus (SADS‐CoV), Betacoronavirus (porcine hemagglutinating encephalomyelitis virus (PHEV)), and Deltacoronavirus (porcine deltacoronavirus (PDCoV)). TGEV, PEDV, PDCoV, and SADS‐CoV cause gastrointestinal infections, PRCV is associated with respiratory infection and PHEV can cause encephalomyelitis or wasting disease in piglets lacking maternal antibodies. 173 PRCV emerged in 1984 as a spike deletion mutant of TGEV and rapidly spread within the population making the pigs immune to both PRCV and TGEV. PDCoV and SADS‐CoV have recently emerged in China and are highly homologous with avian or bat coronaviruses, respectively. 173 Enteric coronaviruses (TGEV, PEDV, and PDCoV) are highly contagious (morbidity 100%), cause gastroenteritis with diarrhea and vomiting, which results in dehydration and death (up to 100% mortality). Strong immune responses following natural infection protect against subsequent homologous challenge; however, these viruses display no cross‐protection.
There is no evidence of natural infection or disease caused by SARS‐Cov‐2 in pigs. Attempts to infect pigs yielded conflicting results, mostly showing that pigs are not susceptible, 174 , 175 but a recent study could detect virus RNA in some pigs after oronasal inoculation of 1x106 PFU. 176 Some of these pigs also showed mild symptoms, such as ocular or nasal discharge. One pig also developed cough and from submandibular lymph node of this pig live virus could be isolated.
Receptors involved in coronavirus infection in pigs
Aminopeptidase N is the major receptor for porcine coronaviruses. It has been shown that SARS‐Cov‐2 can use porcine ACE2 to enter HeLa cells expressing this receptor. 177 A BLAST query predicted 98% coverage and 81% identity between human and porcine ACE2. 176
Management/treatment in pigs
Treatment of affected newborn piglets is usually ineffective. In piglets older than 1 week, electrolyte/glucose supplementation may reduce mortality. Enhanced biosecurity measures should be maintained to decrease a chance of introduction of infected animals and contaminated vehicles from TGEV‐affected farms to susceptible herds. Protection of piglets can be achieved by vaccination of sows to induce lactogenic immunity. 173
3.2.7. Coronaviruses in camelid species
Known from the past Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) pandemic, camelids, specifically dromedaries, can be infected with MERS and are able to transmit the virus to humans. 178 In case of SARS‐CoV‐2, camelids are believed to have a low virus susceptibility, with an ACE2‐receptor similarity of 83.25% to humans. 179 There is no evidence, that they can transmit SARS‐CoV‐2 to people by now.
3.2.8. Coronaviruses in mustelid species
American mink and ferret are the only mustelid species for which evidence both from experimental and field studies for susceptibility to SARS‐CoV‐2 is available. Minks are among the most susceptible species. 180 There are no other experimental studies available for other wild mustelid species.
4. ANIMAL MODELS FOR STUDYING SARS‐COV‐2 SUSCEPTIBILITY, MECHANISMS, AND TREATMENT OPTIONS
Many studies tried to establish a suitable animal model for the SARS‐CoV‐2 infection; 181 however, no ideal matching model was found. 182 Due to the entry receptor similarity, great apes and primates (rhesus macaques) seem to be most suitable, as they get infected, spread the virus, and show symptoms. 46 , 174 , 183 Non‐human primates display virus replication in the upper and lower respiratory tract and in the gastrointestinal tract, and develop pneumonia with bilateral lung involvement, ground‐glass opacities, focal edema, and inflammation. Neutralizing antibodies, T‐cell immunity, and pro‐inflammatory cytokines were shown in infected animals. However, important aspects of the human SARS‐CoV‐2 infection like specific clinical signs (fever, nasal discharge, and dyspnea), transmission, and gender‐specific differences could not be reproduced in non‐human primates. 181 Mice are not suitable, but Syrian gold hamsters could be a proper model for SARS‐CoV‐2 as well as other viruses. 184 , 185 Hamsters and ferrets are the only animals who display clinical signs. 181 Further, ferrets are especially useful to test vaccines and medication for the upper respiratory tract. 181 , 186 Although both cats and dogs can get infected, they usually do not develop clinical disease under experimental or natural conditions. Six kittens were challenged in an experimental study with SARS‐CoV‐2 via intranasal and oral routes simultaneously, 174 , 187 , 188 , 189 , 190 and viral RNA was not detected in blood, but it was present in nasal, oropharyngeal and rectal swabs, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. Viral RNA and antigen were detected in inflamed tissues of submucosal glands. One day post‐challenge, two sentinel cats were commingled with the infected animals. Sentinel cats got infected within two days. All cats remained asymptomatic. Both principal and sentinel cats developed antibodies. 187
To sum it up, no perfectly suitable or ethically justifiable animal model is currently available. Therefore, it is important that research and development should keep focusing on human clinical trials to find a cure and preventive measure for human coronavirus infections.
5. ORIGIN AND TRANSMISSION
The One Health movement introduced the concept that people and their animals share the environment, including infections, pollution, food, lifestyle, and increased life expectancy. In this shared scenario, not only the unidirectional (zoonotic), 3 , 191 but the bidirectional transmission (reverse zoonosis) of SARS‐CoV‐2 virus can be envisaged. The transmission route and potential origin‐host‐interactions are important aspects to consider for primary and secondary prevention of infectious diseases (Figure 3). For the novel SARS‐CoV‐2, genetic analyses showed a high similarity with a coronavirus carried by bats (Table 1). SARS‐CoV‐1 and MERS‐CoV originated in bats and it is likely that they are the natural host of SARS‐CoV‐2 too. 192 , 193 , 194 , 195 , 196
FIGURE 3.
Transmission routes of SARS‐CoV‐2. *, possible intermediate hosts; <‐>, intra‐species transmission; ?, still under investigation; ‐‐‐, no susceptibility; ‐‐>, low susceptibility; ‐>, high susceptibility
TABLE 1.
Origin and (potential) intermediate hosts of SARS‐CoV‐1, MERS‐CoV, and SARS‐CoV‐2
VIRUS | ORIGIN | INTERMEDIATE HOST | REFERENCES |
---|---|---|---|
SARS‐CoV‐1 | Bat | Himalayan palm civet cat, or raccoon dog | 16, 192, 193, 194, 216 |
MERS‐CoV | Bat | Dromedary camels | 16, 192, 193, 217 |
SARS‐CoV‐2 | bat* | Pangolins*, snakes (Chinese krait and cobra snakes)*, frogs*, (sea) turtles* | 16, 192, 218, 219 |
*under investigation.
While at the onset of the SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic, transmission from animals to humans was in focus, many other reports of naturally infected cats and dogs revealed that SARS‐CoV‐2 can be transmitted from infected humans to animals. There is also evidence of human‐to‐non‐domestic felid transmission, as the case of a New York zoo showed, where in April 2020 it was reported that five tigers and three lions of the Wildlife Conservation Society's Bronx Zoo had developed respiratory signs. 197 In the Netherlands and Denmark, SARS‐CoV‐2 outbreaks have occurred in 17 mink farms in which human‐to‐mink, mink‐to‐human, and mink‐to‐cat/dog transmission occurred. 198 , 199 , 200 , 201
5.1. Intra‐species transmission of SARS‐CoV‐2
For SARS‐CoV‐2, respiratory transmission is the most important route. 202 Spreading of respiratory viruses usually happens from person to person per droplets, fomites, or aerosols. 202 , 203 The effective reproduction rate for SARS‐CoV‐2 was found to be very high until May 2020, with one person infecting 3 (range 2.5–3.6) other people, positioning COVID‐19 as a highly contagious disease. 204 For SARS‐CoV‐1 and MERS‐CoV, fecal‐oral transmission is also important. Since SARS‐CoV‐2 can be found in stool samples, this route could be relevant also for SARS‐CoV‐2. 203 , 205 , 206 , 207
A study compared the structural features of ACE2 receptors in vertebrates, to estimate the risk of other species to get infected by SARS‐CoV‐2. 46 Susceptibility of different species is considered to be low or moderate (Table 2 ). Great apes show a high similarity with humans in their ACE2 receptors, therefore, are categorized as very susceptible. Beside the receptor similarity, the risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection also depends on host‐specific protease expression, driving the spike protein activation. 186
TABLE 2.
