Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Oct 20;16(10):e0258755. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258755

Lumpy skin disease outbreaks in Egypt during 2017-2018 among sheeppox vaccinated cattle: Epidemiological, pathological, and molecular findings

Sherin R Rouby 1,*, Nesreen M Safwat 2, Khaled H Hussein 1, Aml M Abdel- Ra’ouf 3, Bahaa S Madkour 3, Ahmed S Abdel-Moneim 4, Hosein I Hosein 1
Editor: Simon Clegg5
PMCID: PMC8528327  PMID: 34669748

Abstract

The General Organization of the Veterinary Services in Egypt has adopted a sheeppox vaccination policy to control lumpy skin disease (LSD) in cattle. Over the course of the last two years, recurrent outbreaks were reported, with animals showing severe clinical signs and consequentially higher fatalities than that of cases reported in previous LSD outbreaks. A total of 1050 cattle showing typical clinical signs suggestive of LSD were clinically and pathologically investigated during 2017–2018. Skin nodules were collected and lumpy skin disease virus (LSDV) was screened in collected skin samples using PCR for the RPO-30 gene. Furthermore, the entire P32 protein coding gene was sequenced. Histopathology and immunohistochemistry of the skin nodules were also conducted. The obtained results showed an overall mortality rate of 6.86%. LSDV was confirmed in all the examined nodules as evidenced by immunohistochemistry and positive PCR amplification of the RPO30 gene. Sequencing analysis of the P32 gene revealed a highly conserved nature and genetic stability of the LSDV. The results of the present study show that the current vaccination protocol was not effective for a multitude of reasons. These results also serve as evidence for a strong recommendation of an amendment of homologous vaccine use aside from a complete coverage of cattle populations in order to reduce the incidence of LSD among cattle population in Egypt.

Introduction

LSD is a devastating, high-impact cattle disease. It is characterized by fever and nodules covering all parts of the body, including the mucosal membranes and internal organs, along with generalized lymphadenopathy. It also induces, abortion, damage to hides and a sharp decline in milk production; it also causes sterility in bulls, subsequently leading to drastic economic losses [1].

LSD is caused by a lumpy skin disease virus (LSDV) that is related to the genus Capripoxvirus [2]. Blood-sucking arthropods, mosquitoes and ticks transmit the virus from one animal to another [3].

With its emergence in Egypt in 1988, LSD was seen merely as a typical example of an exotic disease that usually entered the country through importation of live animals. Within a few short years, it transformed into a national crisis with a subsequent establishment of the disease’s enzootic status. The disease then re-emerged in the summer of 1989 [4]. In 2006, LSDV struck most of the governorates in Egypt [5] and it re-appeared again in 2011 and 2014 [6]. According to this study, and in addition to evidence from the above-mentioned reports, it can be seen that the disease continues to spread across the country.

Originally, the disease affected cattle within the continent of Africa. However, since 2012, the disease has spread from these African countries to the Middle East and even some European countries [7]. Outbreaks of LSDV typically occur as epidemics [4]. There are often unexplained gaps of several years between different outbreaks, regardless of humidity, season or abundance of the vectors [8].

LSDV, sheeppox virus (SPPV), and goatpox virus (GTPV) showed genome similarities of at least 96% [9, 10]. For this reason, conventional laboratory tests could not differentiate different capripoxviruses from each other [11]. However, various PCR assays have been recently validated for differentiation between LSDV and SPPV. PRO-30 based PCR provides a simple and quick differentiation between LSDV and SPPV without the requisite of DNA sequencing [12]. The Capripoxvirus P32 gene is a major immunodominant antigen located at the surface of the mature virion [13, 14]. It was identified as the homolog of the vaccinia virus H3L gene. On the other hand, the RPO30 gene is a homologue of the vaccinia virus E4L gene, which encodes DNA-dependent RNA polymerase enzyme [12]. The main objective of this study was to highlight the vaccination failure associated with the spread of the disease in Egypt. Among the objectives of the current study was the nucleotide sequence relatedness screening between the published reference strains and SPPV vaccines and the virus strains detected in this study.

Material and methods

Ethical approval

The animal ethical committee of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Beni-Suef University, Egypt, approved the present study. Clinical samples used in this study were collected after approval of all the owners’ of study animals.

Animals

A total of 1050 of cattle clinically affected with LSD were screened during 2017–2018 from the Beni Suef, Sohag and Aswan Governorates. Diseased animals ranged from the age of 3 months to 5 years and included individually reared cases and cases from dairy farms (Table 1). All affected animals were vaccinated within the national annual vaccination program with the Romanian SPPV vaccine (103 TCID50, Veterinary Serum and Vaccine Research Institute [VSVRI], Egypt). The development of the disease was reported three months after vaccination. Most of the examined animals were reared near different watercourses, ditches and gullies, many of which were found to harbour hard ticks.

Table 1. Number of clinically diseased animals included in the study.

Animal Number Average age
Pregnant cows 320 3–5 years
Lactating non pregnant cows 570 3–5 years
Heifers 82 8–13 months
Calves 78 3–12 months
Total 1050

Samples

Ten skin nodules were aseptically collected from LSDV-infected cattle showing a severe form of the disease. A local subcutaneous infiltration of lidocaine HCl 2% (1ml / 1cm2 of skin) was applied, followed by a small surgical incision of about 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm in diameter which was made to obtain skin samples. Skin nodules were bisected into two equal halves. The first one was suspended in a sterile phosphate buffer saline (pH 7.2) containing gentamicin (50 μg/ml) in the ice box for PCR assays. The other part was placed in a neutral buffered formalin solution of 10% for further histopathological procedures.

