Skip to main content
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases logoLink to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
. 2022 May 9;16(5):e0010081. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010081

Eastern equine encephalitis virus rapidly infects and disseminates in the brain and spinal cord of cynomolgus macaques following aerosol challenge

Janice A Williams 1,#, Simon Y Long 1,#, Xiankun Zeng 1, Kathleen Kuehl 1, April M Babka 1, Neil M Davis 1, Jun Liu 1, John C Trefry 2, Sharon Daye 1, Paul R Facemire 1, Patrick L Iversen 3, Sina Bavari 4, Margaret L Pitt 2,4,*, Farooq Nasar 2,*
Editor: Doug E Brackney5
PMCID: PMC9084534  PMID: 35533188

Abstract

Eastern equine encephalitis virus (EEEV) is mosquito-borne virus that produces fatal encephalitis in humans. We recently conducted a first of its kind study to investigate EEEV clinical disease course following aerosol challenge in a cynomolgus macaque model utilizing the state-of-the-art telemetry to measure critical physiological parameters. Here, we report the results of a comprehensive pathology study of NHP tissues collected at euthanasia to gain insights into EEEV pathogenesis. Viral RNA and proteins as well as microscopic lesions were absent in the visceral organs. In contrast, viral RNA and proteins were readily detected throughout the brain including autonomic nervous system (ANS) control centers and spinal cord. However, despite presence of viral RNA and proteins, majority of the brain and spinal cord tissues exhibited minimal or no microscopic lesions. The virus tropism was restricted primarily to neurons, and virus particles (~61–68 nm) were present within axons of neurons and throughout the extracellular spaces. However, active virus replication was absent or minimal in majority of the brain and was limited to regions proximal to the olfactory tract. These data suggest that EEEV initially replicates in/near the olfactory bulb following aerosol challenge and is rapidly transported to distal regions of the brain by exploiting the neuronal axonal transport system to facilitate neuron-to-neuron spread. Once within the brain, the virus gains access to the ANS control centers likely leading to disruption and/or dysregulation of critical physiological parameters to produce severe disease. Moreover, the absence of microscopic lesions strongly suggests that the underlying mechanism of EEEV pathogenesis is due to neuronal dysfunction rather than neuronal death. This study is the first comprehensive investigation into EEEV pathology in a NHP model and will provide significant insights into the evaluation of countermeasure.

Author summary

EEEV is an arbovirus endemic in parts of North America and is able to produce fatal encephalitis in humans and domesticated animals. Despite multiple human outbreaks during the last 80 years, there are still no therapeutic or vaccines to treat or prevent human disease. One critical obstacle in the development of effective countermeasure is the lack of insights into EEEV pathogenesis in a susceptible animal host. We recently conducted a study in cynomolgus macaques to investigate the disease course by measuring clinical parameters relevant to humans. Following infection, these parameters were rapidly and profoundly altered leading to severe disease. In this study, we examined the potential mechanisms that underlie pathogenesis to cause severe disease. The virus was present in many parts of the brain and spinal cord, however, minimal or no pathological lesions as well as active virus replication were observed. Additionally, neurons were the predominant target of EEEV infection and virus transport was facilitated via axonal transport system to spread neuron-to-neuron throughout the brain and spinal cord. These data show that EEEV likely hijacks essential transport system to rapidly spread in the brain and local/global neuronal dysfunction rather than neuronal death is the principal cause of severe disease.

Introduction

The genus Alphavirus in the family Togaviridae is comprised of small, spherical, enveloped viruses with genomes consisting of a single stranded, positive-sense RNA, ~11–12 kb in length. Alphaviruses comprise 31 recognized species and the vast majority utilize mosquitoes as vectors for transmission into vertebrate hosts [16]. Mosquito-borne alphaviruses can spillover into the human population and cause severe disease. Old World alphaviruses (chikungunya, o’nyong-nyong, Sindbis, and Ross River) can cause disease characterized by rash and debilitating arthralgia, whereas New World viruses [eastern, western, and Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus] can cause fatal encephalitis.

Eastern equine encephalitis virus (EEEV) is an important pathogen of medical and veterinary importance in North America. EEEV is endemic in the eastern United States and Canada, and the Gulf coast of the United States. The main transmission cycle is between passerine birds and Culiseta melanura mosquitoes. However, this cycle can spillover into humans and domesticated animals and cause severe disease with human and equid case-fatality rates of 30–90% and >90%, respectively [6,7]. Human survivors can suffer from debilitating and permanent long-term neurological sequelae with rates of 35–80% [6,7]. In addition to natural infections, EEEV was developed as a biological weapon during the cold war by the U.S. and the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Currently, there are no licensed therapeutics and/or vaccines to prevent or treat EEEV infection and the U.S. population remains vulnerable to natural disease outbreaks and/or bioterrorism events.

The development of effective vaccine and therapeutic countermeasures has utilized nonhuman primate (NHP) models to recapitulate various aspects of human disease, as well as, to gain insight into EEEV disease. We recently conducted a study in cynomolgus macaques to explore EEEV disease course utilizing advance telemetry to monitor critical physiological including temperature, respiration, activity, heart rate, blood pressure, electrocardiogram (ECG), and electroencephalography (EEG) following aerosol challenge at a dose of 7.0 log10 PFU/animal [8]. Following challenge all parameters were altered rapidly and considerably, and accordingly, all NHPs met the euthanasia criteria by ~106–140 hours post-infection (hpi). Our previous report detailed the alterations of the parameters, however, the potential underlying mechanism/s responsible were not investigated [8]. Here, we report a comprehensive investigation into the pathology of NHP tissues collected at euthanasia to gain insights into EEEV pathogenesis.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

This work was supported by an approved United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) animal research protocol. Research was conducted under an IACUC approved protocol in compliance with the Animal Welfare Act, PHS Policy, and other Federal statutes and regulations relating to animals and experiments involving animals. The facility where this research was conducted is accredited by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care, International and adheres to principles stated in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, National Research Council, 2011 [9].

Virus

Eastern equine encephalitis virus isolate V105-00210 was obtained from internal USAMRIID collection. The details of the stock have been described previously [8]. Briefly, the virus (Vero passage #1) was received from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Fort Collins. The virus stock was passed in Vero-76 cells (American Type Culture Collection, ATCC; Bethesda, MD) twice to produce Master (Vero passage #2) and Working (Vero passage #3) virus stocks. The virus stock was deep sequenced to verify genomic sequence and to ensure purity. In addition, the stock was tested to exclude presence of endotoxin and mycoplasma.

Non-human primate study design

A detailed study design was described previously [8]. Briefly, four (2 males, 2 females) cynomolgus macaques (Macaca fascicularis) of Chinese origin ages 5–8 years and weighing 3–9 kg were obtained (Covance). All NHPs were prescreened and determined to be negative for Herpes B virus, simian T-lymphotropic virus 1, simian immunodeficiency virus, simian retrovirus D 1/2/3, tuberculosis, Salmonella spp., Campylobacter spp., hypermucoviscous Klebsiella spp., and Shigella spp. NHPs were also screened for the presence of neutralizing antibodies to EEEV, VEEV IAB, and WEEV by plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT80). The NHPs were challenged with a target dose of 7.0 log10 PFU of EEEV via the aerosol route utilizing in the head-only Automated Bioaerosol Exposure System (ABES-II). Following challenge, all four NHPs rapidly exhibited severe disease and met the euthanasia criteria ~106–140 hpi. Lung, liver, spleen, kidney, heart, spinal cord, and brain tissues were collected from each NHP at the time of euthanasia. Tissues were fixed for >21 days in 10% neutral buffered formalin, sectioned, and examined.

Tissues processing and histopathology

Tissue sections from various organs were generated (S1 Table). NHP tissues were processed in a Tissue-Tek VIP-6 vacuum infiltration processor (Sakura Finetek USA, Torrance, CA) followed by paraffin embedding with a Tissue-Tek model TEC (Sakura). Sections were cut on a Leica model 2245 microtome at 4 μm, stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and coverslipped. Slides were examined by an ACVP diplomate veterinary pathologist blinded to intervention. All images were captured with a Leica DM3000 microscope and DFC 500 digital camera using Leica Application Suite version 4.10.0 (Leica Microsystems, Buffalo Grove, IL).

In situ hybridization

In situ hybridization (ISH) was performed using the RNAscope 2.5 HD RED kit (Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Newark, CA, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Briefly, EEEV ISH probe targeting nucleotides 8680–9901 of EEEV isolate V105-00210 was designed and synthesized by Advanced Cell Diagnostics (Cat# 455721). Tissue sections were deparaffinized with Xyless II (Valtech, Brackenridge, PA, USA), followed by a series of ethanol washes and peroxidase blocking, then heated in kit-provided antigen retrieval buffer, and digested by kit-provided proteinase. Sections were exposed to ISH target probe pairs and incubated at 40°C in a hybridization oven for 2 h. After rinsing with wash buffer, ISH signal was amplified using kit-provided Pre-amplifier and Amplifier conjugated to alkaline phosphatase and incubated with Fast Red substrate solution for 10 mins at room temperature. Sections were then stained with hematoxylin, air-dried, and mounted. ISH images were collected using an Olympus BX53 upright microscope (Olympus Scientific Solutions Americas Corp., Waltham, MA, USA).

Immunohistochemistry

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) was performed using the Dako Envision system (Dako Agilent Pathology Solutions, Carpinteria, CA, USA). After deparaffinization and peroxidase blocking, sections were covered with Rabbit anti-alphavirus polyclonal antibody was obtained from internal USAMRIID stocks. The polyclonal antibody was generated as a reagent by vaccinating animals with E3-E2-6K-E1 antigen of EEEV. The antibody was used at a dilution of 1:5000 and incubated at room temperature for 30 minutes. They were rinsed, and treated sequentially by an HRP-conjugated, secondary anti-rabbit polymer (Cat. #K4003, Dako Agilent Pathology Solutions). All slides were exposed to brown chromogenic substrate DAB (Cat. #K3468, Dako Agilent Pathology Solutions), counterstained with hematoxylin, dehydrated, cleared, and coverslipped. IHC images were collected using an Olympus BX53 upright microscope (Olympus Scientific Solutions Americas Corp., Waltham, MA, USA).