Characteristics of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in different species
Species/animals | Entry receptor similarity | Experimental infection | Naturally infected | Symptoms reported naturally/experimental | Antibodies detected | References |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BAT | Low | Unknown | Possible source of SARS‐CoV‐2 | Unknown/unknown | Unknown |
Damas et al 46 Liu et al 220 |
LION | Not tested | Unknown | Yes | Mild/n.a. | Unknown |
Damas et al 46 AVMA 221 |
TIGER | Medium | Unknown | Yes | Mild/n.a. | Unknown |
Damas et al 46 AVMA 221 |
DOG | Low | Yes | Yes | No/n.a. | Yes |
Damas et al 46 Shi et al 174 |
CAT | Medium | Yes | Yes | Mild/no | Yes |
Halfmann et al 208 Shi et al 174 Damas et al 46 |
PANGOLIN | Very low | Unknown | Yes | Unknown/unknown | Unknown |
Damas et al 46 Zang et al 218 |
FERRET/MINK | Very low | Yes | Yes | Yes/yes | Yes |
Oreshka et al 199 Shi et al 174 Damas et al 46 |
HAMSTER | Medium | Yes | Unknown | Yes | Yes |
Sia et al 184 Damas et al 46 |
RHESUS MACAQUES | Very high | Yes | Unknown | Yes | Yes |
Munster et al 183 Damas et al 46 |
Abbreviation: n.a., not applicable.
Cat‐to‐cat transmission was demonstrated 174 , 187 , 208 (uninfected cats co‐housed with infected cats develop antibodies 187 , 208 ), and a very high rate of intraspecies transmission was described in minks.
5.2. Human‐to‐animal and animal‐to‐human transmission of SARS‐CoV‐2
Several reports confirm human‐to‐animal transmission (reverse zoonosis). Infected animals had close contact with the RT‐PCR‐positive humans, suggesting that the virus was transferred in one direction (human‐to‐animal). Dogs, cats, wild felines (tigers and lions), and minks on fur farms were tested RT‐PCR‐positive, 3 , 191 , 199 , 209 a dog and cat even for a new variant SARS‐CoV‐2 B.1.1.7, 210 whereas farm animals like pigs, cows, chickens, and ducks (poultry), had not been reported RT‐PCR‐positive, and the risk of transmission from humans‐to‐bats was considered to be low. 211
There is evidence of human‐to‐cat and human‐to‐dog 209 transmission of SARS‐CoV‐2 but so far not vice versa. One study suggested that cat fleas, Ctenocephalides felis, might act as biological and/or mechanical vectors, as coronavirus‐derived RNA and cell receptor ACE RNA/proteins were identified in cat fleas. 212 However, current evidence suggests that pets are probably “dead‐end”‐hosts with small risk of transmission to humans. Still, pet owners are concerned: 60% of U.S. veterinarians encountered owners that were worried about their pets having COVID‐19. 213 There is also concern that cats or dogs could transmit SARS‐CoV‐2, although there is no evidence for zoonotic transmission so far. 214 Thus, owners in some countries started to abandon their pets, however, fear of potential transmission from domestic cats is unnecessary without solid proof of risk. On the contrary, according to computational modeling, abandoning domestic cats actually might cause even more people to be infected overall. 215
6. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EAACI TASK FORCE
The recommendations stated here are based on expert opinion after performing a narrative review of the actual literature. A systematic review using the GRADE system for definition of strong and conditional recommendatioins needs to be performed in the future when more data are available and when several knowledge gaps (Box 1) have been closed.
BOX 1. Knowledge gaps/future research.
Despite what was learned within the last decades about coronaviruses, and even more so within the last year, there are a number of remaining knowledge gaps regarding the latest SARS‐CoV−2 infection |
---|
|
|
|
6.1. Measures to prevent transmission of COVID‐19
Fact 1: The transmission probability of SARS‐CoV‐2 including all its mutant versions between human‐to‐human is high and occurs via secretory fluids (nasal, oral, and lung).
Recommendation 1: By following regulations (eg, social distancing) and hygiene measures, people protect themselves and others from infection:
Wearing mouth‐nose‐protection when meeting people outside own household
Maintaining a safety distance of at least 1–2 meters to other people or animals
Avoiding crowds and crowded places
Regularly ventilating closed rooms
Washing hands very carefully and regularly, either by using alcohol‐based hand rub or soap and water before eating, before touching the face, after using the toilet, and after using public transport, public places, gym etc.
Avoiding touching the face (eyes, nose, and mouth)
Avoiding skin contact with people outside own household
Covering mouth and nose with the inside of elbow or tissue when coughing or sneezing (cough etiquette)
With fever, cough or difficulty of breathing, medical attention needs to be sought, according to the procedure recommended by the authorities
Staying at home and self‐isolating even with the mildest symptoms (cough, headache, and mild fever)
When being tested positive, quarantine/self‐isolation needs to be started immediately for 10–14 days
Keeping up‐to‐date and informed by trusted sources like WHO, OIE, and national health authorities
Fact 2: Animal‐to‐animal transmission is possible, for example, between cats.
Recommendation 2: For animals/pets, there are guidelines given by several animal health organizations, like
during lock‐down or quarantine pets should not be allowed to interact with animals (and people) from other households;
dog parks or public places, where it can be crowded, should be avoided.
Fact 3: Transmission from animals to humans (zoonosis) has not been proven yet. There are reports for transmission from humans to animals (reverse zoonosis), so cross‐species transfer is possible. Humans should therefore be careful and maintain high hygienic standards for themselves and to protect the animals and prevent further interspecies transmission. The risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 mutants, which acquire new pathogenetic properties and could employ novel transmission routes, is always given.
Recommendation 3: If the holder is infected, hygienic measures are highly important to keep the pet safe (Box 2).
BOX 2. Recommendations of the EAACI task force.
Measures to prevent cross‐species transfer |
---|
Humans should be careful and maintain high hygienic standards for themselves and to protect the animals and prevent further interspecies transmission |
|
If the pet/companion/farm animal is SARS‐CoV‐2‐infected, the holders also need to be careful to protect themselves and others (Box 2). Contact should be restricted to a minimum, interaction with others (pets or humans) should be avoided, hygienic measures are unavoidable until animals are RT‐PCR‐negative
Fact 4: Professionals who work with animals, like veterinary medical personnel, zoo keepers, or pet shop personnel, see their patients despite a pandemic.
Recommendation 4: Veterinary clinics should have restricted access, where owners have to hand over the patients and are not allowed to accompany their pets to the examination. People who work with wildlife also have the responsibility to keep the animals’ risk as low as possible. Strict hygienic measures must be taken to reduce contact to the absolute minimum, wear gloves while interacting, for example, petting, and wear a mask during food preparation and contact. The same measures should be taken in pet shops, and in addition, prevent
costumers from interacting with the animals, restrict the number of costumers inside the store, prevent direct contact to the animals. Zoos play a special role because they are crucial for species conservation. In this case, areas where endangered species live should be highly protected, maybe even closed for visitors. Caretaker and staff must follow the hygienic protocols and the animals’ health should be monitored very closely for signs of possible SARS‐CoV‐2 infection.
