Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Jan 14;17(1):e0260161. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260161

Detection of porcine enteric viruses (Kobuvirus, Mamastrovirus and Sapelovirus) in domestic pigs in Corsica, France

Lisandru Capai 1,*, Géraldine Piorkowski 2, Oscar Maestrini 3, François Casabianca 3, Shirley Masse 1, Xavier de Lamballerie 2, Rémi N Charrel 2, Alessandra Falchi 1,*
Editor: Humberto Rodney Colina Muñoz4
PMCID: PMC8759673  PMID: 35030164

Abstract

Many enteric viruses are found in pig farms around the world and can cause death of animals or important production losses for breeders. Among the wide spectrum of enteric viral species, porcine Sapelovirus (PSV), porcine Kobuvirus (PKoV) and porcine Astrovirus (PAstV) are frequently found in pig feces. In this study we investigated sixteen pig farms in Corsica, France, to evaluate the circulation of three enteric viruses (PKoV, PAstV-1 and PSV). In addition to the three viruses studied by RT–qPCR (908 pig feces samples), 26 stool samples were tested using the Next Generation Sequencing method (NGS). Our results showed viral RNA detection rates (i) of 62.0% [58.7–65.1] (n = 563/908) for PSV, (ii) of 44.8% [41.5–48.1] (n = 407/908) for PKoV and (iii) of 8.6% [6.8–10.6] (n = 78/908) for PAstV-1. Significant differences were observed for all three viruses according to age (P-value = 2.4e–13 for PAstV-1; 2.4e–12 for PKoV and 0.005 for PSV). The type of breeding was significantly associated with RNA detection only for PAstV-1 (P-value = 9.6e–6). Among the 26 samples tested with NGS method, consensus sequences corresponding to 10 different species of virus were detected. This study provides first insight on the presence of three common porcine enteric viruses in France. We also showed that they are frequently encountered in pigs born and bred in Corsica, which demonstrates endemic local circulation.

Introduction

Pig farms make an important contribution to the economy of world agriculture and are an important source of food. Porcine diarrhea can cause mortality in animals, especially in piglets, and cause economic losses to the pig farmers; many of the pathogens responsible can also infect humans. A very broad spectrum of viruses that can cause porcine diarrhea has been found in pig feces, including porcine Sapelovirus (PSV), porcine Kobuvirus (PKoV), porcine Sapovirus, porcine Astrovirus (PAstV), porcine Bocavirus and porcine Rotavirus [17]. The most prevalent viruses detected in pig feces are PKoV, Mamastroviruses or Astrovirus 4 (PAstV), porcine Circovirus (PCV) and PSV [8, 9].

Kobuviruses belong to the Picornaviridae family. The genome is a single-stranded 8.2–8.3-kb RNA molecule that contains a large open reading frame coding for a polyprotein [10, 11]. Different species of kobuviruses have been found around the world in diverse animal species (pigs, cattle, sheep, goats, bats, rodents, felines, canines, etc.) and humans. It is suspected to be a pathogen that causes digestive disorders, particularly diarrhea in humans and animals, with transmission occurring via the fecal–oral route [12].

Porcine Sapelovirus (Family Picornaviridae, genus Sapelovirus) is a non-enveloped virus of 7.5–8.3 kb positive-polarity single-stranded RNA genome [13]. Sapelovirus genus is closely related to the genus Enterovirus and consists of three species: Avian Sapelovirus, Sapelovirus A (Porcine Sapelovirus [PSV]) and Sapelovirus B (simian Sapelovirus), with a single serotype [14]. PSV is transmitted via the fecal–oral route, and infection of pigs can be asymptomatic or associated with diarrhea, respiratory distress, encephalitis, skin lesions and reproductive tract disorders [1517]. PSV is circulating in China, India, Korea, the United States, Brazil and Europe (Germany, the United Kingdom and Spain) [1623]. Recently, PSV was detected and characterized for the first time in France, in Corsica. Importantly, the PSV-infected piglet from which the sequenced strain was isolated (PSV OPY-1-Corsica-2017; Genbank accession no. MH513612) was born and bred on the island of Corsica, suggesting local transmission [24].

Astroviruses are nonenveloped single-stranded RNA viruses with positive polarity, with an icosahedral capsid [25], that belong to the family Astroviridae, which includes two genera: Mamastrovirus (mammals) and Avastrovirus (avian) (ICTV, Astroviridae, 2019). Astroviruses can infect a large spectrum of animal species (pigs, deer, marine mammals, rodents, birds, pets, etc.) as well as humans [26]. Astrovirus infections are generally associated with more or less severe gastrointestinal signs in mammals (Mendez and Arias, 2007), but have also been detected in healthy individuals [27]. In humans, they cause intestinal disorders, particularly in children and immunocompromised individuals [28, 29].

The present study was conducted in Corsica, a French Mediterranean island, where livestock farming is a principal economic activity. In this region, more than 54,000 pigs, predominantly of the “Nustrale” breed, are bred using a traditional extensive farming system [30, 31]. Traditional extensive (or semi-extensive) outdoor system of pig farming is the main method of breeding. It favors contact with wild animals, which could result in sharing of pathogens such as hepatitis E virus (HEV) and Aujesky’s disease agent [32, 33]. For HEV, we recently reported RNA detection in 9.2% of tested pig stool samples, with 75% of pig farms showing at least one positive sample [34]. Exploring the circulation of other enteric viruses in such pig farms could help to gain knowledge in the epidemiological cycle of HEV through the possible role of co-infection and super-infection. The main aim of this study was to detect and characterize three common porcine enteric viruses (PKoV, PAstV-1 and PSV) by molecular detection analysis of faeces collected within Corsican pigfarms.

Materials and methods

Study area, pig farms and sampling plan

Study area, samples/data collection, pig farms sampled, sampling plan and ethics statement are as described previously [34].

Briefly, (i) we collected fresh stool samples individually on the ground where pigs were pasturing and also intra-rectally using a glove with the help of a qualified technician (the individual level was control for each sample; feces were collected directly after defecation); (ii) three types of breeding system operated in Corsica were included: seven outdoor extensive farms (E-farms), six outdoor semi-extensive farms (SE-farms) and three indoor closed farms (C-farms); (iii). for each stool sample, the township, anonymous breeder code, breeding type, age and breed of pig and nature of the sample (“rectal” or “on the ground” feces) were recorded; (iv). Four age categories were defined among the young pigs: 1–3 months, 3–4 months, 4–6 months and adults (older than 6 months). Samples from plots where post-weaning pigs were held together with older pigs (age mixed) were classified as the “Herd” group. Information on the individual health status of the pigs was not collected by a case report form. However, there is no apparent disease in the farms during the collect according to breeders. All the samples were collected between April and September 2017.

RNA extraction and reverse transcription–quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT–qPCR)

One gram of fecal sample was resuspended in 9 mL of phosphate-buffered saline and then centrifuged at 5,000 × g for 10 min. The resulting supernatant was collected and stored at −80°C until processed. Viral RNA was extracted from 200 μL of supernatant using QIAamp Cador Pathogen on a QIAcube HT (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Samples were spiked with an internal control (T4 and MS2 phages) before extraction, to monitor the extraction and subsequent steps, as described previously. Each pool was spiked before extraction with a predefined amount of MS2 bacteriophage in order to monitor the subsequent steps (nucleic acid purification, reverse transcription and PCR amplification) and to detect the presence of inhibitors and enzymatic reactions as described previously [35]. All extractions and RT-qPCRs were checked with the presence of a curve for phage and positive and negative controls respectively. Nucleic acids were eluted in 100 μL of RE buffer and stored at –80°C.

Samples initially collected for the detection of HEV RNA were analyzed by RT–qPCR for PKoV, PSV and PAstV-1. Of the 919 samples initially collected, 908 were available for this study. Details of the three molecular assay [8, 36] are presented in Table 1 using an Applied Quant Studio 3 (Applied Biosystems, CA, USA). For PKoV RNA and PAstV-1 RNA detection, a RT–qPCR test was considered positive if negative controls were negative, positive controls were positive and an exponential curve was observed before a 35-Ct threshold.

Table 1. RT–qPCR detection assays used in the study.

Viruses Name of primers and probes Sequences References
PSV FW: SYBR-PSV1 primer GGCAGTAGCGTGGCGAGC [36]
REV: SYBR-PSV2 primer CTACTCTCCTGTAACCAGT
PKoV FW: T-248-F-PKoV TCTCTGACCTCTGAAGTGCACT [8]
REV: T-249-R-PKoV TGAAGAAGCCATGTGTCTTGTC
Probe: T-250-PKoV-FAM GGTTGCGTGGCTGGGAATCCAC
PAstV-1 FW: T217-F-PAstV-1 CCAAAACCAGCAATCCGTCAA
REV: T218-R-PAstV-1 GCCCCTAAAGCAACGATCGG
Probe: T-219-PAstV-1-VIC TTCTTGTCAAGGATAATACGGGG

For PSV RNA detection, the qPCR machine was programmed to perform a melt-curve analysis at the end of the run to ensure assay specificity; RT–qPCR results were considered positive if a melt curve was detected at between 83°C and 85°C and an amplification curve was observed before a 35-Ct threshold. The QuantiTect SYBR® Green PCR Kit was used for this biomolecular detection (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany).

