1 Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Oxford, Institute of Virology and Environmental Microbiology, Mansfield Road, Oxford OX1 3SR, UK
2 Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Monkswood, Abbots Ripton, Cambridge PE28 2LS, UK
Correspondence
Alan Buckley
abuck{at}ceh.ac.uk
![]() |
ABSTRACT |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Published ahead of print on 18 July 2003 as DOI 10.1099/vir.0.19341-0
![]() |
INTRODUCTION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Usutu virus (USUV), which is closely related to WNV, was first isolated from mosquitoes in South Africa in 1959 (Woodhall, 1964). Subsequent isolations have been made from birds, mosquitoes and mammals, one from Praomys species and one from a man with fever and rash (Karabatsos, 1985
). In Africa, the virus circulates between birds and mosquitoes with mammals being inadvertent hosts if bitten by infected mosquitoes. There are no reports of severe disease in man and USUV was known only in Africa prior to 2001 when it was isolated unexpectedly from birds dying of encephalitis in Vienna, Austria (Weissenbock et al., 2002
).
Sindbis virus (SINV), the type species of the genus Alphavirus, circulates in the same ecological habitat as WNV in Africa (Olson & Trent, 1985) and is transmitted between birds by ornithophilic Culex species of mosquito. Migratory birds transport the alphaviruses great distances and many migratory birds have antibodies to SINV. Moreover, SINV has been isolated from the blood and tissues of these birds (Ernek et al., 1977
; Jupp et al., 1986
), but there is no evidence that it causes mortality or sickness in these birds. A strain of SINV isolated in Finland in 1982 during an outbreak of polyarthritis was identified as being closely related to a South African virus isolated in 1963 (Shirako et al., 1991
). From studies on the inland plateau and Natal lowlands in South Africa (Jupp et al., 1986
), WNV and SINV have been shown to be transmitted to birds by the same mosquito species, particularly Culex univittatus.
There are no published studies concerned with the presence of WNV, USUV or SINV in the UK and there is no scientific evidence to suggest that any of these viruses are endemic in the UK. However, many birds migrate annually from regions in Africa where WNV, USUV and SINV co-circulate and are actively transmitted between birds and mosquitoes. It is, therefore, possible that they are carried by birds to the UK and transmitted via indigenous mosquitoes to non-migratory birds and to other wildlife species. As part of a systematic programme of research to see whether or not such viruses are present and active in the UK, we initiated a survey for the presence of virus-specific neutralizing antibodies in the sera of healthy migratory and non-migratory birds. Specific neutralizing antibodies against WNV, USUV and SINV were detected in the bird sera, implying that the viruses are being introduced into the UK by migrant birds and then transmitted to and within resident bird populations by local mosquitoes.
![]() |
METHODS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Most birds were sampled in Cambridgeshire, UK (n=296) between October 2001 and September 2002, others, from Dorset (n=14), were obtained in May 2002 (mainly migrants returning to the UK) and south Wales (n=43, house martin and swallow) in August 2002 (migrants about to leave the UK). Carrion crows (n=26) and magpies (n=45) were trapped during pest control programmes and brains and sera were collected. Other species were caught in mist nets, bled and released. Amongst these were 69 juveniles, i.e. hatched during 2002 (15 species). Three species of free-range poultry (chicken, turkey and duck) were also sampled in Cambridgeshire in May 2002.
Virus strains.
WNV strain 99-34940-31A, designated WN-NY, isolated in New York State, USA in 1999, and WNV strain DAK Ar B 310, passage 13, designated WN-DAK, isolated from a mosquito collected in Central African Republic in 1967, were supplied by R. E. Shope and R. B. Tesh, University of Texas, USA. WNV isolated from Israel in the early 1980s, designated WN-Is, was supplied by M. Halevy, Israel Institute for Biological Research. USUV strain SAAR 1776, passage 9, isolated from a mosquito and designated USUV, was supplied by J. S. Porterfield, formerly of Oxford University, UK. SINV strain SAAR 86, passage 5, isolated from a mosquito pool and designated SINV, was supplied by J. Casals, formerly of Yale Arbovirus Research Unit, USA. Louping ill virus, strain 91/330 Preston, from H. W. Reid, Moredun Research Institute, Edinburgh, UK, was isolated from a sheep and designated LIV.
Plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT).