Virus detection

PCR

Extraction of viral DNA was performed on the nodule homogenate using the gSync DNA extraction kit, Geneaid (Taiwan) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. PCR runs were performed using PCR master mix (Thermo, Germany) in a total volume of 25μl/reaction. A primer set of the RPO-30 gene that flanks 172bp and 151bp for LSDV and SPPV was used according to Lamien et al. (2011; Table 2). The reaction parameters were denaturation at 94°C for 5 minutes, 35 cycles at 94°C for 45 seconds, 55° C for one minute and 72° C for one minute, with a final extension of 7 minutes. PCR products were visualized with a transilluminator after being electrophoresed in 1.5% agarose gel. Lyophilized sheeppox vaccine virus (Romanian strain) and nuclease-free water were used as positive and negative controls, respectively.

Table 2. Sequence of LSD oligonucleotide primers.
Primer Tm Reference
RPO30 F 5’-TCTATGTCTTGATATGTGGTGGTAG-3’ 55°C (Lamien et al., 2011)
R 5’-AGTGATTAGGTGGTGTATTATTTTCC-3’
P32 F 5’- ATG GCAGAT ATC CCA TTA-3’ 50°C (Heine et al., 1999)
R 5’ ACTCTCATTGGTGTTCGG-3’

Immunohistochemistry

LSD suspected skin samples were subjected to immunohistochemistry staining using Dako Cytomation (Denmark A/S (LSAB+ System-AP)—Edition 06/07—Code K0678). Sections were washed with Tris buffer solution, and the endogenous alkaline phosphatase (AP) was blocked by using 1 mM levamisole. Sections were incubated at room temperature for 30 minutes with normal goat serum to block the non-specific binding immunoglobulins. This was followed by incubation with primary rabbit anti-LSDV polyclonal hyperimmune serum, which was locally prepared and used at a dilution of 1:900 for 1 hour at room temperature. Subsequently, samples were further incubated with biotinylated anti-rabbit monoclonal antibodies and streptavidin AP for 30 minutes each at room temperature. AP substrate was then added for three minutes at room temperature.

Full length sequence of the P32 gene

A PCR for a whole P32 protein coding gene was employed using previously designed primers (Table 2) to confirm the presence of LSDV DNA in all skin samples (n:10) as well as in two archival samples from the 2012 Egypt outbreak; this formed a total of 12 samples [14]. An initial denaturation at 94°C for 5 minutes was followed by 35 cycles at 94°C for 45 seconds, 50° C for one minute and 72° C for one minute, with a final extension of 7 minutes. PCR amplicons of the expected size were excised from the gel and extracted using a Geneaid gel extraction kit (New Taipei City, 22180 Taiwan, China) as according to the manufacturer’s instruction. Purified PCR amplicons were sequenced commercially. Raw sequences were processed using MEGA X [15]. BLAST analysis was initially implemented to establish sequence identity to GenBank accessions. Evolutionary analyses and sequence alignments were conducted using MEGA X software [15]. A tree was generated by the maximum likelihood method with 1,000 bootstrapped data sets. The Kimura 2-parameter was used as a model and the tree was obtained initially by Neighbor-Join and BioNJ algorithms [16]. The maximum composite likelihood (MCL) was estimated as a matrix of pairwise distances.

Histopathological examination

Different tissue specimens were paraffin embedded, fixed in neutral buffered formalin solution 10%; and sectioned at 5–7μm; the specimens were then stained with hematoxylin and eosin according to [17].

Results

Clinical examination

Cattle (n: 1050) from three different governorates (Fig 1) were clinically examined. The animals all showed typical LSD clinical signs, such as nodules on the limbs, head, neck and/or trunk, fever (39.5°C-41.0°C), lymphadenopathy and oedema in the brisket, perineum, genitalia, udder, belly or legs. Typical necrotic lesions with a cone shaped core (sit- fast lesion) were observed (Fig 2). A total of 72 (6.86%) animals succumbed from the acute signs of the disease (Table 3).

Fig 1. Areas of investigation and number of animals.

Fig 1

In Beni Suef, 808 animals showed clinical signs of LSD. Twelve calves (3–5 months) and ten pregnant cows were succumbed from infection. In Sohag, 112 animals showed clinical signs of LSD and eighteen cows died. In Aswan, 130 animals showed clinical signs of LSD and thirty-two cows died.

Fig 2. LSDV infected animals.

Fig 2

A) Cutaneous nodules covered the entire body of a LSDV infected cow. B) Enlarged and oedematous pre-scapular lymph node in a LSDV infected cow. C) LSDV infected cow infested with hard ticks. D) A 12-month-old calf with scrotal lesions. Each lesion is surrounded by a zone of necrosis (sitfast).

Table 3. Clinical and epidemiological status of LSDV infected animals.

Locality Number of clinical cases Mortalities (%) Complications (%)
Beni Suef 808 22 (2.72%) Pneumonia 44(5.44%)
Sohag 112 18 (16.07%) Enteritis 24(21.43%)
Aswan 130 32 (24.62%) Bloody urine 22(16.92%)
Total 1050 72 (6.86%) Total 90 (8.57%)

Virus detection: PCR and immunohistochemistry

LSDV DNA was successfully amplified by RPO-30 PCR in all of the 10 selected samples as well as for the positive control (Fig 3). Furthermore, the immunohistochemistry confirmed the presence of a viral antigen, as can be seen in the Fig 4g.