6.2. Concluding remarks
In times of climate change (eg, when changes in temperature and humidity influence reservoirs of viral infections, transmission by insects and other intermediate hosts, survival outside the host, and success of infection in plants and animals);changed living conditions (very close to companion animals and pets); and changed eating patterns (exotic animals and plants, animals fed with medications), pandemics could appear at any time.
The general public and health organizations need to be prepared and implement strategies (i) to detect and characterize novel threats early; (ii) to reduce the risk of transmission by initiating hygiene measures very early in suspicious diseases; (iii) to speed up the development of treatment (medications, vaccines) and prevention options; (iv) to educate on the risk of exotic foods, and (v) to stop the underlying reasons for pandemic evolution in the first place, for example, facilitate planetary health, implement climate protective measures, protect/re‐establish biodiversity, take care that people have access to hygienic food and water and therefore (can) avoid consumption of unsanitary food and drinks. In this sense, prevention and management of pandemics need to be approached from a holistic point of view with One Health being the best strategy.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors have nothing to disclose.
AUTHORS CONTRIBUTIONS
KADJ authored text about transmission, animal models, and prepared figures and tables. JJ contributed part on horses, equine receptors, and porcine CoV. UE contributed chapter on symptoms associated with SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in human patients. SM wrote the chapter on SARS‐CoV‐2 receptors and associated proteins. FW wrote part on human symptoms in SARS‐1 and MERS as well as allergic aspects. AI contributed to concluding remarks, scientific discussion and editing of the manuscript. SAA wrote parts about avian and bovine coronaviruses. HK wrote the parts on cats and dogs. J‐JE contributed the part on human comorbidities. P‐SI designed the concept of this position paper and directed the project, wrote abstract, knowledge gaps, position part, and edited paper and references. All authors have read and approved the final version.
Supporting information
Supplementary Material
Korath ADJ, Janda J, Untersmayr E, et al. One Health: EAACI Position Paper on coronaviruses at the human‐animal interface, with a specific focus on comparative and zoonotic aspects of SARS‐CoV‐2. Allergy. 2022;77:55–71. 10.1111/all.14991
Funding information
The authors would like to thank the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) for financial support of the sections, interest groups, and working groups enabling the development and publication of this paper
REFERENCES
- 1. Mackenzie JS, Smith DW. COVID‐19: a novel zoonotic disease caused by a coronavirus from China: what we know and what we don't. Microbiol Aust. 2020;17:MA20013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. WHO . WHO coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) dashboard. [Web page]. 2020;Accessed 7 June 2021 https://covid19.who.int/.
- 3. Tiwari R, Dhama K, Sharun K, et al. COVID‐19: animals, veterinary and zoonotic links. Vet Q. 2020;40(1):169‐182. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Ahmad T, Khan M, Haroon N, et al. COVID‐19: zoonotic aspects. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2020;36:101607. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Zaki AM, van Boheemen S, Bestebroer TM, Osterhaus AD, Fouchier RA. Isolation of a novel coronavirus from a man with pneumonia in Saudi Arabia. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(19):1814‐1820. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. WHO . Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS‐CoV). [Web page]. 2020; https://covid19.who.int/. Accessed 7 June 2021.
- 7. Chen Y, Liu Q, Guo D. Emerging coronaviruses: Genome structure, replication, and pathogenesis. J Med Virol. 2020;92(4):418‐423. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses I . ICTV Master Species List 2019.v1. [Excel sheet]. 2020; https://talk.ictvonline.org/files/ictv_official_taxonomy_updates_since_the_8th_report/m/vertebrate‐official/1230. Accessed 7 June, 2021.
- 9. Feldstein LR, Rose EB, Horwitz SM, et al. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in U.S. children and adolescents. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(4):334‐346. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Petrosillo N, Viceconte G, Ergonul O, Ippolito G, Petersen E. COVID‐19, SARS and MERS: are they closely related? Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020;26(6):729‐734. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Chen B, Tian EK, He B, et al. Overview of lethal human coronaviruses. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2020;5(1):89. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Malik YA. Properties of Coronavirus and SARS‐CoV‐2. Malays J Pathol. 2020;42(1):3‐11. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Hoffmann M, Kleine‐Weber H, Schroeder S, et al. SARS‐CoV‐2 cell entry depends on ACE2 and TMPRSS2 and is blocked by a clinically proven protease inhibitor. Cell. 2020;181(2):271‐280 e278. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Letko M, Marzi A, Munster V. Functional assessment of cell entry and receptor usage for SARS‐CoV‐2 and other lineage B betacoronaviruses. Nat Microbiol. 2020;5(4):562‐569. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Walls AC, Park YJ, Tortorici MA, Wall A, McGuire AT, Veesler D. Structure, function, and antigenicity of the SARS‐CoV‐2 spike glycoprotein. Cell. 2020;181(2):281‐292.e286. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Liu P, Jiang JZ, Wan XF, et al. Are pangolins the intermediate host of the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS‐CoV‐2)? PLoS Pathog. 2020;16(5):e1008421. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Zhou Y, Vedantham P, Lu K, et al. Protease inhibitors targeting coronavirus and filovirus entry. Antiviral Res. 2015;116:76‐84. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Shang J, Wan Y, Luo C, et al. Cell entry mechanisms of SARS‐CoV‐2. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2020;117(21):11727‐11734. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Daly JL, Simonetti B, Klein K, et al. Neuropilin‐1 is a host factor for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Science. 2020;370(6518):861‐865. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Cantuti‐Castelvetri L, Ojha R, Pedro LD, et al. Neuropilin‐1 facilitates SARS‐CoV‐2 cell entry and infectivity. Science. 2020;370(6518):856‐860. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Yan R, Zhang Y, Li Y, Xia L, Guo Y, Zhou Q. Structural basis for the recognition of SARS‐CoV‐2 by full‐length human ACE2. Science. 2020;367(6485):1444‐1448. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Radzikowska U, Ding M, Tan G, et al. Distribution of ACE2, CD147, cyclophilins, CD26 and other SARS‐CoV‐2 associated molecules in various human tissues and immune cells in health and disease. Allergy. 2020;75:2829. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Sungnak W, Huang N, Bécavin C, et al. SARS‐CoV‐2 entry factors are highly expressed in nasal epithelial cells together with innate immune genes. Nat Med. 2020;26(5):681‐687. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Ziegler CGK, Allon SJ, Nyquist SK, et al. SARS‐CoV‐2 receptor ACE2 is an interferon‐stimulated gene in human airway epithelial cells and is detected in specific cell subsets across tissues. Cell. 2020;181:1061. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Qi F, Qian S, Zhang S, Zhang Z. Single cell RNA sequencing of 13 human tissues identify cell types and receptors of human coronaviruses. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2020;526(1):135‐140. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Chen Z, Mi L, Xu J, et al. Function of HAb18G/CD147 in invasion of host cells by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus. J Infect Dis. 2005;191(5):755‐760. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Gao C, Zeng J, Jia N, et al. SARS‐CoV‐2 spike protein interacts with multiple innate immune receptors. bioRxiv. 2020;32:722. [Google Scholar]
- 28. Amraie R, Napoleon MA, Yin W, et al. CD209L/L‐SIGN and CD209/DC‐SIGN act as receptors for SARS‐CoV‐2 and are differentially expressed in lung and kidney epithelial and endothelial cells. bioRxiv. 2020;23:22. [Google Scholar]