Immunofluorescence assay

Formalin-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissue sections were deparaffinized using xylene and a series of ethanol washes. After 0.1% Sudan black B (Sigma) treatment to eliminate the autofluorescence background, the sections were heated in Tris-EDTA buffer (10mM Tris Base, 1mM EDTA Solution, 0.05% Tween 20, pH 9.0) for 15 minutes to reverse formaldehyde crosslinks. After rinses with PBS (pH 7.4), the sections were blocked with PBS containing 5% normal goat serum overnight at 4°C. Then the sections were incubated with Rabbit anti-EEEV antibody (USAMRIID, 1:1000) and chicken anti-NeuN antibody (Abcam, 1:25), or chicken anti-GFAP (Abcam, 1:500, or mouse anti-CD68 (Agilent/Dako, 1:200) for 2 hours at room temperature. After rinses with PBS, the sections were incubated with secondary goat anti-chicken Alex Fluor 488 (green, 1:500), goat anti-rabbit Alex Flour 488 (green), goat anti-rabbit Cy3 (red), and/ or goat anti-mouse Cy3 antibodies (red, 1:500) for 1 hour at room temperature. Sections were cover slipped using the Vectashield mounting medium with DAPI (Vector Laboratories). Images were captured on an LSM 880 Confocal Microscope (Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany) and processed using open-source ImageJ software (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA).

Transmission electron microscopy

Formalin-fixed thalamic tissue from each NHP was obtained and submerged in 2.5% glutaraldehyde and 2% paraformaldehyde in 0.1M sodium phosphate buffer for further fixation. Samples were fixed for at least 24 hours at 4° C and then rinsed with milliQ-EM grade water, rinsed again with 0.1M sodium cacodylate buffer before post-fixing with 1% osmium tetroxide in 0.1M sodium cacodylate for 60 minutes. After osmium fixation, the samples were rinsed with 0.1M sodium cacodylate buffer, followed by a water wash then subjected to uranyl acetate en bloc. Samples were washed with water then dehydrated through a graded ethanol series including 3 exchanges with 100% ethanol. Samples were further dehydrated with equal volumes of 100% ethanol and propylene oxide followed by two changes of propylene oxide. Samples were initially infiltrated with equal volumes of propylene oxide and resin (Embed-812; EMS, Hatfield, PA, USA) then incubated overnight in propylene oxide and resin. The next day, the samples were infiltrated with 100% resin embedded and oriented in 100% resin and then allowed to polymerize for 48 hours at 60° C. 1 μm thick sections were cut from one tissue block and a region of interest for thin sectioning was chosen. 80nm thin sections were cut and collected on 200 mesh copper grids. Two grids from each sample were further contrast stained with 2% uranyl acetate and Reynold’s lead citrate. Samples were then imaged on the Jeol 1011 TEM at various magnifications.

Results

EEEV associated pathology in the visceral organs

Visceral organs including the heart, liver, lung, kidney, and spleen were collected from all NHPs at the time of euthanasia and examined for virus and/or host induced pathology (S1 Table). There were no EEEV associated necrotic and/or inflammatory lesions in the visceral organs of any of NHPs (Fig 1 and S1 Table). In addition, in situ hybridization (ISH) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) were unable to detect presence of viral RNA or proteins in any organs, respectively (S1 and S2 Figs).

Fig 1. Histopathology in the visceral organs of EEEV infected cynomolgus macaques.

Fig 1

The tissues were collected at the time of euthanasia. Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining was performed on the tissues of all four NHPs. Bar = 200 um.

EEEV associated pathology in the brain and spinal cord

The projections from the olfactory bulb connect to the amygdala and hippocampus via the primary olfactory cortex. We previously reported the presence of infectious virus in the olfactory bulb of NHPs at the time of euthanasia with titers ranging from 4.1–7.9 log10 PFU/g [8]. Accordingly, the amygdala and hippocampus were investigated for virus and/or host induced pathology. Mild to moderate necrotic and inflammatory lesions were observed throughout both regions of the brain in all NHPs (Fig 2). The necrotic lesions were characterized by neuronal degeneration, satellitosis, and necrosis, as well as vacuolation of the neuropil (Fig 2). The inflammatory lesions comprised predominantly of neutrophilic infiltrates in all NHP sections except the hippocampus of NHP #2. Lastly, viral RNA and proteins were readily detected throughout the amygdala and hippocampus of all NHPs (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Pathology in the amygdala and the hippocampus of EEEV infected cynomolgus macaques.

Fig 2

The tissues were collected at the time of euthanasia. Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining was performed to visualize histopathology. The presence of EEEV RNA and proteins was visualized via in situ hybridization (ISH) and immunohistochemistry (IHC), respectively. H&E, ISH, and IHC were performed on the tissues of all four NHPs. Bar = 100 um (H&E and IHC). Bar = 50 um (ISH). Arrow key: neutrophilic infiltration/neutrophils (black), degenerative/necrotic neurons (red), and vacuolation of the neuropil (green).

The projection of the amygdala and hippocampus connect to the midbrain, which in turn connects to both the forebrain and the hindbrain. We next examined various structures in these regions including the hypothalamus, thalamus, corpus striatum, mesencephalon, medulla oblongata, frontal cortex, and cerebellum for virus and/or host induced pathology (S1 Table). In contrast to the pathology observed in the amygdala and hippocampus, the majority of these tissue sections displayed minimal or no microscopic lesions (Figs 3 and 4). Few focal lesions were observed in some regions and were restricted primarily to the corpus striatum, thalamus, mesencephalon, and medulla oblongata (Fig 4). The focal lesions comprised of minimal to mild neuronal degeneration, neuronal necrosis, neuropil vacuolation, gliosis, and neuronal satellitosis (Fig 4). The latter was most pronounced in the corpus striatum of NHP #1, which also displayed mild microhemorrhages (Fig 4). NHPs displayed mild to marked neutrophilic inflammation in the brain extending into the meninges. Additionally, perivascular infiltrates ranged from minimal lymphocytic and neutrophilic, to moderate and predominantly neutrophilic (Fig 4). The ISH staining detected substantial viral RNA in the brain tissue of all NHPs (Fig 5). The IHC staining showed mild to marked immunoreactivity of neurons in all sections of the brain with the most pronounced in the corpus striatum, thalamus, mesencephalon, and medulla oblongata (Fig 6).

Fig 3. Pathology in the hypothalamus of EEEV infected cynomolgus macaques.

Fig 3

The tissue was collected at the time of euthanasia. Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining was performed to visualize histopathology. The presence of EEEV RNA and proteins was visualized via in situ hybridization (ISH) and immunohistochemistry (IHC), respectively. H&E, ISH, and IHC were performed on the tissues of all four NHPs. Bar = 100 um (H&E and IHC). Bar = 50 um (ISH).

Fig 4. Histopathology in various parts of the brain tissues of EEEV infected cynomolgus macaques.

Fig 4

The tissues were collected at the time of euthanasia. Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining was performed to visualize histopathology. H&E was performed on the tissues of all four NHPs. Bar = 100 um. Arrow key: degenerative to necrotic neurons (red), vacuolation of the neuropil (green), and microhemorrhage (blue).

Fig 5. The presence of EEEV RNA in various parts of the brain tissues of infected cynomolgus macaques.

Fig 5

The tissues were collected at the time of euthanasia. The presence of viral RNA was visualized via in situ hybridization (ISH). ISH was performed on the tissues of all four NHPs. Bar = 50 um.

Fig 6. The presence of EEEV proteins in various parts of the brain tissues of infected cynomolgus macaques.

Fig 6

The tissues were collected at the time of euthanasia. The presence of viral proteins was visualized via immunohistochemistry (IHC). IHC was performed on the tissues of all four NHPs. Bar = 100 um.

The cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spinal cord were also examined (S1 Table). In contrast to the brain sections, all three sections of the spinal cord displayed minimal or no pathological lesions (Fig 7). The main feature observed in the spinal cord sections was comprised of minimal inflammation. Viral RNA was readily detected in the cervical spinal cord of all four NHPs via ISH, whereas minimal or no RNA was detected in the thoracic and lumbar sections in three of the four NHPs (Fig 8). Substantial viral RNA was detected in thoracic and lumbar sections of NHP #3 (Fig 8). This finding was further verified by IHC staining that displayed a similar pattern (Fig 9).

Fig 7. Histopathology in various parts of the spinal cord of EEEV infected cynomolgus macaques.

Fig 7

The tissues were collected at the time of euthanasia. Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining was performed to visualize histopathology. H&E was performed on the tissues of all four NHPs. Bar = 100 um. Arrow key: neutrophilic infiltration/neutrophils (black).

Fig 8. The presence of EEEV RNA in various parts of the spinal cord of infected cynomolgus macaques.

Fig 8

The tissues were collected at the time of euthanasia. The presence of viral RNA was visualized via in situ hybridization (ISH). ISH was performed on the tissues of all four NHPs. Bar = 50 um.

Fig 9. The presence of EEEV proteins in various parts of the spinal cord of infected cynomolgus macaques.

Fig 9

The tissues were collected at the time of euthanasia. The presence of viral proteins was visualized via immunohistochemistry (IHC). IHC was performed on the tissues of all four NHPs. Bar = 100 um.

EEEV cell tropism in the thalamus of the NHPs

After establishment of EEEV infection in various brain regions, we next investigated virus tropism in the thalamus of all infected NHPs by determining infection in the astrocytes, microglia, and the neurons. Tissue sections were stained for viral RNA and cellular markers of astrocytes (GFAP), microglia (CD68), and neurons (NeuN) (Figs 10, 11, and 12). Minimal or no overlap was observed between viral RNA and GFAP or CD68, indicating minimal or no infection in the astrocytes and microglia, respectively (Figs 10 and 11). In contrast, considerable overlap of viral RNA and NeuN was observed in all NHPs suggesting that the majority of the viral infection was limited to the neurons (Fig 12).

Fig 10. The presence of EEEV RNA in the astrocytes of infected cynomolgus macaques.

Fig 10

Sections from the thalamus of each NHP were visualized via immunofluorescence assay. Sections were stained for GFAP (green), EEEV (red), and DAPI (blue).

Fig 11. The presence of EEEV RNA in the microglia of infected cynomolgus macaques.

Fig 11

Sections from the thalamus of each NHP were visualized via immunofluorescence assay. Sections were stained for CD68 (green), EEEV (red), and DAPI (blue).