Statistical analyses

The detection rate of RNA viruses (PKoV, PAstV-1 and PSV) in pig fecal samples was calculated at the individual level and the pig farm level. Positivity rate was also estimated in each subgroup, and a two-sided 95% confidence interval [95% CI] was calculated. Categorical variables were expressed as the number of cases (percentages). Frequencies were compared using the χ2 test or Fisher’s exact test (P < 0.05). A bivariate analysis was carried out to identify the variables that were related to infection with each virus. The multivariate logistic regression analysis included variables that were related to outcome variables in the bivariate analysis with a P-value < 0.2 or a possible association. Odds ratios (ORs), including their 95% CIs, were calculated for the logistic regression models. As in Capai, F. [34], samples with no associated age (Herd group) were excluded from the multivariate analysis, and previous results for the detection rate of HEV RNA among pig feces were included in the analysis to estimate a possible association between coinfections with different viruses [37]. All statistical analyses were performed using the R program (http://www.r-project.org).

Virus genome sequencing

Virus genome sequencing was performed for 26 stool samples as described previously [38]. Only, 26 analyses could be realized for financial reason and these 26 samples were randomly selected among the overall samples. A random RT–qPCR was performed using tagged random primers. A ProtoScript® II Reverse Transcriptase kit (New England Biolabs) was used for reverse transcription with random tagged primers, and Platinum® Taq High Fidelity polymerase enzyme (Thermo Fisher Scientific) with specific primers for amplification. After Qubit quantification using Qubit® dsDNA HS Assay Kit and Qubit 2.0 fluorometer (ThermoFisher Scientific), amplicons were fragmented (sonication) into fragments of 200 bp length. Libraries were built by adding barcodes for sample identification, and primers for amplification using the AB Library Builder System (ThermoFisher Scientific). To pool equimolar amounts of the barcoded samples, a quantification by quantitative PCR using an Ion Library TaqMan™ Quantitation Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific) was performed. An automated Ion Chef instrument (ThermoFisher) was used for emulsion PCR of the pools and loading them on a 520 chip. Sequencing was performed using S5 Ion torrent technology (Thermo Fisher Scientific) following the manufacturer’s instructions. Reads were trimmed (reads with quality score < 0.99 and length < 100 bp were removed, and the 30 first and 30 last nucleotides were removed from the reads), and de novo contigs were produced. These contigs were submitted to Blastn to determine the best reference sequences(s). A consensus sequence was obtained after mapping of the reads on the previously determined reference using CLC genomics workbench software 20.0.4 (Qiagen). The de novo contig was compared with the consensus sequence to ensure that the reference sequence did not affect the consensus sequence. Only sequences corresponding to enteric viruses found in pigs were selected for analysis.

Results

As suggested by Arya, Antonisamy [39], we previously calculated the minimum sample size required to achieve the objectives related to the HEV (n = 176 stool specimens) [34]. Overall, we collected 919 pig feces samples from 16 pig farms selected according to location and breeding system.

For PSV RNA detection, using the SYBR green A range of temperatures around 84°C (83–85°C) was tolerated. Indeed, a one-nucleotide difference within the amplified sequence can impact the melt-curve dissociation temperature [40, 41].

Viral RNA detection rate for the three viruses in feces from domestic pigs and univariate analysis

Overall, 908 samples were available for the detection of the three virus of interest, 310 were from E-farms, 396 from SE-farm and 201 from C-farm.

Our results showed viral RNA detection rates (i) of 62.0% [58.7–65.1] (n = 563/908) for PSV, (ii) of 44.8% [41.5–48.1] (n = 407/908) for PKoV and (iii) of 8.6% [6.8–10.6] (n = 78/908) for PAstV-1 (Table 2).

Table 2. Viral RNA in stools of domestic pigs stratified by breeding system and age.

Factor Condition Number of samples positive (n) PKoV RNA detection (%) P-value positive (n) PAstV-1 RNA detection (%) P-value positive (n) PSV RNA detection (%) P-value
N % % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI]
Breeding systems E-farm 310 34.1 136 43.9 [38.3–49.6] 0.91 17 5.5 [38.3–49.6] 9.6e–6 186 60.0 [54.3–65.5] 0.0094
SE-farm 396 43.6 180 45.5 [40.5–50.5] 27 6.8 [4.5–9.8] 233 58.8 [53.8–63.7]
C-farm 201 22.1 91 45.3 [38.2–52.4] 34 16.9 [12–22.8] 143 71.1 [64.3–77.3]
Age 1–3 months 111 12.2 77 69.4 [59.9–77.7] 2.4e–12 34 30.6 [22.2–40.1] 2.4e–13 86 77.5 [68.6–84.9] 0.005
3–4 months 143 15.7 84 58.7 [50.2–66.9] 9 6.3 [2.9–11.6] 91 63.6 [55.2–71.5]
4–6 months 162 17.8 71 43.8 [36.0–51.8] 4 2.5 [0.7–6.2] 120 74.1 [66.6–80.6]
Adults (>6 months)* 190 20.9 54 28.4 [22.1–35.4] 17 8.9 [5.3–13.9] 116 61.1 [53.7–68.0]
Herds (age mixed) 302 33.3 121 40.1 [34.5–45.8] 14 4.6 [2.6–7.7] 150 49.7 [43.9–55.4]
All pigs 908 100.0 407 44.8 [41.5–48.1]   78 8.6 [6.8–10.6]   563 62.0 [58.7–65.1]  

*6–8 months old (n = 47); Sow/Boar (n = 30); at least 6 months old (n = 108).

E-farm: Extensive farm; SE-farm: semi-extensive farm; C-farm: closed farm; Herds: pigs without associated age.

For PSV and PKoV, there was no statistical association with the type of breeding system; in contrast, PAstV-1 was detected more frequently in C-farms compared with SE- and E-farms (P-value = 9.6e–6) (Table 2).

Significant differences were observed for all three viruses according to age (P-value = 2.4e–13 for PAstV-1; 2.4e–12 for PKoV and 0.005 for PSV) (Table 2). RNA virus detection by age group showed a significant decrease in the rate of positive cases after three months for PAstV-1 (30.6% vs. 6.0%; P-value = 3.87e–7) and between 1 and 3 months (69.4%) and in adults (28.9%) for PKoV (P-value = 6.37e–12). For PSV, the detection rates by age group were between 61.0% and 77.5% (Fig 1). However, the positivity rate among pigs under six months of age was significantly lower than that in pigs older than 6 months (71.4% vs. 61.1%; P-value = 0.014; OR = 1.59, CI 95% 1.09–2.32).

Fig 1. Detection rate of each RNA virus by age group.

Fig 1

Description of coinfections in samples of pig feces

Table 3 lists all infections and coinfections detected in pig feces samples. Of the 908 samples tested, 697 samples were positive for at least one virus (76.8%). A total of 344 samples contained at least two distinct viral RNA (37.9%), of which 259 specimens (28.5%) were coinfected by two viruses, 78 specimens (8.6%) were coinfected by three viruses and seven specimens (0.8%) were positive for all four viruses (Table 3).

Table 3. Coinfections in pig feces samples.

N
No infection 211 Number for each coinfection
Single infection 353 PKoV PSV PAstV-1 HEV
102 229 9 13
Double infection 259 PKoV/PSV PKoV/PAstV-1 PKoV/HEV PSV/HEV PAstV-1/PSV PAstV-1/HEV
216 4 3 21 14 1
Triple infection 78 PKoV/PAstV-1/PSV PKoV/HEV/PSV PKoV/HEV/PAstV-1 HEV/PAstV-1/PSV
39 35 2 2
All four viruses 7

Detection rate of viral RNA at the farm level

At least one pig was detected positive for PKoV RNA in each of the 16 pig farms sampled (100%), 62.5% for PAstV-1 infection (n = 10/16) and 93.8% for PSV infection (n = 15/16). The positivity rate at farm level ranged between 22.5% and 80.8%, 0.0% and 34.0%, and 0.0% and 87.5% for PKoV, PAstV-1 and PSV, respectively. The detail of the detection rates of the three viruses for each farm were presented on the S1 Table.

Multivariate analysis: Associated factors identified for each viral infection

A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed, and the results showed associations depending on the three viruses (Table 4). A strong association was observed between PKoV and PSV detection (OR = 3.36 [2.44–4.67]; P-value = 9.1e–15). PKoV was also associated with PAstV-1 codetection (OR = 2.16 [1.29–3.70]; P-value = 0.015) and young pigs under 4 months of age (OR = 3.11 [2.31–4.20]; P-value = 4.3e–10). PAstV-1 detection was also associated with age, with pigs over 3 months of age significantly less frequently infected than younger pigs (OR = 0.18 [0.11–0.29]; P-value = 2.8e–9). PSV infection was not associated with age or type of breeding.

Table 4. Statistical analysis of factors associated with each virus (multivariate logistic regression model with random effect at the farm level).