- 29. Wu A, Peng Y, Huang B, et al. Genome composition and divergence of the novel coronavirus (2019‐nCoV) originating in China. Cell Host Microbe. 2020;27(3):325‐328. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Radzikowska U, Ding M, Tan G, et al. Distribution of ACE2, CD147, CD26, and other SARS‐CoV‐2 associated molecules in tissues and immune cells in health and in asthma, COPD, obesity, hypertension, and COVID‐19 risk factors. Allergy. 2020;75(11):2829‐2845. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Helal MA, Shouman S, Abdelwaly A, et al. Molecular basis of the potential interaction of SARS‐CoV‐2 spike protein to CD147 in COVID‐19 associated‐lymphopenia. J Biomol Struct Dyn. 2020;15:1‐11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Shilts J, Wright GJ. No evidence for basigin/CD147 as a direct SARS‐CoV‐2 spike binding receptor. bioRxiv. 2020;2020:2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Sokolowska M, Lukasik ZM, Agache I, et al. Immunology of COVID‐19: Mechanisms, clinical outcome, diagnostics, and perspectives‐A report of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI). Allergy. 2020;75(10):2445‐2476. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Clausen TM, Sandoval DR, Spliid CB, et al. SARS‐CoV‐2 Infection Depends on Cellular Heparan Sulfate and ACE2. Cell. 2020;183(4):1043‐1057.e1015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Park YJ, Walls AC, Wang Z, et al. Structures of MERS‐CoV spike glycoprotein in complex with sialoside attachment receptors. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2019;26(12):1151‐1157. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Li W, Hulswit RJG, Widjaja I, et al. Identification of sialic acid‐binding function for the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus spike glycoprotein. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2017;114(40):E8508‐E8517. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Millet JK, Jaimes JA, Whittaker GR. Molecular diversity of coronavirus host cell entry receptors. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2021;45(3):3211. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Ou X, Liu Y, Lei X, et al. Characterization of spike glycoprotein of SARS‐CoV‐2 on virus entry and its immune cross‐reactivity with SARS‐CoV. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):1620. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Tiwari V, Tandon R, Sankaranarayanan NV, et al. Preferential recognition and antagonism of SARS‐CoV‐2 spike glycoprotein binding to 3‐O‐sulfated heparan sulfate. bioRxiv. 2010;2020(2020):2008. [Google Scholar]
- 40. Tandon R, Sharp JS, Zhang F, et al. Effective inhibition of SARS‐CoV‐2 entry by heparin and enoxaparin derivatives. J Virol. 2020;8:36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Zhao X, Chen D, Szabla R, et al. Broad and differential animal angiotensin‐converting enzyme 2 receptor usage by SARS‐CoV‐2. J Virol. 2020;94(18):e00940‐e920. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Luan J, Lu Y, Jin X, Zhang L. Spike protein recognition of mammalian ACE2 predicts the host range and an optimized ACE2 for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2020;526(1):165‐169. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Hayashi T, Abiko K, Mandai M, Yaegashi N, Konishi I. Highly conserved binding region of ACE2 as a receptor for SARS‐CoV‐2 between humans and mammals. Vet Q. 2020;40(1):243‐249. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Zhai X, Sun J, Yan Z, et al. Comparison of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 spike protein binding to ACE2 receptors from human, pets, farm animals, and putative intermediate hosts. J Virol. 2020;94(15). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Alexander MR, Schoeder CT, Brown JA, et al. Predicting susceptibility to SARS‐CoV‐2 infection based on structural differences in ACE2 across species. FASEB J. 2020;34(12):15946‐15960. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Damas J, Hughes GM, Keough KC, et al. Broad host range of SARS‐CoV‐2 predicted by comparative and structural analysis of ACE2 in vertebrates. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2020;117(36):22311‐22322. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Chen L, Lin Y‐L, Peng G, Li F. Structural basis for multifunctional roles of mammalian aminopeptidase N. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2012;109(44):17966‐17971. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Dveksler GS, Pensiero MN, Cardellichio CB, et al. Cloning of the mouse hepatitis virus (MHV) receptor: expression in human and hamster cell lines confers susceptibility to MHV. J Virol. 1991;65(12):6881‐6891. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Li Y, Zhang Z, Yang L, et al. The MERS‐CoV receptor DPP4 as a candidate binding target of the SARS‐CoV‐2 spike. iScience. 2020;23(6):101160. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Wang N, Shi X, Jiang L, et al. Structure of MERS‐CoV spike receptor‐binding domain complexed with human receptor DPP4. Cell Res. 2013;23(8):986‐993. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51. Assiri A, McGeer A, Perl TM, et al. Hospital outbreak of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(5):407‐416. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52. Centers for Disease, Prevention . Preliminary clinical description of severe acute respiratory syndrome. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2003;52(12):255‐256. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Peiris JS, Yuen KY, Osterhaus AD, Stohr K. The severe acute respiratory syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(25):2431‐2441. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54. Drosten C, Seilmaier M, Corman VM, et al. Clinical features and virological analysis of a case of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus infection. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013;13(9):745‐751. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55. Azkur AK, Akdis M, Azkur D, et al. Immune response to SARS‐CoV‐2 and mechanisms of immunopathological changes in COVID‐19. Allergy. 2020;75(7):1564‐1581. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56. Gao Z, Xu Y, Sun C, et al. A systematic review of asymptomatic infections with COVID‐19. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57. Lauer SA, Grantz KH, Bi Q, et al. The incubation period of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) from publicly reported confirmed cases: estimation and application. Ann Intern Med. 2020;172(9):577‐582. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58. Rodriguez‐Morales AJ, Cardona‐Ospina JA, Gutierrez‐Ocampo E, et al. Clinical, laboratory and imaging features of COVID‐19: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2020;34:101623. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59. Lovato A, de Filippis C. Clinical presentation of COVID‐19: a systematic review focusing on upper airway symptoms. Ear Nose Throat J. 2020;99(9):569‐576. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60. Wang D, Hu B, Hu C, et al. Clinical characteristics of 138 hospitalized patients with 2019 novel coronavirus‐infected pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA. 2020;323(11):1061. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61. Xu XW, Wu XX, Jiang XG, et al. Clinical findings in a group of patients infected with the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS‐Cov‐2) outside of Wuhan, China: retrospective case series. BMJ. 2020;368:m606. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62. Pan L, Mu M, Yang P, et al. Clinical characteristics of COVID‐19 patients with digestive symptoms in Hubei, China: a descriptive, cross‐sectional, Multicenter Study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2020;115(5):766‐773. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63. Poyiadji N, Shahin G, Noujaim D, Stone M, Patel S, Griffith B. COVID‐19‐associated acute hemorrhagic necrotizing encephalopathy: imaging features. Radiology. 2020;296(2):E119‐E120. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64. Chang TS, Ding Y, Freund MK, et al. Prior diagnoses and medications as risk factors for COVID‐19 in a Los Angeles Health System. medRxiv. 2020. [Google Scholar]
- 65. Patel AP, Paranjpe MD, Kathiresan NP, Rivas MA, Khera AV. Race, socioeconomic deprivation, and hospitalization for COVID‐19 in English participants of a national biobank. Int J Equity Health. 2020;19(1):114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66. Rajpal A, Rahimi L, Ismail‐Beigi F. Factors leading to high morbidity and mortality of covid‐19 in patients with type 2 diabetes. J Diabetes. 2020;12:895‐908. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67. Sarin SK, Choudhury A, Lau GK, et al. Pre‐existing liver disease is associated with poor outcome in patients with SARS CoV2 infection; The APCOLIS Study (APASL COVID‐19 Liver Injury Spectrum Study). Hepatol Int. 2020;14(5):690‐700. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68. Kudose S, Batal I, Santoriello D, et al. Kidney biopsy findings in patients with COVID‐19. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2020;31(9):1959‐1968. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69. Garassino MC, Whisenant JG, Huang LC, et al. COVID‐19 in patients with thoracic malignancies (TERAVOLT): first results of an international, registry‐based, cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21(7):914‐922. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70. Shah V, Ko Ko T, Zuckerman M, et al. Poor outcome and prolonged persistence of SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA in COVID‐19 patients with haematological malignancies; King's College Hospital experience. Br J Haematol. 2020;190(5):e279‐e282. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71. Venkatesulu BP, Chandrasekar VT, Girdhar P, et al. A systematic review and meta‐analysis of cancer patients affected by a novel coronavirus. medRxiv. 2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72. Derespina KR, Kaushik S, Plichta A, et al. Clinical manifestations and outcomes of critically Ill children and adolescents with COVID‐19 in New York City. J Pediatr. 2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73. Riggioni C, Comberiati P, Giovannini M, et al. A compendium answering 150 questions on COVID‐19 and SARS‐CoV‐2. Allergy. 2020;75(10):2503‐2541. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74. Hartmann K. Coronavirus infections (canine and feline), including feline infectious peritonitis. In: Ettinger SJ, Feldman EC, Cùtè E (Eds). Textbook of veterinary internal medicine : diseases of the dog and the cat. St. Louis, Missouri: Elsevier; 2017: pp 983‐991. [Google Scholar]
- 75. Addie DD, Hartmann K, Tasker S, Hofmann‐Lehmann R, Egberink H, Möstl K. Feline infectious peritonitis. 2019; http://www.abcdcatsvets.org/feline‐infectious‐peritonitis/. Accessed 05.08.2020.