Fig 3. Gel electrophoresis of PCR products.

Fig 3

Gel electrophoresis of PCR products using RPO30 specific primer set using 50bp ladder (with 172 bp expected product for LSDV (Lane 2 to lane 8) and 151 for SPPV (Lane: 9).

Fig 4. Histopathology of skin nodules.

Fig 4

a) Acanthosis (green arrow), associated with hydropic degeneration in keratinocytes of the epidermal layer of the skin (black arrow), while the next dermal layer is normal (H&E; Bar = 100μm). b) Vasculitis (green arrow), associated with massive leucocytic infiltrations in the dermal layer (black arrow) (H&E; Bar = 100μm). c) Intracytoplasmic inclusion body of LSD in the keratinocytes of the epidermal layer (black arrow), while the dermal layer shows massive leucocytic infiltrations mainly by eosinophils (green arrow) (H&E; Bar = 50μm). d) Chromatin condensation and calcium deposits in keratin layer (black arrows), while the next dermal layer shows severe hemorrhages with leucocytic aggregation (H&E; Bar = 200μm). e) Necrosis and dissociation of muscle fibers, fatty infiltrates, and leucocytic infiltration mainly by lymphocytes and few numbers of eosinophils between them (black arrows) (H&E; Bar = 100 μm). f) Dilatation of lymph vessels (LVs.), necrotizing vasculitis (black arrow), and leucocytic infiltration mainly by lymphocytes and few numbers of eosinophils between them (green arrows) (H&E; Bar = 200 μm). g) Red viral particles in macrophage of connective tissue of the dermal layer (black arrows) using alkaline phosphatase immunohistochemistry).

Sequence analysis

Four out of the ten 2017–2018 samples and two out of the two 2012 samples were positive for P32 gene amplification (1024bp). Out of the twelve samples, only three showed successful readable sequences (one from 2018 and two from 2012). The processed gene sequences were compared with other P32 sequences of capripoxviruses available in the GenBank. Sequence analysis revealed that LSDV obtained in the current study shared 100% identity on both nucleotide and amino acid sequences with LSDV/NI-2490 (AF325528.1) isolated from cattle in 1958. However, nucleotide and amino acid identities were found to be 99% and 98% with the currently used sheeppox vaccinal strain, respectively (Romanian strain) (data not shown). Phylogenetic analysis of capripoxviruses isolated from 1958 to 2018 revealed that members of the genus Capripoxvirus could be classified into three distinct clusters of LSDV, GTPV and SPPV based on their P32 gene nucleotide sequence. LSDV sequences obtained in the present study clustered along with: LSDV/NI-2490/1958 (AF325528.1), LSDV/NW-LW/South Africa/1999 (AF409137.1), LSDV/Kenya/KSGP-0240/1974 (KY702007.1), LSDV/Israel/2012 (KX894508.1), LSDV/Egy/BSU/2012 (MN418201), LSDV/Egy/BSU/2012-2 (MN418202), LSDV/Russia/Dagestan/ 2015 (MH893760.2), LSDV/1015/Egy/2015 (KU298638.1), LSD-Egypt/Ismailia/2016 (KX977487.1) and LSDV/Iran/2016 (KX960780.1) (Fig 5). Deduced amino acid sequences revealed that amino acid residues at position 49(F/L) and 304(D/N) are unique to LSDV while 62(L/F), 132(S/L) and 134(I/T) are unique to SPPV. The most obvious difference between LSDV and SPPV is the presence of an additional aspartic acid at the 55th position of the P32 of the sheeppox virus; the conserved cysteine residues are present at positions 85 and 89 of SPPV protein sequences and at 84 and 88 in LSDV and GTPV protein sequences (Fig 6).

Fig 5. Phylogenetic analysis of P32 gene.

Fig 5

Tree was generated using Mega-X program by the neighbor-joining analysis. Bootstrap confidence values were calculated on 1000 replicates according to the maximum-likelihood approach.

Fig 6. Deduced amino acid sequence of P32 gene.

Fig 6

Dots indicate identical amino acids, green shaded letters denote unique sequences to LSDV, blue shaded letters denote unique sequences to SPPV and yellow underlined letters denote conserved cysteine residues.

Histopathological examination

Biopsy of LSD skin nodules showed acanthosis and vacuolar degeneration in the keratinocytes of the epidermal layer (Fig 4a). Some skin nodules showed dilatation of lymph vessels (LVs), vasculitis and leucocytic infiltration, primarily by lymphocytes (Fig 4b). Intracytoplasmic inclusion bodies were observed in the epidermal layer, while the dermal layer showed massive leucocytic infiltration primarily by eosinophils (Fig 4c). Chromatin condensation and calcium deposits in the keratin layer were observed while the next dermal layer showed severe haemorrhages with leucocytic aggregation (Fig 4d). Necrosis and dissociation of muscle fibers, fatty infiltrates and leucocytic infiltration were observed, primarily by lymphocytes, with few numbers of eosinophils between them. Dilatation of lymph vessels (LVs) and leucocytic infiltration were observed, primarily by lymphocytes, as well as few numbers of eosinophils between them (Fig 4e). Severe necrotizing vasculitis was observed in different areas (Fig 4f). Red viral particles were detected in the macrophage of connective tissue of the dermal layer using immunohistochemistry (Fig 4g).

