Thalwitzer Susanne, Wachter Bettina, Robert Nadia, Wibbelt Gudrun, Müller Thomas, Lonzer Johann, Meli Marina L, Bay Gert, Hofer Heribert, Lutz Hans
Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Alfred-Kowalke-Strasse 17, D-10315 Berlin, Germany.
Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2010 Feb;17(2):232-8. doi: 10.1128/CVI.00345-09. Epub 2009 Dec 2.
Cheetah populations are diminishing rapidly in their natural habitat. One reason for their decline is thought to be a high susceptibility to (infectious) diseases because cheetahs in zoos suffer from high disease-induced mortality. Data on the health status of free-ranging cheetahs are scarce, and little is known about their exposure and susceptibility to infectious diseases. We determined seroprevalences to nine key viruses (feline herpesvirus 1, feline calicivirus, feline parvovirus, feline coronavirus, canine distemper virus, feline immunodeficiency virus [FIV], puma lentivirus, feline leukemia virus, and rabies virus) in 68 free-ranging cheetahs on east-central Namibian farmland, 24 nonvaccinated Namibian captive cheetahs, and several other wild carnivore species and conducted necropsies of cheetahs and other wild carnivores. Eight of 11 other wild carnivores were seropositive for at least one of the viruses, including the first record of an FIV-like infection in a wild felid west of the Kalahari, the caracal (Felis caracal). Seroprevalences of the free-ranging cheetahs were below 5% for all nine viruses, which is significantly lower than seroprevalences in nonvaccinated captive cheetahs and those for five of seven viruses in previously studied free-ranging cheetahs from north-central Namibia (L. Munson, L. Marker, E. Dubovi, J. A. Spencer, J. F. Evermann, and S. J. O'Brien, J. Wildl. Dis. 40:23-31, 2004). There was no clinical or pathological evidence of infectious diseases in living or dead cheetahs. The results suggest that while free-ranging wild carnivores may be a source of pathogens, the distribution of seroprevalences across studies mirrored local human population density and factors associated with human habitation, probably reflecting contact opportunities with (nonvaccinated) domestic and feral cats and dogs. They also suggest that Namibian cheetahs respond effectively to viral challenges, encouraging consistent and sustainable conservation efforts.
猎豹种群数量在其自然栖息地正迅速减少。其数量下降的一个原因被认为是对(传染性)疾病高度易感,因为动物园中的猎豹因疾病导致的死亡率很高。关于自由放养猎豹健康状况的数据稀缺,人们对它们接触传染病的情况以及易感性知之甚少。我们测定了纳米比亚中东部农田68只自由放养猎豹、24只未接种疫苗的纳米比亚圈养猎豹以及其他几种野生食肉动物物种对九种关键病毒(猫疱疹病毒1型、猫杯状病毒、猫细小病毒、猫冠状病毒、犬瘟热病毒、猫免疫缺陷病毒[FIV]、美洲狮慢病毒、猫白血病病毒和狂犬病病毒)的血清阳性率,并对猎豹和其他野生食肉动物进行了尸检。11种其他野生食肉动物中有8种对至少一种病毒呈血清阳性,包括在喀拉哈里沙漠以西的野生猫科动物狞猫(非洲狞猫)中首次记录到类似FIV的感染。所有九种病毒在自由放养猎豹中的血清阳性率均低于5%,这显著低于未接种疫苗的圈养猎豹的血清阳性率以及之前研究的纳米比亚中北部自由放养猎豹中七种病毒中五种病毒的血清阳性率(L. 芒森、L. 马克尔、E. 杜博维、J. A. 斯宾塞、J. F. 埃弗曼和S. J. 奥布赖恩,《野生动物疾病杂志》40:23 - 31,2004年)。无论是活着的还是死去的猎豹,都没有传染病的临床或病理证据。结果表明,虽然自由放养的野生食肉动物可能是病原体的来源,但不同研究中血清阳性率的分布反映了当地人口密度以及与人类居住相关的因素,这可能反映了与(未接种疫苗的)家猫和家犬以及流浪猫和流浪狗接触的机会。研究结果还表明,纳米比亚猎豹能有效应对病毒挑战,这鼓励了持续且可持续的保护措施。