- 76. Jaimes JA, Whittaker GR. Feline coronavirus: Insights into viral pathogenesis based on the spike protein structure and function. Virology. 2018;517:108‐121. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77. Klein‐Richers U, Hartmann K, Hofmann‐Lehmann R, et al. Prevalence of feline coronavirus shedding in German catteries and associated risk factors. Viruses. 2020;12(9). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78. Sabshin SJ, Levy JK, Tupler T, Tucker SJ, Greiner EC, Leutenegger CM. Enteropathogens identified in cats entering a Florida animal shelter with normal feces or diarrhea. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2012;241(3):331‐337. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79. Addie DD, Toth S, Murray GD, Jarrett O. Risk of feline infectious peritonitis in cats naturally infected with feline coronavirus. Am J Vet Res. 1995;56(4):429‐434. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80. Ritz S, Egberink H, Hartmann K. Effect of feline interferon‐omega on the survival time and quality of life of cats with feline infectious peritonitis. J Vet Intern Med. 2007;21(6):1193‐1197. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81. Vennema H, Poland A, Foley J, Pedersen NC. Feline infectious peritonitis viruses arise by mutation from endemic feline enteric coronaviruses. Virology. 1998;243(1):150‐157. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82. Chang HW, Egberink HF, Halpin R, Spiro DJ, Rottier PJ. Spike protein fusion peptide and feline coronavirus virulence. Emerg Infect Dis. 2012;18(7):1089‐1095. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83. Dewerchin HL, Cornelissen E, Nauwynck HJ. Replication of feline coronaviruses in peripheral blood monocytes. Arch Virol. 2005;150(12):2483‐2500. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84. Rottier PJ, Nakamura K, Schellen P, Volders H, Haijema BJ. Acquisition of macrophage tropism during the pathogenesis of feline infectious peritonitis is determined by mutations in the feline coronavirus spike protein. J Virol. 2005;79(22):14122‐14130. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85. Regan AD, Cohen RD, Whittaker GR. Activation of p38 MAPK by feline infectious peritonitis virus regulates pro‐inflammatory cytokine production in primary blood‐derived feline mononuclear cells. Virology. 2009;384(1):135‐143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86. Kipar A, Bellmann S, Gunn‐Moore DA, et al. Histopathological alterations of lymphatic tissues in cats without feline infectious peritonitis after long‐term exposure to FIP virus. Vet Microbiol. 1999;69(1–2):131‐137. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87. Hoskins JD. Coronavirus infection in cats. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 1993;23(1):1‐16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88. Sharun K, Sircar S, Malik YS, Singh RK, Dhama K. How close is SARS‐CoV‐2 to canine and feline coronaviruses? J Small Anim Pract. 2020;61(8):523‐526. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89. Stout AE, Andre NM, Jaimes JA, Millet JK, Whittaker GR. Coronaviruses in cats and other companion animals: Where does SARS‐CoV‐2/COVID‐19 fit? Vet Microbiol. 2020;247:108777. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90. Hosie MJ, Hartmann K, Hofmann‐Lehmann R, et al. SARS‐Coronavirus (CoV)‐2 and cats. Guidelines 2020; http://www.abcdcatsvets.org/sars‐coronavirus‐2‐and‐cats/ Accessed 05.08.2020.
- 91. American Veterinary Medical Association . SARS‐CoV‐2 in animals. 2020; https://www.avma.org/resources‐tools/animal‐health‐and‐welfare/covid‐19/sars‐cov‐2‐animals‐including‐pets. Accessed 28 September, 2020.
- 92. World Organisation for Animal Health . Events in animals. 2020; https://www.oie.int/scientific‐expertise/specific‐information‐and‐recommendations/questions‐and‐answers‐on‐2019novel‐coronavirus/events‐in‐animals/. Accessed 23 December, 2020.
- 93. Lefebvre HP, Brown SA, Chetboul V, King JN, Pouchelon JL, Toutain PL. Angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors in veterinary medicine. Curr Pharm Des. 2007;13(13):1347‐1361. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94. Kawaguchi T, Hashimoto R, Yasukawa Y, et al. The effect of telmisartan on the ventricular systolic function in dogs with experimental supraventricular tachyarrhythmia. J Vet Med Sci. 2019;81(5):717‐722. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95. IDEXX . IDEXX SARS‐CoV‐2 (COVID‐19) RealPCR Test. 2020; www.IDEXX.com/en/veterinary/reference‐laboratories/overview‐idexx‐sars‐cov‐2‐covid‐19‐realpcr‐test/. Accessed 28 September, 2020.
- 96. Zhang Q, Zhang H, Gao J, et al. A serological survey of SARS‐CoV‐2 in cat in Wuhan. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020;9(1):2013‐2019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97. ProMED International Society for Infectious Diseases . Coronavirus disease 2019 update (382): Netherlands, animal, farmed mink, spread. control. 2020; https://promedmail.org/promed‐post/?id=7730463. Accessed 28 September, 2020.