Sera, heat-inactivated at 56 °C for 30 min, were coded and tested with no knowledge of their identity. They were diluted twofold from 1 : 10 to 1 : 320 in MEM with Earle's salts (Invitrogen). Aliquots of diluted virus (125 µl) containing 50 p.f.u. were added to 125 µl of diluted serum and incubated at 37 °C for 1 h. Vero cell monolayers in 24-well tissue culture plates were washed with serum-free medium and drained before the virus/serum mixture was added and incubated at 37 °C for 1 h. The inoculum was removed from the cells and 1 ml 1·5 % low-gelling-temperature agarose in MEM containing 2 % FBS was added to each well. Plates were incubated for 57 days at 37 °C. Monolayers were fixed with 10 % formaldehyde in saline, stained with 0·1 % naphthalene black, washed, dried and the plaques were counted. Negative serum controls were included in each experiment.
As the sera were obtained from healthy birds, it was assumed that antibody, if present, might be of low avidity and of low titre. Therefore, PRNT data were analysed by scoring the neutralization results at high and lower stringency as follows: firstly, the highest dilution of antibody that neutralized 90 % of the plaques was recorded as the PRNT90 endpoint; secondly, using the same titrations, the highest dilution of antibody that neutralized 50 % of the plaques was recorded as the PRNT50 endpoint.
Indirect immunofluorescence (IF) tests.
WN-NY virus was used to infect Vero cells grown on glass coverslips for 40 h, which were then fixed in ice-cold acetone for 5 min. These cells were treated with 100 µl of diluted chicken serum and incubated at 37 °C for 45 min before washing in PBS at 37 °C for 10 min. Rabbit anti-chicken FITC-conjugated antibody (Sigma) was added at the recommended dilution before incubation at 37 °C for 45 min. After washing in PBS, WNV-specific monoclonal antibody (mAb 546) was added. Coverslips were incubated at 37 °C for 45 min, washed and sheep anti-mouse biotinylated antibody (Amersham) was added at the recommended dilution. After incubation for 45 min at 37 °C, the coverslips were washed and Texas red conjugated with Streptavidin (Amersham) was added for 10 min at room temperature. Coverslips were washed for 10 min in warm PBS and then transferred to warm water before drying and mounting in glycerol/DABCO on glass slides. An Olympus UV light microscope fitted with exclusion filters to observe fluorescein or Texas red fluorescence was used to examine the dual-labelled infected cells.
Western blot analysis.
Aliquots (50 µl) of normal and WN-NY virus-infected 20 % (w/v) mouse brain suspension in PBS were diluted 1 : 1 with SDS-PAGE denaturing loading buffer and boiled for 3 min. Replicate 10 µl loadings were applied to a 10 % polyacrylamide gel, together with Seeblue-2 protein molecular mass markers (Novex). The gel was run at 200 V and then immersed in Western blotting buffer (20 % MeOH, 20 mM Tris and 15 mM glycine) for 10 min before blotting onto an Immobilon-P transfer membrane (Millipore, IVPH00010) at 12 V for 2 h. The membrane was cut into strips containing one track of each uninfected and WNV-infected brain sample. The strips were then incubated in blocking buffer (5 %, w/v, milk powder and 0·01 % Tween 20 in PBS) for 1 h at room temperature. The test chicken or positive control mouse anti-WNV, antisera were diluted at 1 : 50, 1 : 250 and 1 : 500 in blocking buffer and added to individual strips of membrane that were incubated overnight at 4 °C. Strips were washed four times with blocking buffer and were then incubated with rabbit anti-chicken alkaline phosphatase (Sigma, F8888) or rabbit anti-mouse alkaline phosphatase (Sigma, A4312), as appropriate. All strips were then washed four times with blocking buffer and developed using Sigmafast NBT/BCIP (Sigma, B5655).
RT-PCR sequencing.
Viral RNA was extracted using the RNAgents kit (Promega) following the manufacturer's instructions. Primers used for nested RT-PCR were based on conserved regions of the known sequences of WNV (AF260967) and Kunjin (D00246) virus envelope protein. The nucleotide positions of the primers are as follows; first forward primer 10921114 (F1) and second forward primer 11811201 (F2); first reverse primer 20141995 (R1) and second reverse primer 19601941 (R2). First-strand cDNA synthesis was performed using Superscript II reverse transcriptase (Life Technologies) with primer R1. A nested PCR was used to amplify the DNA. The first reaction utilized primers F1 and R1 and the second F2 and R2 to produce a product of 779 bp. PCR products were gel-purified and both strands sequenced using a PE Biosystems cycle sequencing kit with primers F2 and R2.
![]() |
RESULTS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Of the 353 sera tested, 52 (14·7 %) were PRNT90 positive for WNV, with antibody titres ranging between 1/10 and 1/40. The results of these positive neutralization tests are shown in Fig. 1; they also include the species of bird from which sera were obtained and tested against each of the six viruses. Of the 52 WNV-positive sera, 36 neutralized only WN-DAK, nine neutralized only WN-NY, four neutralized only WN-Is, one neutralized WN-DAK and WN-Is, and the other two of the 52 WNV-positive sera were also positive for USUV. In addition, one serum sample was positive only for USUV and another was positive only for SINV. No sera were positive for LIV at the PRNT90 level. We conclude from these results that WNV is being introduced into a significant proportion of UK-resident birds, presumably by mosquitoes feeding on migrant birds.
|
|
Also, 91 of the original bird sera representing eight species were tested for USUV-neutralizing antibodies and 49 of these (53·8 %) were positive by the PRNT50 method. One serum sample from a magpie was positive for USUV and SINV but negative for WNV, and 35 of the 42 USUV-negative sera were positive for WNV, demonstrating that the PRNT50 method can discriminate between USUV- and WNV-specific neutralizing antibodies. It is also worth noting that in six of the sera, the titres against USUV were equal to or higher than those against WNV, implying that these birds had been exposed to USUV and WNV. It is important to emphasize that even though a lower stringency threshold is being used, these results demonstrate specificity for each virus tested.
Table 2 presents details of the PRNT50 results for which there was sufficient serum for all of the viruses to be tested. A wide range of results was obtained, including (a) WNV positive, (b) WNV and USUV positive, (c) WNV, USUV and SINV positive, (d) WNV and SINV positive, (e) USUV and SINV positive and (f) SINV positive. These results demonstrate (a) the high sensitivity and specificity of the test, (b) that individual UK-resident birds are being exposed to at least three different mosquito-transmitted arboviruses, and (c) that WNV, USUV and SINV are widespread throughout all of the sites investigated.
|
|
|
|
|
![]() |
DISCUSSION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Because mosquito densities in the UK are relatively low compared with warmer countries, such as North America, southern Europe, Africa and Asia, the likelihood of successful transfer of the virus to local birds from migrants might be expected to be low. However, using high stringency analysis, i.e. PRNT90, 22·7 % (36 positives from 172 tested using WN-DAK virus) of the UK bird sera tested were shown to have neutralizing antibodies against WN-DAK and 3·3 and 0·9 % had neutralizing antibodies against USUV or SINV, respectively. This suggests that WNV, USUV and SINV are being introduced into UK-resident birds and share overlapping habitats, apparently without causing an obvious reduction in the bird population. Therefore, these viruses are either avirulent strains or local bird species have been exposed to them for many years and have developed herd immunity. It is known that in the USA, neutralizing antibodies to the closely related St Louis encephalitis virus (SLEV) persist for at least 2 years in house sparrows, leaving them resistant to re-infection with SLEV (McLean et al., 1983). In contrast, North American avian and equine species frequently develop fatal infections to WNV, presumably because it was introduced to the United States for the first time in, or just before, 1999, i.e. there was virtually no pre-existing herd immunity. Alternatively, North American WNV may be more virulent for birds than the WNV found in the Old World. An equivalent observation was reported recently for birds in Austria that were shown to be fatally infected by USUV, an African virus that quite possibly has only arrived in Austria recently from Africa (Weissenbock et al., 2002
).
In the PRNT analyses, some sera produced neutralization that was specific for WNV, some were specific for USUV and others showed reactivity with both viruses, in some cases being higher for WNV and, in others, higher for USUV. This is entirely consistent with the known specificity of the PRNT (Porterfield, 1980). The results reflect the history of virus exposure of each bird.
Prior to these analyses, we had compared 10 strains of WNV (including lineages I and II) for sensitivity to neutralization by WNV using an immune mouse serum. We observed variation in neutralization sensitivity that did not define the difference between lineage I and II viruses. Variation in neutralization sensitivity is consistent with previous observations for WNV and Yellow fever virus (Hammam et al., 1965; Peiris et al., 1982
; Buckley & Gould, 1985
; Blackburn et al., 1987
). In PRNT90 tests, WN-DAK (22·7 %) was significantly more sensitive to neutralization by bird sera than either WN-NY (2·6 %) or WN-Is (5·0 %). The choice of WN-DAK together with the use of the high sensitivity PRNT50, rather than the high stringency PRNT90, at least partly explains the relatively higher proportion of positive birds observed in our survey compared with reports in Europe. In the USA, the neutralization test for WNV antibody detection in sera uses a 90 % threshold and the New York strain of virus. Whilst this is clearly acceptable in situations where the animals become sick and develop high avidity antibodies, the animals under test in Europe are healthy and have not shown overt clinical symptoms. The neutralizing potency of their sera is likely to be lower. By presenting the results using both PRNT50 and PRNT90 endpoints we showed that whilst there was still a significant neutralization-positive bird population, the proportion of positives was lower using the PRNT90 method. Nevertheless, taking into account the fact that these sera contained high antibody titres by IF analysis, we believe that they reflect more accurately the presence of virus-specific antibodies in birds in the UK. Moreover, a non-neutralizable virus fraction of at least 10 % has been demonstrated in tests that employ sera from the early stage of primary infections (Della-Porta & Westaway, 1978
), and this could account, in part, for the lower sensitivity of the PRNT90 data. Because all tests were performed using coded sera and because the hand-reared jackdaw fledglings (also supplied as coded sera), which had no exposure to mosquitoes or other arthropods, were PRNT50 negative in all tests, we conclude that the PRNT50 results are robust.
USUV- or SINV-neutralizing antibodies were not detected as frequently as WNV antibodies in the same sera, suggesting that USUV and SINV may be introduced by migrant birds but may not circulate efficiently amongst the birds and mosquitoes in the areas where the sera were collected. Clearly more bird samples will need to be analysed before this can be confirmed.
Juvenile birds do not migrate until the autumn of their first year. Of 69 wild juveniles (i.e. excluding the six hand-reared jackdaws), 35 caught during the summer months were WNV positive by PRNT50, suggesting that they have been exposed to WNV within the UK. Since overall antibody levels in adults were relatively low, it is unlikely that the detected antibody in the juveniles represents residual, maternally transferred antibody. Therefore, extensive mosquito trapping and analysis for the presence of WNV and possibly other arboviruses seems justified.
Other possible sources of transmission of these viruses between indigenous birds include mites and ticks (Shah et al., 1960; Calisher & Karabatsos, 1988
; Niklasson, 1988
; Sixl et al., 1988
), especially where large numbers of birds roost together at the same site or in their nests. Therefore, in addition to mosquitoes, birds and mammals, including bats and humans, samplings of mites and ticks in areas where the virus circulates may yield evidence of these additional routes of transmission. Two of the birds that had either low titre or no antibody against WNV produced positive tests in PRNT against LIV; this virus is associated most often in the UK with encephalitis in moorland sheep and grouse, which become infected by Ixodes ricinus when they feed on animals and birds (Reid, 1984
), although encephalomyelitis due to LIV has also been detected in farm animals on lowland grazing areas in Ireland, where the grasses have a high moisture content.
Determination of the nucleotide and deduced amino acid sequence of a region of the WNV envelope gene demonstrated very close similarity of one isolate with the WN-NY strain of WNV and slightly lower similarity with two others. At this stage, it is too early to interpret the significance of these data.
It is significant that WNV, USUV and SINV appear to be carried by the birds as persistent infections, i.e. healthy birds carrying very low levels of virus in serum and possibly other tissues without showing any clinical signs of infection. It is known that WNV can be transmitted to mosquitoes feeding on apparently healthy birds (Theiler & Downs, 1973). This is an extremely efficient method of virus dispersal and possibly explains the success of these viruses in becoming dispersed throughout many parts of the Old World and now the New World (Mackenzie et al., 2002
).
What are the implications of these observations for humans in the UK? Currently, there is no evidence that British citizens suffer from febrile illness, fatal encephalitis or polyarthritis arising from the bite of mosquitoes infected with WNV, USUV or SINV. On balance, it seems unlikely that these viruses do present significant health problems to humans, birds or horses in the UK, since the likely risk of exposure to WNV-, USUV- or SINV-infected mosquitoes for humans living in urban or peri-urban areas at the present time should be reasonably low. Nevertheless, as the impact of climate change takes effect and as more people spend increasing periods of time in the countryside, where mosquitoes are likely to occur in the highest densities, the risk of human exposure to encephalitic infection by WNV will almost certainly increase.
![]() |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
---|
![]() |
REFERENCES |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Buckley, A. & Gould, E. A. (1985). Neutralization of yellow fever virus studied using monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies. J Gen Virol 66, 25232531.[Abstract]
Calisher, C. H. & Karabatsos, N. (1988). Arbovirus serogroups: definition and geographic distribution. In The Arboviruses: Epidemiology and Ecology, pp. 1957. Edited by T. P. Monath. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Cantile, C., Di Guardo, G., Eleni, C. & Arispici, M. (2000). Clinical and neuropathological features of West Nile virus equine encephalomyelitis in Italy. Equine Vet J 32, 3135.[Medline]
Chanas, A. C., Gould, E. A., Clegg, J. C. & Varma, M. G. (1982). Monoclonal antibodies to Sindbis virus glycoprotein E1 can neutralize, enhance infectivity, and independently inhibit haemagglutination or haemolysis. J Gen Virol 58, 3746.[Abstract]
Della-Porta, A. J. & Westaway, E. G. (1978). A multi-hit model for the neutralization of animal viruses. J Gen Virol 38, 119.[Medline]
Ernek, E., Kozuch, O., Nosek, J., Teplan, J. & Folk, C. (1977). Arboviruses in birds captured in Slovakia. J Hyg Epidemiol Microbiol Immunol 21, 353359.[Medline]
Gould, E. A. (2002). Evolution of the Japanese encephalitis serocomplex viruses. In Japanese Encephalitis and West Nile Viruses, pp. 391404. Edited by J. M. Mackenzie, A. D. Barrett & V. Deubel. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Gould, E. A., Buckley, A., Cammack, N., Barrett, A. D. T., Clegg, J. C. S., Ishak, R. & Varma, M. G. R. (1985). Examination of the immunological relationships between flaviviruses using yellow fever virus monoclonal antibodies. J Gen Virol 66, 13691382.[Abstract]
Gould, E. A., Buckley, A., Higgs, S. & Gaidamovich, S. (1990). Antigenicity of flaviviruses. Arch Virol (Suppl. 1), S137S152.
Hammam, H. M., Clarke, D. H. & Price, J. L. (1965). Antigenic variation of West Nile virus in relation to geography. Am J Epidemiol 82, 4055.
Hubalek, Z. & Halouzka, J. (1999). West Nile fever: a reemerging mosquito-borne viral disease in Europe. Emerg Infect Dis 5, 643650.[Medline]
Jupp, P. G., McIntosh, B. M. & Blackburn, N. K. (1986). Experimental assessment of the vector competence of Culex (Culex) neavei Theobald with West Nile and Sindbis viruses in South Africa. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 80, 226230.[Medline]
Juricova, Z., Hubalek, Z., Halouzka, J. & Machacek, P. (1993). Virologic detection of arboviruses in greater cormorants. Vet Med Praha 38, 375379.[Medline]
Juricova, Z., Pinowski, J., Literak, I., Hahm, K. H. & Romanowski, J. (1998). Antibodies to alphavirus, flavivirus, and bunyavirus arboviruses in house sparrows (Passer domesticus) and tree sparrows (P. montanus) in Poland. Avian Dis 42, 182185.[Medline]
Karabatsos, N. (1985). International Catalogue of Arthropod-Borne Viruses, 3rd edn. San Antonio, TX: Am Soc Trop Med Hyg.
Lanciotti, R. S., Roehrig, J. T., Deubel, V. & 21 other authors (1999). Origin of the West Nile virus responsible for an outbreak of encephalitis in the northeastern United States. Science 286, 23332337.
Lozano, A. & Filipe, A. R. (1998). Antibodies against the West Nile virus and other arthropod-transmitted viruses in the Ebro Delta region. Rev Esp Salud Publica 72, 245250.[Medline]
Mackenzie, J. M., Barrett, A. D. & Deubel, V. (2002). The Japanese encephalitis serological group of flaviviruses: a brief introduction to the group. In Japanese Encephalitis and West Nile Viruses, pp. 110. Edited by J. M. Mackenzie, A. D. Barrett & V. Deubel. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
McLean, R. G., Mullenix, J., Kerschner, J. & Hamm, J. (1983). The house sparrow (Passer domesticus) as a sentinel for St. Louis encephalitis virus. Am J Trop Med Hyg 32, 11201129.[Medline]
Murgue, B., Murri, S., Zientara, S., Durand, B., Durand, J. P. & Zeller, H. (2000). West Nile outbreak in horses in southern France, 2000: the return after 35 years. Emerg Infect Dis 7, 792796.
Niklasson, B. (1988). Sindbis and Sindbis-like viruses. In The Arboviruses: Epidemiology and Ecology, pp. 167176. Edited by T. P. Monath. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Olson, K. & Trent, D. W. (1985). Genetic and antigenic variations among geographical isolates of Sindbis virus. J Gen Virol 66, 797810.[Abstract]
Peiris, J. S., Porterfield, J. S. & Roehrig, J. T. (1982). Monoclonal antibodies against the flavivirus West Nile. J Gen Virol 58, 283289.[Abstract]
Porterfield, J. S. (1980). Antigenic characteristics and classification of Togaviridae. In The Togaviruses, pp. 1346. Edited by R. W. Schlesinger. New York: Academic Press.
Reid, H. W. (1984). Epidemiology of louping ill. In Vectors in Virus Biology, pp. 161178. Edited by M. A. Mayo & K. A. Harrap. London: Academic Press.
Roehrig, J. T., Layton, M., Smith, P., Campbell, G. L., Nasci, R. & Lanciotti, R. (2002). The emergence of West Nile virus in North America: ecology, epidemiology and surveillance. In Japanese Encephalitis and West Nile Viruses, pp. 223240. Edited by J. S. Mackenzie, A. D. Barrett & V. Deubel. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Savage, H. M., Ceianu, C., Nicolescu, G. & 7 other authors (1999). Entomologic and avian investigations of an epidemic of West Nile fever in Romania in 1996, with serologic and molecular characterization of a virus isolate from mosquitoes. Am J Trop Med Hyg 61, 600611; erratum 62, 162.
Shah, K. V., Johnson, H. N., Rao, T. R., Rajagopalan, P. K. & Lamba, B. S. (1960). Isolation of five strains of Sindbis virus in India. Indian J Med Res 48, 300308.
Shirako, Y., Niklasson, B., Dalrymple, J. M., Strauss, E. G. & Strauss, J. H. (1991). Structure of the Ockelbo virus genome and its relationship to other Sindbis viruses. Virology 182, 753764.[Medline]
Sixl, W., Stunzner, E. & Withalm, H. (1988). Serological examination for antibodies against West Nile virus, Semlikivirus and chikungunyavirus in laboratory mice, parasitized by nidicole fauna from swallow's nests. Geogr Med Suppl 1, 5155.[Medline]
Smithburn, K. C., Hughes, T. P., Burke, A. W. & Paul, J. H. (1940). A neurotropic virus isolated from the blood of a native of Uganda. Am J Trop Med Hyg 20, 471492.
Theiler, M. & Downs, W. G. (1973). The Arthropod-borne Viruses of Vertebrates: an Account of the Rockefeller Foundation Virus Program (19511970). London: Yale University Press.
Weissenbock, H., Kolodziejek, J., Url, A., Lussy, H., Rebel-Bauder, B. & Nowotny, N. (2002). Emergence of Usutu virus, an African mosquito-borne flavivirus of the Japanese encephalitis virus group, central Europe. Emerg Infect Dis 8, 652656.[Medline]
Woodhall, J. P. (1964). The viruses isolated from arthropods at the East African Virus Research Institute in the 26 years ending December 1963. Proc E African Acad 2, 141146.
Work, T. H., Hurlbut, H. S. & Taylor, R. M. (1955). Indigenous wild birds of the Nile Delta as potential West Nile virus circulating reservoirs. Am J Trop Med Hyg 4, 872888.
Received 8 May 2003;
accepted 13 July 2003.