Viruses Factor Condition OR [95% CI] P-value adjusted
PKoV Coinfection PSV 3.36 [2.44–4.67] 9.1e–15
Coinfection PAstV-1 2.16 [1.29–3.70] 0.015
Age group 0–4 months 3.11 [2.31–4.20] 4.3e–10
PAstV-1 Coinfection PKoV 2.25 [1.32–3.90] 0.014
Age group >3 months 0.18 [0.11–0.29] 2.8e–9
PSV Coinfection HEV 2.01 [1.17–3.64] 0.041
Coinfection PKoV 2.92 [2.13–4.04] 3.7e–8

Only factors with P‐values < 0.05 are included.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS)

In addition to the three viruses studied by RT–qPCR, NGS analysis was performed in a second phase on 26 random selected samples. Overall, consensus sequences corresponding to 10 different species of virus were obtained. PAstVs were detected in ten samples (38.5%), porcine stool/serum-associated circular virus in six (23.1%), Bocavirus in five (19.2%), Sapelovirus and Posavirus in four (15.4%), Circovirus in three (11.5%), Pasivirus in two (7.7%) and Rotavirus and porcine Enterovirus G in one (3.8%). Among these samples, 14 (54%) had consensus sequences corresponding to at least two different viruses.

Porcine astroviruses strains detected among our samples were closed to pig strains from different countries: Hungary (JQ340310 90.81–92% of identity); United States (KJ495987 93.36% of identity) and New Zealand (KJ495990 92.8% of identity). The main astroviruses found, were Mammastrovirus 3, Porcine Astrovirus 2 and 4. Concerning Bocaviruses strains detected, identity of 97.08% was determined with pigs from: a Hungrian domestic pig (KF206167), 95–97.65% with a Chinese pigs (KX017193; KM402139 and HM053693), 94.13–96.48% with an American pigs (KF025394 and KF025484) and 95.28% with a Croatian pig (KF206161). Concerning, the sequences obtained for the Sapelovirus, the strongest homologies were observed when compared with strain MH513612 also isolated in Corsica (92–99.91% of identity) [24].

For the other results, Table 5 summarizes all the sequences obtained, their length, the reference sequence to which each corresponds and the percentage of nucleotide identity with this sequence. Six of the recovered sequences had a quality score required for submission to Genbank and the accession numbers range from OL739527 to OL739532.

Table 5. Diversity of sequences found in pig feces and percentage of identity with strains in the literature.
Samples Accession number Viruses Sequence of reference Accession number of the sequence of reference Consensus length % Cover % Identity
1 / / / / / / /
2 OL739527 Sapelovirus Sapelovirus A strain OPY-1-Corsica-2017 polyprotein gene, complete cds MH513612 5,927 96 92.46
/ Bocavirus Porcine bocavirus strain G85-1AT-HU, complete genome KF206167 3,507 100 97.08
/ Bocavirus Porcine bocavirus 3C isolate pig/ZJD/China/2006, complete genome JN681175 3,683 99 91.61
/ Porcine Astrovirus Mamastrovirus 3 isolate PAstV_GER_L00855-K14_14–04_2014 genome assembly, complete genome: monopartite LT898434 1,508 52 90.88
3 / Sapelovirus Sapelovirus A strain OPY-1-Corsica-2017 polyprotein gene, complete cds MH513612 492 100 93.09
4 / Bocavirus Porcine bocavirus strain CH/HNZM, complete genome KX017193 2,105 99 97.22
/ Porcine Astrovirus Astrovirus wild boar/WBAstV-1/2011/HUN, complete genome JQ340310 428 100 91.59
/ Porcine serum-associated circular virus Porcine serum-associated circular virus isolate BR3, complete genome KU203353 531 86 86.33
/ Enterovirus G Enterovirus G isolate GER/F9-6/12-02-2013 polyprotein gene, partial cds MF113376 956 100 86.72
5 / Sapelovirus Porcine Sapelovirus isolate PSV_P1-3-3_Contig(g12h12) polyprotein gene, partial cds KF705647 498 98 92.77
/ Sapelovirus Sapelovirus A strain OPY-1-Corsica-2017 polyprotein gene, complete cds MH513612 1,687 100 92.12
/ Sapelovirus Sapelovirus A isolate HuN21 polyprotein gene, complete cds MF440649 1,230 100 86.59
/ Sapelovirus Sapelovirus A isolate PSV_GER_L00798-K11_14–02_2014 genome assembly, complete genome: monopartite LT900497 1,894 100 87.08
/ Bocavirus Porcine bocavirus strain 644-1DI-HR, complete genome KF206161 4,580 100 95.28
/ Bocavirus Porcine bocavirus isolate GD11, complete genome KM402139 4,580 100 95.09
/ Porcine Astrovirus Porcine astrovirus 2 clone KDC-6 ORF1ab gene, partial cds; and ORF2 gene, complete cds KJ495987 466 100 93.36
/ Porcine Astrovirus Porcine astrovirus 2 genes for ORF1ab, ORF1a, ORF2, complete cds, strain: PoAstV2/JPN/HgYa2-3/2015 LC201588 422 100 87
/ Porcine Astrovirus Astrovirus wild boar/WBAstV-1/2011/HUN, complete genome JQ340310 533 100 90.81
/ Porcine stool-associated circular virus Porcine stool-associated circular virus 7 isolate EP2-B, complete genome KJ577813 1,191 99 82.59
6 / Posavirus Posavirus 1 isolate PsaV_GER_L01017-K01_15–07_2015 genome assembly, complete genome: monopartite LT898419 741 100 96.63
/ Posavirus Posavirus sp. isolate 12144_61, complete genome KX673217 559 100 97.5
/ Bocavirus Porcine bocavirus 3 isolate IA159-3 NS1 and NP1 genes, complete cds; and VP1/VP2 gene, partial cds KF025387 491 100 84.85
OL739528 Porcine serum-associated circular virus Porcine serum-associated circular virus isolate BR3, complete genome KU203353 929 99 86.03
7 / / / / / / /
8 / / / / / / /
9 OL739529 Circovirus Circovirus sp. isolate PoCirV_VIRES_JL01_C5 capsid protein gene, partial cds MK377643 1,038 100 85.17
/ Circovirus Circovirus sp. isolate PoCirV_VIRES_GX05_C4 replicase gene, partial cds MK377558 639 64 89.54
/ Porcine Astrovirus Porcine astrovirus 2 genes for ORF1ab, ORF1a, ORF2, complete cds, strain: PoAstV2/JPN/Ishi-Ya4/2015 LC201589 879 78 82.61
OL739530 Porcine Astrovirus Porcine astrovirus 4 genes for ORF1ab, ORF1a, ORF2, complete cds, strain: PoAstV4/JPN/Bu5-10-2/2014 LC201603 989 100 83.64
10 / Bocavirus Porcine bocavirus 1 pig/ZJD/China/2006, complete genome HM053693 383 100 97.65
11 / Porcine Astrovirus Porcine astrovirus 4 isolate 15–12, complete genome KU764486 1,624 99 87.98
/ Porcine Astrovirus Porcine astrovirus 4 isolate 15–13, complete genome KU764484 1,624 99 88.21
/ Porcine stool-associated circular virus Porcine stool-associated circular virus 7 isolate EP3-C, complete genome KJ577814 719 100 86.77
12 / Posavirus Posavirus sp. isolate 17668_12, complete genome KX673279 1,606 93 85.53
13 / Porcine Astrovirus Porcine astrovirus 4 strain JXJA, complete genome KX060808 1,187 100 89.9
/ Bocavirus Porcine bocavirus 3 isolate IL330 NS1 and NP1 genes, complete cds; and VP1/VP2 gene, partial cds KF025394 483 100 96.48
14 / Porcine Astrovirus Porcine astrovirus 4 strain 35/USA, complete genome JF713713 1,798 100 90.12
/ Porcine Astrovirus Porcine astrovirus 4 strain CH/JXZS/2014, complete genome KX060809 1813 100 90.13
15 OL739531 Porcine Astrovirus Mamastrovirus 3 isolate PoAstV_VIRES_HeB02_C4 ORF1ab and ORF1a genes, partial cds MK378508 2,192 100 90.81
/ Circovirus Circovirus sp. isolate PoCirV_VIRES_SD02_C2 replicase gene, partial cds MK377699 557 100 88.6
16 OL739532 Circovirus Circovirus sp. isolate PoCirV_VIRES_HeB04_C3 capsid protein gene, partial cds MK377607 777 100 90.27
17 / Porcine Astrovirus Porcine astrovirus 4 genes for ORF1ab, ORF1a, ORF2, complete cds, strain: PoAstV/JPN/MoI2-1-2/2015 LC201610 869 100 89.31
/ Porcine Astrovirus Porcine astrovirus 2 clone NZP-93_Subtype_2 ORF1ab gene, partial cds KJ495990 375 100 92.8
/ Bocavirus Porcine bocavirus 3 isolate IA13-1 VP1/VP2 gene, complete cds KF025484 931 100 94.13
/ Porcine Astrovirus Mamastrovirus 2 isolate U083, complete genome KY940077 2,043 100 80.33
/ Porcine Astrovirus Mamastrovirus 3 isolate PoAstV_VIRES_GZ04_C10 ORF1ab and ORF1a genes, partial cds MK378502 869 100 89.77
18 / Porcine Astrovirus Porcine astrovirus 4 genes for ORF1ab, ORF1a, ORF2, complete cds, strain: PoAstV4/JPN/Ishi-Ya7-1/2015 LC201613 1,970 91 89.22
/ Porcine Astrovirus Mamastrovirus 2 isolate U083, complete genome KY940077 5,230 85 87.06
/ Porcine Astrovirus Mamastrovirus 3 isolate PAstV_GER_L00855-K14_14–04_2014 genome assembly, complete genome: monopartite LT898434 4,050 100 85.87
19 / / / / / / /
20 / Sapelovirus Sapelovirus A strain OPY-1-Corsica-2017 polyprotein gene, complete cds MH513612 2,360 100 99.91
/ Pasivirus Swine pasivirus SPaV1/US/17-50816IA60467-1/2001 polyprotein gene, complete cds MG674090 1,186 100 77.88
/ Porcine stool-associated circular virus Porcine serum-associated circular virus isolate BR2, complete genome KU203352 1,168 99 92.76
21 / / / / / / /
22 / Rotavirus Porcine rotavirus B isolate PoRVB_VP2_VIRES_NM01_C2 VP2 gene, partial cds MK379346 55 100 98.18
23 / / / / / / /
24 / Posavirus Posavirus sp. isolate 17668_12, complete genome KX673279 3,003 100 88.71
/ Pasivirus Pasivirus A isolate SPaV-A GER L01061-K07 15–03 2015 genome assembly, complete genome: monopartite LT898422 451 100 83.44
/ Porcine stool-associated circular virus Porcine stool-associated circular virus 7 isolate EP3-C, complete genome KJ577814 702 100 83.25
25 / / / / / / /
26 / Posavirus Posavirus sp. isolate 17668_13_2, complete genome KX673281 1,282 99 89.31
/ Posavirus Posavirus 3 strain 10611 polyprotein gene, complete cds KT833079 860 100 94.07
/ Posavirus Posavirus strain 7048 polyprotein gene, partial cds KT833076 1.121 99 87.92