- 98. Patterson EI, Elia G, Grassi A, et al. Evidence of exposure to SARS‐CoV‐2 in cats and dogs from households in Italy. Nat Commun 2020;11(1):6231. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99. Temmam S, Barbarino A, Maso D, et al. Absence of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in cats and dogs in close contact with a cluster of COVID‐19 patients in a veterinary campus. One Health. 2020;10:100164. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 100. Calvet GA, Pereira SA, Ogrzewalska M, et al. Investigation of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in dogs and cats of humans diagnosed with COVID‐19 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. PLoS One. 2021;16(4):e0250853. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101. Herrewegh AA, Smeenk I, Horzinek MC, Rottier PJ, de Groot RJ. Feline coronavirus type II strains 79–1683 and 79–1146 originate from a double recombination between feline coronavirus type I and canine coronavirus. J Virol. 1998;72(5):4508‐4514. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 102. Terada Y, Matsui N, Noguchi K, et al. Emergence of pathogenic coronaviruses in cats by homologous recombination between feline and canine coronaviruses. PLoS One. 2014;9(9):e106534. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 103. Tusell SM, Schittone SA, Holmes KV. Mutational analysis of aminopeptidase N, a receptor for several group 1 coronaviruses, identifies key determinants of viral host range. J Virol. 2007;81(3):1261‐1273. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 104. Tekes G, Hofmann‐Lehmann R, Bank‐Wolf B, Maier R, Thiel HJ, Thiel V. Chimeric feline coronaviruses that encode type II spike protein on type I genetic background display accelerated viral growth and altered receptor usage. J Virol. 2010;84(3):1326‐1333. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 105. Dye C, Temperton N, Siddell SG. Type I feline coronavirus spike glycoprotein fails to recognize aminopeptidase N as a functional receptor on feline cell lines. J Gen Virol. 2007;88(Pt 6):1753‐1760. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 106. Van Hamme E, Desmarets L, Dewerchin HL, Nauwynck HJ. Intriguing interplay between feline infectious peritonitis virus and its receptors during entry in primary feline monocytes. Virus Res. 2011;160(1–2):32‐39. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 107. Pedersen NC, Perron M, Bannasch M, et al. Efficacy and safety of the nucleoside analog GS‐441524 for treatment of cats with naturally occurring feline infectious peritonitis. J Feline Med Surg. 2019;21(4):271‐281. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 108. Murphy BG, Perron M, Murakami E, et al. The nucleoside analog GS‐441524 strongly inhibits feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) virus in tissue culture and experimental cat infection studies. Vet Microbiol. 2018;219:226‐233. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 109. Dickinson PJ, Bannasch M, Thomasy SM, et al. Antiviral treatment using the adenosine nucleoside analogue GS‐441524 in cats with clinically diagnosed neurological feline infectious peritonitis. J Vet Intern Med. 2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 110. Bafna K, White K, Harish B, et al. Hepatitis C virus drugs that inhibit the SARS‐CoV‐2 papain‐like protease synergize with remdesivir to suppress viral replication in cell culture. CELREP Cell Reports. 2021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 111. Woods RD, Pedersen NC. Cross‐protection studies between feline infectious peritonitis and porcine transmissible gastroenteritis viruses. VETMIC. Vete Microbiol. 1979;4(1):11‐16. [Google Scholar]
- 112. Vennema H, Heijnen L, Zijderveld A, Horzinek MC, Spaan WJ. Intracellular transport of recombinant coronavirus spike proteins: implications for virus assembly. J Virol. 1990;64(1):339‐346. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 113. Weiss RC, Scott FW. Pathogenesis of feline infectious peritonitis: nature and development of viremia. Am J Vet Res. 1981;42(3):382‐390. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 114. Vennema H, de Groot RJ, Harbour DA, et al. Early death after feline infectious peritonitis virus challenge due to recombinant vaccinia virus immunization. J Virol. 1990;64(3):1407‐1409. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 115. McArdle F, Tennant B, Bennett M, Kelly DF, Gaskell CJ, Gaskell RM. Independent evaluation of a modified live FIPV vaccine under experimental conditions (University of Liverpool experience). Feline Pract. 1995;23(3). [Google Scholar]
- 116. Scott FW, Corapi WV, Olsen CW. Independent evaluation of a modified live FIPV vaccine under experimental conditions (Cornell experience). Feline practice. 1995;23(3):74‐76. [Google Scholar]
- 117. Scott FW, Olsen CW, Corapi WV. Antibody‐dependent enhancement of feline infectious peritonitis virus infection. Feline Practice. 1995;23(3):77‐80. [Google Scholar]
- 118. Postorino RN. Vaccination against naturally‐occurring FIP in a single large cat shelter. Feline Practice. 1995;23:81‐82. [Google Scholar]
- 119. Fehr D, Holznagel E, Bolla S, et al. Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of a modified‐Live FIPV vaccine under field conditions. Feline Practice. 1995;23:83‐88. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 120. Fehr D, Holznagel E, Bolla S, et al. Placebo‐controlled evaluation of a modified life virus vaccine against feline infectious peritonitis: Safety and efficacy under field conditions. Vaccine. 1997;15:1101‐1109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 121. Addie DD, Schaap IAT, Nicolson L, Jarrett O. Persistence and transmission of natural type I feline coronavirus infection. J Gen Virol 2003;84(Pt 10):2735‐2744. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 122. Foley JE, Poland A, Carlson J, Pedersen NC. Patterns of feline coronavirus infection and fecal shedding from cats in multiple‐cat environments. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1997;210(9):1307‐1312. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 123. Schulz BS, Strauch C, Mueller RS, Eichhorn W, Hartmann K. Comparison of the prevalence of enteric viruses in healthy dogs and those with acute haemorrhagic diarrhoea by electron microscopy. J Small Anim Pract. 2008;49(2):84‐88. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 124. Decaro N, Martella V, Elia G, et al. Molecular characterisation of the virulent canine coronavirus CB/05 strain. Virus Res. 2007;125(1):54‐60. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 125. Buonavoglia C, Decaro N, Martella V, et al. Canine coronavirus highly pathogenic for dogs. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12(3):492‐494. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 126. Erles K, Toomey C, Brooks HW, Brownlie J. Detection of a group 2 coronavirus in dogs with canine infectious respiratory disease. Virology. 2003;310(2):216‐223. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 127. Erles K, Shiu KB, Brownlie J. Isolation and sequence analysis of canine respiratory coronavirus. Virus Res. 2007;124(1–2):78‐87. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 128. Schulz B, Klinkenberg C, Fux R, Anderson T, de Benedictis P, Hartmann K. Prevalence of canine influenza virus A (H3N8) in dogs in Germany. Vet J. 2014;202(1):184‐185. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 129. Buonavoglia C, Martella V. Canine respiratory viruses. Vet Res. 2007;38(2):355‐373. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 130. Szczepanski A, Owczarek K, Bzowska M, et al. Canine respiratory coronavirus. Bovine coronavirus, and human coronavirus OC43: receptors and attachment factors. Viruses. 2019;11(4). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 131. Pardo MC, Mackowiak M. Efficacy of a new canine origin, modified live virus vaccine against canine coronavirus. Canine Practice. 1999;24:6‐8. [Google Scholar]