Discussion

Fever and skin nodules covering the entire skin, lymphadenopathy and oedema were the most significant clinical signs in all suspected cases of LSD during all seasons. This could be explained by the fact that a vector-free season never existed in Egypt, meaning an outbreak could occur all year round and not limited to warm and humid seasons. The existence of different watercourses and water ponds close to cattle populations can also trigger the abundance of the insect vectors, as reported by Tuppurainen (2017). Additionally, the investigated cattle in this study were found to be infested by hard ticks, whose role in LSDV transmission has been previously evaluated [1821]. A considerable case fatality rate (72/1050, 6.86%) was reported among the examined animals; this rate was higher than that observed in previous Egyptian outbreaks [5, 6, 22]. Epidemiologically, along the two-year (2017–2018) course of this investigation, LSD has been observed only in cattle, which is still considered the main natural host as reported by [23].

Age (less than 5 months), pregnancy and blood parasites (Babesia and Theileria species infections) were considered potential risk factors associated with increased fatality. The latter was mostly observed in the Aswan governorate, as it is the most blood parasite enzootic area in Egypt. In addition, some severely affected animals showed severe pneumonia and enteritis. On the other hand, the drastic effect of LSDV may potentially overwhelm the immunity of diseased animals. This supports the presumed immunosuppressive properties of the LSDV, as previously reported [24, 25].

The histopathological findings also revealed serious changes. Haemorrhages and severe destruction of all skin layers in the current study were suggestive of a presumably higher severity of the present 2017–2018 outbreaks. Necrotizing vasculitis of the dermal blood vessels was found to be a major histopathological feature of LSD, as shown in previous studies [2629].

In this study, 10 (100%) of tested clinical samples were positive for LSDV using PCR (RPO30) and immunohistochemistry. The P32 gene sequences obtained in this study showed no genetic variation from ancestral 1958 LSDV. This finding elucidates the highly conserved nature and the genetic stability of LSDV. Such homology confirmed the highly conserved nature amongst LSDV, SPPV and GTPV [9, 24, 30].

Since 1988, LSD has been persistently reported in Egypt, with severe outbreaks until 2018 despite vaccination campaigns using heterologous vaccine (Romanian sheeppox vaccine). On the basis of current observations and previously reported evidence [3133], it cannot be ruled out that insufficient and incomplete protection was achieved after heterologous vaccination. On the contrary, other countries successfully experienced vaccination campaign with a homologous LSD vaccine with no further outbreaks were reported [7, 34].

Incomplete vaccination coverage, improper conditions for vaccine storage and transport and the presence of pre-existing immunosuppressive diseases could also be among possible reasons for LSDV outbreaks [34]. There are conflicting results regarding the development of humoral immune response following SPPV vaccine in cattle. No antibody response was detected in cattle following vaccination with SPPV vaccine [35, 36]. However, a partial protection was recorded following challenge with the field strain [35, 36]. In contrast, some studies reported induction of both humoral cell-mediated responses were reported following vaccination of Romanian strain in cattle [3739]. Humoral antibody response was detected in 2/3 of the vaccinated animals following vaccination with a trivalent vaccine containing SPPV Romania, GTPV and KSGP 0180 [36]. Humoral response was found to be acceptable after using 104.0 TCID50 of RM65 SPP vaccine [40]. Interestingly, it was found that in spite of vaccination, the local immune evasion strategy adopted by capripoxviruses locally alleviates the host’s immune response to allow the virus to replicate at the site of entry [41].

In conclusion, the mass vaccination campaigns in Egypt that were based on the use of a heterologous vaccine (Romanian sheeppox vaccine) provided insufficient levels of protection. This necessitates the use of an alternative strategy in utilizing the homologous LSDV vaccine. A strategic plan is strongly recommended, particularly one that ensures mass coverage of the vaccination among cattle populations all over Egypt.

Supporting information

S1 Raw images

(PDF)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files. Accession numbers denote nucleotide sequence of LSD P32 gene and all are available in the NCBI database by using the Accession numbers MN418201 MN418202 MN418200.

Funding Statement

The authors acknowledge the support of Taif University Researchers Supporting Project Number (TURSP-2020/11), Taif University, Taif 21944, Saudi Arabia.