Fig 12. The presence of EEEV RNA in the neurons of infected cynomolgus macaques.

Fig 12

Sections from the thalamus of each NHP were visualized via immunofluorescence assay. Sections were stained for NeuN (green), EEEV (red), and DAPI (blue).

Localization of EEEV virions in the thalamus of the NHPS via transmission electron microscopy (TEM)

The morphological analysis of various brain structures by the TEM showed no overt signs of apoptosis and/or necrosis as the majority of tissue sections displayed intact mitochondria and nuclei. TEM analysis showed marked presence of EEEV particles in the extracellular spaces throughout the thalamus of all NHPs (Figs 13 and S3). The majority of the virus particles were spherical, ~61–68 nm in diameter, and were in close proximity to plasma membranes of the surrounding cells (Fig 14). Virus particles were detected juxtaposed to myelin sheaths, surrounding the axons, as well as near synapses (Figs 15 and S4).

Fig 13. The extracellular distribution of EEEV virions in the thalamus of infected cynomolgus macaques.

Fig 13

Sections from each NHP were examined and representative micrographs from each NHP are shown. Red arrows indicate virus particles. Bar = 200 nm.

Fig 14. The size of extracellular EEEV virions via transmission electron microscopy (TEM).

Fig 14

Sections from the thalamus of each NHP were examined and representative micrographs from NHPs are shown. Red arrow indicates virus particles.

Fig 15. The localization of EEEV virions around the myelin sheath of neurons via transmission electron microscopy (TEM).

Fig 15

Sections from the thalamus of each NHP were examined and representative micrographs from each NHP are shown. Red arrows indicate virus particles.

The intracellular localization of EEEV within the thalamus was examined by detecting the presence of EEEV particles within the axons of neurons. Virus particles, ~62–67 nm in diameter, were detected within the axons in all NHPs (Fig 16). Surprisingly, the majority of the particles were not contained within vesicles and appeared to be free virions. In two sequential sections, ~80 nm apart, of an axon, the quantity of EEEV virions present inside an axon was assessed. The sections showed the presence of 18 and 17 particles, respectively (Fig 17A and 17B). This finding highlights the potential of large quantity of particles that can migrate through a single axon to infect other neurons.

Fig 16. The localization of EEEV virions within the axons of neurons via transmission electron microscopy (TEM).

Fig 16

Sections from the thalamus of each NHP were examined and representative micrographs of each NHP are shown. Red arrows highlight virus particles. Bar = 200 nm.

Fig 17. The localization of EEEV virions within an axon of a neuron via transmission electron microscopy (TEM).

Fig 17

Sections from the thalamus of NHP #3 were examined. Two sequential sections, ~80 nm apart, of an axon are shown. Red arrows indicate virus particles. Scale bar = 100 nm.

Next, we sought to investigate active virus replication centers by detecting cytopathic vacuoles and budding virions in infected cells. Cells with active replication were rare in the brain, however, they were detected in all NHPs. The majority of the virus replication was localized to the amygdala, hippocampus, thalamus, and hypothalamus (Figs 18, 19, and S5). Extensive cytopathic vacuoles with attached and free nucleocapsid, ~40 nm in diameter, were present within the cytoplasm of infected cells (Figs 18 and 19). Furthermore, infectious virions ~65–68 nm in diameter were observed budding from infected host cell plasma membrane (Fig 19).

Fig 18. The detection of cytopathic vacuoles in the cytoplasm of EEEV infected cells via transmission electron microscopy (TEM).

Fig 18

Sections from the thalamus of infected NHPs were examined. Micrographs of NHP #4 are shown. Scale bars: Panels A and B = 600 nm, C and D = 400 nm, E, F and G = 200 nm, and H = 100 nm.

Fig 19. The detection of cytopathic vacuoles, nucleocapsid, and budding virions in EEEV infected cells via transmission electron microscopy (TEM).

Fig 19

Blue and red arrows indicate nucleocapsid and virus particles, respectively. Sections from the thalamus of infected NHP #3 were examined. Scale bars: A = 200 nm, B = 100 nm.

Another interesting finding in the TEM experiments was the presence of virus particles enclosed within undefined vesicular compartments in the extracellular space of all NHP tissues (S6 Fig). The vesicles were composed either exclusively of virions or mixture of particles and cellular component of similar size and shape (S6 Fig). Free virions could also be found adjacent to the enclosed vesicle (S6A and S6C Fig).

Although rare, necrotic lesions were visible within the thalamus and were detected by TEM. Considerable degeneration of the cellular architecture was observed with loss membrane integrity, disintegration of organelles, and cell lysis (S7 Fig). EEEV particles were readily detected scattered throughout the remaining cell debris (S7 Fig).

Discussion

The susceptibility of cynomolgus macaques to EEEV via the aerosol route has been explored previously, however, pathology was not the main focus thus the data are limited [1013]. The principal findings in the CNS and the spinal cord were comprised of meningoencephalitis and vasculitis with histological features including neuronal necrosis, perivascular cuffs, cellular debris, gliosis, satellitosis, edema, hemorrhage, with neutrophil and lymphocytic infiltrates. Our data are in agreement with the majority of these previous findings. The brain regions proximal to the olfactory bulb such as hippocampus and medulla displayed meningoencephalitis and similar histological features. However, in our study the distal regions of the brain and spinal cord exhibited minimal or no microscopic lesions despite the presence of viral RNA and proteins. The potential explanation of the difference may be possible attenuation of EEEV isolates utilized in previous studies due to different methods of propagation to produce viral stocks. The average dose in our study was 6.6 log10 PFU/NHP and was uniformly lethal by 4–6 dpi [8]

The data from this study provide insights into the mode of virus dissemination following aerosol challenge. Post-challenge, there are two potential routes for virus dissemination in the NHP host. The initial virus replication in the respiratory tract followed by systemic infection and subsequent access to central nervous system (CNS). Alternatively, the olfactory epithelium and bulb could serve as the initial site of virus replication followed by virus transport and infection of the olfactory tract with spread to the distal regions of the brain. The data from our study showed no evidence of gross and/or microscopic changes, as well as viral RNA or proteins in the lung, liver, heart, spleen, and kidneys. In contrast, pathological lesions were detected in the brain comprising of neutrophilic inflammation, neuronal degeneration, and necrosis. EEEV RNA and proteins were also readily detected throughout many parts of the brain and spinal cord. A gradation of viral RNA and proteins was observed the most in the cervical region due to its proximity to the brainstem and least in the lumbar region. Lastly, we previously reported the presence of high EEEV infectious titers at the olfactory bulb of all NHPs [8]. Taken together, these data support the rapid and direct spread of EEEV via the olfactory bulb into the brain followed by dissemination into the spinal cord.

Although limited pathology was investigated in previous macaque studies, the dissemination of EEEV following aerosol infection was not investigated; however, it has been examined in mice, guinea pigs, and marmosets [1417]. In these previous studies, virus was localized almost exclusively in the brain and was readily detected in the frontal cortex, corpus striatum, thalamus, hippocampus, mesencephalon, pons, medulla oblongata, and cerebellum [1417]. In contrast, EEEV could not be detected in the heart, liver, lung, spleen, and kidney of guinea pigs and marmosets [14,17]. Murine studies displayed similar pattern to guinea pigs and marmosets, however, EEEV was detected lung and heart [15,16]. Our NHP data are in agreement with the guinea pig and marmoset studies. The presence of virus in the mouse lung and heart tissues shows important differences between the murine and other animal models.

In nature, EEEV is transmitted via a mosquito bite and can cause fatal encephalitis in many mammalian species including horses, sheep, cattle, alpacas, llamas, deer, dogs, pigs, and humans [1860]. Following the bite of an infected mosquito, the virus replicates locally in skeletal muscle cells, fibroblasts, and osteoblasts, gains access to the peripheral tissues and organs, and eventually disseminates into the CNS to cause fatal encephalitis [61]. During the course of infection, extensive pathology is observed in the visceral tissues and organs including lungs, liver, kidneys, spleen, intestine, as well as cardiac and skeletal muscle [24,26,29,31,51,55,60]. The pathology is comprised of severe pulmonary edema and congestion, multifocal hemorrhage, splenic atrophy, myocarditis, and necrosis [24,26,29,31,51,55,60]. In contrast, the animals infected via an aerosol lack extensive visceral pathology. This strongly suggests that the route of infection substantially alters the virus dissemination as well as the subsequent associated pathology [1417].

EEEV localizes in the CNS of many mammalian species including humans regardless of the route of infection [11,12,1433,3550,5269] [70]. Virus is readily detected in basal ganglia, hippocampus, frontal cortex, pons, thalamus, substantia nigra, mesencephalon, medulla oblongata, cerebellum, and spinal cord with minimal to moderate lesions [11,12,1433,3550,5269]. These microscopic findings consist of neuronal degeneration and necrosis, neuropil vacuolation, gliosis, and satellitosis, neuronophagia, lymphocytic perivascular cuffing, lymphocytic meningitis, perivascular cuffs, neutrophil infiltrate, and microhemorrhage. The tropism of EEEV is predominantly limited to the neurons, however, astrocytes and microglia cells are also infected. The results of our study are in agreement with the majority of previously reported findings, however, there are several important differences. First, in our study, the majority of the cellular architecture in all brain regions remained intact and the focal degenerative and necrotic lesions were limited to the amygdala, hippocampus, corpus striatum, thalamus, mesencephalon, and medulla oblongata. Second, inflammatory lesions were limited and comprised mainly of neutrophils. Third, the tropism of EEEV was almost exclusively to neurons. Fourth, microscopic findings were either absent or minimal in all sections of the spinal cord. These differences further highlight the alteration of virus pathogenesis following aerosol infection.

Limited studies have examined EEEV pathogenesis in the brain utilizing TEM [19,32,39,71]. These studies showed the presence of infectious particles, ~55–60 nm in diameter, localized almost exclusively in the extracellular spaces. The evidence of virus replication was either absent or rare in the tissues. Cytopathic vacuoles and nucleocapsid, ~28 nm in diameter, were observed in the cytoplasm of infected neurons and microglia. Infected and uninfected neurons, astrocytes, and microglia displayed dilated rough endoplasmic reticulum. Our study is in agreement with most of the previously reported findings, with one exception with regards to the size of virus particles and nucleocapsid. The infectious particle and nucleocapsid size were smaller in the previous human and mouse TEM studies than the recent cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) studies that estimate the infectious particle and nucleocapsid size of ~65–70 and ~40–45 nm, respectively [3,7274]. Our study is in agreement with the latter data. One potential explanation for this discrepancy is the shrinking effects of formalin fixation, dehydration, and paraffin embedding. The process of inactivation and embedding can reduce tissue size by up to 15% [7578].