- 132. Decaro N, Buonavoglia C. An update on canine coronaviruses: viral evolution and pathobiology. Vet Microbiol. 2008;132(3–4):221‐234. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 133. Winter C, Schwegmann‐Wessels C, Cavanagh D, Neumann U, Herrler G. Sialic acid is a receptor determinant for infection of cells by avian Infectious bronchitis virus. J Gen Virol. 2006;87(Pt 5):1209‐1216. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 134. Cavanagh D. Coronaviruses in poultry and other birds. Avian Pathol. 2005;34(6):439‐448. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 135. Khataby K, Fellahi S, Loutfi C, Mustapha EM. Avian infectious bronchitis virus in Africa: a review. Vet Q. 2016;36(2):71‐75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 136. Jackwood MW. Review of infectious bronchitis virus around the world. Avian Dis. 2012;56(4):634‐641. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 137. Awad F, Chhabra R, Baylis M, Ganapathy K. An overview of infectious bronchitis virus in chickens. Worlds Poult Sci J. 2014;70(2):375‐384. [Google Scholar]
- 138. Bande F, Arshad SS, Omar AR, Bejo MH, Abubakar MS, Abba Y. Pathogenesis and diagnostic approaches of avian infectious bronchitis. Adv Virol. 2016;2016:4621659. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 139. Caron LF. Etiology and immunology of infectious bronchitis virus. Brazilian J Poult Sci. 2010;12(2):115‐119. [Google Scholar]
- 140. Cavanagh D. Coronavirus avian infectious bronchitis virus. Vet Res. 2007;38(2):281‐297. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 141. Smialek M, Tykalowski B, Dziewulska D, Stenzel T, Koncicki A. Immunological aspects of the efficiency of protectotype vaccination strategy against chicken infectious bronchitis. BMC Vet Res. 2017;13(1):44. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 142. Ambepitiya Wickramasinghe IN, de Vries RP, Weerts EA, et al. Novel receptor specificity of avian gammacoronaviruses that cause enteritis. J Virol. 2015;89(17):8783‐8792. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 143. Suarez DL, Pantin‐Jackwood MJ, Swayne DE, Lee SA, DeBlois SM, Spackman E. Lack of susceptibility to SARS‐CoV‐2 and MERS‐CoV in poultry. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26(12):3074‐3076. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 144. Zanaty A, Naguib MM, El‐Husseiny MH, Mady W, Hagag N, Arafa AS. The sequence of the full spike S1 glycoprotein of infectious bronchitis virus circulating in Egypt reveals evidence of intra‐genotypic recombination. Arch Virol. 2016;161(12):3583‐3587. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 145. Ali A, Kilany WH, Zain El‐Abideen MA, Sayed ME, Elkady M. Safety and efficacy of attenuated classic and variant 2 infectious bronchitis virus candidate vaccines. Poult Sci. 2018;97(12):4238‐4244. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 146. Wickramasinghe IN, de Vries RP, Grone A, de Haan CA, Verheije MH. Binding of avian coronavirus spike proteins to host factors reflects virus tropism and pathogenicity. J Virol. 2011;85(17):8903‐8912. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 147. Decaro N, Campolo M, Desario C, et al. Respiratory disease associated with bovine coronavirus infection in cattle herds in Southern Italy. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2008;20(1):28‐32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 148. Valarcher J, Hägglund S. Bovine coronavirus. In: Lefèvre PC, Blancou J, Chermette R, (Eds). Infectious and Parasitic Diseases of Livestock. France: Lavoisier; 2010: pp 545‐552. [Google Scholar]
- 149. Saif LJ. Bovine respiratory coronavirus. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. 2010;26(2):349‐364. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 150. Burimuah V, Sylverken A, Owusu M, et al. Sero‐prevalence, cross‐species infection and serological determinants of prevalence of Bovine Coronavirus in Cattle, Sheep and Goats in Ghana. Vet Microbiol. 2020;241:108544. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 151. Amer HM. Bovine‐like coronaviruses in domestic and wild ruminants. Anim Health Res Rev. 2018;19(2):113‐124. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 152. Schultze B, Herrler G. Bovine coronavirus uses N‐acetyl‐9‐O‐acetylneuraminic acid as a receptor determinant to initiate the infection of cultured cells. J Gen Virol. 1992;73(Pt 4):901‐906. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 153. Decaro N, Mari V, Desario C, et al. Severe outbreak of bovine coronavirus infection in dairy cattle during the warmer season. Vet Microbiol. 2008;126(1–3):30‐39. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 154. Boileau MJ, Kapil S. Bovine coronavirus associated syndromes. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. 2010;26(1):123‐146. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 155. Vlasak R, Luytjes W, Spaan W, Palese P. Human and bovine coronaviruses recognize sialic acid‐containing receptors similar to those of influenza C viruses. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1988;85(12):4526‐4529. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 156. Oma VS, Traven M, Alenius S, Myrmel M, Stokstad M. Bovine coronavirus in naturally and experimentally exposed calves; viral shedding and the potential for transmission. Virol J. 2016;13:100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 157. Bok M, Alassia M, Frank F, Vega CG, Wigdorovitz A, Parreno V. Passive immunity to control Bovine coronavirus diarrhea in a dairy herd in Argentina. Rev Argent Microbiol. 2018;50(1):23‐30. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 158. Ulrich L, Wernike K, Hoffmann D, Mettenleiter TC, Beer M. Experimental infection of cattle with SARS‐CoV‐2. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26(12):2979‐2981. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 159. Li F. Structure, Function, and Evolution of Coronavirus Spike Proteins. Annu Rev Virol. 2016;3(1):237‐261. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 160. Guy JS, Breslin JJ, Breuhaus B, Vivrette S, Smith LG. Characterization of a coronavirus isolated from a diarrheic foal. J Clin Microbiol. 2000;38(12):4523‐4526. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 161. Bass EP, Sharpee RL. Coronavirus and gastroenteritis in foals. Lancet. 1975;2(7939):822. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 162. Huang JC, Wright SL, Shipley WD. Isolation of coronavirus‐like agent from horses suffering from acute equine diarrhoea syndrome. Vet Rec. 1983;113(12):262‐263. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 163. Mair TS, Taylor FG, Harbour DA, Pearson GR. Concurrent cryptosporidium and coronavirus infections in an Arabian foal with combined immunodeficiency syndrome. Vet Rec. 1990;126(6):127‐130. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 164. Oue Y, Ishihara R, Edamatsu H, et al. Isolation of an equine coronavirus from adult horses with pyrogenic and enteric disease and its antigenic and genomic characterization in comparison with the NC99 strain. Vet Microbiol. 2011;150(1–2):41‐48. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 165. Oue Y, Morita Y, Kondo T, Nemoto M. Epidemic of equine coronavirus at Obihiro Racecourse, Hokkaido, Japan in 2012. J Vet Med Sci. 2013;75(9):1261‐1265. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 166. Pusterla N, Mapes S, Wademan C, et al. Emerging outbreaks associated with equine coronavirus in adult horses. Vet Microbiol. 2013;162(1):228‐231. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 167. Miszczak F, Tesson V, Kin N, et al. First detection of equine coronavirus (ECoV) in Europe. Vet Microbiol. 2014;171(1–2):206‐209. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 168. Nemoto M, Oue Y, Morita Y, et al. Experimental inoculation of equine coronavirus into Japanese draft horses. Arch Virol. 2014;159(12):3329‐3334. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 169. Berryhill EH, Magdesian KG, Aleman M, Pusterla N. Clinical presentation, diagnostic findings, and outcome of adult horses with equine coronavirus infection at a veterinary teaching hospital: 33 cases (2012–2018). Vet J. 2019;248:95‐100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 170. Fielding CL, Higgins JK, Higgins JC, et al. Disease associated with equine coronavirus infection and high case fatality rate. J Vet Intern Med. 2015;29(1):307‐310. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 171. Pusterla N, Vin R, Leutenegger C, Mittel LD, Divers TJ. Equine coronavirus: an emerging enteric virus of adult horses. Equine Vet Educ. 2016;28(4):216‐223. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 172. Nemoto M, Kanno T, Bannai H, Tsujimura K, Yamanaka T, Kokado H. Antibody response to equine coronavirus in horses inoculated with a bovine coronavirus vaccine. J Vet Med Sci. 2017;79(11):1889‐1891. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 173.[173]Vlasova AN, Wang Q, Jung K, Langel SN, Malik YS, Saif LJ. Porcine Coronaviruses. 2020;79‐110.