References

  • 1.Davies FG. Lumpy skin disease of cattle: a growing problem in Africa and the Near East. World Anim Rev. 1991;68(3):37–42. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Buller RM, Arif BM, Black DN, Dumbell KR, Esposito JJ, Lefkowitz EJ, et al. Family Poxviridae. Virus taxonomy: Classification and nomenclature of viruses 8th report ICTV. 2005:117–33.
  • 3.Tuppurainen ESM. Epidemiology of lumpy skin disease empres-animal health 360 NO. 47/2017 FAO: FAO, 2017 ISSN 1564-2615.
  • 4.Davies FG. Lumpy skin disease, an African capripox virus disease of cattle. Br Vet J. 1991;147(6):489–503. doi: 10.1016/0007-1935(91)90019-J [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Awadin W, Hussein H, Elseady Y, Babiuk S, Furuoka H. Detection of lumpy skin disease virus antigen and genomic DNA in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues from an Egyptian outbreak in 2006. Transboundary and emerging diseases. 2011;58(5):451–7. Epub 2011/06/28. doi: 10.1111/j.1865-1682.2011.01238.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Amin A, El-Nahas E, El-Mashed A. Pathological and virological studies on an outbreak of lumpy skin disease among cattle in Kalubia Governorate-Egypt. J Adv Vet Res. 2015;5(4):165–75. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.European-Food-Safety-Authority, Calistri P, DeClercq K, Gubbins S, Klement E, Stegeman A, et al. Lumpy skin disease: III. Data collection and analysis. EFSA Journal. 2019;17(3):e05638. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5638 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Tuppurainen ESM, Venter EH, Shisler JL, Gari G, Mekonnen GA, Juleff N, et al. Capripoxvirus diseases: current status and opportunities for control. Transboundary and emerging diseases. 2017;64(3):729–45. doi: 10.1111/tbed.12444 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Tulman ER, Afonso CL, Lu Z, Zsak L, Kutish GF, Rock DL. Genome of lumpy skin disease virus. J Virol. 2001;75(15):7122–30. doi: 10.1128/JVI.75.15.7122-7130.2001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Tulman ER, Afonso CL, Lu Z, Zsak L, Sur JH, Sandybaev NT, et al. The genomes of sheeppox and goatpox viruses. J Virol. 2002;76(12):6054–61. Epub 2002/05/22. doi: 10.1128/jvi.76.12.6054-6061.2002 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Kitching RP. Passive protection of sheep against capripoxvirus. Res Vet Sci. 1986;41(2):247–50. Epub 1986/09/01. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Lamien CE, Le Goff C, Silber R, Wallace DB, Gulyaz V, Tuppurainen E, et al. Use of the Capripoxvirus homologue of Vaccinia virus 30 kDa RNA polymerase subunit (RPO30) gene as a novel diagnostic and genotyping target: development of a classical PCR method to differentiate Goat poxvirus from Sheep poxvirus. Vet Microbiol. 2011;149(1–2):30–9. Epub 2010/12/01. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2010.09.038 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Zinoviev VV, Tchikaev NA, Chertov O, Malygin EG. Identification of the gene encoding vaccinia virus immunodominant protein p35. Gene. 1994;147(2):209–14. Epub 1994/09/30. doi: 10.1016/0378-1119(94)90067-1 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Heine HG, Stevens MP, Foord AJ, Boyle DB. A capripoxvirus detection PCR and antibody ELISA based on the major antigen P32, the homolog of the vaccinia virus H3L gene. Journal of immunological methods. 1999;227(1–2):187–96. Epub 1999/09/15. doi: 10.1016/s0022-1759(99)00072-1 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kumar S, Stecher G, Li M, Knyaz C, Tamura K. MEGA X: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis across computing platforms. Molecular biology and evolution. 2018;35(6):1547–9. Epub 2018/05/04. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msy096 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kimura M. A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. Journal of Molecular Evolution. 1980;16(2):111–20. doi: 10.1007/BF01731581 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Bancroft JD, Gamble M. Theory and practice of histological techniques: Elsevier Health Sci; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lubinga JC, Tuppurainen ESM, Coetzer JAW, Stoltsz WH, Venter EH. Transovarial passage and transmission of LSDV by Amblyomma hebraeum, Rhipicephalus appendiculatus and Rhipicephalus decoloratus. Experimental and applied acarology. 2014;62(1):67–75. doi: 10.1007/s10493-013-9722-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lubinga JC, Tuppurainen ESM, Mahlare R, Coetzer JAW, Stoltsz WH, Venter EH. Evidence of Transstadial and Mechanical Transmission of Lumpy Skin Disease Virus by A mblyomma hebraeum Ticks. Transboundary and emerging diseases. 2015;62(2):174–82. doi: 10.1111/tbed.12102 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Rouby SR, Hussein KH, Aboelhadid SM, EL-Sherif AM. Role of rhipicephalus annulatus tick in transmission of lumpy skin disease virus in naturally infected cattle in Egypt. Advanced Animal Veterinary Science. 2017;5(4):185–91. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Sprygin A, Pestova Y, Wallace DB, Tuppurainen E, Kononov AV. Transmission of lumpy skin disease virus: A short review. Virus Res. 2019;269:197637. Epub 2019/06/04. doi: 10.1016/j.virusres.2019.05.015 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.House JA, Wilson TM, El Nakashly S, Karim IA, Ismail I, El Danaf N, et al. The isolation of lumpy skin disease virus and bovine herpesvirus-4 from cattle in Egypt. J Vet Diagn Invest. 