Axonal transport is an essential homeostatic process responsible for movement of RNA, proteins, and organelles within neurons [79]. Viruses including rabies, polio, West Nile, and Saint Louis encephalitis can utilize this critical mechanism and disseminate in the CNS via neuron-to-neuron spread [8082]. The data from the present study showed that viral replication was limited to the olfactory bulb and proximal regions including the amygdala, hippocampus, thalamus, and hypothalamus. Viral RNA, proteins, and infectious particles were also detected in distal parts of the brain, however, minimal or no virus replication was detected. In addition, the infectious particles were present in the axon of neurons in all four NHPs. Thirty-five infectious particles were observed in a single 160 nm section of an axon. Taken together, these data strongly suggest that EEEV is able to rapidly spread throughout the CNS following aerosol challenge likely via axonal transport and warrants further investigation.

Many of the physiological parameters measured with advanced telemetry and 24-hr continuous monitoring were considerably altered following infection; temperature +3.0–4.2°C, respiration rate +56–128%, activity -15-76%, +5–22%, heart rate +67–190%, systolic blood pressure +44–67%, diastolic blood pressure +45–80%, ECG abnormalities, reduction in food/fluid intake and sleep, and EEG waves -99-+6,800%. Many of these parameters are under the control of the autonomic nervous system (ANS). The master regulator of the ANS is the hypothalamus which is comprised of numerous important nuclei that regulate these parameters; preoptic area (temperature), suprachiasmatic nuclei (circadian rhythm), paraventricular nuclei and supraoptic nucleus (hunger/satiety), tuberomamillary nucleus and the perifornical lateral (sleep), arcuate nucleus and paraventricular nucleus (blood pressure), arcuate nucleus (cardiac electrical system and heart rate), paraventricular nucleus, perifornical area, and dorsomedial hypothalamus (respiration) [8390]. The hypothalamic nuclei are interconnected with many other regulatory centers such as the thalamus, basal ganglia, medulla oblongata, and others to exert control on important physiological parameters. The histopathology, ISH, IHC, and TEM data from this study shows the presence of viral RNA, proteins, and replication centers in the ANS control centers. These data suggest that EEEV infection in the brain likely produces disruption and/or dysregulation of the ANS control centers to produce rapid and extreme alterations in physiology and behavior to cause severe disease.

In many regions of the brain, EEEV infection produced minimal necrosis and inflammatory infiltrates, and majority of the cellular architecture remained intact. The observed necrosis and/or inflammation can contribute to severe disease, however, it cannot alone explain the fatal disease in the NHPs. One potential explanation of these results is that EEEV pathogenesis, in part, may be due to rapid local and global neuronal dysfunction. This hypothesis has been investigated for a prototypic encephalitic virus, rabies virus (RABV). RABV can exert neuronal dysfunction by multiple mechanisms. RABV infection in neurons can induce degeneration of axons and dendrites without inflammation or cell death, axonal swelling, generation of toxic metabolites such as reactive oxygen species, decreased expression of housekeeping genes, impairment of both the release and binding of serotonin, and reduction in expression of voltage-dependent sodium channels [9198]. Similar to RABV, the axonal transport of EEEV may also disrupt the transport of RNA, proteins, and/or organelles to produce neuronal dysfunction and leading to fatal outcomes. This hypothesis requires further investigation to elucidate the potential mechanism/s.

One of the NHP experienced a critical cardiovascular event and was subsequently euthanized. The investigation of the cardiac tissue showed no evidence of viral induced pathology, RNA, proteins, or host inflammatory response. In contrast, the brain tissues displayed some microscopic lesions as well as considerable presence of viral RNA and proteins, particularly in the hypothalamus and medulla oblongata. These data suggest EEEV infection of the ANS control centers may have led to the dysregulation and/or disruption of the heart’s electrical activity leading to a critical cardiac event. Lastly, the electrolyte imbalance due to considerable decrease in food/fluid intake in the NHP prior to the cardiac event may also contribute to the disruption and dysfunction the heart’s electrical activity.

There are several important implications of our EEEV study regarding countermeasure development. First, the exposure by the aerosol route produces a rapid and profound infection of the CNS including the ANS control centers. Second, the axonal transport likely facilitates substantial neuron-to-neuron spread of virus. Third, the rapid viral spread in the CNS leads to considerable alterations of critical physiological parameters as early as ~12–36 hpi suggesting that the post-aerosol challenge window for therapeutic intervention may be short in the NHP model. Fourth, the presence of infectious virus within axons and the subsequent potential spread via axonal transport demonstrate the necessity for targeting small molecule or antibody therapeutics inside the axons to prevent/reduce infection and transport. Fifth, the investigation of therapeutics and vaccines in an aerosol NHP model should include monitoring of brain waves and comprehensive brain pathology following challenge.

In summary, EEEV initially replicated at olfactory bulb and was rapidly transported to distal parts of the brain likely utilizing axonal transport to facilitate neuron-to-neuron spread. Once within the CNS, the virus gained access to ANS control centers to cause the disruption and/or dysregulation of critical physiological parameters leading to NHPs meeting the euthanasia criteria ~106–140 hpi. The lack of diffuse necrosis in the CNS and ANS strongly suggests that EEEV pathogenesis is in part due to neuronal dysfunction. Lastly, the rapid spread of EEEV in the CNS and the subsequent substantial alteration of the critical physiological parameters in NHPs infected via aerosol route has important implications for countermeasure efficacy.

Disclosure statement

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Department of Defense, or the Department of the Army.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. The absence of EEEV RNA in visceral organs of infected cynomolgus macaques.

The tissues were collected at the time of euthanasia. The presence of viral RNA was visualized via in situ hybridization (ISH). ISH was performed on the tissues of all four NHPs. Bar = 200 um.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. The absence of EEEV proteins in visceral organs of infected cynomolgus macaques.

The tissues were collected at the time of euthanasia. The presence of viral proteins was visualized via immunohistochemistry (IHC). IHC was performed on the tissues of all four NHPs. Bar = 200 um.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. The extracellular distribution of EEEV virions in the thalamus of infected cynomolgus macaques.

Sections from NHPs were examined via transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Representative micrographs from each NHP are shown.

(TIF)

S4 Fig. The localization of EEEV virions near synapses via transmission electron microscopy (TEM).

Sections from the thalamus of each NHP were examined and representative micrographs from each NHP are shown. NHP #1 (A), NHP #2 (B), NHP #3 (C), and NHP #4 (D). Blue and red arrows show synapses and infectious virus particles, respectively. Bar = 600 nm.

(TIF)

S5 Fig. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) micrographs of viral replication centers within the brain of non-human primates.

Top panels are representative electron micrographs of viral replication center (red asterisk) visible within the thalamus (A, E), amygdala (B, F), hippocampus (C, G) and hypothalamus (D, H) of a female non-human primate. The lower panels are also representative micrographs of the replication center in a male non-human primate. The number, size and intracellular localization of the replication center varies. A and F scale bar = 500 nm. B-E, G and H scale bar = 1 um.

(TIF)

S6 Fig. The detection of EEEV particles enclosed within vesicles via transmission electron microscopy (TEM).

Sections from the thalamus of infected NHPs were examined and representative micrographs are shown. Red arrows indicate virus particles. Scale bar = 100 nm.

(TIF)

S7 Fig. The detection of necrotic lesions in the thalamus of NHP #1 via transmission electron microscopy (TEM).

Red arrows indicate virus particles. Scale bars: A = 400 nm, B = 200 nm, C = 100 nm.

(TIF)

S1 Table. List of tissue sections from each organ.

(TIF)