Discussion

This study investigated the detection rate of three enteric viral infections, PKoV, Astrovirus-1 and Sapelovirus, in 908 pigs of different ages and breeding systems. To our knowledge, this work is the first to study factors associated with presence of viral RNA of PSV, PKoV and PAstV-1 in stools of domestic pigs in France.

RNA detection rate of the three enteric viruses

PSV was the most prevalent (62%) and observed rates are higher than those described in the US, Brazil and India (7–31%) [9, 17, 20]. However, the existing results for PSV are not all performed with the same method (SYBR, classical RT-qPCR, NGS) so it is complicated to compare the results in the literature.

PKoV RNA was detected in almost half of samples, which is similar to data reported from pig farms in China (45.7%) [42] and Japan (45.4%) [43]. In five European countries, PKoV infections have been described previously as highly prevalent in both diarrheic and healthy pigs, 54.5% and 58.2%, respectively [8].

PAstV-1 RNA was detected in less than 10% of our samples, but comparison is difficult because other studies were performed at the genus level (Mamastrovirus: 52% positive) [9] or for all PAstVs combined (Thailand: 6.5%; MN, USA: 62%; Slovakia: 93.2%) [4446].

Very early exposure of pigs

The analysis of the detection of viral RNA according to pig age showed that for all viruses tested, pigs < 4 months old were consistently the age group exhibiting the highest rate. This association between age and rate of infection was confirmed for PKoV and PAstV-1 in the multivariate analysis. It may correlate with high exposure after weaning (about 2 months after birth) but also suggest persisting presence of viruses in the breeding environment and loss of maternal immunity. Piglet passive immunity is derived from colostrum and not from breastfeeding [47], with a decrease in immunoglobulins A, G and M after farrowing [48]. This trend was also observed during our previous study of HEV) [34]. Correlation of decreasing positivity rates and increasing age of pigs is described for Kobuviruses in Italy [49] and East Africa [50]. A higher PKoV detection rate in young piglets has also been reported in other studies [10, 51, 52]. However, the kinetics of infection were different in each study and may depend on the organization of each farm and other environmental characteristics. Study in different age-group 0-1months, 1-2months, etc. or follow-up of individual animals could help confirming this hypothesis.

In traditional Corsican farms, the average slaughter age is higher (12–18 months) compared with industrial farms. Therefore, at the time of slaughtering the majority of Nustrale Corsican pigs will have cleared replicative viral infection. The same finding was already reported for hepatitis E virus [34]. In contrast, the situation is different for Sapeloviruses with rates of replicating infection at 60% in adult pigs. Farming type does not seem to influence the detection rates of studied viruses but still need confirmation from future studies.

A potentially very broad spectrum of viruses in pig feces

In this study, 37.9% of pigs were coinfected with at least two different viruses (including HEV). Strong trends were observed in the multivariate analysis regarding the associations between different viral infections (PKoV/PSV, PKoV/PAstV-1, PSV/HEV and PSV/PKoV). This wide variety of viruses in the feces was confirmed with the NGS method, which showed the presence of other viruses frequently found in pigs: Posavirus, other Astroviruses, Bocavirus, Enterovirus G, Circovirus, Pasivirus and Rotavirus. Coinfections were also evidenced in the NGS results, with more than half of the samples containing consensus sequences corresponding to at least two different viruses. These results are in line with previous studies reporting multiple coinfections of farmed pigs with porcine enteric viruses [6, 37], especially in pigs with diarrhea [5355]. Our results are also interesting concerning the epidemiological cycle of HEV because co-infections can diminish the immune system of pigs, change the symptomatology of infections, [56, 57]. For example, experimental co-infection of HEV with Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus significantly prolongated HEV shedding [58].

Our study has several limitations. First, it was not initially designed to study these three viruses but to determine the prevalence of the HEV in pig farms in Corsica. Differences in detection could exist depending on criteria such as sampling time and place, age of pigs and clinical background of the tested animal population (diarrheic or healthy pigs). The lack of collection of clinical information (diarrhea or other symptoms) for the pigs included may have led to a bias in the analysis of the data; these data could have been essential for the improvement of knowledge concerning the studied viruses. The number of viruses studied could also have been larger to better assess the presence of major enteric viruses in Corsican pig farms. Finally, the lack of phylogenetic analysis of the different strains found is also a major limitation of our study. Indeed, the sequences obtained being in very varied zones of the genome of the various viruses, the phylogenetic analyses could not be realized.

In future studies, information about possible symptoms in pigs should be collected. It would also be useful to evaluate the phylogeny of the different strains found and to set up an RT–qPCR primer system to distinguish the different strains of Sapelovirus. Moreover, in view of the large variety of viruses present in the pig feces and the availability of microfluidic PCR technology, it would be helpful to set up microarrays that can detect all the principal known porcine enteric viruses. Moreover, the real impact of Kobuvirus, Astroviruses, Sapelovirus and other enteric viruses on animal health and breeding systems remains largely unknown and needs further epidemiological studies.

In conclusion, this study provides first insight on the presence of three common porcine enteric viruses in France and showed that they are frequently encountered in Corsica in pig farms using the traditional extensive breeding. The three viruses studied were found on almost all the farms, indicating widespread distribution. Moreover, the pigs tested were born and bred in Corsica, which demonstrates endemic local circulation. Whether such infections and co-infections can affect the productivity, impact the growth of pigs or cause immune weakness remains to be established. So far, this study has to be considered as a first step in the study of enteric viruses in Corsican pig farms.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Positivity rates for the three viruses by pig farm.

(DOCX)

S2 Table

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to all breeders for their participation in the study.