1990;2(2):111–5. Epub 1990/04/01. doi: 10.1177/104063879000200205 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Tuppurainen ESM, Venter EH, Shisler JL, Gari G, Mekonnen GA, Juleff N, et al. Capripoxvirus diseases: current status and opportunities for control. Transboundary and emerging diseases. 2017;64(3):729–45. doi: 10.1111/tbed.12444 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kara PD, Afonso CL, Wallace DB, Kutish GF, Abolnik C, Lu Z, et al. Comparative sequence analysis of the South African vaccine strain and two virulent field isolates of lumpy skin disease virus. Arch Virol. 2003;148(7):1335–56. doi: 10.1007/s00705-003-0102-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Hunter P, Wallace D. Lumpy skin disease in southern Africa: a review of the disease and aspects of control. J S Afr Vet Assoc. 2001;72(2):68–71. doi: 10.4102/jsava.v72i2.619 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Tuppurainen ESM, Venter EH, Coetzer JAW. The detection of lumpy skin disease virus in samples of experimentally infected cattle using different diagnostic techniques. Onderstepoort J Vet Res. 2005;72(2):153–64. doi: 10.4102/ojvr.v72i2.213 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Sanz-Bernardo B, Haga IR, Wijesiriwardana N, Hawes PC, Simpson J, Morrison LR, et al. Lumpy skin disease is characterized by severe multifocal dermatitis with necrotizing fibrinoid vasculitis following experimental infection. Vet Pathol. 2020;57(3):388–96. doi: 10.1177/0300985820913268 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Prozesky L, Barnard BJ. A study of the pathology of lumpy skin disease in cattle. Onderstepoort J Vet Res. 1982;49(3):167–75. Epub 1982/09/01. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Tageldin MH, Wallace DB, Gerdes GH, Putterill JF, Greyling RR, Phosiwa MN, et al. Lumpy skin disease of cattle: an emerging problem in the Sultanate of Oman. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2014;46(1):241–6. doi: 10.1007/s11250-013-0483-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Mafirakureva P, Saidi B, Mbanga J. Incidence and molecular characterisation of lumpy skin disease virus in Zimbabwe using the P32 gene. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2017;49(1):47–54. Epub 2016/09/28. doi: 10.1007/s11250-016-1156-9 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Stram Y, Kuznetzova L, Friedgut O, Gelman B, Yadin H, Rubinstein-Guini M. The use of lumpy skin disease virus genome termini for detection and phylogenetic analysis. J Virol Methods. 2008;151(2):225–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2008.05.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Tuppurainen ESM, Oura C. Lumpy skin disease: an emerging threat to Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Transboundary and emerging diseases. 2012;59(1):40–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1865-1682.2011.01242.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Gelaye E, Belay A, Ayelet G, Jenberie S, Yami M, Loitsch A, et al. Capripox disease in Ethiopia: Genetic differences between field isolates and vaccine strain, and implications for vaccination failure. Antiviral Res. 2015;119:28–35. Epub 2015/04/25. doi: 10.1016/j.antiviral.2015.04.008 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Molini U, Aikukutu G, Khaiseb S, Haindongo NN, Lilungwe AC, Cattoli G, et al. Molecular characterization of lumpy skin disease virus in Namibia, 2017. Arch Virol. 2018;163(9):2525–9. Epub 2018/06/06. doi: 10.1007/s00705-018-3891-x APPROVAL: This article does not contain animal studies. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Hamdi J, Bamouh Z, Jazouli M, Boumart Z, Tadlaoui KO, Fihri OF, et al. Experimental evaluation of the cross-protection between Sheeppox and bovine Lumpy skin vaccines. Scientific reports. 2020;10(1):1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kafafy M, El Soally S, Aboul-Soud E, Zaghloul M, Mikhael C. Preparation of trivalent vaccine against lumpy skin disease using different capripox viral strain. Veterinary Medical Journal (Giza). 2018;64(1):23–38. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Varshovi HR, Norian R, Azadmehr A, Afzal Ahangaran N. Immune response characteristics of Capri pox virus vaccines following emergency vaccination of cattle against lumpy skin disease virus. Iranian Journal of Veterinary Science and Technology. 2017;9(2):33–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Mikhael C, Ibrahim M, Saad M. Efficacy of Alternative Vaccination with Attenuated Sheep Pox and Inactivated Lumpy Skin Disease Vaccines against Lumpy Skin Disease. Suez Canal Veterinary Medical Journal SCVMJ. 2016;21(2):125–42. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Norian R, Afzal Ahangaran N, Azadmehr A. Evaluation of humoral and cell-mediated immunity of two capripoxvirus vaccine strains against lumpy skin disease virus. مجله ویروس شناسی ایران. 2016;10(4):1–11. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Abutarbush SM, Tuppurainen ES. Serological and clinical evaluation of the Yugoslavian RM 65 sheep pox strain vaccine use in cattle against lumpy skin disease. Transboundary and emerging diseases. 2018;65(6):1657–63. doi: 10.1111/tbed.12923 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Abu-El-Saad AA, Abdel-Moneim AS. Modulation of macrophage functions by sheeppox virus provides clues to understand interaction of the virus with host immune system. Virology journal. 2005;2:22. Epub 2005/03/24. doi: 10.1186/1743-422X-2-22 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Simon Clegg