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

This study was supported by a grant from Medical Countermeasure Systems-Joint Vaccine Acquisition Program [Grant #A5XA0A7444182001 (FN and MLP)]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Weston JH, Welsh MD, McLoughlin MF, Todd D. Salmon pancreas disease virus, an alphavirus infecting farmed Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L. Virology. 1999;256(2):188–95. doi: 10.1006/viro.1999.9654 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Villoing S, Bearzotti M, Chilmonczyk S, Castric J, Bremont M. Rainbow trout sleeping disease virus is an atypical alphavirus. J Virol. 2000;74(1):173–83. doi: 10.1128/jvi.74.1.173-183.2000 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC111526. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Nasar F, Palacios G, Gorchakov RV, Guzman H, Da Rosa AP, Savji N, et al. Eilat virus, a unique alphavirus with host range restricted to insects by RNA replication. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(36):14622–7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1204787109 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3437828. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.La Linn M, Gardner J, Warrilow D, Darnell GA, McMahon CR, Field I, et al. Arbovirus of marine mammals: a new alphavirus isolated from the elephant seal louse, Lepidophthirus macrorhini. J Virol. 2001;75(9):4103–9. doi: 10.1128/JVI.75.9.4103-4109.2001 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC114155. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Forrester NL, Palacios G, Tesh RB, Savji N, Guzman H, Sherman M, et al. Genome-scale phylogeny of the alphavirus genus suggests a marine origin. J Virol. 2012;86(5):2729–38. doi: 10.1128/JVI.05591-11 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3302268. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Fields BN, Knipe DM, Howley PM. Fields virology. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Lindsey NP, Staples JE, Fischer M. Eastern Equine Encephalitis Virus in the United States, 2003–2016. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2018;98(5):1472–7. Epub 2018/03/21. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.17-0927 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5953388. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Trefry JC, Rossi FD, Accardi MV, Dorsey BL, Sprague TR, Wollen-Roberts SE, et al. The utilization of advance telemetry to investigate critical physiological parameters including electroencephalography in cynomolgus macaques following aerosol challenge with eastern equine encephalitis virus. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021;15(6):e0009424. Epub 2021/06/18. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009424 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8259972. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.National Research Council (U.S.). Committee for the Update of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals., Institute for Laboratory Animal Research (U.S.), National Academies Press (U.S.). Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals. 8th ed. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2011. xxv, 220 p. p. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ko SY, Akahata W, Yang ES, Kong WP, Burke CW, Honnold SP, et al. A virus-like particle vaccine prevents equine encephalitis virus infection in nonhuman primates. Sci Transl Med. 2019;11(492). Epub 2019/05/17. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aav3113 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Reed DS, Lackemeyer MG, Garza NL, Norris S, Gamble S, Sullivan LJ, et al. Severe encephalitis in cynomolgus macaques exposed to aerosolized Eastern equine encephalitis virus. J Infect Dis. 2007;196(3):441–50. doi: 10.1086/519391 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Roy CJ, Adams AP, Wang E, Leal G, Seymour RL, Sivasubramani SK, et al. A chimeric Sindbis-based vaccine protects cynomolgus macaques against a lethal aerosol challenge of eastern equine encephalitis virus. Vaccine. 2013;31(11):1464–70. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.01.014 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3581708. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Steele KE, Twenhafel NA. REVIEW PAPER: pathology of animal models of alphavirus encephalitis. Vet Pathol. 2010;47(5):790–805. Epub 2010/06/17. doi: 10.1177/0300985810372508 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Porter AI, Erwin-Cohen RA, Twenhafel N, Chance T, Yee SB, Kern SJ, et al. Characterization and pathogenesis of aerosolized eastern equine encephalitis in the common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus). Virol J. 2017;14(1):25. Epub 2017/02/09. doi: 10.1186/s12985-017-0687-7 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5297202. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Phelps AL, O’Brien LM, Eastaugh LS, Davies C, Lever, Ennis J, et al. Aerosol infection of Balb/c mice with eastern equine encephalitis virus; susceptibility and lethality. Virol J. 2019;16(1):2. Epub 2019/01/07. doi: 10.1186/s12985-018-1103-7 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6321726. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Honnold SP, Mossel EC, Bakken RR, Lind CM, Cohen JW, Eccleston LT, et al. Eastern equine encephalitis virus in mice II: pathogenesis is dependent on route of exposure. Virol J. 2015;12:154. Epub 2015/10/02. doi: 10.1186/s12985-015-0385-2 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4589026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Roy CJ, Reed DS, Wilhelmsen CL, Hartings J, Norris S, Steele KE. Pathogenesis of aerosolized Eastern Equine Encephalitis virus infection in guinea pigs. Virol J. 2009;6:170. doi: 10.1186/1743-422X-6-170 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2770496. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Andrews C, Gerdin J, Patterson J, Buckles EL, Fitzgerald SD. Eastern equine encephalitis in puppies in Michigan and New York states. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2018;30(4):633–6. Epub 2018/05/03. doi: 10.1177/1040638718774616 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6505920. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Bastian FO, Wende RD, Singer DB, Zeller RS. Eastern equine encephalomyelitis. Histopathologic and ultrastructural changes with isolation of the virus in a human case. Am J Clin Pathol. 1975;64(1):10–3. Epub 1975/07/01. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/64.1.10 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Bauer RW, Gill MS, Poston RP, Kim DY. Naturally occurring eastern equine encephalitis in a Hampshire wether. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2005;17(3):281–5. Epub 2005/06/11. doi: 10.1177/104063870501700314 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Belle EA, Grant LS, Thorburn MJ. An Outbreak of Eastern Equine Encephalomyelitis in Jamaica. Ii. Laboratory Diagnosis and Pathology of Eastern Equine Encephalomyelitis in Jamaica. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1964;13:335–41. Epub 1964/03/01. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.1964.13.335 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Berlin D, Gilani AI, Grewal AK, Fowkes M. Eastern equine encephalitis. Pract Neurol. 2017;17(5):387–91. Epub 2017/07/30. doi: 10.1136/practneurol-2017-001659 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Chenier S, Cote G, Vanderstock J, Macieira S, Laperle A, Helie P. An eastern equine encephalomyelitis (EEE) outbreak in Quebec in the fall of 2008. Can Vet J. 2010;51(9):1011–5. Epub 2010/12/02. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2920158. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Del Piero F, Wilkins PA, Dubovi EJ, Biolatti B, Cantile C. Clinical, pathologic, immunohistochemical, and virologic findings of eastern equine encephalomyelitis in two horses. Vet Pathol. 2001;38(4):451–6. Epub 2001/07/27. doi: 10.1354/vp.38-4-451 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Deresiewicz RL, Thaler SJ, Hsu L, Zamani AA. Clinical and neuroradiographic manifestations of eastern equine encephalitis. N Engl J Med. 1997;336(26):1867–74. Epub 1997/06/26. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199706263362604 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Elvinger F, Baldwin CA, Liggett AD, Tang KN, Dove CR. Protection of pigs by vaccination of pregnant sows against eastern equine encephalomyelitis virus. Vet Microbiol. 1996;51(3–4):229–39. Epub 1996/08/01. doi: 10.1016/0378-1135(96)00037-5 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7117144. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Elvinger F, Liggett AD, Tang KN, Harrison LR, Cole JR Jr., Baldwin CA, et al. Eastern equine encephalomyelitis virus infection in swine. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1994;205(7):1014–6. Epub 1994/10/01. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ethier M, Rogg J. Eastern equine encephalitis: MRI findings in two patients. Med Health R I. 2012;95(7):227–9. Epub 2012/08/30. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Farber S, Hill A, Connerly ML, Dingle JH. Encephalitis in infants and children—Caused by the virus of the eastern variety of equine encephalitis. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1940;114:1725–31. PubMed PMID: WOS:000201651800058. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Farrar MD, Miller DL, Baldwin CA, Stiver SL, Hall CL. Eastern equine encephalitis in dogs. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2005;17(6):614–7. Epub 2006/02/16. doi: 10.1177/104063870501700619 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Feemster RF. Outbreak of Encephalitis in Man Due to the Eastern Virus of Equine Encephalomyelitis. Am J Public Health Nations Health. 1938;28(12):1403–10. Epub 1938/12/01. doi: 10.2105/ajph.28.12.1403 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1527806. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Garen PD, Tsai TF, Powers JM. Human eastern equine encephalitis: immunohistochemistry and ultrastructure. Mod Pathol. 1999;12(6):646–52. Epub 1999/07/07. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Gregory CR, Latimer KS, Niagro FD, Campagnoli RP, Steffens WL, Ritchie BW. Detection of eastern equine encephalomyelitis virus RNA in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues using DNA in situ hybridization. J Vet Diagn Invest. 1996;8(2):151–5. Epub 1996/04/01. doi: 10.1177/104063879600800202 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Harvala H, Bremner J, Kealey S, Weller B, McLellan S, Lloyd G, et al. Case report: Eastern equine encephalitis virus imported to the UK. J Med Virol. 2009;81(2):305–8. Epub 2008/12/25. doi: 10.1002/jmv.21379 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Hirsch MS, DeMaria A Jr., Schaefer PW, Branda JA. Case records of the Massachusetts General Hospital. Case 22–2008. A 52-year-old woman with fever and confusion. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(3):294–303. Epub 2008/07/19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMcpc0804149 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Hrabak T, Yerkey MW, Callerame K, Graham K. Eastern equine encephalitis presenting as psychosis. J Miss State Med Assoc. 2002;43(4):109–10. Epub 2002/05/07. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Jordan RA, Wagner JA, McCrumb FR. Eastern Equine Encephalitis: Report of a Case with Autopsy. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1965;14:470–4. Epub 1965/05/01. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.1965.14.470 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Kim AS, Austin SK, Gardner CL, Zuiani A, Reed DS, Trobaugh DW, et al. Protective antibodies against Eastern equine encephalitis virus bind to epitopes in domains A and B of the E2 glycoprotein. Nat Microbiol. 2019;4(1):187–97. Epub 2018/11/21. doi: 10.1038/s41564-018-0286-4 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6294662. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Kim JH, Booss J, Manuelidis EE, Duncan CC. Human eastern equine encephalitis. Electron microscopic study of a brain biopsy. Am J Clin Pathol. 1985;84(2):223–7. Epub 1985/08/01. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/84.2.223 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Kiupel M, Fitzgerald SD, Pennick KE, Cooley TM, O’Brien DJ, Bolin SR, et al. Distribution of eastern equine encephalomyelitis viral protein and nucleic acid within central nervous tissue lesions in white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Vet Pathol. 2013;50(6):1058–62. Epub 2013/05/21. doi: 10.1177/0300985813488956 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Lury KM, Castillo M. Eastern equine encephalitis: CT and MRI findings in one case. Emerg Radiol. 2004;11(1):46–8. Epub 2004/08/17. doi: 10.1007/s10140-004-0350-7 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.McGee ED, Littleton CH, Mapp JB, Brown RJ. Eastern equine encephalomyelitis in an adult cow. Vet Pathol. 1992;29(4):361–3. Epub 1992/07/01. doi: 10.1177/030098589202900414 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Morse RP, Bennish ML, Darras BT. Eastern equine encephalitis presenting with a focal brain lesion. Pediatr Neurol. 1992;8(6):473–5. Epub 1992/11/01. doi: 10.1016/0887-8994(92)90013-o . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Mukerji SS, Lam AD, Wilson MR. Eastern Equine Encephalitis Treated With Intravenous Immunoglobulins. Neurohospitalist. 2016;6(1):29–31. Epub 2016/01/08. doi: 10.1177/1941874415578533 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4680893. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Nathanson N, Stolley PD, Boolukos PJ. Eastern equine encephalitis. Distribution of central nervous system lesions in man and Rhesus monkey. J Comp Pathol. 1969;79(1):109–15. Epub 1969/01/01. doi: 10.1016/0021-9975(69)90034-6 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Nickerson JP, Kannabiran S, Burbank HN. MRI findings in eastern equine encephalitis: the "parenthesis" sign. Clin Imaging. 2016;40(2):222–3. Epub 2016/03/21. doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2015.10.012 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Nolen-Walston R, Bedenice D, Rodriguez C, Rushton S, Bright A, Fecteau ME, et al. Eastern equine encephalitis in 9 South American camelids. J Vet Intern Med. 2007;21(4):846–52. Epub 2007/08/22. doi: 10.1892/0891-6640(2007)21[846:eeeisa]2.0.co;2 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Patterson JS, Maes RK, Mullaney TP, Benson CL. Immunohistochemical diagnosis of eastern equine encephalomyelitis. J Vet Diagn Invest. 1996;8(2):156–60. Epub 1996/04/01. doi: 10.1177/104063879600800203 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Pennick KE, McKnight CA, Patterson JS, Latimer KS, Maes RK, Wise AG, et al. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry for Eastern equine encephalitis virus and West Nile virus in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded brain tissue of horses. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2012;24(2):333–8. Epub 2012/03/02. doi: 10.1177/1040638711435230 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Piliero PJ, Brody J, Zamani A, Deresiewicz RL. Eastern equine encephalitis presenting as focal neuroradiographic abnormalities: case report and review. Clin Infect Dis. 1994;18(6):985–8. Epub 1994/06/01. doi: 10.1093/clinids/18.6.985 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Poonacha KB, Gregory CR, Vickers ML. Intestinal lesions in a horse associated with eastern equine encephalomyelitis virus infection. Vet Pathol. 1998;35(6):535–8. Epub 1998/11/21. doi: 10.1177/030098589803500608 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Pouch SM, Katugaha SB, Shieh WJ, Annambhotla P, Walker WL, Basavaraju SV, et al. Transmission of Eastern Equine Encephalitis Virus from an Organ Donor to Three Transplant Recipients. Clin Infect Dis. 2018. Epub 2018/10/30. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciy923 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6488434. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Przelomski MM, O’Rourke E, Grady GF, Berardi VP, Markley HG. Eastern equine encephalitis in Massachusetts: a report of 16 cases, 1970–1984. Neurology. 1988;38(5):736–9. Epub 1988/05/01. doi: 10.1212/wnl.38.5.736 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Pursell AR, Mitchell FE, Seibold HR. Naturally occurring and experimentally induced eastern encephalomyelitis in calves. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1976;169(10):1101–3. Epub 1976/11/15. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Pursell AR, Peckham JC, Cole JR Jr., Stewart WC, Mitchell FE. Naturally occurring and artificially induced eastern encephalomyelitis in pigs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1972;161(10):1143–7. Epub 1972/11/15. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Schmitt SM, Cooley TM, Fitzgerald SD, Bolin SR, Lim A, Schaefer SM, et al. An outbreak of Eastern equine encephalitis virus in free-ranging white-tailed deer in Michigan. J Wildl Dis. 2007;43(4):635–44. Epub 2007/11/07. doi: 10.7589/0090-3558-43.4.635 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Shah KJ, Cherabuddi K. Case of eastern equine encephalitis presenting in winter. BMJ Case Rep. 2016;2016. Epub 2016/05/12. doi: 10.1136/bcr-2016-215270 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4885365. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Silverman MA, Misasi J, Smole S, Feldman HA, Cohen AB, Santagata S, et al. Eastern equine encephalitis in children, Massachusetts and New Hampshire,USA, 1970–2010. Emerg Infect Dis. 2013;19(2):194–201; quiz 352. Epub 2013/01/25. doi: 10.3201/eid1902.120039 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3559032. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Solomon IH, Ciarlini P, Santagata S, Ahmed AA, De Girolami U, Prasad S, et al. Fatal Eastern Equine Encephalitis in a Patient on Maintenance Rituximab: A Case Report. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2017;4(1):ofx021. Epub 2017/05/10. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofx021 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5414020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Tate CM, Howerth EW, Stallknecht DE, Allison AB, Fischer JR, Mead DG. Eastern equine encephalitis in a free-ranging white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). J Wildl Dis. 2005;41(1):241–5. Epub 2005/04/14. doi: 10.7589/0090-3558-41.1.241 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Vogel P, Kell WM, Fritz DL, Parker MD, Schoepp RJ. Early events in the pathogenesis of eastern equine encephalitis virus in mice. Am J Pathol. 2005;166(1):159–71. Epub 2005/01/06. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9440(10)62241-9 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1602312. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Adams AP, Aronson JF, Tardif SD, Patterson JL, Brasky KM, Geiger R, et al. Common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus) as a nonhuman primate model to assess the virulence of eastern equine encephalitis virus strains. J Virol. 2008;82(18):9035–42. Epub 2008/07/11. doi: 10.1128/JVI.00674-08 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2546911. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Hurst EW. Infection of therhesus monkey (Macaca mulatta) and the guinea-pig with the virus of equine encephalomyelitis. The Journal of Pathology and Bacteriology. 1936;42(1):271–302. doi: 10.1002/path.1700420128 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Jungherr EL, Helmboldt CF, Satriano SF, Luginbuhl RE. Investigation of eastern equine encephalomyelitis. III. Pathology in pheasants and incidental observations in feral birds. Am J Hyg. 1958;67(1):10–20. Epub 1958/01/01. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.King LS. Studies on Eastern Equine Encephalomyelitis: Ii. Pathogenesis of the Disease in the Guinea Pig. J Exp Med. 1939;69(5):675–90. Epub 1939/04/30. doi: 10.1084/jem.69.5.675 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2133754. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.King LS. Studies on Eastern Equine Encephalomyelitis: V. Histopathology in the Mouse. J Exp Med. 1940;71(1):107–12. Epub 1940/01/01. doi: 10.1084/jem.71.1.107 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2134999. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Ognianov D, Fernandez A. [Studies on the pathogenesis of eastern equine encephalomyelitis (EEE) in the mouse after injections of virus]. Zentralbl Veterinarmed B. 1972;19(2):89–93. Epub 1972/02/01. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Paessler S, Aguilar P, Anishchenko M, Wang HQ, Aronson J, Campbell G, et al. The hamster as an animal model for eastern equine encephalitis—and its use in studies of virus entrance into the brain. J Infect Dis. 2004;189(11):2072–6. Epub 2004/05/15. doi: 10.1086/383246 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Wendell LC, Potter NS, Roth JL, Salloway SP, Thompson BB. Successful management of severe neuroinvasive eastern equine encephalitis. Neurocrit Care. 2013;19(1):111–5. Epub 2013/06/05. doi: 10.1007/s12028-013-9822-5 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Smith DR, Schmaljohn CS, Badger C, Ostrowski K, Zeng X, Grimes SD, et al. Comparative pathology study of Venezuelan, eastern, and western equine encephalitis viruses in non-human primates. Antiviral Res. 2020;182:104875. Epub 2020/08/07. doi: 10.1016/j.antiviral.2020.104875 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Murphy FA, Whitfield SG. Eastern equine encephalitis virus infection: electron microscopic studies of mouse central nervous system. Exp Mol Pathol. 1970;13(2):131–46. Epub 1970/10/01. doi: 10.1016/0014-4800(70)90001-8 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Zhang R, Hryc CF, Cong Y, Liu X, Jakana J, Gorchakov R, et al. 4.4 A cryo-EM structure of an enveloped alphavirus Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus. EMBO J. 2011;30(18):3854–63. Epub 2011/08/11. doi: 10.1038/emboj.2011.261 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3173789. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Sherman MB, Weaver SC. Structure of the recombinant alphavirus Western equine encephalitis virus revealed by cryoelectron microscopy. J Virol. 2010;84(19):9775–82. Epub 2010/07/16. doi: 10.1128/JVI.00876-10 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2937749. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Chen L, Wang M, Zhu D, Sun Z, Ma J, Wang J, et al. Implication for alphavirus host-cell entry and assembly indicated by a 3.5A resolution cryo-EM structure. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):5326. Epub 2018/12/16. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-07704-x ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6294011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Kostyuchenko VA, Jakana J, Liu X, Haddow AD, Aung M, Weaver SC, et al. The structure of barmah forest virus as revealed by cryo-electron microscopy at a 6-angstrom resolution has detailed transmembrane protein architecture and interactions. J Virol. 2011;85(18):9327–33. Epub 2011/07/15. doi: 10.1128/JVI.05015-11 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3165765. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Boonstra H, Oosterhuis JW, Oosterhuis AM, Fleuren GJ. Cervical tissue shrinkage by formaldehyde fixation, paraffin wax embedding, section cutting and mounting. Virchows Arch A Pathol Anat Histopathol. 1983;402(2):195–201. Epub 1983/01/01. doi: 10.1007/BF00695061 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Luft JH. Embedding Media—Old and New. Advanced Techniques in Biological Electron Microscopy 1973. p. 1–34. [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Crang RFE, Klomparens KL. Artifacts in Biological Electron Microscopy: Springer; 1988. [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Maday S, Twelvetrees AE, Moughamian AJ, Holzbaur EL. Axonal transport: cargo-specific mechanisms of motility and regulation. Neuron. 2014;84(2):292–309. Epub 2014/11/07. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.10.019 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4269290. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Monath TP, Cropp CB, Harrison AK. Mode of entry of a neurotropic arbovirus into the central nervous system. Reinvestigation of an old controversy. Lab Invest. 1983;48(4):399–410. Epub 1983/04/01. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Bauer A, Nolden T, Schroter J, Romer-Oberdorfer A, Gluska S, Perlson E, et al. Anterograde glycoprotein-dependent transport of newly generated rabies virus in dorsal root ganglion neurons. J Virol. 2014;88(24):14172–83. Epub 2014/10/03. doi: 10.1128/JVI.02254-14 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4249153. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Samuel MA, Wang H, Siddharthan V, Morrey JD, Diamond MS. Axonal transport mediates West Nile virus entry into the central nervous system and induces acute flaccid paralysis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104(43):17140–5. Epub 2007/10/18. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0705837104 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2040476. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Qin C, Li J, Tang K. The Paraventricular Nucleus of the Hypothalamus: Development, Function, and Human Diseases. Endocrinology. 2018;159(9):3458–72. Epub 2018/07/28. doi: 10.1210/en.2018-00453 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Lozic M, Sarenac O, Murphy D, Japundzic-Zigon N. Vasopressin, Central Autonomic Control and Blood Pressure Regulation. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2018;20(2):11. Epub 2018/02/27. doi: 10.1007/s11906-018-0811-0 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Herzog ED, Hermanstyne T, Smyllie NJ, Hastings MH. Regulating the Suprachiasmatic Nucleus (SCN) Circadian Clockwork: Interplay between Cell-Autonomous and Circuit-Level Mechanisms. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2017;9(1). Epub 2017/01/05. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a027706 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5204321. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Szymusiak R, McGinty D. Hypothalamic regulation of sleep and arousal. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1129:275–86. Epub 2008/07/02. doi: 10.1196/annals.1417.027 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Fukushi I, Yokota S, Okada Y. The role of the hypothalamus in modulation of respiration. Respir Physiol Neurobiol. 2019;265:172–9. Epub 2018/07/17. doi: 10.1016/j.resp.2018.07.003 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Rahmouni K. Cardiovascular Regulation by the Arcuate Nucleus of the Hypothalamus: Neurocircuitry and Signaling Systems. Hypertension. 2016;67(6):1064–71. Epub 2016/04/06. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.115.06425 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4865428. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Zimmerman CA, Leib DE, Knight ZA. Neural circuits underlying thirst and fluid homeostasis. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2017;18(8):459–69. Epub 2017/06/24. doi: 10.1038/nrn.2017.71 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5955721. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Tan CL, Knight ZA. Regulation of Body Temperature by the Nervous System. Neuron. 2018;98(1):31–48. Epub 2018/04/06. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2018.02.022 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6034117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Fu ZF, Weihe E, Zheng YM, Schafer MK, Sheng H, Corisdeo S, et al. Differential effects of rabies and borna disease viruses on immediate-early- and late-response gene expression in brain tissues. J Virol. 1993;67(11):6674–81. Epub 1993/11/01. doi: 10.1128/JVI.67.11.6674-6681.1993 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC238106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Tsiang H. Neuronal function impairment in rabies-infected rat brain. J Gen Virol. 1982;61 (Pt 2):277–81. Epub 1982/08/01. doi: 10.1099/0022-1317-61-2-277 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Bouzamondo E, Ladogana A, Tsiang H. Alteration of potassium-evoked 5-HT release from virus-infected rat cortical synaptosomes. Neuroreport. 1993;4(5):555–8. Epub 1993/05/01. doi: 10.1097/00001756-199305000-00023 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Ceccaldi PE, Fillion MP, Ermine A, Tsiang H, Fillion G. Rabies virus selectively alters 5-HT1 receptor subtypes in rat brain. Eur J Pharmacol. 1993;245(2):129–38. Epub 1993/04/15. doi: 10.1016/0922-4106(93)90120-x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Iwata M, Unno T, Minamoto N, Ohashi H, Komori S. Rabies virus infection prevents the modulation by alpha(2)-adrenoceptors, but not muscarinic receptors, of Ca(2+) channels in NG108-15 cells. Eur J Pharmacol. 2000;404(1–2):79–88. Epub 2000/09/12. doi: 10.1016/s0014-2999(00)00621-x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Iwata M, Komori S, Unno T, Minamoto N, Ohashi H. Modification of membrane currents in mouse neuroblastoma cells following infection with rabies virus. Br J Pharmacol. 1999;126(8):1691–8. Epub 1999/06/18. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjp.0702473 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1565954. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Scott CA, Rossiter JP, Andrew RD, Jackson AC. Structural abnormalities in neurons are sufficient to explain the clinical disease and fatal outcome of experimental rabies in yellow fluorescent protein-expressing transgenic mice. J Virol. 2008;82(1):513–21. Epub 2007/10/19. doi: 10.1128/JVI.01677-07 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2224401. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Sundaramoorthy V, Green D, Locke K, O’Brien CM, Dearnley M, Bingham J. Novel role of SARM1 mediated axonal degeneration in the pathogenesis of rabies. PLoS Pathog. 2020;16(2):e1008343. Epub 2020/02/19. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1008343 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7048299. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010081.r001