Ethical approval

The main part of the molecular analysis was carried out on fresh stools from the ground without contact with animals (98.4% of the samples). Fifteen of the 908 stools collected were intra-rectal samples, and were initially performed in a diagnostic setting (diarrheic pigs). We took an aliquot of these samples which have been collected by a qualified technician in the presence of the breeder. In this case, the study was exempt from ethical authorization because we did not handle animals and the intra-rectal samples were performed independently of the study with a diagnostic aim. All the breeders gave their explicit agreement for the collection of the samples, and all the data were anonymized.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Estes M.K., Palmer E.L., and Obijeski J.F. Rotaviruses: a review. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 1983. 105: p. 123–84 (1983). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-69159-1_3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Meng X.J. Emerging and re-emerging swine viruses. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2012. 59 Suppl 1: p. 85–102 (2012). doi: 10.1111/j.1865-1682.2011.01291.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Shan T. et al. Genomic characterization and high prevalence of bocaviruses in swine. PLoS One. 2011. 6(4): p. e17292 (2011). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017292 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Reuter G., Boldizsar A., Kiss I., and Pankovics P. Candidate new species of Kobuvirus in porcine hosts. Emerg Infect Dis. 2008. 14(12): p. 1968–70 (2008). doi: 10.3201/eid1412.080797 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Liu G.H. et al. RT-PCR test for detecting porcine sapovirus in weanling piglets in Hunan Province, China. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2012. 44(7): p. 1335–9 (2012). doi: 10.1007/s11250-012-0138-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Zhang B. et al. Viral metagenomics analysis demonstrates the diversity of viral flora in piglet diarrhoeic faeces in China. J Gen Virol. 2014. 95(Pt 7): p. 1603–1611 (2014). doi: 10.1099/vir.0.063743-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Yu J.M. et al. Identification of a novel picornavirus in healthy piglets and seroepidemiological evidence of its presence in humans. PLoS One. 2013. 8(8): p. e70137 (2013). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0070137 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Zhou W. et al. Molecular investigations on the prevalence and viral load of enteric viruses in pigs from five European countries. Vet Microbiol. 2016. 182: p. 75–81 (2016). doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2015.10.019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Chen Q. et al. Metagenomic analysis of the RNA fraction of the fecal virome indicates high diversity in pigs infected by porcine endemic diarrhea virus in the United States. Virol J. 2018. 15(1): p. 95 (2018). doi: 10.1186/s12985-018-1001-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Reuter G., Boldizsar A., and Pankovics P. Complete nucleotide and amino acid sequences and genetic organization of porcine kobuvirus, a member of a new species in the genus Kobuvirus, family Picornaviridae. Arch Virol. 2009. 154(1): p. 101–8 (2009). doi: 10.1007/s00705-008-0288-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Yu J.M. et al. Analysis and characterization of the complete genome of a member of a new species of kobuvirus associated with swine. Arch Virol. 2011. 156(5): p. 747–51 (2011). doi: 10.1007/s00705-010-0907-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Khamrin P., Maneekarn N., Okitsu S., and Ushijima H. Epidemiology of human and animal kobuviruses. Virusdisease. 2014. 25(2): p. 195–200 (2014). doi: 10.1007/s13337-014-0200-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Krumbholz A. et al. Sequencing of porcine enterovirus groups II and III reveals unique features of both virus groups. J Virol. 2002. 76(11): p. 5813–21 (2002). doi: 10.1128/jvi.76.11.5813-5821.2002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.ICTV, I.C.o.T.o.V. Genus: Kobuvirus. 2019; Available from: https://talk.ictvonline.org/ictv-reports/ictv_online_report/positive-sense-rna-viruses/picornavirales/w/picornaviridae/686/genus-kobuvirus.
  • 15.Kim D.S. et al. Porcine Sapelovirus Uses alpha2,3-Linked Sialic Acid on GD1a Ganglioside as a Receptor. J Virol. 2016. 90(8): p. 4067–4077 (2016). doi: 10.1128/JVI.02449-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lan D. et al. Isolation and characterization of the first Chinese porcine sapelovirus strain. Arch Virol. 2011. 156(9): p. 1567–74 (2011). doi: 10.1007/s00705-011-1035-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ray P.K. et al. Porcine sapelovirus among diarrhoeic piglets in India. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2018. 65(1): p. 261–263 (2018). doi: 10.1111/tbed.12628 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Arruda P.H. et al. Detection of a novel sapelovirus in central nervous tissue of pigs with polioencephalomyelitis in the USA. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2017. 64(2): p. 311–315 (2017). doi: 10.1111/tbed.12621 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Chen J. et al. Complete genome sequence of a novel porcine Sapelovirus strain YC2011 isolated from piglets with diarrhea. J Virol. 2012. 86(19): p. 10898 (2012). doi: 10.1128/JVI.01799-12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Donin D.G. et al. First report of Porcine teschovirus (PTV), Porcine sapelovirus (PSV) and Enterovirus G (EV-G) in pig herds of Brazil. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2014. 46(3): p. 523–8 (2014). doi: 10.1007/s11250-013-0523-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Schock A. et al. Investigation into an outbreak of encephalomyelitis caused by a neuroinvasive porcine sapelovirus in the United Kingdom. Vet Microbiol. 2014. 172(3–4): p. 381–9 (2014). doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2014.06.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Buitrago D. et al. A survey of porcine picornaviruses and adenoviruses in fecal samples in Spain. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2010. 22(5): p. 763–6 (2010). doi: 10.1177/104063871002200519 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Son K.Y. et al. Full-length genomic analysis of Korean porcine Sapelovirus strains. PLoS One. 2014. 9(9): p. e107860 (2014). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0107860 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Piorkowski G. et al. First Identification and Genomic Characterization of a Porcine Sapelovirus from Corsica, France, 2017. Microbiol Resour Announc. 2018. 7(11) (2018). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Monroe S.S. et al. Subgenomic RNA sequence of human astrovirus supports classification of Astroviridae as a new family of RNA viruses. J Virol. 1993. 67(6): p. 3611–4 (1993). doi: 10.1128/JVI.67.6.3611-3614.1993 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Johnson C. et al. Astrovirus Pathogenesis. Viruses. 2017. 9(1) (2017). doi: 10.3390/v9010022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Reuter G., Pankovics P., and Boros A. Identification of a novel astrovirus in a domestic pig in Hungary. Arch Virol. 2011. 156(1): p. 125–8 (2011). doi: 10.1007/s00705-010-0827-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Holtz L.R. et al. Astrovirus MLB2 viremia in febrile child. Emerg Infect Dis. 2011. 17(11): p. 2050–2 (2011). doi: 10.3201/eid1711.110496 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Wylie K.M. et al. Sequence analysis of the human virome in febrile and afebrile children. PLoS One. 2012. 7(6): p. e27735 (2012). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0027735 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Casabianca F, Poggioli A, Rossi JD, and Maestrini O, The beginning of collective management for the Corsican pig breed. Building up a standard and elaborating the breeders performance recording., in Serie A, Seminaires Mediterraneens, Mediterraneennes O, Editor. 2000. p. 23–34. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.DRAAF., D.R.d.l.A.d.l.A.e.d.l.F., Panorama de l’agriculture en Corse. 2017.
  • 32.Charrier F. et al. Aujeszky’s Disease and Hepatitis E Viruses Transmission between Domestic Pigs and Wild Boars in Corsica: Evaluating the Importance of Wild/Domestic Interactions and the Efficacy of Management Measures. Front Vet Sci. 2018. 5: p. 1 (2018). doi: 10.3389/fvets.2018.00001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Jori F. et al. Assessment of Domestic Pigs, Wild Boars and Feral Hybrid Pigs as Reservoirs of Hepatitis E Virus in Corsica, France. Viruses. 2016. 8(8) (2016). doi: 10.3390/v8080236 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Capai L. et al. Drastic decline of hepatitis E virus detection in domestic pigs after the age of 6 months, Corsica, France. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2019. (2019). doi: 10.1111/tbed.13304 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Ninove L. et al. RNA and DNA bacteriophages as molecular diagnosis controls in clinical virology: a comprehensive study of more than 45,000 routine PCR tests. PLoS One. 2011. 6(2): p. e16142 (2011). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016142 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kim D.S. et al. Pathogenesis of Korean SapelovirusA in piglets and chicks. J Gen Virol. 2016. 97(10): p. 2566–2574 (2016). doi: 10.1099/jgv.0.000571 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Xiao C.T. et al. Identification and characterization of novel porcine astroviruses (PAstVs) with high prevalence and frequent co-infection of individual pigs with multiple PAstV types. J Gen Virol. 2013. 94(Pt 3): p. 570–582 (2013). doi: 10.1099/vir.0.048744-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Stang A., Korn K., Wildner O., and Uberla K. Characterization of virus isolates by particle-associated nucleic acid PCR. J Clin Microbiol. 2005. 43(2): p. 716–20 (2005). doi: 10.1128/JCM.43.2.716-720.2005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Arya R., Antonisamy B., and Kumar S. Sample size estimation in prevalence studies. Indian J Pediatr. 2012. 79(11): p. 1482–8 (2012). doi: 10.1007/s12098-012-0763-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Huang Q. et al. Multiplex fluorescence melting curve analysis for mutation detection with dual-labeled, self-quenched probes. PLoS One. 2011. 6(4): p. e19206 (2011). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0019206 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Westerman L.J. et al. Development of a real-time PCR for identification of brachyspira species in human colonic biopsies. PLoS One. 2012. 7(12): p. e52281 (2012). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0052281 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Yang Z. et al. Genetic characterization of porcine kobuvirus and detection of coinfecting pathogens in diarrheic pigs in Jiangsu Province, China. Arch Virol. 2014. 159(12): p. 3407–12 (2014). doi: 10.1007/s00705-014-2204-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Khamrin P. et al. Molecular detection of kobuvirus sequences in stool samples collected from healthy pigs in Japan. Infect Genet Evol. 2010. 10(7): p. 950–4 (2010). doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2010.06.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Kumthip K. et al. Detection and genetic characterization of porcine astroviruses in piglets with and without diarrhea in Thailand. Arch Virol. 2018. 163(7): p. 1823–1829 (2018). doi: 10.1007/s00705-018-3806-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Salamunova S. et al. Molecular detection of enteric viruses and the genetic characterization of porcine astroviruses and sapoviruses in domestic pigs from Slovakian farms. BMC Vet Res. 2018. 14(1): p. 313 (2018). doi: 10.1186/s12917-018-1640-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Mor S.K. et al. Detection and molecular characterization of Porcine astrovirus strains associated with swine diarrhea. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2012. 24(6): p. 1064–7 (2012). doi: 10.1177/1040638712458781 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Bourne F.J. and Curtis J. The transfer of immunoglobins IgG, IgA and IgM from serum to colostrum and milk in the sow. Immunology. 1973. 24(1): p. 157–62 (1973). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Klobasa F. and Butler J.E. Absolute and relative concentrations of immunoglobulins G, M, and A, and albumin in the lacteal secretion of sows of different lactation numbers. Am J Vet Res. 1987. 48(2): p. 176–82 (1987). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Di Profio F. et al. Molecular detection of porcine kobuviruses in Italian swine. Res Vet Sci. 2013. 95(2): p. 782–5 (2013). doi: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2013.06.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Amimo J.O. et al. Molecular detection and genetic characterization of kobuviruses and astroviruses in asymptomatic local pigs in East Africa. Arch Virol. 2014. 159(6): p. 1313–9 (2014). doi: 10.1007/s00705-013-1942-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Park S.J. et al. Molecular detection of porcine kobuviruses in pigs in Korea and their association with diarrhea. Arch Virol. 2010. 155(11): p. 1803–11 (2010). doi: 10.1007/s00705-010-0774-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Barry A.F. et al. First detection of kobuvirus in farm animals in Brazil and the Netherlands. Infect Genet Evol. 2011. 11(7): p. 1811–4 (2011). doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2011.06.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Sachsenroder J. et al. Simultaneous identification of DNA and RNA viruses present in pig faeces using process-controlled deep sequencing. PLoS One. 2012. 7(4): p. e34631 (2012). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0034631 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Shan T. et al. The fecal virome of pigs on a high-density farm. J Virol. 2011. 85(22): p. 11697–708 (2011). doi: 10.1128/JVI.05217-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Zhang Q. et al. Occurrence and investigation of enteric viral infections in pigs with diarrhea in China. Arch Virol. 2013. 158(8): p. 1631–6 (2013). doi: 10.1007/s00705-013-1659-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Ouyang T., Zhang X., Liu X., and Ren L. Co-Infection of Swine with Porcine Circovirus Type 2 and Other Swine Viruses. Viruses. 2019. 11(2) (2019). doi: 10.3390/v11020185 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Saade G. et al. Coinfections and their molecular consequences in the porcine respiratory tract. Vet Res. 2020. 51(1): p. 80 (2020). doi: 10.1186/s13567-020-00807-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Salines M. et al. Hepatitis E virus chronic infection of swine co-infected with Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus. Vet Res. 2015. 46: p. 55 (2015). doi: 10.1186/s13567-015-0207-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Humberto Rodney Colina Muñoz