- 174. Gong L, Li J, Zhou Q, et al. A New Bat‐HKU2‐like Coronavirus in Swine, China, 2017. Emerg Infect Dis. 2017;23(9):1607‐1609. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 175. Shi J, Wen Z, Zhong G, et al. Susceptibility of ferrets, cats, dogs, and other domesticated animals to SARS‐coronavirus 2. Science. 2020;368(6494):1016‐1020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 176. Schlottau K, Rissmann M, Graaf A, et al. SARS‐CoV‐2 in fruit bats, ferrets, pigs, and chickens: an experimental transmission study. Lancet Microbe. 2020;1(5):e218‐e225. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 177. Pickering BS, Smith G, Pinette MM, et al. Susceptibility of domestic swine to experimental infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Emerg Infect Dis. 2021;27(1):104‐112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 178. Zhou P, Yang XL, Wang XG, et al. A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin. Nature. 2020;579(7798):270‐273. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 179. Haagmans BL, Al Dhahiry SH, Reusken CB, et al. Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus in dromedary camels: an outbreak investigation. Lancet Infect Dis. 2014;14(2):140‐145. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 180. Koley T, Madaan S, Chowdhury SR, et al. Structural analysis of COVID‐19 spike protein in recognizing the ACE2 receptor of different mammalian species and its susceptibility to viral infection. 3 Biotech. 2021;11(2):109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 181. European Food Safety, European Centre for Disease and Control . Monitoring of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in mustelids. EFSA J. 2021;19(3):e06459. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 182. Munoz‐Fontela C, Dowling WE, Funnell SGP, et al. Animal models for COVID‐19. Nature. 2020;586(7830):509‐515. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 183. Kumar S, Yadav PK, Srinivasan R, Perumal N. Selection of animal models for COVID‐19 research. Virusdisease. 2020;31(4):453‐458. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 184. Munster VJ, Feldmann F, Williamson BN, et al. Respiratory disease in rhesus macaques inoculated with SARS‐CoV‐2. Nature. 2020;585(7824):268‐272. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 185. Sia SF, Yan LM, Chin AWH, et al. Pathogenesis and transmission of SARS‐CoV‐2 in golden hamsters. Nature. 2020;583(7818):834‐838. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 186. Miao J, Chard LS, Wang Z, Wang Y. Syrian hamster as an animal model for the study on infectious diseases. Front Immunol. 2019;10:2329. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 187. Sreenivasan CC, Thomas M, Wang D, Li F. Susceptibility of livestock and companion animals to COVID‐19. J Med Virol. 2020;93(3):1351‐1360. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 188. Gaudreault NN, Trujillo JD, Carossino M, et al. SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, disease and transmission in domestic cats. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020;9(1):2322‐2332. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 189. Chan JF, Zhang AJ, Yuan S, et al. Simulation of the clinical and pathological manifestations of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID‐19) in golden Syrian hamster model: implications for disease pathogenesis and transmissibility. Clin Infect Dis. 2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 190. Richard M, Kok A, de Meulder D, et al. SARS‐CoV‐2 is transmitted via contact and via the air between ferrets. Nat Commun 2020;11(1):3496. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 191. Bosco‐Lauth AM, Hartwig AE, Porter SM, et al. Pathogenesis, transmission and response to re‐exposure of SARS‐1 CoV‐2 in domestic cats. bioRxiv. 2020. [Google Scholar]
- 192. Leroy EM, Ar Gouilh M, Brugere‐Picoux J. The risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 transmission to pets and other wild and domestic animals strongly mandates a one‐health strategy to control the COVID‐19 pandemic. One Health. 2020;10:133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 193. Rabi FA, Al Zoubi MS, Kasasbeh GA, Salameh DM, Al‐Nasser AD. SARS‐CoV‐2 and Coronavirus Disease 2019: What We Know So Far. Pathogens. 2020;9(3). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 194. Contini C, Di Nuzzo M, Barp N, et al. The novel zoonotic COVID‐19 pandemic: an expected global health concern. J Infect Dev Ctries. 2020;14(3):254‐264. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 195. Hu B, Zeng LP, Yang XL, et al. Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS‐related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus. PLoS Pathog. 2017;13(11):e1006698. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 196. van Boheemen S, de Graaf M, Lauber C, et al. Genomic characterization of a newly discovered coronavirus associated with acute respiratory distress syndrome in humans. MBio. 2012;3(6). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 197. Zhang G, Li B, Yoo D, et al. Animal coronaviruses and SARS‐CoV‐2. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 198. Davidson M. SARS‐CoV‐2/COVID‐19, United States of America. 2020; https://www.oie.int/wahis_2/public/wahid.php/Reviewreport/Review?page_refer=MapFullEventReport&reportid=33885. Accessed 28 September, 2020.
- 199. Enserink M. Coronavirus rips through Dutch mink farms, triggering culls. Science. 2020;368(6496):1169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 200. Oreshkova N, Molenaar RJ, Vreman S, et al. SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in farmed minks, the Netherlands, April and May 2020. Euro Surveill. 2020;25:23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 201. Molenaar RJ, Vreman S, Hakze‐van der Honing RW, et al. Clinical and pathological findings in SARS‐CoV‐2 disease outbreaks in farmed mink (Neovison vison). Vet Pathol. 2020;57(5):653‐657. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 202. Boklund A, Hammer AS, Quaade ML, et al. SARS‐CoV‐2 in Danish Mink Farms: course of the epidemic and a descriptive analysis of the outbreaks in 2020. Animals (Basel). 2021;11(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 203. Patel KP, Vunnam SR, Patel PA, et al. Transmission of SARS‐CoV‐2: an update of current literature. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2020;39(11):2005‐2011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 204. Cowling BJ, Leung GM. Epidemiological research priorities for public health control of the ongoing global novel coronavirus (2019‐nCoV) outbreak. Eurosurveillance. 2020;25(6). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 205. Hussein M, Toraih E, Elshazli R, et al. Meta‐analysis on serial intervals and reproductive rates for SARS‐CoV‐2. Ann Surg. 2020;273(3):416‐423. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 206. Wang H, Li X, Li T, et al. The genetic sequence, origin, and diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2020;39(9):1629‐1635. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 207. Tian Y, Rong L, Nian W, He Y. Review article: gastrointestinal features in COVID‐19 and the possibility of faecal transmission. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2020;51(9):843‐851. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 208. Holshue ML, DeBolt C, Lindquist S, et al. First case of 2019 novel coronavirus in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(10):929‐936. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 209. Halfmann PJ, Hatta M, Chiba S, et al. Transmission of SARS‐CoV‐2 in domestic cats. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(6):592‐594. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 210. Decaro N, Vaccari G, Lorusso A, et al. Possible Human‐to‐Dog Transmission of SARS‐CoV‐2, Italy, 2020. Emerg Infec Dis. 2021;27(7):1981‐1984. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 211. Hamer SA, Ghai RR, Zecca IB, et al. SARS‐CoV‐2 B.1.1.7 variant of concern detected in a pet dog and cat after exposure to a person with COVID‐19, USA. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 212. Cox‐Witton K, Baker ML, Edson D, Peel AJ, Welbergen JA, Field H. Risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 transmission from humans to bats ‐ An Australian assessment. One Health. 2021;13:100247. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 213. Villar M, Fernandez de Mera IG, Artigas‐Jeronimo S, Contreras M, Gortazar C, de la Fuente J. Coronavirus in cat flea: findings and questions regarding COVID‐19. Parasit Vectors. 2020;13(1):409. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 214. Watson KM, Zhang Y, Towns K, Kahe K. Owner concerns that pets have Covid‐19. Vet Rec. 2020;186(18):608‐609. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 215. Hartmann K. Can pets transfer Corona onto their owners? SARS‐CoV‐2 in dogs and cats (Können Haustiere Corona auf ihre Besitzer bertragen?: SARS‐CoV‐2 bei Hunden und Katzen). MMW Fortschritte der Medizin. 2020;162(11):10‐11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 216. Gao T, Pan X, Pan C. The fate of house cats during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Microbes Infect. 2020;22(4–5):157. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 217. Guan Y, Zheng BJ, He YQ, et al. Isolation and characterization of viruses related to the SARS coronavirus from animals in southern China. Science. 2003;302(5643):276‐278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 218. Azhar EI, El‐Kafrawy SA, Farraj SA, et al. Evidence for camel‐to‐human transmission of MERS coronavirus. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(26):2499‐2505. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 219. Zhang T, Wu Q, Zhang Z. Probable pangolin origin of SARS‐CoV‐2 associated with the COVID‐19 outbreak. Curr Biol. 2020;30(8):1578. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 220. Li X, Zai J, Zhao Q, et al. Evolutionary history, potential intermediate animal host, and cross‐species analyses of SARS‐CoV‐2. J Med Virol. 2020;92(6):602‐611. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 221. Liu Z, Xiao X, Wei X, et al. Composition and divergence of coronavirus spike proteins and host ACE2 receptors predict potential intermediate hosts of SARS‐CoV‐2. J Med Virol. 2020;92(6):595‐601. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 222. AVMA . SARS‐CoV‐2 in animals. 2020; www.AVMA.org/resources‐tools/animal‐health‐and‐welfare/covid‐19/sars‐cov‐2‐animals‐including‐pets. Accessed 30.10.2020, 2020.
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Supplementary Material