Decision Letter 0

Rebecca Rico-Hesse, Doug E Brackney

15 Jan 2021

Dear Dr Nasar,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Eastern Equine Encephalitis Virus Rapidly Infects and Disseminates in the Brain and Spinal Cord of Infected Cynomolgus Macaques Following Aerosol Challenge" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

Thank you again for your submission. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Doug E Brackney, PhD

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Rebecca Rico-Hesse

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: No the methodology is not clearly articulated. The authors mention that all details can be found in a companion manuscript that is not included here.

Line 393: the details of the virus stock should be described here as well.

Line 405: the study design needs to be described here as well.

Line 409: what exactly does the “aerosol route” mean? Was this large or small particle aerosols? Via a nebulizer? intrabronchial instillation? Why was the specific inoculum dose chosen?

Histopathology figures: all histopathology figures would benefit by the inclusion of symbols or arrowheads highlighting key pathological findings. This is critically important for the nonspecialist.

Reviewer #2: The study aims to provide descriptive pathological context to EEEV aerosol challenged cynomolgus macaques and is appropriately designed/powered for the analyses performed. Viral localization and cellular tropism are explored in four replicate study animals. As a descriptive study, statistical analyses were not performed. All appropriate ethical considerations have been met.

Comments

Were other methodologies considered for detecting viral replication such as staining for double-stranded RNA as a proxy for replication centers?

Reviewer #3: see summary and general comments below

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: Line 123: the experimental results section should include some contextualization of the experimental parameters, e.g., dose, timing, n=?, etc. That is, what exactly was done to the animals to infect them. In addition, how did you confirm productive infection? Were there daily blood draws? Does aerosol inoculation result in systemic infection? Seroconversion?

Line 125: what was the time of euthansia?

Line 133: what companion manuscript?

Line 244-245: are there differences in the way virus is administered in the different animal models that could explain differences in pathology and replication?

Line 226-269: it isn’t clear if any of these referenced studies were done with macaques.

Line 319-324: None of the telemetry data are presented in the results.

Line 381: this is the first mention of the timing of clinical signs after inoculation. This should be more thoroughly described in the results section.

Reviewer #2: Results are well organized and figures are of sufficient quality to support the findings.

Comments

Figures (General): Since sections from control animals are unavailable for comparison, please provide callouts (arrows or otherwise) to example histology lesions described in text for additional clarity.

Reviewer #3: see summary and general comments below

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: Discussion: overall, the discussion is comprehensive but it in many places it borders on results. In addition, it was unclear in many instances whether results from the companion manuscript were simply being described again here. I suggest trying to tighten the discussion to only include the information necessary to understand the study described here.

Reviewer #2: The authors’ conclusions are supported by the pathological findings. Mechanisms of virus spread within neural tissue is extrapolated from virus localization at the tissue (IHC/ISH) and cellular level (TEM). The authors adequately contextualized their findings with previous studies in NHPs and small animal models of EEEV infection, including aerosol exposure.

Comments

Lines 278-279: Add context to expected cellular targets for infection (i.e. inhibition in myeloid cells described in Trobaugh et al. 2014 and others)

Reviewer #3: see summary and general comments below

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: Grammar and syntax could be improved throughout and the manuscript would benefit from a careful editorial review.

Reviewer #2: Were lymphatics (other than spleen) also examined for EEEV (RNA or antigen)?

Lines 393-394: If a citation to the companion manuscript is unavailable at the time of acceptance, please provide sufficient detail about virus stock, including passage history.

Lines 439-441: Please provide a citation or additional information for non-commercial reagent. What alphavirus antigen(s) was/were used to derive polyclonal antibody?

Lines 454-458: Please provide a citation or additional information for non-commercial reagent. Was Rabbit anti-EEEV raised against whole virus or specific antigenic regions?

Reviewer #3: see summary and general comments below

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: Here the authors have produced a paper investigating pathogenic outcomes in crab-eating macaques that were infected with eastern equine encephalitis virus. Using aerosol inoculation, they demonstrate that the virus is found in many parts of the brain and spinal cord, and the virus gets there via the olfactory bulb. While these results are interesting and important, conclusions from this work are diminished by the lack of information presented pertaining to overall infection parameters. In addition, the authors reference a companion manuscript that contains additional details but some of these details are critical for interpretation of the work presented herein. In general, not enough information is presented on the overall study design and acute infection parameters. The work seems to be divided in the two papers strictly along the lines of pre vs. post euthanasia analyses—althought this is difficult to assess because the companion manuscript was not included. You basically need to switch back and forth between the two to manuscripts to understand what is happening, and that isn’t possible with submission of this manuscript. I am not clear on the justification for splitting the study into separate manuscripts, so unless this is clearly delineated I would strongly encourage the team to submit a single combined manuscript. At a minimum this manuscript needs to be written in a manner that it is stand alone and can be fully understood without significant references of the companion manuscript.

Reviewer #2: Williams et al. infected cynomolgus macaques with eastern equine encephalitis virus (EEEV) via aerosol challenge and explored the clinical pathology and cellular tropism in detail at the time of necropsy. The authors used a collection of techniques to identify viral RNA and antigens in host organs and describe clinically significant lesions associated with disease. This manuscript is a companion to additional work exploring the virology and clinical course of disease. The authors present the first comprehensive analysis of clinical pathology associated with EEEV aerosol exposure in cynomolgus macaques, building upon the work of Reed et al. 2007 and others. Furthermore, this work explores in detail the cellular tropism and pathology associated with EEEV replication in the brain.

Reviewer #3: Williams et al describe a pathogenesis study in cynomolgus macaques exposed by aerosol to eastern equine encephalitis virus (EEEV). This appears to be part of a larger study where some of the results are described in a companion manuscript that focuses on the response to infection measured by telemetry. The current manuscript describes the microscopic lesions in the tissues collected when the animals were euthanized on days 4-5 post-infection. Major findings include virus was only detected in the brain and spinal cord, but limited to no histopathological lesions were observed. Their results suggest that EEEV initially replicates in the olfactory bulb and is then transported throughout the brain by the neuronal axonal transport system assisting neuron-to-neuron spread. Neurons were found to be the primary target, but their data suggests that this leads to neuronal dysfunction rather than death. While this study is largely descriptive, the in-depth characterization of the pathogenesis in the tissues (particularly by EM) is an important contribution to the field. However, the manuscript would be significantly improved by adding clarification for some of their conclusions and consolidating/reducing the number of figures to the major findings.

Major comments:

1. It is difficult to follow some aspects of the results because the authors keep referring to the “companion manuscript” but no reference is provided. More details need to be provided. At a minimum the reference needs to be provided. It seems like these two manuscripts should be published together.

2. The number of figures needs to be reduced and should be consolidated to present/highlight major findings. For example, Figure 1 is not necessary because it shows no histopathology. For other figures, the authors should show representative images and not the image from each animal to reduce the number of figures. For example, figures 3, 4, 5, and 6 could all be combined into one figure with representative images. The same for figures 7, 8, 9. Figures 10-12 could be combined into one as well.