11 Sep 2021

PONE-D-21-15693Detection of porcine enteric viruses (Kobuvirus, Mamastrovirus and Sapelovirus) in domestic pigs in Corsica, France.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Capai,

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. See the reviewers' comments on your manuscript.

The work is well designed, written and the results are interesting; however, there are several important points of concern that need to be addressed.

Sincerely

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 25 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: https://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,

Humberto Rodney Colina Muñoz, 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. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“The authors are grateful to all breeders for their participation in the study. Part of this study was funded by the territorial collectivity of Corsica (CDC) and the National Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM). The Hepatitis E Virus project of UR BIOSCOPE was also financed by the CDC.”

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

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

“Part of this study was funded by the territorial collectivity of Corsica (CDC) and the National Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM). The Hepatitis E Virus project of UR BIOSCOPE was also financed by the CDC.”

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

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

5. Please include a caption for figure 1.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: This is a nice, descriptive work, aimed to study the frequency of detection of 3 porcine, enteric viruses in herds form Corsica, previously investigated for HEV infection. The study is of interest to the field given that these are very poorly studied pathogens, and thus very little is known concerning their epidemiology and distribution.

The research was properly designed, the draft is well written, and the results are satisfactorily presented in general. However I have several major concerns that must be addressed.

Major points

1. Authors should re define the main objective of the study. Should clarify what is " to investigate the circulation....". The objective should not be a mere statement, but must be descriptive.

2. Sampling:

a. Were the animals healthy? Please clarify this in Mat and Meth section.

b. How di you collect stool samples' individually' from te ground? Can you be sure that that feces you collected corresponded to only 1 animal?

c. Related to b. Did the pigs (E or SE-farm) share breeding area with other animals? Including occasional feral mammals? Did you investigate presence of feces coming from animals, others than pigs?

c. Th amount of samples per breeding system should be included also in the text.

3. How were the 26 samples selected for NGS analysis? Which was the criterion? Please clarify.

4. Two phages was used as QC of the extraction process. However, it is not clear which was the % of recovery after processing the samples. Please include this information.

5. It is quite surprising that the younger animals (1-2 months), supposed to still have maternally-derived antibodies, presented the highest frequency rate for all viruses. I would expected that for animals > 3 or 4 months, after loosing those protective antibodies (as seen,i.g, for HEV). Maybe vertical transmission is not negligible in the enteric viruses investigated in this work, and it indeed may be playing a role in a scenario of heavy endemic viral transmission. Please provide a deeper discussion in this issue.

6. Related to point 5, and considering some technical issues, please provide a summary (mean, SD, etc) of Ct values for the samples, particularly for the SYBR green detection approach. Did the authors performed end-point PCR approaches to confirm the findings? Please discuss the first point.

7. Authors must perform a preliminary phylogenetic reconstruction for PAstV sequences, at least using ORF2. Please submit and provide Genbank accession numbers for the employed sequences.

8. Delete lines 260-263.

Minor points

Line 150: Check spelling

Line 241: Percentage of homology is not correct. Substitute by: percentage of nucleotide identity. Same for 231-232, etc.

Table 4: No of Pig Farm

Color should be avoided in the tables.

Thank you.

Reviewer #2: Capai et al present a study investigating the presence of three viruses (Porcine Sapelovirus, Porcine Kobuvirus and

porcine Astrovirus in 908 fresh pig stool samples using differents molecular assays. Additionally, they investigated the presence of enteric viruses in 26 samples using NGS.

Although in many cases, these viruses have been detected in animals without clinical disease, the impact of these viruses on pig disease is not well understood and consequently the information generated may be of interest in this field.

The first part of this work is well designed and represents the main results that indicate a high circulation of the viruses studied and its relationship with the presence of other viruses and the age group. However, I find some inconsistencies in the second part of this study. Data from the analysis by NGS of 26 samples are added and it is not explained which was the selection criteria of these samples or the relationship with the previous study. Furthermore, since a phylogenetic analysis was not possible, the information provided cannot be considered representative of the strains detected in this study. Consequently, I consider that this manuscript should be revised to improve its value.

Other minor comments

1-Line 88-92: in these lines it is proposed to relate the epidemiological cycle of HEV with coinfectant viruses. However, no mention is made of the results obtained in the discussion.

2- Line 96: The time period in which the samples were collected is not described. It should be clarified in the manuscript.

3- Line 243. Table 4. I find this table unnecessary in the manuscript. It could be placed as supplementary material. I do not find in it that the importance of these results is discussed.

4- Line 258: What is the influence of using Syber Green PCR for the detection of PSV? RT-qPCR was used for the other 2 viruses. Can the use of this method explain the differences in prevalences found by other researchers?

5- Line 329: How did you demonstrate the endemic circulation of these viruses?

**********

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. 2022 Jan 14;17(1):e0260161. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260161.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


1 Nov 2021

Dear Reviewers,

We would like to thank you for the constructive and helpful comments to our manuscript.

We have revised the manuscript and submitted a revised manuscript using the “Track Changes” tool in Microsoft Word for your consideration.

Please find below our point-by-point response.

All co-authors have read and approved the manuscript.

Should you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us.

Kind regards,

Lisandru Capai.

Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:

• Reviewer #1:

“This is a nice, descriptive work, aimed to study the frequency of detection of 3 porcine, enteric viruses in herds form Corsica, previously investigated for HEV infection. The study is of interest to the field given that these are very poorly studied pathogens, and thus very little is known concerning their epidemiology and distribution.

The research was properly designed, the draft is well written, and the results are satisfactorily presented in general. However, I have several major concerns that must be addressed.”

Major points

1. Authors should re define the main objective of the study. Should clarify what is " to investigate the circulation....". The objective should not be a mere statement, but must be descriptive.

Author’s response: We changed the sentence “The main aim of this study was to detect and characterize three common porcine enteric viruses (PKoV, PAstV-1 and PSV) by molecular detection analysis of faeces collected within Corsican pigfarms.” Line 92 to 94.

2. Sampling:

a. Were the animals healthy? Please clarify this in Mat and Meth section.

Author’s response: We added a sentence on the Mat and Meth section: “Information on the individual health status of the pigs was not collected by a case report form. However, there is no apparent disease in the farms during the collect.” Line 107 to 110.

b. How did you collect stool samples' individually' from the ground? Can you be sure that that feces you collected corresponded to only 1 animal?

Author’s response: We have collected individually from the ground (the individual level was control for each sample; feces were collected directly after defecation). Precision added on the Mat and met part Line 101.

c. Related to b. Did the pigs (E or SE-farm) share breeding area with other animals? Including occasional feral mammals? Did you investigate presence of feces coming from animals, others than pigs?

Author’s response: Indeed, in extensive or semi-extensive farms pigs can share the area of breeding with other wild/domestics animals (like wild boars, cows, or sheep) that get through the fences (SE) or that the pigs cross during their routes (E). However, in this study we have only collected pig samples.

d. The amount of samples per breeding system should be included also in the text.

Author’s response: We added a sentence on the Results part “Overall, 908 samples were available for the detection of the three virus of interest, 310 were from E-farms, 396 from SE-farm and 201 from C-farm.” Line 187 to 188.

3. How were the 26 samples selected for NGS analysis? Which was the criterion? Please clarify.

Author’s response: Only, 26 analyses could be realized for financial reason and these 26 samples were randomly selected among the overall samples. We added a sentence in the material and methods part. Line 153-154

4. Two phages was used as QC of the extraction process. However, it is not clear which was the % of recovery after processing the samples. Please include this information.

Author’s response: We added a sentence on the Mat et Methods part “Each pool was spiked before extraction with a predefined amount of MS2 bacteriophage in order to monitor the subsequent steps (nucleic acid purification, reverse transcription and PCR amplification) and to detect the presence of inhibitors and enzymatic reactions as described. All extractions and RT-qPCRs were checked with the presence of a curve for phage and positive and negative controls respectively.” Line 118 to 123.

5. It is quite surprising that the younger animals (1-2 months), supposed to still have maternally-derived antibodies, presented the highest frequency rate for all viruses. I would expected that for animals > 3 or 4 months, after loosing those protective antibodies (as seen,i.g, for HEV). Maybe vertical transmission is not negligible in the enteric viruses investigated in this work, and it indeed may be playing a role in a scenario of heavy endemic viral transmission. Please provide a deeper discussion in this issue.

Author’s response: This point confirms the hypotheses that passive immunity of piglets is due to colostrum and not to breastfeeding. Furthermore, we believe that it is possible that the highest percentages of infections occur when the piglets leave the mother and are more strongly exposed to viruses in their new environment. In Corsica, these occurs 40 and 60 days after the birth. Study in different age-group 0-1months, 1-2months, etc. or follow-up of individual animals could help answering this question.

6. Related to point 5, and considering some technical issues, please provide a summary (mean, SD, etc) of Ct values for the samples, particularly for the SYBR green detection approach. Did the authors performed end-point PCR approaches to confirm the findings? Please discuss the first point.

Author’s response: We added a Summary table concerning the results of qRT-PCR for the three viruses of interest in the supplemental data (Supplementary Table 2). All our results were checked with classical positive and negative controls.

7. Authors must perform a preliminary phylogenetic reconstruction for PAstV sequences, at least using ORF2. Please submit and provide Genbank accession numbers for the employed sequences.

Author’s response: The different sequences obtained cannot be analyzed in phylogeny because they do not concern the same areas of the genome. Even for PAstV sequences it is not possible to do phylogeny on ORF2 because they are on other regions of the genome and the alignment is not feasible. We will be attentive to this in our next studies in order to deepen the results with phylogeny. We have submitted the sequences and are waiting for the accessions numbers. You will find the proof of submission attached. The accession numbers of our sequences will be add in the Table 5.

8. Delete lines 260-263.

Author’s response: We deleted these lines.

Minor points

Line 150: Check spelling � Done

Line 241: Percentage of homology is not correct. Substitute by: percentage of nucleotide identity. Same for 231-232, etc. � Done

Table 4: No of Pig Farm � Done

Color should be avoided in the tables. � Done

Thank you.

• Reviewer #2:

Capai et al present a study investigating the presence of three viruses (Porcine Sapelovirus, Porcine Kobuvirus and porcine Astrovirus in 908 fresh pig stool samples using differents molecular assays. Additionally, they investigated the presence of enteric viruses in 26 samples using NGS.

Although in many cases, these viruses have been detected in animals without clinical disease, the impact of these viruses on pig disease is not well understood and consequently the information generated may be of interest in this field. The first part of this work is well designed and represents the main results that indicate a high circulation of the viruses studied and its relationship with the presence of other viruses and the age group.

Author’s response: We thanked the reviewer for his comment.

However, I find some inconsistencies in the second part of this study. Data from the analysis by NGS of 26 samples are added and it is not explained which was the selection criteria of these samples or the relationship with the previous study.

Author’s response: Only, 26 analyses could be realized for financial reason and these 26 samples were randomly selected among the overall samples. We added a sentence in the material and methods part. Line 153-154

Furthermore, since a phylogenetic analysis was not possible, the information provided cannot be considered representative of the strains detected in this study. Consequently, I consider that this manuscript should be revised to improve its value.

Author’s response: We have submitted the sequences and are waiting for the accessions numbers. You will find the proof of submission attached. The accession numbers of our sequences will be add in the Table 5.

Other minor comments

1-Line 88-92: in these lines it is proposed to relate the epidemiological cycle of HEV with coinfectant viruses. However, no mention is made of the results obtained in the discussion.

Author’s response: We added sentences in the discussion part Line 314-318.

2- Line 96: The time period in which the samples were collected is not described. It should be clarified in the manuscript.

Author’s response: We had a sentence on the Mat et Methods part “All the samples were collected between April and September 2017.” Line 110-111.

3- Line 243. Table 4. I find this table unnecessary in the manuscript. It could be placed as supplementary material. I do not find in it that the importance of these results is discussed.

Author’s response: We transferred this table on the Supplementary material.

4- Line 258: What is the influence of using Syber Green PCR for the detection of PSV? RT-qPCR was used for the other 2 viruses. Can the use of this method explain the differences in prevalences found by other researchers?

Author’s response: Indeed, the different method used to detect the virus make the results not comparable. We added a sentence to precise this point. Line 272-274

5- Line 329: How did you demonstrate the endemic circulation of these viruses?

Author’s response: In our opinion, the presence of the different viruses in numerous farms across the island and the observed prevalences may lead to the hypothesis of a real endemic circulation on the island.

De : gb-admin@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov [mailto:gb-admin@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

Envoyé : mercredi 27 octobre 2021 17:43

À : Lisandru CAPAI <capai_l@univ-corse.fr>; lisandru.capai@gmail.com

Objet : GenBank Submissions grp 8269814

Dear Dr. Capai:

We have received the following 55 sequence submission(s) from you:

BankIt2512508 : (55)

It appears that these may be metagenomically derived virus sequences.

Please clarify whether you:

[a] Purified viral particles and sequenced the DNA.

[b] Sequenced mixed DNA from a metagenomic source and then

binned the viral sequences into assemblies.

[c] assembled third party reads obtained from a public database.

Please explain exactly how these sequences were generated.

Send your reply to: gb-admin@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

If we do not hear from you by Nov 10, 2021, all of your submission(s)

will be deleted from the processing queue.

Thank you for your attention. We will not assign GenBank Accession

Numbers or further process your submissions until we hear from you.

For your reference, please find your preliminary records below.

Please reply using the current Subject line.

Sincerely,

Linda Frisse, PhD

The GenBank Submissions Staff

Bethesda, Maryland USA

*******************************************************************

gb-admin@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov (for replies and updates to current records)

info@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov (for general questions regarding GenBank)

*******************************************************************

preliminary GenBank Flatfile(s):

LOCUS Seq01 5927 bp RNA linear VRL 26-OCT-2021

DEFINITION Sapelovirus A strain PSV-1-LC-Corsica-2017.

ACCESSION

VERSION

KEYWORDS .

SOURCE Sapelovirus A

ORGANISM Sapelovirus A

Viruses; Riboviria; Orthornavirae; Pisuviricota; Pisoniviricetes;

Picornavirales; Picornaviridae; Sapelovirus.

REFERENCE 1 (bases 1 to 5927)

AUTHORS Capai,L., Piorkowski,G., Maestrini,O., Casabianca,F., de

Lambellerie,X., Charrel,R. and Falchi,A.

TITLE Direct Submission

JOURNAL Submitted (26-OCT-2021) URBIOSCOPE 7310, Universite de Corse

Pasquale Paoli, CAMPUS GRIMALDI BAT PPDB, CORTE, CORSICA 20250,

FRANCE

COMMENT Bankit Comment: LocalID:Seq01.

##Assembly-Data-START##

Assembly Method :: CLC GENOMICS v. WORKBECH 21.0.5

Sequencing Technology :: IonTorrent

##Assembly-Data-END##

FEATURES Location/Qualifiers

source 1..5927

/organism="Sapelovirus A"

/mol_type="genomic RNA"

/isolate="Corsica, France"

/isolation_source="Pig feces sample"

/host="Domestic pig"

/db_xref="taxon:686984"

/country="France"

/collection_date="2017"

BASE COUNT 1809 a 1165 c 1326 g 1627 t

ORIGIN

1 ccttaaggtg gttgtatcca cataccccac cctcccttcc aaagcggatg gacaaacgga

61 ctttgactta tggcgagttt acacggtatg atttttggat acacttgaat ggtagtagcg

121 tggcgagcta tggaaaaatc gcaattgtcg atagccatgt tagtgacgcg cttaggcgtg

181 ctcctttggt gattcggcga ctggttacag gagagtaggc agtgagctat gggcaaacct

241 ctacagtatt acttagaggg aatgtgcaat tgagacttga cgagcgtctc tttgagatgt

301 ggcgcatgct cttggcatta ccatagtgag cttccaggtt gggagacctg gactgggcct

361 atactacctg atagggtcgc ggctggccgc ctgtaactag tatagtcagt tgaaaccccc

421 ccatggaatc tactactact ctttcatttt gcaactggat ccctaagaag cagagagccc

481 gtgtgtacct caccaccagt gtgacacacg agaaatcaat tgggccatat acgtatgtgg

541 tctcagacat gatcatgaaa gaaaatagta gaacctctct tgccatggca tacgtggaag

601 ggaagacact agtgttcaac actggaactc aattgggtca agtacattca gccaacactg

661 gaaacaaacc acaaggtgca tacaatcatg gttctggcag tataacacag gttaactact

721 atggctctga ctactcacag gcatggaatc ccacacaaca acagatggac ccatcgcaat

781 tcaccaaacc cgtcacagaa attgctagta tggtagcagg gtccaacaca ccagcaggac

841 ctgcactcaa ggcacctgac aaggaagaag aaggttacag tgacagactg atgcagctaa

901 cagctggcaa ctcctgtata acaacacagg aggcggcaaa ggcagtggtg gcatatggcc

961 aatggcctag ctataacata gatggaggag aacatttgga cctggccacc actcctggaa

1021 cagcagtaga caggttctat acttttgaca gcttacagtg gactaacact cagataggtg

1081 aatggtcttt acccttgcct ggtggtctaa tggatactgg tgtatttggt caaaatttaa

1141 gatttcacta tctgtctaga atgggttttt gtgtacacgt acaatgtaat gcatcaaagt

1201 tccatcaggg tgcattgata attgctatga tccctgaaca tcaaaccccc acacaggttg

1261 ctaatagttt tgcttatgac cgtgttccca caccaaatca taaatctcag aaccaacaac

1321 tctgcaacaa tagtataccc gtacactaat tgtacacctg caggttttgg attagcacat

1381 aattttgtaa cattagttat tagagtatta gtgcccctta gatataatga tggtgcctcc

1441 acctttgtgc ccataacagt tagtgtagcc ccaatgtgtt cccaatttgc aggcttgaga

1501 tctgctgtag caaggcaagg tttccctgtt agacaggtac caggaagtca acaatttatg

1561 acaacacaaa gagacaatgg tatacctata taccctgaat ttgagaagac acatggtttt

1621 aaactacctg gtagagtgac taacctgcta caagtagccc aagtagggac atttttgaaa

1681 tttaggaata ataccaatga tgtatgattt ctagtcattt ggttacaacc tatctttctc

1741 gtttggcaca aatgtatgca aattatagag ggtctgttgt gtttgaattt atgttttgtg

1801 gcagccaaat ggccactgga aaactgctta ttgcatacac accaccaggt ggctcctcac

1861 caacaacaag aactgatgca atgttggcaa cacatgttat ttgggacatc ggcctacaat

1921 caacatgtaa acttgtggtt ccttatatat ctgcatctca gtacagacaa aacaatgtaa

1981 accaaaccac tttgtcatac aatgggtggg tgactgtgtt ccaacaaaca gcactcgtgg

2041 tacccccagg tgcaccatca acatgtcaac tggtggtcac tgttagtgca gcagataatt

2101 ttgtattgag gattcccact gacacaactt actttgcaga ctaccaaggt gacgtcaagg

2161 atgaggtaca agccagtgtg aacaaagtcc tgcagagtgc gctgaacacc ttacctcagc

2221 gagaacagtc ttcacaaggg gtcatgataa accaagggaa tgcaccagca ctaacagcgg

2281 ctgagactgg agaatccgat accaactcag gggggtccac aatggaatta caggcaacaa

2341 attgtgtttt tagtttgagg gaaacagatt tagaatattt gatgtctagg tattctctta

2401 tgtatgaaga tagattagat tacactaata gccagggcag taggcatttg agatataact

2461 tagattttag gacaatagga tattacaaag tttaaggctt ttacatattg gagatttgac

2521 ttagatgttg tggtaatggt tttggaagat aaaccagctg ctgttaaaaa tcttatgttt

2581 caagtcctgt atacccctca tggtggagtt gtaccaacca ggcacgactc acgagtttgg

2641 aatgcaccca attcaactag tgtgtacaca agagtgggaa attgtccagc ttcttttagg

2701 atacctttta tgtctgtttg caattactat acatcctttt atgatggtga tgggaatttt

2761 gatcggaatg gtgcctccta tggcattaac ccaggtaatt ttatagggac aatcttttag

2821 agttaaggta tttcttagac ctgtaaatat agaagcttat atgcccagac ccttaattgc

2881 ttataaagcc aatggtgatg cagtacaaga tagttcaaca tattatcccg caacacaggc

2941 aggatattac ccagctaccc agacaggacc atatgagatc tgtcaaacta gaaatgccac

3001 agagttagtg gaaaccaaat gggccaagta ttcatgctca gtcaaatttg acagaggttc

3061 atttacagca tggtttgtgg gagaagacct gttattggta ccctaccacg ctgctagcaa

3121 ttggagtcag acaacacatg tgttcctctg gagagcatgg gagaggaatt ggagggatca

3181 ccccgaaatg gagatgaaga tccccattgt agacatgtgg acagattcaa ccagggacat

3241 aacatttctt aaacttgcct atgcaacacc atactggctg gagatgcccc gcaagggctc

3301 tgcaattgga gaatacgtgg ttgtcgtcaa ttcagcacac tttccctgga agcaatatac

3361 aggacccaaa ccatttagac acccttactt acacattggt caacataccc agtacagact

3421 ctggatggca aaaggtgatg ctgataatgg cttctgtgga gccgggttaa tatctaaagg

3481 gaaactttat ggcatagtta cagctagaac tgagagcaag tcaggggaca tctatgtggc

3541 ctacaatgaa ttggatgagg atactttcct ccagacacag cagaggtgct ttgattttgg

3601 aatggataca cacttcaacc tgggaatgca tgactgggtc caaggactcg gccaagtctt

3661 tggtgagggt gtgtctggag aagttaagaa gcaggtagag gactatctag gccaaattaa

3721 acccatcata gatgcgggta ccaataaagt taaggatgtt attaaagatg agatggttag

3781 tgctagcatg tctttattag ttaaagttgt agcttctctt gcttggcgct ttgttaggtg

3841 tagatatatt tatgactgat ccaataatgt acttgtatag taagattact ggagagccac

3901 acaaacaagg tccatctgac tggctgaaag attttaaggc caaaggtatg tgcaaaagtg

3961 cttgaattta agaattgtaa aactacacta ggacaggaag acatttgcca gataaaggtt

4021 tatatagata aattgattga attgggtaac aaatatggcc ataaatttaa cctgcaaatg

4081 tctcagttac tgcaatgttc aaacataata aacaaagctt acagtaacat gacaagatct

4141 agacatgaac ccgtggcaat gcttatacat ggttccccca gatcccaagc attttgatgg

4201 atataatcaa cagaaagtag ttataatgga tgatttagga caaaacccag atggtgagga

4261 ttgcaagatg ttttgtcaga tggtgtctac caccacctac ataccaccta tggcttccct

4321 agatgagaaa ggattaccat ttatttctga ttttgtcttg gcctctacta accaacatgc

4381 cctgacccct cgcaccatag ctgaaccaga tgctataaat aggagatggt ttatgaatgt

4441 tgatattcac ctcaagaaag aattcaagga tgacagagga agattggaca tgtcaaagtg

4501 cttgccttgc aaggattgca aaccaaccaa ctttaggaag tgcaacccat tagtttgtgg

4561 taaagcaatt attttattag acagaaaaac ccagaaaaat tggactgttg atacagctgt

4621 tacccactta ttagaagaat ctgaaagaag aaagggtttc ttgaatgtgg ttgatgcgat

4681 cttccaaggg ccagtgcaga ttccagaatg tgttagggaa gatgaggtga agaagaagaa

4741 ggtaaattca gagagagata tcccacatga tgtgatggaa ttagttaggt gcacaaagtc

4801 tcctgtaata atagatgagc ttgagaaggc tggctttatt attcctgtgg aagctgaagt

4861 tatacgccag accaataatg tgaataatgt aacccaaatt gtttcagcaa ctcttgctag

4921 tttagctgct ataatttctg taggtactgt agtttattta atggttaggt tattctcctc

4981 aaaacaaggg gcatactctg gtgcacccag accagaaaca aggaaacctg tgctcaggaa

5041 agctgtagtt cagggtcctg acatggaatt cgccaagtcc ataatgagat ctaacttgtg

5101 tcaggttact acaagtgtgg gacctttcac tggacttggt atctatgaca acatcttagt

5161 gctaccaaga catgcctatg taagtggaaa tgtagtaata gatggtgttg atattcctgt

5221 tatagatgca gtagaattag aggcagagga aggaaattta gaattagtac agctaaccct

5281 taagaggaat gaaaagttta gagatattag aaagtttttg agcaatggct ttcatagtga

5341 gaatgattgt tggctttgca taaattctga gatgttttct aatgtgtaca tacctcttaa

5401 gaatgtgtct gcctttgggt ttcttaacct gtctatgact cccacctata ggacccttgt

5461 ttataattac cccaccaaga tgggaaaata taagggcaat gttgatgcta cattaccaga

5521 agaagccctc atagctattg atcatttggt gtccaaattt aaagcaatag tgccagacaa

5581 tttgaccgag aagatgtcat tcaatcacta tctcctctta ttaaggcttt agatctttat

5641 ggatatgatt tacctttcac cacttacctt aaggatgagt taagaccaaa agaaaaagtg

5701 aagatgggca aaaccagggt cattgagtgt tcatcgctta atgataccat aatgatgaag

5761 caaactttcg gccacctgtt ccagacatgt cacaagaatc ctggaactta cactggtgtg

5821 gccgttggct gcaatccaga tgttgactgg tcaaagtttg ctgctgaaat tggtgatgcc

5881 tatgtttgtg cttttgatta caccaactgg gatgccagcc tgtcacc

//

Decision Letter 1

Humberto Rodney Colina Muñoz

4 Nov 2021

Detection of porcine enteric viruses (Kobuvirus, Mamastrovirus and Sapelovirus) in domestic pigs in Corsica, France.

PONE-D-21-15693R1

Dear Dr. Lisandru Capai

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,

Humberto Rodney Colina Muñoz, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

All the questions and suggestions made by the reviewers have been correctly answered and added by the authors.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Humberto Rodney Colina Muñoz

5 Jan 2022

PONE-D-21-15693R1

Detection of porcine enteric viruses (Kobuvirus, Mamastrovirus and Sapelovirus) in domestic pigs in Corsica, France

Dear Dr. Capai:

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. Humberto Rodney Colina Muñoz

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE


Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

RESOURCES