2 Sep 2021

PONE-D-21-20980

Lumpy skin disease outbreaks in Egypt during 2017-2018 among sheeppox vaccinated cattle: Epidemiological, pathological, and molecular findings

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rouby,

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

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

Many thanks for submitting your manuscript to PLOS One

It was reviewed by two experts in the field, and they have recommended some modifications be made prior to acceptance

I therefore invite you to make these changes and to write a response to reviewers which will expedite revision upon resubmission

I wish you the best of luck with your modifications

Hope you are keeping safe and well in these difficult times

Thanks

Simon

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 16 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

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

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

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

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Simon Clegg, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. You indicated that you had ethical approval for your study. In your Methods section, please ensure you have also stated whether you obtained consent from farmers whose animals were included in the study or whether the research ethics committee or IRB specifically waived the need for their consent.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. Please note that in order to use the direct billing option the corresponding author must be affiliated with the chosen institute. Please either amend your manuscript to change the affiliation or corresponding author, or email us at plosone@plos.org with a request to remove this option.

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

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

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

7. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The authors describe the substantial outbreak of LSD in SPPV-vaccinated cattle in Egypt.

In general, the manuscript is easy to read and the presented data support the conclusions. Nevertheless, some additional information would be improve the manuscript. If the according information are not available, it should be clearly stated out.

Major comments:

• In total, 1050 clinically affected cattle were screened, but it is not clear what susceptible cattle population is available in the Beni-Suef, Sohag and Aswan Governorates and how many of the cattle were vaccinated with the SPPV vaccine.

• Furthermore, it is not clear for me, at what time the SPPV vaccination was performed and how the vaccination procedure was recorded for each individual cattle.

• In this context, it would be helpful to know, how many of the verified SPPV vaccinated cattle produced an immunological response against the SPPV vaccine (humoral and/or cellular). If such data are not available for these cattle population, the authors should screen the literature for according data.

• It is not clear if the Egypt SPPV Romanian vaccine produce no immune response in cattle, in general. Alternatively, the heterologous immune response based on the SPPV vaccine could be not sufficient to protect for the LSDV infection. This problem should be discussed more intensive.

• An interesting study would be the analysis of the serological response after the SPV vaccination. Here, cattle from the field should be tested before and 6-8 weeks after vaccination to evaluate the rate of successful immunised cattle. But this experiment can be also the part of one of the next studies.

Minor comments:

• Page3, line 9: a dot after 4] is missing

• P3, l21: RPO-30

• P7, l12: RPO-30

• P7, l14: Fig. 4G is described here at the first time, thus the legend Fig. 4A would be better.

• P7, l18: Why only one of 10 PCR amplicons for the p32 sequence showed readable sequences. A confirmation of the p32 sequence for other LSDV-field strains from 2017/18 would be more robust for the conclusion.

Reviewer #2: This is a nice and interesting article which is simple to read and well presented which described LSDV in Egypt.

I have made a few comments- line numbers start from the first text line of the intro as there were none on the submitted manuscript.

It would be nice to know some figures for the areas- number of cows, % vaccinated etc, and how recent the vaccination was for the cattle.

Also, is it that the vaccination hasn’t produced a response? Or is it some other reason why the animal has become diseased?

A few minor comments are below.

Line 1- comma after devastating

Line 3- delete a

Line 6- reword to ..related to the genus ….

Line 24- I may be incorrect, but isn’t this the RPO-30? Please check throughout

Line 27 and 28- this is repetitive, please modify

Line 38- delete the second ‘of’

Line 63- please include full PCR reagents

Please ensure that all reagents have the manufacturer in the methods section

Line 77- remove brackets from dilution

Line 78- please define AP

P32 PCR- please include PCR reagents

Line 107- how were these samples chosen?

Line 117- please use similarities when not 100% identical

Line 148- comma after LSDV

Line 159-160= you don’t show this data- unless I missed it, and this is quite important

Not sure that figures 3 or 6 are needed but up to the authors

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

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

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Oct 20;16(10):e0258755. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258755.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


23 Sep 2021

I'd like to thank you for your valuable suggestions. All recommendations will be considered.

Reviewer 1:

Q1: In total, 1050 clinically affected cattle were screened, but it is not clear what susceptible cattle population is available in the Beni-Suef, Sohag and Aswan Governorates and how many of the cattle were vaccinated with the SPPV vaccine.

Response:

Thank you for your kind comment, the study only concerned with the animals showing the typical signs of the disease. The numbers of suspected animals in each governorate are shown in and under figure 1. Regarding the susceptibility of cattle and the number of vaccinated cattle, it was assumed that these animals are not susceptible because vaccination in cattle is compulsory all over the country where all animals are vaccinated regularly every 6 months since years. However, disease outbreaks still occur.

Q2: Furthermore, it is not clear for me, at what time the SPPV vaccination was performed and how the vaccination procedure was recorded for each individual cattle.

Response:

Thank you for your kind comment, all animals in this investigation were vaccinated (3 months) prior to developing the disease. As mentioned in method section “All affected animals were vaccinated within the national annual vaccination program with the Romanian SPPV vaccine (103 TCID50, Veterinary Serum and Vaccine Research Institute [VSVRI], Egypt). The development of the disease was reported three months after vaccination.”

Q3: In this context, it would be helpful to know, how many of the verified SPPV vaccinated cattle produced an immunological response against the SPPV vaccine (humoral and/or cellular). If such data are not available for these cattle population, the authors should screen the literature for according data.

-It is not clear if the Egypt SPPV Romanian vaccine produce no immune response in cattle, in general. Alternatively, the heterologous immune response based on the SPPV vaccine could be not sufficient to protect for the LSDV infection. This problem should be discussed more intensive.

-An interesting study would be the analysis of the serological response after the SPV vaccination. Here, cattle from the field should be tested before and 6-8 weeks after vaccination to evaluate the rate of successful immunised cattle. But this experiment can be also the part of one of the next studies.

Response:

Thank you for your kind comment, animals were not assessed for their immunological response. We have added a paragraph regarding the immunological response to SPPV in cattle.

Q4: It is not clear if the Egypt SPPV Romanian vaccine produce no immune response in cattle, in general. Alternatively, the heterologous immune response based on the SPPV vaccine could be not sufficient to protect for the LSDV infection. This problem should be discussed more intensive.