3. Some of the major findings and statements conflict with previous reports on the pathogenesis of EEEV in NHPs and are not discussed. For example, line 244-245 states that the dissemination of EEEV following aerosol infection has not been investigated in previous macaque studies, but this is not accurate. For example, Roy et al. 2013 found high viral loads in peripheral tissues of animals that succumbed to infection on days 4-6 post-infection. Additionally, the pathology data for the Reed et al. 2007 JID article is published by Steele and Twenhafel 2010 Vet. Pathol. 47, 790—805. This article describes the key pathological features in the brain as severe meningoencephalomyelitis. These results seem to conflict with the current study where the authors’ state that “little or no pathological lesions” were observed. Also, pathogenesis studies of EEEV in NHPs by subcutaneous exposure (to mimic mosquito transmission) have been completed and should be discussed.

4. The authors need to make clearer that their findings are specifically for animals who have been exposed to EEEV by aerosol. For example, this could be clarified in lines 227-228 and 242-243. It would be beneficial if the authors would expand their discussion about what is known about the pathogenesis of EEEV primarily in humans (not lump all mammalian species as a whole; lines 257-258) and how their results compare. For example, vasculitis is an important pathological feature in humans infected with EEEV and have been reported in other aerosol exposure studies of EEEV in cynomolgus macaques, but I do not see it discussed in the current study. Why does it seem that the current study has different conclusions/findings compared to other aerosol exposure studies in cynomolgus macaques that did observe significant pathology in the brain?

Minor comments:

Line 135: Shouldn’t this be reported as PFU/g since it is the titer in tissue?

Line 139: Should “vacuolation of the neutrophil” be vacuolation of the neuropil?

All H&E images: Arrows should be added to highlight findings (i.e. necrosis, neutrophilic infiltrates, etc) for readers that are not used to looking at histopathology images.

--------------------

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Figure 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. 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 us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, PLOS recommends that you deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/submission-guidelines#loc-methods

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010081.r003

Decision Letter 1

Rebecca Rico-Hesse, Doug E Brackney

5 Oct 2021

Dear Dr Nasar,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Eastern Equine Encephalitis Virus Rapidly Infects and Disseminates in the Brain and Spinal Cord of Cynomolgus Macaques Following Aerosol Challenge" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

Generally speaking the reviewers were happy with the changes that were made to the manuscript; however, two reviewers felt that there were a number of issues that needed to be further discussed in detail within the discussion section of the manuscript.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Doug E Brackney, PhD

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Rebecca Rico-Hesse

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

Generally speaking the reviewers were happy with the changes that were made to the manuscript; however, two reviewers felt that there were a number of issues that needed to be further discussed in detail within the discussion section of the manuscript.

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: The objectives of the study are articulated but they should explain why the effort is limited to aerosol exposure only.

This reviewer questions if a detailed analysis of pathology from aerosol exposure with EEE gives a thorough picture of EEE pathology in NHPs.

What is the power calculation for the sample size [number of macaques (4)] used in the study to analyze data significance? How was this number determined? I realize NHP studies are costly.

yes, appears ethical and regulatory requirements have been met.

Reviewer #5: Methods of the manuscript are acceptable; however, alternative approaches that might improve the capacity for detection of replicating virus such as in situ hybridization for negative strand RNA would have been useful rather than reporting cytopathic vacuoles. Branched chain amplification coupled with RNAscope should be extremely sensitive for detection of replication intermediates.

Directly relevant to the hypothesized mechanism of disease progression (neuronal dysfunction) have the investigators examined means for characterizing this with specifically? Quantifying possible axonomal degeneration or some other marker for neuronal function?

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Otherwise, this work provides pathogenesis details not addressed in previous EEEV challenges following aerosol exposures. Having 21 figures and 5 supplemental figures makes for a rather (figure) dense paper and this reviewer considers it important where possible to consolidate data presentation critical for this paper or at least move some of the paper figures to the supplemental section.

Reviewer #5: Results presented are adequate but I would have liked to have seen some specific data regarding infiltrates and a rigorous assessment of whether EEEV RNA was identified. This addresses the central hypothesis generated and could also be related to reduced inflammation due to a lack of peripheral replication due to the route of exposure.

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Others have already shown encephalitic alphaviruses can gain entry to the CNS via the olfactory tract following intranasal or aerosol routes of challenge with neurovirulent alphaviruses in animal models. However, the studies by Williams et al. show little (to no) such evidence of virus replication outside the CNS as well as in the brain. This is a curious finding. Encephalitic alphaviruses (WEEV and VEEV) definitely show virus replication in the brain of mice following intranasal and peripheral routes of challenge but the authors here show minimal evidence of viral replication in macaque CNS. This is addressed in the Discussion but only in general terms and may highlight viral pathogenesis differences using different animal models.

Reviewer #5: Necrotic lesions, although reported to be very rare in this study, could significantly contribute to disease progression. The authors should indicate this as a possibility within the Discussion section.

More specific discussion regarding this route of infection should be made for interpretation of the results presented herein with previous reports. The lack of peripheral replication could have a significant impact on inducing innate immune responses and subsequent inflammation within the CNS.

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: No comment

Reviewer #5: The authors refer to a North American lineage virus. Functionally, EEEV is the only virus within this group after the South American lineage viruses were reclassified as Madriagas virus.

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: No general comments, reviewers responded thoughtfully to reviewers concerns.

The authors made a majority of the recommended changes requested during initial peer-review of this manuscript and if the changes were not made, a sufficient explanation was provided. The changes significantly enhanced the credibility and scientific nature of the manuscript. The readers of the article can now fully understand the scientific methods used throughout this study and accurately interpret the scientific findings without bias or incomplete information.

Reviewer #4: PTND-20-02124R1: This work by Williams et.al. sheds light on EEEV pathogenesis in the CNS of an NHP (macaques) following aerosol exposure of EEEV. The team used advanced telemetry to measure the animal’s physiological parameters following aerosol exposure. Others have already shown encephalitic alphaviruses can gain entry to the CNS via the olfactory tract following intranasal or aerosol routes of challenge with neurovirulent alphaviruses in animal models. However, the studies by Williams et al. show little (to no) such evidence of virus replication outside the CNS as well as in the brain. Encephalitic alphaviruses (WEEV and VEEV) definitely show virus replication in the brain of mice following intranasal and peripheral routes of challenge but the authors here show minimal evidence in macaques. This is addressed in the Discussion but only in general terms but may highlight pathogenesis differences using different animal models. Additionally, outside of possible exposures through bioterrorist events or laboratory accidents, does it make sense to report aerosol exposures only and pass on any attempts to define or describe outcomes of virus pathology/challenge from peripheral exposures (the current danger from mosquito-borne alphaviruses). I realize NHP studies are expensive but some of the claims reported here appear to contradict previous pathogenesis studies in NHP and other animal models and there is minimal discussion of this point. Are the authors assuming the pathologies will be the same for aerosol vs peripheral exposures in NHPs? Others have shown differences in virus distribution and pathology in the CNS when using peripheral vs intranasal virus challenges and the authors acknowledge this in the Discussion. Aerosol challenges may not give the complete story in terms of pathology and may be specific to route of virus entry.

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

--------------------

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 #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

Figure 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. 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 us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

References

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.

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010081.r005

Decision Letter 2

Rebecca Rico-Hesse, Doug E Brackney

9 Dec 2021

Dear Dr Nasar,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Eastern Equine Encephalitis Virus Rapidly Infects and Disseminates in the Brain and Spinal Cord of Cynomolgus Macaques Following Aerosol Challenge' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Doug E Brackney, PhD

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Rebecca Rico-Hesse

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010081.r006

Acceptance letter

Rebecca Rico-Hesse, Doug E Brackney

10 Feb 2022

Dear Dr Nasar,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Eastern Equine Encephalitis Virus Rapidly Infects and Disseminates in the Brain and Spinal Cord of Cynomolgus Macaques Following Aerosol Challenge," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Editorial, Viewpoint, Symposium, Review, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript will be published online unless you opted out of this process. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. The absence of EEEV RNA in visceral organs of infected cynomolgus macaques.

    The tissues were collected at the time of euthanasia. The presence of viral RNA was visualized via in situ hybridization (ISH). ISH was performed on the tissues of all four NHPs. Bar = 200 um.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. The absence of EEEV proteins in visceral organs of infected cynomolgus macaques.

    The tissues were collected at the time of euthanasia. The presence of viral proteins was visualized via immunohistochemistry (IHC). IHC was performed on the tissues of all four NHPs. Bar = 200 um.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. The extracellular distribution of EEEV virions in the thalamus of infected cynomolgus macaques.

    Sections from NHPs were examined via transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Representative micrographs from each NHP are shown.

    (TIF)

    S4 Fig. The localization of EEEV virions near synapses via transmission electron microscopy (TEM).

    Sections from the thalamus of each NHP were examined and representative micrographs from each NHP are shown. NHP #1 (A), NHP #2 (B), NHP #3 (C), and NHP #4 (D). Blue and red arrows show synapses and infectious virus particles, respectively. Bar = 600 nm.

    (TIF)

    S5 Fig. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) micrographs of viral replication centers within the brain of non-human primates.

    Top panels are representative electron micrographs of viral replication center (red asterisk) visible within the thalamus (A, E), amygdala (B, F), hippocampus (C, G) and hypothalamus (D, H) of a female non-human primate. The lower panels are also representative micrographs of the replication center in a male non-human primate. The number, size and intracellular localization of the replication center varies. A and F scale bar = 500 nm. B-E, G and H scale bar = 1 um.

    (TIF)

    S6 Fig. The detection of EEEV particles enclosed within vesicles via transmission electron microscopy (TEM).

    Sections from the thalamus of infected NHPs were examined and representative micrographs are shown. Red arrows indicate virus particles. Scale bar = 100 nm.

    (TIF)

    S7 Fig. The detection of necrotic lesions in the thalamus of NHP #1 via transmission electron microscopy (TEM).

    Red arrows indicate virus particles. Scale bars: A = 400 nm, B = 200 nm, C = 100 nm.

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. List of tissue sections from each organ.

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviwer Comments.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Responses to Reviewer Comments.docx

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES