Animal-side serologic assay for rapid detection of Mycobacterium Bovis infection in multiple species of free-ranging wildlife

Numerous species of mammals are susceptible to Mycobacterium bovis, the causative agent of bovine tuberculosis (TB). Several wildlife hosts have emerged as reservoirs of M. bovis infection for domestic livestock in different countries. In the present study, blood samples were collected from Eurasian badgers (n = 1532), white-tailed deer (n = 463), brushtail possums (n = 129), and wild boar (n = 177) for evaluation of antibody responses to M. bovis infection by a lateral-flow rapid test (RT) and multiantigen print immunoassay (MAPIA). Magnitude of the antibody responses and antigen recognition patterns varied among the animals as determined by MAPIA; however, MPB83 was the most commonly recognized antigen for each host studied. Other seroreactive antigens included ESAT-6, CFP10, and MPB70. The agreement of the RT with culture results varied from 74% for possums to 81% for badgers to 90% for wild boar to 97% for white-tailed deer. Small numbers of wild boar and deer exposed to M. avium infection or paratuberculosis, respectively, did not cross-react in the RT, supporting the high specificity of the assay. In deer, whole blood samples reacted similarly to corresponding serum specimens (97% concordance), demonstrating the potential for field application. As previously demonstrated for badgers and deer, antibody responses to M. bovis infection in wild boar were positively associated with advanced disease. Together, these findings suggest that a rapid TB assay such as the RT may provide a useful screening tool for certain wildlife species that may be implicated in the maintenance and transmission of M. bovis infection to domestic livestock.

Blind River Dolphin: First Side-Swimming Cetacean

The blind river dolphin (Platanista gangetica), first written about by Pliny the Elder in A.D. 72, was found (10 November 1968) to be the first known side-swimming cetacean. The rudimentary eye lacks the lens, but anatomical evidence suggests that the eye may serve as a light sensor. The underwater sound emissions of this species, although similar to those of the Amazon River dolphin (Inia geoffrensis), appear to be produced constantly.

SIDE EFFECTS OF PERSISTENT TOXICANTS

As you can see from the general tenor of the printed program for this seminar, I am in the unenviable position of trying to discourage you from certain types of chemical control; but my assigned topic "Side Effects of Persistent Toxicants," implies that mission. However, my remarks may be somewhat anticlimax at this time, because it is now generally conceded that we need to reevaluate certain chemicals in control work and to restrict or severely curtail use of those that per¬sist for long periods in the environment. So let me detail my reasons for a somewhat negative attitude toward the use of the persistent hydrocarbons from my experience with the effects of these materials on birds. But first a few words of caution about control work in general, which so often disrupts natural processes and leads to new and unforseen difficulties. As an example, I think of the irruption of mice in the Klamath valley in northern California and southern Oregon in the late '50's. Intensive predator control, particularly of coyotes, but also of hawks and owls, was followed by a severe outbreak of mice in the spring of 1958. To combat the plague of mice, poisoned bait (1080 and zinc phosphide) was widely distributed in an area used by 500,000 waterfowl each spring. More than 3,000 geese were poisoned, so driv¬ing parties were organized to keep the geese off the treated fields. Here it seems conceivable that the whole chain of costly events--cost of the original and probably unnecessary predator control, economic loss to crops from the mouse outbreak, another poisoning campaign to combat the mice, loss of valuable waterfowl resources, and man-hours involved in flushing geese from the fields--might have been averted by a policy of not interfering with the original predator-prey relationship. This points to a dilemma we always face. (We create deplorable situations by clumsy interference with natural processes, then seek artificial cures to correct our mistakes.) For example, we spend millions of dollars in seeking cures for cancer, but do little or nothing about restricting the use of known or suspected carcinogens such as nicotine and DDT.