Response:

This is the fact in Egypt and therefore it was an important purpose to perform this study. This was stated in the manuscript: (Since 1988, LSD has been persistently reported in Egypt, with severe outbreaks until 2018 despite vaccination campaigns using heterologous vaccine (Romanian sheeppox vaccine). In addition, we have added a paragraph regarding the immunological response to SPPV in cattle.

Minor comments:

• Page3, line 9: a dot after 4] is missing

• P3, l21: RPO-30

• P7, l12: RPO-30

• P7, l14: Fig. 4G is described here at the first time, thus the legend Fig. 4A would be better.

• P7, l18: Why only one of 10 PCR amplicons for the p32 sequence showed readable sequences. A confirmation of the p32 sequence for other LSDV-field strains from 2017/18 would be more robust for the conclusion.

Response:

All were changed as recommended

P7, l14: Fig. 4G: it was changed to Fig. 4g not A as it is the best figure confirm the presence of a viral antigen “Describe the Red viral particles in macrophage of connective tissue of the dermal layer (black arrows) using alkaline phosphatase immunohistochemistry”

-Why only one of 10 PCR amplicons for the p32 sequence showed readable sequences. A confirmation of the p32 sequence for other LSDV-field strains from 2017/18 would be more robust for the conclusion.

Response:

Sequences was done to prove the stability of LSDV DNA by comparing the current circulating strain with 2012 LSDV strain. Results confirm the stability of LSDV DNA and came in accordance with that mentioned by Tuppurainen et al., 2017 “ There is only one serological type of LSDV, The large, double-stranded DNA virus is very stable, and very little genetic variability occurs. Therefore, for LSDV, farm-to-farm spread cannot be followed by sequencing the virus isolates, as is done with other TADs, e.g. foot-and-mouth disease (FMD).

Tuppurainen, E., Alexandrov, T. & Beltrán-Alcrudo, D. 2017. Lumpy skin disease field manual –

A manual for veterinarians. FAO Animal Production and Health Manual No. 20. Rome. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 60 pages.

Reviewer: 2:

Reviewer #2: This is a nice and interesting article which is simple to read and well-presented which described LSDV in Egypt.

I have made a few comments- line numbers start from the first text line of the intro as there were none on the submitted manuscript.

It would be nice to know some figures for the areas- number of cows, % vaccinated etc, and how recent the vaccination was for the cattle.

Thank you for your kind comment, such figures are available in the Map (Fig. 1) and Table 1. All animals are vaccinated (Mandatory vaccination). Vaccination in this study as cited was 3 months prior to developing of the disease.

Also, is it that the vaccination hasn’t produced a response? Or is it some other reason why the animal has become diseased?

Insufficient immunity produced but this was not a target in this study.

The drastic effect of the virus.

The presence of pre-existing immunosuppressive diseases.

Pregnancy and blood parasites (Babesia and Theileria species infections), pneumonia and enteritis were considered potential risk factors associated with increased fatality.

A few minor comments are below.

Line 1- comma after devastating

Line 3- delete a

Line 6- reword to ..related to the genus ….

Line 24- I may be incorrect, but isn’t this the RPO-30? Please check throughout

Line 27 and 28- this is repetitive, please modify

Line 38- delete the second ‘of’

Line 63- please include full PCR reagents

Please ensure that all reagents have the manufacturer in the methods section

Line 77- remove brackets from dilution

Line 78- please define AP

P32 PCR- please include PCR reagents

Line 107- how were these samples chosen?

Line 117- please use similarities when not 100% identical

Line 148- comma after LSDV

Line 159-160= you don’t show this data- unless I missed it, and this is quite important

Not sure that figures 3 or 6 are needed but up to the authors

Response: thank you for your valuable suggestions. All recommendations will be considered.

I have attached a copy that highlights changes made to the original version

Journal requirements:

You indicated that you had ethical approval for your study. In your Methods section, please ensure you have also stated whether you obtained consent from farmers whose animals were included in the study or whether the research ethics committee or IRB specifically waived the need for their consent.

Response:

It was added as recommended “The animal ethical committee of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Beni-Suef University, Egypt, approved the present study. Clinical samples used in this study were collected after approval of all the animals’ owners.”

Study’s minimal underlying data

Accession numbers

MN418201

MN418202

MN418200

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Simon Clegg

5 Oct 2021

Lumpy skin disease outbreaks in Egypt during 2017-2018 among sheeppox vaccinated cattle: Epidemiological, pathological, and molecular findings

PONE-D-21-20980R1

Dear Dr. Rouby,

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

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

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

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

Kind regards,

Simon Clegg, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Many thanks for resubmitting your manuscript to PLOS One

As you have addressed all the comments and the manuscript reads well, I have recommended it for publication

You should hear from the Editorial Office shortly.

It was a pleasure working with you and I wish you the best of luck for your future research

Hope you are keeping safe and well in these difficult times

Thanks

Simon

Acceptance letter

Simon Clegg

12 Oct 2021

PONE-D-21-20980R1

Lumpy skin disease outbreaks in Egypt during 2017-2018 among sheeppox vaccinated cattle: Epidemiological, pathological, and molecular findings

Dear Dr. Rouby:

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Simon Clegg

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Raw images

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files. Accession numbers denote nucleotide sequence of LSD P32 gene and all are available in the NCBI database by using the Accession numbers MN418201 MN418202 MN418200.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES