The occurrence of elephant endotheliotropic herpesvirus infection in wild and captive Asian elephants in Thailand: Investigation based on viral DNA and host antibody

• Main Authors: Phirom Prompiram, Witthawat Wiriyarat, Benjaporn Bhusri, Weena Paungpin, Waleemas Jairak, Supaphen Sripiboon, Tuempong Wongtawan
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Veterinary World 2021-02-01
• Series: Veterinary World
• Subjects: carrier; elephant endotheliotropic herpesvirus; elephant; enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; polymerase chain reaction
• Online Access: http://www.veterinaryworld.org/Vol.14/February-2021/28.pdf

Background and Aim: Elephant endotheliotropic herpesvirus (EEHV) is a serious disease, threatening the life of young elephants. Many elephants have been infected with no clinical signs and may serve as carriers spreading this disease. It is important to monitor the disease through clinical signs and molecular diagnosis. In this study we investigated the occurrence of EEHV and the efficiency of different techniques used to monitor EEHV infection in various samples and populations of Asian elephants. Materials and Methods: Blood and trunk swabs were collected from live elephants, while visceral organs (lung, digestive tract, spleen, lymph nodes, and kidney) were collected from dead elephants. EEHV was detected by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in whole blood, trunk swabs, and visceral organs as samples, while elephant anti-EEHV immunoglobulin G (IgG) in serum was detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). A total of 162 samples were analyzed in this study: 129 from healthy, 26 from dead, and 7 from sick elephants. Results: The present study showed that the overall incidence of EEHV was 40.1% (n=65/162). Approximately 46.2% (n=12/26) and 85.7% (n=6/7) of dead and sick elephants were positive for EEHV by PCR, respectively. All sick elephants that were young and affected by EEHV clinical disease tested negative for the IgG antibody ELISA, suggesting primary EEHV infection in this group. In addition, 2.3% (n=3/129) of subclinical infections were detected using PCR, and trunk swab samples showed slightly higher sensitivity (5.3%, n=2/38) to detect EEHV than whole blood (1.2%, n=1/84). As many as, 48.4% (n=44/91) of healthy elephants were EEHV seropositive (ELISA-positive), suggesting that many elephants in Thailand had previously been infected. Overall, 30% of dead wild elephants had been infected with EEHV (n=3/10). Moreover, statistical analysis revealed no significant differences in the EEHV detection rate between different age groups or sexes (p>0.05). Conclusion: PCR is better than ELISA to detect EEHV active infection in dead/sick elephants and to monitor EEHV in young elephants. ELISA is suitable for detecting previous EEHV infection and carriers, particularly adults. Theoretically, we could use both PCR and ELISA to increase the sensitivity of testing, along with observing abnormal behavior to efficiently monitor this disease. Identification of EEHV carriers within elephant populations is important to prevent transmission to healthy individuals, especially young elephants with high mortality from EEHV. This is the first report from Thailand regarding EEHV infection in wild elephants, showing the importance of preventing disease transmission between captive and wild elephants.