Development of NK cells expressing a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR-NK) against feline coronavirus spike protein

Project leader: Cynthia Leifer
Sponsor: Cornell Feline Health Center Research Grants Program
Original Name: Development of Feline Chimeric Antigen Receptor-Expressing Natural Killer Cells (CAR-NK) Against a Feline Coronavirus Spike Protein
Project amount: $ 55,200
Project period: July 2021 to June 2022


DESCRIPTION (provided by the applicant):

Feline coronavirus (FCoV) causes a subclinical infection that can develop into FIP's lethal infectious peritonitis. It is caused by the feline infectious peritonitis virus (FIPV), which occurs when a mutation occurs in the spike of the FCoV virus. Despite more than three decades of virus research, there is still no approved treatment for FIP. This is partly due to the fact that FIPV type I causes most clinical infections, but is not very successful in cultures and there are few reagents available for its study, while type II grows well, has more reagents, but generally does not cause clinical infections. disease. The development of new immunotherapies requires significant preclinical study and validation, and due to limitations in the FIPV type I study, no immunotherapies have been developed for clinical FIP. We want to try a new immunotherapy using in vitro FIPV type II research, which could lead to the treatment of FIPV cats caused by FIPV type I. Immunotherapy, which has recently gained attention in the treatment of human cancers, are immune cells treated with a chimeric antigen receptor ( CAR). This approach has not yet been developed for acute viral infections such as FIPV, nor has it been used in cats. CAR consists of two main components: a single chain antibody fragment (ScFv) and a signal domain from the immune costimulatory receptor. We propose to use a FIPV-specific ScFv spike protein expressed in feline immune cells that could be administered to a feline to screen for and destroy FIPV-infected cells. Current human CAR therapies require the use of autologous T cells because allogeneic T cells kill host cells and lead to graft-versus-host disease.
NK cells (natural killers) are of increasing interest because NK cells do not induce graft-versus-host disease and can therefore be used in "conventional" therapies. However, little is known about feline NK cells. We hypothesize that genetically modified feline NK cells expressing CAR targeting the feline infectious peritonitis virus type II spike protein will recognize and kill FIPV-infected target cells in vitro.

To achieve our goals:

  1. determine the cytotoxic activity of a subset of NK cells in comparison with NKT and T cells for the validation of feline NK cells as potential CAR carriers,
  2. for cloning and sequencing, we will use currently available hybridoma spike anti-FIPV type II antibodies to construct a CAR directed against spike type II protein, and
  3. in vitro we validate the NK cell assay and data demonstrating the effect of CAR-NK cells killing FIPV type II infected cells.

The completion of this study will provide data important for the development of CAR-NK therapy for FIPV type I, a completely new treatment for this devastating disease.

Unlicensed GS-441524-Like Antiviral Therapy Can Be Effective for at-Home Treatment of Feline Infectious Peritonitis

Sarah Jones 1, Wendy Novicoff 2, Julie Nadeau 3 and Samantha Evans 1,*

1 Department of Veterinary Life Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
2 Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903, USA
3 Hamilton Region Veterinary Emergency Clinic, Hamilton, ON L8P 4W3, Canada
* The author to whom the correspondence should be addressed.

Academic Editor: Clive JC Phillips
Animals 2021, 11 (8), 2257; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11082257
Delivered: April 22, 2021 / Revised: May 29, 2021 / Accepted: July 27, 2021 / Published: July 30, 2021

Original article: Unlicensed GS-441524-Like Antiviral Therapy Can Be Effective for at-Home Treatment of Feline Infectious Peritonitis

Brief summary

Feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) is a fatal feline disease caused by feline coronavirus. The aim of this study was to formally evaluate the administration of unlicensed antiviral therapy GS-441524 from group sources for cats with suspected infectious peritonitis in cats (FIP). Members of social networking support groups and GS-441524-based drug distribution groups were interviewed via the Internet. Of the 393 surveys that met the inclusion criteria, 73.7% owners were receiving this therapy from the United States. Only 8.7% owners reported that they received significant help from their veterinarian in treating their cat. The average cost of treatment was $ 4,920. The majority of owners (88.2%) reported a marked improvement in clinical symptoms within one week of starting therapy. At the time of the survey, 96.7%s (380 cats) lived, of which 54.0%s were considered cured and another 43.3%s were monitored over a 12-week observation period. A total of 12.7% cats had a relapse of clinical signs of FIP and 3.3% cats died despite GS-441524 therapy. The reported complications were mostly related to the administration of subcutaneous injections of GS-441524 acidic solution to the owner, such as vocalization, pain, wrestling and wounds at the injection site. Limitations of this study include retrospective design, bias in case selection, reliance on owner-reported data, and inability to validate unlicensed drugs; however, important lessons can be learned from the experience of these owners. Although unconventional and certainly not without health and legal risks, unlicensed, home therapy similar to GS-441524, according to information from the owners, can obviously bring benefits in the treatment of cats with a suspected diagnosis of FIP.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to formally evaluate the administration of unlicensed antiviral therapy similar to GS-441524 from group sources for cats with suspected infectious peritonitis in cats (FIP), a recently fatal disease. Members of FIP support groups on social networks and drug distributor groups with GS-441524 were interviewed via the Internet. The survey focused on owners who treated their cats for at least 12 weeks with unlicensed drugs with GS-441524. Of the 393 polls analyzed that met the inclusion criteria, 73.7% owners were receiving this therapy from the United States. Only 8.7% owners stated that a veterinarian helped them provide treatment to their cat. The average cost of treatment was $ 4,920. The majority of owners (88.2%) reported a marked improvement in clinical symptoms within one week of starting therapy. At the time of the survey, 96.7%s (380 cats) lived, of which 54.0%s were considered cured and another 43.3%s were monitored over a 12-week observation period. A total of 12.7% cats had a relapse of clinical signs of FIP and 3.3% cats died despite GS-441524 therapy. The reported complications were mostly related to the administration of subcutaneous injections of GS-441525 acidic solution to the owner, such as vocalization, pain, discomfort and wounds at the injection site. Limitations of this study include retrospective design, bias in case selection, reliance on owner-reported data, and inability to validate unlicensed drugs; however, important lessons can be learned from the experience of these owners. Although unconventional and certainly not without health and legal risks, unlicensed, home therapy with GS-441524, according to owners, can obviously bring benefits in the treatment of cats with suspected FIP.

Keywords: FIP; GS-441524; COVID-19; black market; coronavirus; cat; remdesivir

Introduction

Since March 2020, the spread of the coronavirus known as SARS-CoV2 has evolved into the global COVID-19 pandemic. A similar but cat-specific virus known as feline coronavirus (FCoV) is the cause of a fatal feline disease known as feline infectious peritonitis (FIP). Antiviral drugs that inhibit viral RNA replication offer potential therapeutic and preventive benefits to COVID-19, including the adenosine nucleoside monophosphate prodrug GS-5734, more commonly known as remdesivir (marketed by Gilead Sciences, Inc. (Foster City, CA, USA)). [1]. A 2018 study published by Murphy et al. GS-441524, a less chemically complex parent nucleoside (also patented by Gilead), was highly effective against experimentally induced FIP at a dose of 4.0 mg / kg subcutaneously every 24 hours for 12 weeks (84 days) in 10 laboratory cats [ 2]. Later in 2019, the same group conducted a clinical study using GS-441524 to treat 31 cats owned by FIP clients, and the results indicated that this once fatal disease is clinically reversible using this nucleoside analog [3]. The name of GS-441524 is (2R, 3R, 4S, 5R) -2- (4-aminopyrrolo [2,1-f] [1,2,4] triazin-7-yl) -3,4-dihydroxy-5 - (hydroxymethyl) tetrahydrofuran-2-carbonitrile, which is known by many other synonyms [4]. For the sake of brevity, we list several unlicensed drug formulations that claim to contain this compound as "similar to GS-441524", although not manufactured by Gilead Sciences.

FCoV (feline coronavirus) is an extremely common virus that is considered ubiquitous worldwide [5], with a seroprevalence between 26 and 87% (depending on the study and region of the world) in cats from a high-concentration environment (kennels or breeders). and animal shelters) [6]. Active FCoV infections cause mild to subclinical transient GI infections in most patients [7,8]. While 70% of these cats is transiently infected with FCoV, 13% remains permanently infected and chronically excretes the virus in its feces [9]. FIP arises from a mutated form of FCoV in approximately 5% cats [8] and is estimated to kill 0.3 to 1.4% cats worldwide each year [3]. The two main clinical forms of FIP include the effusive ("wet") form, in which the patient develops effusions in the body cavities, and the non-fusive ("dry") form. Until recently, the development of FIP in cats was uniformly fatal and it was often difficult to make an accurate diagnosis of anemorrhea (before death) [10].

Probably due to the ambition to continue research into human RNA viruses that could be inhibited by GS-441524, Gilead stopped further development of GS-441524 therapy in cats. This has sparked demand for GS-441524 in cat owners diagnosed with FIP cats and facing the same death. As a result, several unlicensed drug manufacturers (sometimes referred to as the "black market") have begun selling the compound to cat owners over the Internet, which is not currently authorized by the U.S. patent by Gilead Sciences [4]. The evolution continued into an extensive online network for the treatment and support of FIP, based on crowd-sourcing, in veterinary medicine to an unprecedented extent. There are currently several large groups on social networks that help cat owners obtain medication with GS-441524, plan a protocol, and treat their cats with suspected FIP. Because GS-441524 remains an unlicensed therapy in the United States and elsewhere in the world, most of this drug is manufactured, purchased, administered, and monitored without much, if any, veterinary supervision.

The aim of this study was to formally evaluate the administration of this unlicensed therapy for FIP from various sources and to determine which factors may lead to the success of the treatment. To this end, we conducted a survey of members of the largest of the above groups on social networks and drug distribution groups with GS-441524. What we discovered was truly amazing; Not only do laymen routinely attempt this therapy on their cats, but according to the owners, it is effective and leads to a cure. This report analyzes additional patient characteristics, treatments, and outcomes.

Materials and methods

The questionnaire was created using Google Forms (docs.google.com/forms). The questionnaire was distributed on the group's prominent social networking site ("FIP Warriors") dedicated to the treatment and distribution of GS-441524. It has been advertised and targeted at owners of cats suspected of having FIP (based on the variable criteria used by their individual veterinarians) and have undergone at least some GS-441524 treatment. Some of these patients underwent a full 84 days of treatment, while others started the treatment protocol and subsequently died of the disease or were euthanized due to complications. Inclusion criteria were responses for any cat who underwent treatment of GS-441524 suspected of having FIP and who had completed at least 84 days of treatment (regardless of outcome) or who started treatment and subsequently died. The exclusion criteria were responses for patients who completed <84 days of therapy (due to the existence of a half-duration treatment protocol) or who did not answer most of the survey questions.

It took the cat owners about thirty minutes to complete the questionnaire, and the questions consisted of a multiple-choice format and a short-answer format. Some questions arose from previous answers in a hierarchical arrangement. Permission to share and distribute the survey was obtained from social group administrators, and was often shared and published on all related sites. Survey data were collected from July 31, 2020 to October 25, 2020. The study was approved by the Ohio State University Institutional Review Board (Protocol No. 2021E0162).

All data were analyzed in Minitab version 19 (State College, PA, USA). Descriptives and frequencies were calculated for all categorical variables. Basic descriptive statistics were calculated for all continuous variables. Two-sample t-tests or one-way ANOVA with alpha set at 0.05 and 80% power were used to compare differences between groups.

The results

Owner / patient characteristics

During the study period, 411 surveys were collected, of which 393 cases met the inclusion criteria and were known (alive vs. dead). The remaining 18 surveys were incomplete to obtain sufficient information. Of these 393 cases, 64.9% males (52.3% castrated males and 12.6% intact males) and 35.1% females (25.9% sterilized females and 9.2% intact females).

Most owners were from the US (73.7%), the next highest number came from Canada (6.6%) (table 1). The mean age at diagnosis was 1.65 years (approximately 1 year and 8 months) with a standard deviation of 2.28 years and a range of 2 months to 18 years. More than two thirds of cats (67,2%) were crossed breeds, long-haired domestic or short-haired domestic. The remaining 32,8% consisted of a wide range of purebred breeds, with the most common breed being reported as Siamese (5,6% of all cats) (table 2). This supports a 16-year retrospective study conducted in 2006 by Pesteanu-Somogyi et al., Which found that purebred cats were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with FIP [11]. Nearly a quarter of owners reported that a veterinarian told them directly (14.5%) or indirectly (12.0%) about the unlicensed GS-441524, while 30,36% owners said they found the information in their own online survey, and 23,21% reported that they learned about GS-441524 therapy on social networking group websites for owners of cats with FIP (table 3).

Table 1: Country of origin of survey respondents.

CountryNumber of answers%
USA28973.72
Canada266.63
Great Britain153.83
Italy133.32
Bulgaria82.04
Croatia41.02
Netherlands41.02
Romania41.02
Australia30.77
Ireland30.77
China20.51
Germany20.51
Hong Kong20.51
Mexico20.51
New Zealand20.51
Poland20.51
Portugal20.51
Czech Republic10.26
Hungary10.26
Malaysia10.26
Peru10.26
Serbia10.26
Singapore10.26
Sweden10.26
Switzerland10.26
Turkey10.26
In sum392100%
Not specified 1

Table 2. Breeds of cats treated with GS-441524.

TribeNumber of answers%
Mixed26467.18
Siamese cat225.6
Maine Coons123.05
Bengal cat112.8
British Shorthair102.54
Siberian cat92.29
Ragdoll82.04
Devon Rex71.78
Persian71.78
Russian blue71.78
Scottish Fold51.27
Sphynx51.27
Burma41.02
Exotic shorthair30.76
Himalayan cat20.51
Norwegian Forest Cat20.51
Snowshoe20.51
Abesín cat10.25
Balinese cat10.25
Bombay cat10.25
Burmese cat10.25
Lykoi10.25
Mandalay (Bombay)10.25
Munchkin10.25
Ocicat10.25
Oriental shorthair10.25
Ragamuffin10.25
Selkirk Rex10.25
Singapore10.25
School10.25
In sum393100.0

Table3. How cat owners first learned of the existence of GS-441524 therapy for FIP. Owners could cite more than one source, so the total number of responses is higher than the total number of respondents.

The wayNumber of answers%
Internet, not Facebook11930.36
Facebook9123.21
Veterinarian (directly)5714.54
A friend5614.29
Veterinarian (indirectly)4711.99
Rescue station123.06
Breeder82.04
Conference20.51

While most owners (291 responses, 74.3%) reported that they had at least some help from a veterinarian (usually diagnostic monitoring), only 34 (8.7%) reported that they received significant treatment assistance from their veterinarians such as assistance. with drug injections or oral administration of the compound. It should be noted that 101 (25.7%) owners stated that they did not receive any veterinary assistance other than the initial diagnosis. These owners have treated the cat all by themselves, which raises animal welfare concerns if the owners are untrained or inexperienced in the field of injection or post-injection wound management. The average cost reported for the various GS-441524 treatment brands was $ 4,920, with a standard deviation of $ 3,115 and a median of $ 4,000. These costs ranged from the lowest $ 500 to the highest $ 21,000.

Disease characteristics

Most owners (224 responses, 57.0%) reported that their cat had signs of effusive ("wet") FIP, often with apparently visible effusions observed by the owners. A large contingent (169 responses, 43.2%) of the owners reported symptoms of neurological and / or ocular disease. The most common clinical signs were lethargy / apathy (347 responses, 88.3%), decreased appetite (308 responses, 78.4%) and fever (258 responses, 65.7%) (table 4).

Table 4. Clinical signs reported in cats treated with GS-441524. Owners could provide more than one answer, so the total number of responses is higher than the total number of respondents.

Clinical signsNumber of answers%
Lethargy34788.3%
Anorexia30878.4%
Weight loss28271.8%
Fever25865.7%
Refusal to eat (anorexia)18847.8%
Enlarged abdomen16742.5%
Concealment / Avoidance14737.4%
Outflow11629.5%
Difficult walking10326.3%
Neurological symptoms10326.3%
Breathing difficulties / cough9524.2%
Jaundice5313.5%

The most common signs of response to therapy were increased appetite (287 responses, 73.8%), improved movement / walking / jumping (205 responses, 52.7%), improved energy (153 responses, 39.3%), and fever resolution (104 responses). 26.7%).
Among the 50 cats that relapsed (12.7%), more than half (69.0%) developed worsening symptoms related to appetite, lethargy, weakness, and fever. Another 14,3% owners observed neurological or ocular symptoms.

Treatment characteristics

Many different unlicensed brands of GS-441524 drugs have been reported. The country of origin of these compounds is not easily traceable. Mutian (19,4%) was most commonly reported, followed by owners who used several different brands (18,1%) during treatment, mainly because the original brand was no longer available when they needed to re-order (table 5). Perhaps due to confusion among survey respondents regarding the difference in "dose" (mg / kg) versus "dose" (mg total), only 203 owners specified the initial and final dosing for their cats. The mean initial dose was 6.7 mg / kg (range 2 mg / kg to 16 mg / kg) with a standard deviation of 2.24 and a median of 5 mg / kg, and the mean final dose was 8.5 mg / kg ( range 3 mg / kg to 25 mg / kg) with a standard deviation of 3.34 and a median of 8 mg / kg. Initial dosing was loosely based on a previous study by UC Davis [3], and owners sought help from group social group webmasters for individual changes based on patient response and recent laboratory findings. It should be noted that no dosage was allegedly reduced during the treatment period. Using a paired t-test, the difference between initial and final dosing was very significant (p <0.001). This dose differs from the 2018 study, which found that the optimal dose was 4.0 mg / kg subcutaneously every 24 hours for at least 12 weeks [3]. The initial and final doses were significantly different for cats with neurological or ocular symptoms reported by owners compared to cats that did not have neurological or ocular impairment (mean dose 8.01 mg / kg vs. 5.44 mg / kg at baseline; mean dose 10 , 47 mg / kg versus 6.62 mg / kg at the end of treatment).

Table 5. Reported brand GS-441524. Many respondents used more than one brand during treatment.

GS Brand (Concentration)Number of answers%
Mutian (various dosages and formulations)7619.13
More brands *7118.11
Shire (15 mg / mL)6215.82
Capella (15 mg / mL)389.69
Hero-White (17 mg / mL)389.69
Other *369.18
Oscar (15 mg / mL)328.16
Hero-Blue (15 mg / mL)205.1
Pine (15 mg / mL)194.85
In sum392100.00
Not specified1—

Of the 393 patients, 348 (88.5%) were treated for 12 weeks (84 days), with 45 patients (11.4%) receiving extended treatment (an average of 4 additional weeks). Prolongation of treatment was based on whether symptoms completely resolved at the end of standard 12 weeks of therapy and did not include cats that relapsed during or after the observation phase. Most patients (71.7%) were treated with GS-441524 injection, 8.2% received oral formulations, and 20.1% received a combination of oral and injectable formulations. Treatment with other drugs and supportive therapies were also included in the survey (table 6). The most common adjunctive therapies included vitamin B1 or B12 (41.8%) and steroid use (37.9%). Only 8.2% owners reported using gabapentin.

Table 6. Supportive therapies reported for cats treated with GS-441524. Owners could provide more than one answer, so the total number of responses is higher than the total number of respondents.

Supportive therapyNumber of answers%
Vitamin B1 or B1213841.8%
Steroids12537.9%
Other vitamins and supplements10331.3%
Fluids (SQ or IV, unspecified)9027.4%
Antibiotics7422.4%
Light therapy3911.9%
Vomiting agents3611.1%
Appetite stimulators3410.3%
Gabapentin278.2%

The owners of most patients who received injections reported vocalization at the time of injection (309 responses, 82.0%) and / or pain at the injection site (287 responses, 76.1%). More than half (203 responses, 51.7%) reported scarring and scabs at the injection site (s) (table 7).

Table 7. Complications and adverse events reported in cats treated with GS-441524. Owners could provide more than one answer, so the total number of responses is higher than the total number of respondents.

ComplicationsNumber of answers%
Vocalization during injection30982.0%
Injection site pain28776.1%
The cat fought during the application23662.6%
Rattles / scars20351.7%
Lesions / wounds at the application site15742.2%
Bleeding at the application site14739.4%
Increased activity13335.5%
Swelling at the application site9625.7%
Increased appetite5414.3%

The results

In the case of cats that met the inclusion criteria at the time of the survey, 380 (96.7%) lived and 13 (3.3%) died. Regarding the current treatment phase, 54.0% were reported as "cured", 43.3% was at the observation period (surviving at least 12 weeks of treatment) and 2.7% was again treated for relapse of FIP symptoms. Among the 224 cats with signs of effusive ("wet") FIP, eight cats (3.6% cats in this group) died by the time the owner completed the questionnaire. Of the 169 cats with non-fusion (dry) FIP, five (2,96%) died by the time the questionnaire was completed. Of the 169 cats in which neurological or ocular symptoms were reported, eight died (4.7% cats in this group). Four of these cats that died had neurological / ocular as well as symptoms of effusive (wet) FIP, and four cats that died had neurological / ocular as well as symptoms of non-fusive (dry) FIP. The difference in mortality between these groups was not statistically significant.

The majority of owners (88.2%) reported a marked improvement within one week of starting treatment with GS-441524, and the mean time to "return to normal behavior" was 3.85 weeks (range 1 to 16 weeks). Owners of cats with neurological or ocular symptoms reported that 66% responded to treatment within one week and 16.3% of these cats showed significant improvement within one day. Recurrence of suspected FIP (defined as recurrence of symptoms after the 12-week treatment period) was reported in 50/393 cases (12.7%), with 48 of these 50 cat owners (96%) reporting only one relapse. Five cats (10%) with reported relapse died or were euthanized, all after one relapse. Of the 45 cats (90%) with FIP relapse that were alive at the time of the survey, 9 were currently treated, 17 were in the 12-week observation period, and 19 were considered cured. Four (8%) out of fifty cats with reported relapse showed neurological or ocular symptoms at the time of diagnosis; this was not a statistically significant difference from the number of cats without neurological or ocular signs at the time of diagnosis.

Discussion

We present the first scientific report on unlicensed antiviral therapy used for the successful home treatment of feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) by cat owners. To the best of the author's knowledge, this is the first widespread use of an unlicensed group drug for the treatment of a veterinary disease. We do not advocate unauthorized use of this drug; Our aim was to present this information in order to better inform cat owners and veterinarians who are facing decisions on the treatment of suspected FIP cases.

Males were above average (64.9%) in our study, similar to the previous findings of Riemer et al. which showed that male sex correlated significantly with FIP [12]. Nearly three-quarters (72.7%) of surveyed owners were based in the United States. This may be due in part to the fact that the survey is written in English, and although the social network targeted here is an international platform, members appear to be based mostly in the United States. The average age of the cats in our study was one year and eight months, which corresponds to Riemer et al. (2016) who found that FIP is significantly more common in cats less than two years old [12]. More than two-thirds (67.2%) of the reported cats were mixed breeds or domestic cats, which is slightly less than reported by Riemer et al. in cats with FIP in 2016 (78.8%) [12]. The survey found that 32.8% cats treated with GS-441524 were purebreds, with Siamese (5,6%), Maine Coon (3,05%), Bengal (2,8%) and British Shorthair (2,54%) being the most frequently reported breeds. The over-representation of purebred cats reported in our study may be due to the increased prevalence of FIP, as previously reported by Pesteanu-Somogyi et al. (2006) [11]; due to its location in an environment with a higher number of cats; or perhaps because purebred cat owners are more affluent on average and invest more money in their cats.

Interestingly, about a quarter (26%) of owners reported that after being diagnosed with FIP, they treated their cats all by themselves, without the help or knowledge of their veterinarians. It is important to note that although most respondents to our survey did not receive treatment assistance from their veterinarians, we suspect that the vast majority received a presumed FIP diagnosis through a veterinarian in the form of clinical and laboratory data (eg complete blood count, biochemistry, analysis). fluids, etc.), as they are required by social group administrators before starting therapy. These owners were able to find the support needed to administer GS-441524 therapy at home through the online help of groups on social networks, especially from group administrators. Only 8.7% reported that their veterinarian significantly helped them in treating their cat GS-441524 by helping to administer the compound instead of offering only routine examinations and re-diagnostic tests. Most owners (65.6%) nevertheless continued their veterinarian's care, which usually consisted of repeat blood tests and further diagnosis. It is not clear from our results what proportion of those who visited their veterinarians informed the veterinary team about home treatment GS-441524. It is known that group administrators monitor the progress of individual cats through a treatment protocol in a table. They monitor various parameters such as weight, hematocrit, white blood cell count, lymphocyte count, neutrophil count, monocyte count, albumin, globulin, serum A: G ratio (albumin / globulin ratio), total bilirubin, BUN (blood urea nitrogen), creatinine and ALT (alanine transaminase). Based on progress in monthly blood count values, owners may consult their assigned administrator whenever the attending veterinarian is unable to assist, either due to limited knowledge of treatment or reluctance to assist for fear of losing a medical license. This finding raises important questions as to whether administrators could be accused of performing unlicensed veterinary medicine in an effort to assist patients with FIP and could unknowingly cause harm, or what role veterinarians could and should play in this effort.

Initial unofficial reports from owners obtaining the drug from unlicensed sources in desperation to help their sick cats came with rumors of $ 10,000 - $ 20,000, and some of our survey respondents said they had paid those prices. Although it is certainly still an expensive treatment, the owners in our survey reported an average cost of just under $ 5,000 ($ 4,920). This difference may be partly due to the increase in companies producing this unlicensed drug, which reduces costs through competition. We suspect that the cost of treatment has decreased over time, but we cannot definitively determine this because our survey did not ask about the calendar date of therapy.

Mutian, an international brand and probably the best-known formulation of GS-441524, does not list GS-441524 on its label and is instead listed as a "dietary supplement" for the treatment of FIP [13]. However, this was the GS-441524 brand most often mentioned by the owners, suggesting that both the owners and the webmasters believe that the brand contains GS-441524. The owners of the survey reported higher starting doses than in the original study (4.0 mg / kg) [3], and even higher final doses, probably based on their cat's response to treatment. The mean starting dose was 6.7 mg / kg and the mean final dose was 8.5 mg / kg; this difference was statistically significant (p <0.001). Owners of cats that showed neurological or ocular symptoms of FIP were instructed by group administrators to start with higher doses (8 mg / kg). It is unclear whether this practice is justified, given the lack of published evidence of the use of GS-441524 therapy in neurological or ocular FIP, except for a single case of ocular disease treated with 8 mg / kg Mutian and feline interferon omega [14]. Cats initially diagnosed with non-neurological / neocular FIP and who later developed neurological or ocular symptoms were also advised to increase the dose. Many owners also increased the dose if their cat did not show a significant improvement at the 4 or 8 week time point, i.e., had an A: G of 0.5 or less. According to our findings, some owners decided to start at the lower end of the dosing range first to see if this would be enough to treat the clinical symptoms of their cats, especially due to cost concerns. Original studies at GS-441524 for FIP reported less success in treating FIP in cats starting at 2.0 mg / kg and determined an optimal dose of 4.0 mg / kg given subcutaneously every 24 hours [3]. The difference in effective dosing between a controlled study by UC Davis [3] and those reported by owners in our study who received unlicensed therapy similar to GS-441524 may be due to insufficient quality control from various black manufacturers. It is possible that unlicensed formulations contain a less pure compound or are otherwise less effective than a pharmaceutical grade compound. Therefore, it is difficult to compare these dosages directly.

Based on the original treatment protocol used in the UC Davis study, the recommended duration of treatment is 84 days (12 weeks) [3]. From our group site observations, the decision to discontinue treatment and begin an 84-day (12-week) observation period is based not only on complete remission of clinical symptoms reported by the owner (except for minor residual ocular or neurological symptoms), but also at week 12 of blood tests to normalize serum protein levels. A volunteer veterinarian on the social networking site will often review these owners' blood tests and approve the termination of GS-441524 therapy. Although some cats appear to achieve clinical remission much earlier than 12 weeks, website owners and administrators are reluctant to discontinue treatment in less than 12 weeks for fear that the cat will relapse. Treatments shorter than 12 weeks have not yet been formally evaluated. No survey respondents in our study reported premature (<12 weeks) termination of therapy, except when the cat died or was euthanized.

The protocol created by the social group administrators recommends all owners to start treatment with the injectable drug containing GS-441524. This is considered better due to concerns about enteral absorption of drugs in cats with gastrointestinal symptoms (vomiting, diarrhea) or anorexia. After two to four weeks of injection treatment, the cats are re-evaluated on a case-by-case basis to see if they can switch to the oral formulation. There are patient compatibility issues with both forms of the drug. The concentration of the compound in the oral preparation is low, which requires the administration of several capsules at once, which can be difficult for the owners. Although it is easier to ensure that the patient receives the full dose in the injectable form, the pH 1.5 required to keep the drug in a stable state [3] is very acidic, which is likely to lead to pain and vocalization after the injection. Most owners in our survey (71.7%) stated that they used only the GS-441524 injection form, while only 8.2% stated that they used only the oral formulation. Probably due to the acidic nature of the injection form, most patients (89% of those who received the injections) vocalized after the injection, and for most (83% of those who received the injections) the application was painful at the injection site (s). Injection site pain and morbidity accounted for the majority of reported adverse drug reactions. Many cats (46% from those who received injections) developed ulcers or wounds at previous injection sites, and 43% cats (those who received injections) reported bleeding at the injection site.

Injectable and oral forms of vitamin B1 or vitamin B12 were the most commonly reported supportive therapy used by owners. This was probably to help cats that were anemic, had gastrointestinal symptoms and / or had anorexia [15]. In addition to its haematological effects, vitamin B12 affects other body systems, such as neurological and cardiovascular systems, and may help prevent human disease [16], which could be used therapeutically or prophylactically in cats with suspected FIP. Not surprisingly, the second most common adjunctive therapy was the administration of steroids (probably glucocorticoid; not reported), which are traditionally part of standard FIP care [17]. Various nutraceuticals have been reported and either subcutaneous or intravenous fluid therapy has been commonly used as supportive care (27,4%, our research does not distinguish). Frequent use of antibiotics (presumed due to injection site wounds / abscesses, prophylactic use due to neutropenia or other empirical uses) raises serious concerns about how these drugs were obtained and whether adequate antimicrobial handling was followed. Interestingly, "light therapy" (also known as photobiomodulation) was used by 11.9% owners. This therapy is occasionally used in veterinary medicine as an alternative method to treat inflammatory conditions, provide analgesia and to accelerate wound healing [18,19]. It is suspected that light therapy was mostly used to treat wounds that developed as a result of the injectable treatment. Pain control was not reported as often as expected. NSAIDs (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) have been mentioned rarely, probably due to concomitant use of steroids. Gabapentin was reported by only 8.2% owners and this drug could be used either for sedation / chemical restraint of the patient or for analgesia.

From the data presented, we considered the most remarkable number of cats, which allegedly responded well to treatment, and at the time of the survey their owners stated that they were in complete clinical remission (without the clinical symptoms previously associated with the diagnosis of FIP). Only a small percentage continued treatment due to relapse (2.7%), which is defined as recurrences of clinical symptoms leading to a diagnosis of FIP or the onset of new clinical symptoms of FIP. This has been the case for various clinical manifestations of FIP, including effusive, non-fusive, ocular and neurological FIP. Almost all (96.7%) cats were alive at the time their owners submitted the questionnaire. It has previously been believed that while GS-441524 has been shown to be an effective treatment for effusive and non-fusive forms of FIP, ocular and neurological forms are much more difficult to treat due to GS441524's inability to cross the blood-blood or blood-brain barrier [2]. In addition, previous measurements of GS-441524 in ventricular and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples showed significantly lower concentrations than serum samples after subcutaneous injections of GS-441524 [2]. In our study, 42,3% owners reported that their cat had neurological or ocular symptoms and only 4.7% allegedly did not survive. Although further research is needed in this area, our study provides evidence that GS-441524 therapy is an option for these patients as well. This may be because the initial and final dosages of cats in this group treated at home by their owners were significantly higher than the originally published dosages [3].

Due to the number of different unlicensed brands of GS-441524 antiviral drugs and the number of owners who used multiple brands during treatment, our study was unable to determine whether one brand is more effective than the other. This was exacerbated by the fact that most of the cats in the study were alive at the time of writing, suggesting the very high effectiveness of most, if not all, of the unlicensed GS-441524 brands. While acknowledging the inherent bias in this study, despite the lack of oversight in the manufacture of drugs with GS-441524, it appears to be very successful in treating FIP according to the data provided by the owners. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that these different formulations may differ in concentration, purity, pH, efficacy, absorption pattern, side effects, and other characteristics, making them a valuable basis for further study. Please note that we cannot directly confirm that any of the marks listed here contain any compound similar to GS-441524; this is an important area of active investigation of our group and others. It is still possible that some of these labels contain other antiviral drugs based on nucleoside analogues, the protease inhibitor GC376 [20] or something else entirely.

One obvious limitation of our study is that there is no definitive anti-mortem diagnostic test for feline infectious peritonitis (other than invasive surgery and biopsy, which is performed very rarely), and respondents to our survey chose to join FIP social groups and respond. for our research. Therefore, although 380 of the 393 cats whose owners participated in the survey were alive, there is no way to confirm the diagnosis of FIP in these cats or in 13 dead cats because no autopsies were reported. Undoubtedly, some of these patients may have been misdiagnosed and their owners were misdirected to GS-441524. Thus, a positive response to therapy in some patients could only be a coincidence. Similarly, cases that were reported not responding well to GS-441524-like therapy (ie, 13 cats that died in this study) may have been because the patient was indeed suffering from another disease. However, given the cost and difficulty of obtaining this treatment, it is reasonable to assume that for many patients, most other diagnoses and therapies have already been performed and exhausted, and that FIP was indeed the most likely differential diagnosis. It should be noted that while there is currently no single, minimally invasive, definitive diagnostic test for FIP, the response to GS-441524 treatment could be considered a supportive or even diagnostic method for FIP. The majority of owners (88.2%) reported a dramatic improvement in clinical symptoms within one week of starting treatment with a mean "return to normal" time of 3.85 weeks. Therefore, in the future, cats with suspected FIP could begin treatment with GS-441524, and a rapid response to drugs could be useful both diagnostically and therapeutically. However, it is important to ensure continuous assessment of renal and hepatic function, as nucleoside analogues can be nephrotoxic and hepatotoxic [21].

In connection with the above limitation, the selection deviation probably played a large role in the apparent success of the therapy in our study. The survey was distributed on the main page of the FIP support group, as well as on pages for cats that were considered either "cured", with relapse and prolonged treatment, suffering from neurological and ocular FIP, or suffering from effusive (wet) FIP. Responses to the survey were requested from owners whose cats had completed at least 12 weeks of treatment. Although this met our goal of obtaining information from Internet users about unlicensed GS-441524, the results undoubtedly show some bias against owners whose cats started treatment with GS-441524 but subsequently died of FIP because they may have left the groups or decided not to fill out. research due to negative emotional states, including lack of enthusiasm for failed treatment. It is reasonable to assume that these owners are more likely to leave the group after losing their cat due to illness, or that the group's website algorithm may not show them these posts as often. This effect is exacerbated by the fact that the FIP Group's original website was removed by the social network operator in August 2020. The remaining members of the group are likely to be affected by "enthusiasm", with only the most enthusiastic and positive members of the group remaining. These factors most likely increased the success reported here; However, a recent study in China found similar, very high survival in cats treated with GS-441524 and GC376 (29/30 clinically cured cats) [22]. These data on the results reported by the owners should therefore be considered preliminary and further research on the true efficacy of GS-441524 therapy in the field is urgently needed.

Other limitations of the study include that it took about 30 minutes to complete the survey, at which point owners may be tired of answering questions. Bias could also play an important role in questions that provided long lists of possible answers [23]. In addition, relying on owners (with unknown medical education) to remember the events of a stressful period when caring for a sick cat can lead to inaccuracies in remembrance. Partly due to these issues, our group is continuing an ongoing prospective analysis of unlicensed therapy similar to GS-441524 for FIP. Nevertheless, the data provided here point to an unprecedented event in veterinary medicine and lessons can be learned from the experience of these owners.

Importantly, although GS-441524 is structurally very similar to remdesivirus and there is good reason to believe that it may be effective against other coronaviruses, no survey respondents reported the use of unlicensed GS-441524 for cats in the treatment of people with SARS-CoV-2. . This was slightly surprising given that the same despair of FIP treatment in cats, which led to the development of the black therapeutic market with GS-441524, can be found in millions of families around the world with a loved one suffering from COVID-19 during the survey period. . However, we have no information on such use, either from our survey data or from unofficial monitoring of these FIP groups. From a regulatory point of view, the unauthorized use of GS-441524 drugs in humans is likely to imply a higher level of legal interest.

Conclusions

Although unconventional and certainly not without health and legal risks, unlicensed, home therapy with GS-441524, according to the owners, effectively addresses clinical signs in cats suspected of having FIP. According to the owners, this unlicensed treatment is clearly effective in various clinical manifestations of the disease (effusive, non-fusive, neurological and ocular FIP). The future of this particular drug for the treatment of FIP is unclear, as the state of manufacture, distribution and patent rights of GS-441524 is constantly evolving. However, this treatment is a test case for social media and crowd-rearing entities to fill the void left by the corporate rejection of the "miracle cure" for the previously 100% deadly disease. This is the first such large-scale case in veterinary medicine, but in today's highly interconnected internet it will almost certainly not be the last.

References

  1. Frediansyah, A .; Nainu, F .; Dhama, K .; Mudatsir, M .; Harapan, H. Remdesivir and its antiviral activity against COVID-19: A systematic review. Clin. Epidemiol. Glob. Health 2021, 9, 123–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Murphy, BG; Perron, M .; Murakami, E .; Bauer, K .; Park, Y .; Eckstrand, C .; Liepnieks, M .; Pedersen, NC The nucleoside analog GS-441524 strongly inhibits feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) virus in tissue culture and experimental cat infection studies. Vet. Microbiol. 2018, 219, 226–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Pedersen, NC; Perron, M .; Bannasch, M .; Montgomery, E .; Murakami, E .; Liepnieks, M .; Liu, H. Efficacy and safety of the nucleoside analog GS-441524 for the treatment of cats with naturally occurring feline infectious peritonitis. J. Feline Med. Surg. 2019, 21, 271–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Pubchem. PubChem Compound Summary for CID 44468216 [Internet]. National Center for Biotechnology Information. 2021. Available online: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/gs-441524 (accessed on 28 May 2021).
  5. Pedersen, NC An update on feline infectious peritonitis: Virology and immunopathogenesis. Vet. J. 2014, 201, 123–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Drechsler, Y .; Alcaraz, A .; Bossong, FJ; Collisson, EW; Diniz, PPV Feline coronavirus in multicat environments. Vet. Clin. U.S. Small Anim. Pract. 2011, 41, 1133–1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Ettinger, SJ; Feldman, EC; Cote, E. Textbook of Veterinary Internal Medicine — eBook; Elsevier Health Sciences: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  8. Lewis, CS; Porter, E .; Matthews, D .; Kipar, A .; Tasker, S .; Helps, CR; Siddell, SG Genotyping coronaviruses associated with feline infectious peritonitis. J. Gen. Virol. 2015, 96, 1358–1368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Addie, DD; Jarrett, O. Use of a reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction for monitoring the shedding of feline coronavirus by healthy cats. Vet. Rec. 2001, 148, 649–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Pedersen, NC An update on feline infectious peritonitis: Diagnostics and therapeutics. Vet. J. 2014, 201, 133–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Pesteanu-Somogyi, LD; Radzai, C .; Pressler, BM Prevalence of feline infectious peritonitis in specific cat breeds. J. Feline Med. Surg. 2006, 8, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Riemer, F .; Kuehner, KA; Ritz, S .; Sauter-Louis, C .; Hartmann, K. Clinical and laboratory features of cats with feline infectious peritonitis — A retrospective study of 231 confirmed cases (2000–2010). J. Feline Med. Surg. 2016, 18, 348–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. MUTIAN. Cat FIP Symptoms & Treatment: Free Online Support. Available online: https: /www.mutian.us/ (accessed on 1 March 2021).
  14. Addie, DD; Covell-Ritchie, J .; Jarrett, O .; Fosbery, M. Rapid Resolution of Non-Effusive Feline Infectious Peritonitis Uveitis with an Oral Adenosine Nucleoside Analogue and Feline Interferon Omega. Viruses 2020, 12, 1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Maunder, CL; Day, MJ; Hibbert, A .; Steiner, JM; Suchodolski, JS; Hall, EJ Serum cobalamin concentrations in cats with gastrointestinal signs: Correlation with histopathological findings and duration of clinical signs. J. Feline Med. Surg. 2012, 14, 686–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. O'Leary, F .; Samman, S. Vitamin B12 in health and disease. Nutrients 2010, 2, 299–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Hartmann, K .; Ritz, S. Treatment of cats with feline infectious peritonitis. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 2008, 123, 172–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Hamblin, MR; Demidova, TN Mechanisms of low level light therapy. Mechanisms for Low-Light Therapy. Int. Soc. Opt. Photonics 2006, 6140, 614001. [Google Scholar]
  19. Venter, M. Light therapy in veterinary practice. Vet. Nurs. J. 2013, 28, 320–323. [Google Scholar]
  20. Pedersen, NC; Kim, Y .; Liu, H .; Galasiti Kankanamalage, AC; Eckstrand, C .; Groutas, WC; Bannasch, M .; Meadows, JM; Chang, K.-O. Efficacy of a 3C-like protease inhibitor in treating various forms of acquired feline infectious peritonitis. J. Feline Med. Surg. 2018, 20, 378–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Fan, Q .; Zhang, B .; Ma, J .; Zhang, S. Safety profile of the antiviral drug remdesivir: An update. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2020, 130, 110532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Yin, Y .; Li, T .; Wang, C .; Liu, X .; Ouyang, H .; Ji, W .; Liu, J .; Liao, X .; Li, J .; Hu, C. A retrospective study of clinical and laboratory features and treatment on cats highly suspected of feline infectious peritonitis in Wuhan, China. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 5208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Koppell, JG; Steen, JA The Effects of Ballot Position on Election Outcomes. J. Politics 2004, 66, 267–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Virucidal and antiviral effects of Thymus vulgaris essential oil on feline coronavirus

22.4.2021
Cristiana Catella, Michele Camero, Maria Stella Lucente, Giuseppe Fracchiolla, Sabina Sblano, Maria Tempesta, Vito Martella, Canio Buonavoglia, Gianvito Lanave
Original article: Virucidal and antiviral effects of Thymus vulgaris essential oil on feline coronavirus

Basic facts

  • EOs function as antibacterial, antiviral, antifungal and insecticidal agents.
  • TEO has been shown to be effective against several RNA viruses, including CoV.
  • The anti-infective activity of TEO against FCoV was assessed in CRFK cells.
  • TEO has been shown to inhibit FCoV replication in vitro.
  • TEO showed virucidal activity against FCoV up to 92,86%.

Abstract

Feline peritonitis (FIP) is a deadly systemic disease of cats caused by coronavirus (CoV) (FIPV). Despite their clinical significance and impact on cat health, therapeutic options for the treatment of FIP in cats are currently limited. The emergence of pandemic coronavirus severe respiratory syndrome type 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the etiological agent of coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19), capable of infecting a wide range of animal species, including cats, has sparked interest in developing new molecules with antiviral activity to treat infections. CoV in humans and animals.

Essential oils (EOs) have attracted significant attention with their antiviral properties, which integrate and in some cases replace conventional drugs. Thymus vulgaris EO (TEO) is known to be effective against several RNA viruses, including CoV. In the present study, the antiviral activity of TEO against FIPV was evaluated in vitro.

TEO at a concentration of 27 μg / ml was able to inhibit virus replication with a significant reduction of 2 logs10 TCID50/ 50 μl. In addition, virucidal activity was tested by TEO at concentrations of 27 and 270 μg / ml, above the cytotoxic threshold, to determine a reduction in viral titer up to 3.25 log10 TCID50/ 50 μl within 1 hour of time contact. These results open up several perspectives in terms of future applications and therapeutic options for coronaviruses, as FIPV infection in cats could be a potential model for the study of antivirals against CoV.

keywords

Thyme essential oil, Cat coronavirus, Thymus vulgaris, Thyme, Thyme, Thyme, Thyme, FIP

The results

The 2019 coronavirus disease pandemic (COVID-19) caused by severe respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) (WHO, 2020) stimulated research into treatment and immune prophylaxis using previous knowledge gathered on SARS-CoV-1 and animal CoV (Decaro et al., 2020). To date, no specific drug has been approved for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. However, remdesivir, an inhibitor of RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp), has shown promising results (Kabir et al., 2020). In addition, studies are currently underway to evaluate the efficacy of teicoplanin and monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 (Kabir et al., 2020).

Drugs studied in cats for the treatment of feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) have also been tested against COVID-19 in human patients (Pedersen et al., 2018; Pedersen et al., 2019).

Coronaviruses have long been known for the existence of FIP, a deadly systemic disease in cats. FIP virus (FIPV) is a virulent pathotype of feline enteric coronavirus (FCoV) (Kummrow et al., 2005). Despite its impact on cat health, therapeutic options for the treatment of FIP in cats are limited and effective vaccines are not available. In addition, adverse effects of vaccines have been reported (Tizard, 2020). The development of new molecules with antiviral activity for the treatment of CoV infections is currently perceived as a priority in both human and animal medicine. FIPV infection in cats is considered a potential model for studying antiviral drugs against CoV (Amirian and Levy, 2020).

Herbal medicines have aroused the interest of both consumers and scientists (Hosseinzadeh et al., 2015) and essential oils (EO) extracted from aromatic and medicinal plants have increased special attention for their beneficial properties (de Sousa Barros et al., 2015). EOs have been reported to exhibit significant antiseptic, antibacterial, antiviral, antioxidant, antiparasitic, antifungal, and insecticidal effects (Chouhan et al., 2017; Ma and Yao, 2020). Recently, in catfish experimentally intoxicated with Thiamethoxam (TMX), administration of EO Thymus vulgaris (TEO) partially reduced the toxic effects of TMX (El Euony et al., 2020). EOs are also a potential reservoir of innovative therapeutic solutions that integrate and in some cases replace conventional drugs (Reichling et al., 2009). For example, EO Laurus nobilis (SARS-CoV-1) inhibited SARS CoV type 1 (SARS-CoV-1) (Loizzo et al., 2008) and the EO mixture was effective against avian coronavirus infectious bronchitis virus (IBV) (Jackwood et al. , 2010). ). EOs have also recently been shown to have antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 (Asif et al., 2020). TEO has been shown to be effective against several RNA viruses, including CoV (Lelešius et al., 2019; Nadi et al., 2020).

The composition of TEO (Specchiasol Bussolengo, Verona - Italy) was determined in three independent experiments by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) (Rosato et al., 2020). Details on sample preparation, apparatus, and GC-MS analysis methods have already been published (Salvagno et al., 2020; Rosato et al., 2018). Data from GC / MS analyzes were expressed as % areas ± Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). In all cases, the SEM was less than 10%. Statistical analysis for SEM was performed using Microsoft Excel Office 2010 (Windows 7 Home Premium, Microsoft Corporation, USA). A total of 26 components were identified in the TEO sample, corresponding to 98.7% of the whole mixture. The detailed chemical composition of TEO is given in Additional Table 1.

TEO at a concentration of 928 mg / ml was first diluted in dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO; Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, Missouri, USA) and then in Dulbecco-MEM (D-MEM).

Crandell Reese cat kidney cells (CRFK) were cultured in DMEM and strain FCoV-II 25/92 (Buonavoglia et al., 1995) with a titer of 105.25 TCID50/ 50 μl.

TEO cytotoxicity was assessed by XTT assay (Denizot and Lang, 1986) using the In Vitro Toxicology Assay Kit (Sigma - Aldrich Srl, Milan, Italy) after exposure of cells to various concentrations of compounds (7.25, 14.5, 29, 58, 116, 232 , 464, 928, 1856 μg / ml) for 72 hours. Cytotoxicity was evaluated by spectrophotometric measurement of the absorption signal (optical density, OD). In all experiments, untreated cells were used as a negative control for 0% cytotoxicity. Cells treated with equivalent dilutions of DMSO were used as a vehicle control. After logarithmic conversion of TEO concentrations, the data obtained in the cytotoxicity assays were analyzed using a non-linear curve fitting procedure. The accuracy of the match was tested by non-linear regression analysis of the dose-response curve. The maximum non-cytotoxic concentration was considered to be the concentration of compound at which the viability of treated CRFK cells decreased by no more than 20% (CC20) in view of the negative control.

CC value20 TEO was evaluated at 27 μg / ml and calculated based on the mean ± standard deviation (SD) from three experiments. In all experiments, DMSO showed no effect on cells.

Based on the results of the cytotoxicity test, the antiviral activity of TEO against the FCoV-II 25/92 strain was evaluated at 27 μg / ml and also below the cytotoxic threshold (13.5 μg / ml). Using a substance below the cytotoxic threshold allows us to reduce toxicity and achieve effective results at lower cost. Confluent CRFK cell monolayers 24 h in 24-well plates were infected with 100 μl FCoV-II containing 10,000 TCID50 with a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 0.14. After virus adsorption for 1 hour at 37 ° C, the inocula were removed, the cell monolayers were washed once, and TEO was added. In untreated infected cells, D-MEM was used to replace the inoculum and used as a viral control. After 72 hours, aliquots of supernatants were taken for viral titration (Lanave et al., 2019) and RNA quantification (Gut et al., 1999).

The virucidal activity of TEO against FCoV-II was assessed by pre-treatment with the virus (10,000 TCID50) with TEO at a concentration of 27 μg / ml and above the cytotoxic threshold (270 μg / ml), because when used as a virucide, the molecule is not in direct contact with cells. Specifically, 100 μl of FCoV-II was treated with TEO (1 mL) at room temperature. Virus control was used for the experiments. After 10 minutes, 30 minutes, and 1 hour, aliquots of each virus-TEO and virus control mixture were subjected to virus titration (Lanave et al., 2019).

Data from antiviral and virucidal activity assays were expressed as mean ± SD and analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) using Tukey's test as post hoc test (statistical significance set at 0.05).

Statistical analyzes were performed using GraphPad Prism v.8.0.0 software (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA).

Virus titers of TEO-treated CRFK cells and untreated infected cells (viral control) were expressed as log10 TCID50 / 50 μl and plotted against drug concentrations. By comparing the viral titer of untreated infected cells (4.25 log10 TCID50/ 50 μl) with infected TEO-treated cells at 13.5 and 27 μg / ml there was a decrease of 0.25 (p> 0.05) and 2.25 log10 TCID50/ 50 μl (p <0.0001), respectively (Fig. 1A). This suggests that TEO at a concentration of 27 μg / ml is able to significantly inhibit virus replication. The antiviral activity of TEO against FIPV corresponds to the results obtained with Thymus vulgaris hydrosols in vitro against swine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) (Kaewprom et al., 2017).

Figure 1. Viral titers of supernatants collected 72 hours after infection from untreated FCoV-infected CRFK cells (10 TCID50) and treated with Thymus vulgaris essential oil (TEO) at various concentrations (13.5 and 27 μg / ml). 0 = Untreated CRFK cells infected with FCoV, NA = Nucleic acid

Viral titers were evaluated by endpoint dilution, expressed as log10 TCID50/ 50 μl and plotted against TEO at various concentrations (A). Viral nucleic acids were quantified by qPCR, expressed as log10 viral NA / 10ul and plotted against TEO at various concentrations (B). Bars in the figures indicate diameters. Error bars indicate standard deviation.

Viral nucleic acids (NA) were expressed as log10 viral NA / 10μl of infected cells treated with TEO and viral control and plotted against non-cytotoxic concentrations treated. By comparing the viral load of untreated infected cells (6.53 log10 viral NA / 10μl) with infected TEO-treated cells at 13.5 and 27 μg / ml, there was a decrease of 0.61 (p = 0.0005) and 1.34 (p <0.0001) log10 NAs / 10 μl, in that order (Figure 1B).

The virucidal activity of TEO was evaluated at different concentrations and for different contact times with FCoV-II (Fig. 2). After 10 minutes of TEO at 27 and 270 μg / ml, a reduction of 1.5 (p = 0.0008) and 2.5 (p <0.0001) log10 TCID50/ 50μl compared to virus control (4.25 log10 TCID50/ 50 μl) (Fig. 2A). After 30 minutes, TEO at 27 and 270 μg / ml induced a decrease of 1.25 (p = 0.0007) and 3.375 (p <0.0001) log10 TCID50/ 50 μl compared to virus control (3.75 log10 TCID50/ 50 μl) (Fig. 2B). After 1 hour of TEO at 27 and 270 μg / ml, there was a decrease of 1.25 (p = 0.0007) and 3.25 (p <0.0001) log10 TCID50/ 50μl compared to virus control (3.50 log10 TCID50/ 50μl). Viral inactivation occurred in a dose-time manner, starting at 33,33% and reaching 92,86%, when TEO was used at the highest concentration (270 μg / ml), after 1 hour (Fig. 2C). The virucidal activity of TEO can be explained by its ability to damage the viral envelope, thereby preventing adsorption and penetration into host cells (Reichling et al., 2009), as shown by electron microscopy of the herpesvirus envelope after pretreatment with EO (Shogan et al., 2006). TEO could therefore be a valuable means of disinfecting surfaces and could be an additive in the preparation of food products.

Figure 2. Virucidal effect of TEO at various concentrations (27 and 270 μg / ml) against FCoV (10000 TCID50). The virus was incubated with TEO for 10 minutes (A), 30 minutes (B) and 60 minutes (C) at room temperature and subsequently titrated in CRFK cells. FCoV viral titers were expressed as log10 TCID50/ 50 μl and plotted against TEO at various concentrations. Bars in the figures indicate diameters. Error bars indicate standard deviation.

Thymus vulgaris is an aromatic plant of Mediterranean origin that contains EO and lipophilic substances (Nabavi et al., 2015) and its extracts are rich in thymol, carvacrol, p-cymene and γ-terpinene (Kowalczyk et al., 2020).

Thymus vulgaris has been shown to have antiviral activity against herpes simplex virus (HSV) (Nolkemper et al., 2006), influenza virus (Vimalanathan and Hudson, 2014), Newcastle disease virus (Rezatofighi et al., 2014), PRRSV (Kaewprom et al., 2017) and IBV (Lelešius et al., 2019), although the antiviral mechanism has yet to be elucidated. In contrast, inhibition of human immunodeficiency virus replication in vitro by TEO has been elucidated (Feriotto et al., 2018).

The chemical composition of TEO revealed the presence of 26 molecules, of which the main fractions were thymol, p-cymene, γ-terpinene, β-linalool, caryophyllene. To reduce the cytotoxicity of TEO, it would be interesting to identify active molecules and test them individually. As expected, the main component of TEO used in this study was thymol. The thymol fraction has been shown to be effective against HSV (Sharifi-Rad et al., 2017) and influenza virus (Alburn et al., 1972). Additional less abundant TEO fractions should be tested to evaluate their antiviral activity.

We demonstrated the in vitro antiviral and virucidal effect of TEO against FCoV in CRFK cells. These studies open up several perspectives in terms of future applications and therapeutic options for human and animal coronaviruses.

Declaration of conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Additional information

Table 1: Chemical composition of Thymus vulgaris essential oil

NumberFolderArea% + SEMSI / MSLRIAI
1propanoic acid, ethyl ester0.10+0.0986714714
2α-tricyclene0.13+0.1094915919
3α-thujene1.21+0.9897925926
4α-pinene1.81+0.1195930931
5camphene1.89+0.7096949952
61-octen-3-ol0.37+0.0183974975
7sabinene0.71+0.3293977977
8β-pinene0.56+0.0394978978
9β-myrcene1.42+0.2586985991
10α-phellandrene0.15+0.019110011003
11p-cymene19.64+2.509510241024
12lemonade0.6+0.019110331027
13eucalyptol0.89+0.079910231031
14cis-β-terpineol0.13+0.019011451147
15γ-terpinene8.83+0.879410631059
16α-terpinolene0.12+0.018110851089
17β-linalool4.07+1.559710971098
18camphor1.69+0.779811451146
19borneol1.85+0.989711661167
20terpinen-4-ol1.83+0.899611721174
21α-terpineol0.12+0.018611891190
22methyl thymol, ether0.39+0.229012351235
23isothymol methyl ether0.42+0.0294ON THE1244
24thymol47.01+1.599412901290
25caryophyllene2.18+0.999914171418
26caryophyllene oxide0.58+0.139115811592
 Totally characterized98.7   
 Others 1.3   
The legend
SEM = Structural Equation Modeling
SI / MS = Similarity Index / Mass Spectrum
LRI = Linear retention index
AI = Arithmetic Index
NA = not assessed

References

A rational approach to identifying effective combined anticoronaviral therapies against feline coronavirus

9.7.2020
SE Cook, H. Vogel, D. Castillo, M. Olsen, N. Pedersen, BG Murphy
Original article: A rational approach to identifying effective combined anticoronaviral therapies against feline coronavirus

Abstract

Feline peritonitis (FIP), caused by a genetic mutant of feline enteric coronavirus known as FIPV, is a deadly disease in cats for which no FDA-approved vaccine or treatment is currently available. The spread of FIPV in affected cats leads to a number of clinical symptoms, including cavitation effusions, anorexia, fever and lesions of pyogranulomatous vasculitis and perivasculitis with or without central nervous system and / or eye involvement. There has been a critical need for effective and approved antiviral therapies against coronaviruses, including FIPV and zoonotic coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV-2, caused by COVID-19. For SARS-CoV-2, preliminary evidence suggests that there may be potential clinical and pathological features common to feline coronavirus disease, including enteric and neurological impairment. We examined 89 selected antiviral compounds and identified 25 compounds with antiviral activity against FIPV, which represent different classes of drugs and mechanisms of antiviral action. Based on successful combination therapy strategies in human patients with HIV infection or hepatitis C virus, we have identified drug combinations targeting different phases of the FIPV life cycle that lead to a synergistic antiviral effect. Similarly, we suggest that combination anti-cancer therapy (cACT) with multiple mechanisms of action and penetration into all potential anatomical sites of viral infection should be applied to the treatment of other coronaviruses, such as SARS-CoV-2.

Author Summary

We tested in vitro antiviral activity against FIPV in 89 compounds. The antiviral activity of these compounds consisted either of a direct effect on viral proteins involved in viral replication or an indirect inhibitory effect on normal cellular processes usurped by FIPV to promote viral replication. Twenty-five of these compounds showed significant antiviral activity. We have also found that certain combinations of these compounds are more effective than monotherapy alone.

Dictionary

In shortEnglish expressionSlovak translation
PIprotease inhibitorprotease inhibitor
NPInucleoside polymerase inhibitornucleoside polymerase inhibitor
NNPInon-nucleoside polymerase inhibitora non-nucleoside polymerase inhibitor
CPEcytopathic effect cytopathic effect
cACTcombined anti-coronaviral therapycombined anticoronavirus therapy
cARTcombined anti-retroviral therapycombination antiretroviral therapy
CRFK cellsCrandell-Rees Feline Kidney cellsCrandell-Rees feline kidney cells

Introduction

Feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) is a highly fatal disease without an effective FDA-approved vaccine or treatment. Although the pathogenesis is not fully understood, FIP is generally thought to be the result of specific mutations in the viral genome of the minimally pathogenic and ubiquitous feline enteric coronavirus (FECV) that result in the virulent FIP virus (FIPV) [1–3]. These FECV mutations lead to a change in the tropism of the virus-infected host cell from intestinal enterocytes to peritoneal-type macrophages. FIPV productive macrophage infection, targeted extensive anatomical dissemination, and immune-mediated perivasculitis lead to the highly fatal systemic inflammatory disease FIP [4]. As a result of viral dissemination, FIP may present with clinical signs reflecting inflammation at various anatomical sites, which may potentially include the abdomen and intestines, the thoracic cavity, the central nervous system, and / or the eyes [5-8]. Due to its high mortality, FIP remains a devastating viral disease in cats and a challenge in making an accurate etiological diagnosis with a current lack of available and effective treatment options [7, 9]. The development of an effective FIP vaccine has been complicated by the role of antibody-dependent amplification (ADE) in the pathogenesis of FIP, where the presence of non-neutralizing anti-coronavirus antibodies has been shown to exacerbate FIP [10–12].

In mammals, coronaviruses infect and generally cause disease of the intestinal tract or respiratory system of infected hosts [13]. However, FIP often manifests itself as a multisystem inflammatory disease syndrome due to the widespread spread of FIPV-infected macrophages. The recent pandemic occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 in infected human patients results in various disease syndromes, collectively referred to as COVID-19. Although SARS-CoV-2 has overt tropism for respiratory epithelium leading to interstitial pneumonia, recent evidence suggests that COVID-19 may also present as a digestive disease and clinically manifest as diarrhea [14, 15]. The tropism for these tissues reflects the membrane expression of the ACE2 protein, the cellular target of SARS-CoV-2 [16]. Furthermore, SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to be able to infect and cause inflammatory disease in tissues outside the intestinal tract and respiratory tract, including the brain, eyes, reproductive organs, and cardiac myocardium [17-21]. Brain stem neuroinvasion and subsequent encephalitis caused by SARS CoV-2 may contribute to respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19 [20,22]. Experimentally, SARS CoV-2 is able to create a productive infection in cats [23]. Therefore, feline FIPV infection and SARS CoV-2 infection in human patients are more similar than originally thought.

There is an immediate and critical need for available and effective antiviral therapies for the treatment of these coronavirus diseases. FIPV-infected cats could serve as a translational model and provide useful insights useful for SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with COVID-19. Recent antiviral clinical trials in both experimental and naturally infected FIPV cats have provided hope for the treatment and cure of FIP with GS-441524, the nucleoside analog and metabolite of the prodrug Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences) or GC-376, a 3C-like FIPV protease inhibitor (Anivive) [24– 26]. Remdesivir, a prodrug of GS-441524, has recently been shown to be promising in the treatment of human patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 [27,28]. Despite these recent clinical successes, these antiviral compounds have yet to be approved and are not currently available for clinical veterinary use in cats with FIP.

Identifying and developing effective antiviral therapies can be costly and time consuming. Targeted screening and reuse of drugs already approved by the FDA or approved for research use can play an effective role in drug discovery. Using putative antiviral compounds selected on the basis of their proven efficacy in the treatment of other RNA viruses, we identified a subset of compounds with potent anti-FIPV activity and characterized their in vitro safety and efficacy profiles. Based on the great success of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) against HIV-1 and combination treatment of hepatitis C virus [29], we have developed methods to identify effective combination therapies against FIPV. Initial monotherapies against HIV-1, such as azidothymidine (AZT), often led to viral escape mutations. The concomitant use of multiple antiviral compounds appears to block this adaptive viral evolutionary mechanism, as the development of HIV-1 is effectively arrested by modern cARTs [30]. The success of cART is the result of a pharmacological focus on multiple stages of the virus life cycle simultaneously, while achieving a synergistic antiviral effect [31].

Given the impressive success of cART, it could appear that the current targeting of FIPV at different stages of the viral life cycle by combined anti-coronavirus therapy (cACT) may offer a higher level of lasting and more complete success, compared to the monotherapies themselves. The inclusion of an antiviral agent in cACT capable of penetrating the blood-brain (BBB) ​​and blood-eye barriers, and reaching pharmacologically relevant tissue concentrations, may facilitate the eradication of FIPV throughout the system. We describe a set of in vitro assays that facilitate rapid screening and identification of effective anti-coronavirus compounds. Active antiviral agents with different mechanisms of action and presumed distribution in the body were combined into cACT and tested for compound synergy. We hypothesized that the combined use of two or more effective antiviral monotherapies with different mechanisms of action would facilitate the identification of synergistic combinations providing excellent anticoronavirus efficacy compared to their use alone. Identification of successful cACT may also provide guidelines for the treatment of other emerging viral diseases, such as SARS-CoV-2.

The results

Compound testing

To identify compounds with anti-FIPV activity, a group of 89 compounds were tested in vitro (Additional table 1) from different classes of drugs and with different presumed mechanisms of action. Test compounds included nucleoside polymerase (NPI) inhibitors, non-nucleoside polymerase inhibitors (NNPIs), protease inhibitors (PIs), NS5A inhibitors, a set of novel anti-helicase chemical "fragments", and a set of compounds with unspecified mechanisms of action. Of this group of 89 compounds, a total of 25 different compounds were shown to have antiviral activity against FIPV, including NPI, PI, NS5A inhibitors, and two compounds with unspecified mechanisms of action (referred to as "others", Figure 1). These successful antivirals included toremifene citrate, daclatasvir, elbasvir, lopinavir, ritonavir, nelfinavir mesilate, K777 / K11777, grazoprevir, amodiaquin, EIDD 1931, EIDD 2801 and GS-441524 from three different Chinese manufacturers (Table 1). We tested several nucleoside analog compounds provided by Gilead Sciences structurally related to nucleoside analogs GS-441524 and Remdesivir for their antiviral properties and found several with potential (contained in the 25 identified compounds above), but did not follow these substances further. Thirteen antiviral agents were selected for further analysis. This total includes the previously identified 3-C protease inhibitor, GC-376 (Anivive).

Name of the compoundDrug categoryEC50 (µM)
GC376PI0.04
EIDD 1931NPI0.09
ElbasvirNS5A Inhibitor0.16
EIDD 2801NPI0.4
GS-441524+NPI0.66
K777 / K11777PI0.67
Toremifene citrateOther*5
AmodiaquineOther**6.5
LopinavirPI8.08
RitonavirPI8.7
GrazoprevirPI12.13
Nelfinavir mesylatePI13.47
Table 1.
EC50 of compounds with anti-FIPV activity.
PI = Protease inhibitor; NPI = Nucleoside polymerase inhibitor
+ MedChem Express, HY-103586
* Selective estrogen receptor modulator
** 4-Aminoquinoline
Figure 1
Test compounds by mechanism of action
(A) All test compounds
(B) Compounds found to have anti-FIPV activity in in vitro assays
Figure 2
An example of a test matrix using crystal violet staining to identify anti-FIPV activity at 10μM.
The upper left row are control wells with CRFK cells only and without drug or FIPV. The upper right row is a positive control using GS-441524 with the known complete protection of CRFK cells from FIPV-induced cell death. The entire bottom row of wells represents CRFK cells infected with FIPV and without treatment. The remaining rows are test wells, with the left half evaluating cytotoxicity at 10μM (no FIPV infection) and the right half evaluating anti-FIPV activity at 10μM for any given compound. Loss of staining indicates loss of cells. Daklatasvir and velpatasvir demonstrated anti-FIPV activity, as evidenced by increased crystal violet staining (relatively intact cell monolayers) compared to control wells containing only FIPV (bottom row of the plate). Drugs 32, 33 and 34 showed absent to minimal antiviral activity, while drug 34 (Ravidasvir) also showed cytotoxicity at 10 μM based on the dramatic well cleaning observed in the left half of the FIPV-free matrix.

Determination of antiviral activity

Antiviral activity (EC50) was determined for 10 antiviral compounds. For these compounds, the EC50 ranged from 0.04μM to 13.47μM (Table 1, Figure 3). One of the antiviral agents, Daclatasvir, showed unacceptable cytotoxicity at 20 μM and was excluded from further testing. GS-441524 originating in China (MedChemExpress, HY-103586) was shown to have a comparable EC50 compared to previously published values for GS-441524 originating from Gilead Sciences [25].

Figure 3
Representative examples of non-linear EC50 regression assays for compounds with anti-FIPV activity.

Serial dilutions of each compound with anti-FIPV activity were performed to identify half-maximal effective concentration (EC50). The GS-441524 results reported herein represent a compound derived from MedChemExpress.

Cytotoxicity safety profiles

Cytotoxicity safety profiles (CSPs) were determined for ten different antiviral compounds in CRFK cells. At 5 μM, the seven test compounds showed essentially no cytotoxicity, while two of the antivirals, amodiaquine and toremifene, had 11 and 12% cytotoxicity, respectively (Fig. 4; Table 2). The 50% cytotoxic concentration (CC50) for GC376 is reported as> 150μM [32]. Interestingly, based on the Promega CellTox-Green Cytotoxicity assay, the cytotoxicity of both EIDD compounds was essentially undetectable up to 100μM. However, visual inspection of the EIDD wells just prior to fluorescent dye application and matrix reading revealed differences in cell morphology (cytopathic effect) between untreated CRFK cells and treated cells. Untreated CRFK cells showed adherent spindle morphology in a single monolayer, while EIDD wells showed a marked decrease in confluence compared to variable cell morphology, including cell rounding (cytopathic effect). The discrepancy between the subjective visual evaluation of the EIDD wells and the fluorescence assay is a mystery. It is possible that an overall reduction in the number of cells in the EIDD wells led to the loss and degradation of the nucleic acid necessary for fluorescent binding and detection in the CellTox assay.

CompoundDrug category5μM10μM25μM50μM100μM
ElbasvirNS5A Inhibitor0.670.461.424.9
K777 / K11777PI0.610.292.3916
Toremifene citrateOther *1222233539
AmodiaquineOther **1112192326
LopinavirPI0.6715131618
RitonavirPI0.490.8423326
GrazoprevirPI0.5500.813.919
EIDD1931NPI1.20.940.60.782.8
EIDD2801NPI00.950.631.70.8
GS-441524+NPI0.210000
Table 2
Percent cytotoxicity by compound and concentration.
PI = Protease inhibitor; NPI = Nucleoside polymerase inhibitor
* Selective estrogen receptor modulator
** 4-Aminoquinoline
+ NMPharmTech
Figure 4
Representative cytotoxicity profiles.
Bar graphs of percent cytotoxicity +/- standard deviation (SD) for four compounds with anti-FIPV activity. Percent cytotoxicity values were determined by normalizing cytotoxicity for control wells with positive toxicity (set to 100% cytotoxicity) and untreated CRFK cells (set to 0% baseline cytotoxicity).

Quantification of inhibition of viral RNA production in monotherapy

A real-time RT PCR assay was used to measure the ability of each antiviral agent to inhibit coronavirus replication in monotherapy (Viral RNA knock-down assay). The compounds demonstrating the greatest inhibition of FIPV RNA production were GC376, a 3C-like coronavirus protease inhibitor, GS-441524, EIDD-1931 and EIDD-2801, the last three being nucleoside analogs (Fig. 5, Table 3). Substances with the least inhibitory effect on viral RNA production include elbasvir, nelfinavir and ritonavir. Ritonavir, a protease inhibitor, is used in combination with lopinavir to treat HIV-1 infection (Kaletra, AbbVie). Lopinavir monotherapy has unsatisfactory oral bioavailability in humans, but when used in combination, ritonavir has been shown to significantly improve lopinavir plasma concentrations [33]. Therefore, despite the relatively minimal inhibition of FIPV identified with ritonavir as monotherapy, this compound has been further tested, including combined anti-cancer evaluation.

CompoundVirus titer reduction fold
GC376 (20μM)25000
GC3767300
GS-441524 (NMPharmTech)5280
EIDD-19313700
GS-441524 (MedChemExpress)3500
EIDD-28012110
Lopinavir309
Toremifene10
K7777
Grazoprevir5
Amodiaquine4
Elbasvir2
Nelfinavir mesylate1
Ritonavir1
Table 3
Multiple reduction in viral RNA copy number for anti-FIPV compounds on monotherapy
* Unless otherwise indicated, all compounds were used at 10 μM.
Figure 5
Multiple reduction in FIPV RNA copy number using antiviral compounds as monotherapy.

FIPV-infected CRFK cells were incubated for 24 hours with compounds with detected anti-FIPV activity. The viral copy number was then determined by RT-qPCR and normalized to feline GAPDH copy number to determine the fold reduction effect for each compound. All compounds were tested at 10μM unless otherwise noted. All experimental treatments were performed in triplicate wells, and the fold decrease was calculated by dividing the average experimental normalized FIPV copy number by the average normalized FIPV copy number determined for untreated FIPV-infected wells.
1GS-441524 - NMPharmTech (China).
2GS-441524 - MedChemExpress (China).

Quantification of inhibition of viral RNA production in cACT

To identify drug combinations with synergistic antiviral activity versus monotherapy, combinations of two or more compounds were selected based on (i) established combinations used in other viral infections such as HIV-1 and HCV, (ii) drugs with different mechanisms of action, (iii) potential changes in the systemic distribution of the compound (eg ability to cross the blood-brain or blood-eye barrier according to chemical classification) and (iv) minimal cytotoxicity (based on CSP). For each cACT, any resulting reduction in FIPV copy number in excess of the calculated additive effect for each drug used in the monotherapy regimen was considered synergistic (Table 4). The combination of GC376 and amodiaquin achieved the greatest synergistic effect with the highest overall fold reduction in viral RNA with a 76-fold reduction in viral RNA compared to the additive effect (Fig. 6). This particular synergistic combination was one of the surprising results, given that amodiaquin alone showed only limited inhibition of FIPV viral RNA copies as determined by qRT-PCR.

Compound 1Compound 2Compound 3Virus titer reductionAddcACT / add
GC376 (20 μM)Amodiaquine—18970002500476
GC376 (20 μM)AmodiaquineToremifene2560002501410
GC376 (20 μM)K777—2480002500710
GC376 (20 μM)Toremifene—128000250105.1
GC376 (20 μM)Nelfinavir mesylate—91100250013.6
Elbasvir (5 μM)Lopinavir—1400031145
Elbasvir (5 μM)GC376 (20 μM)—12600250020.50
GC376 (10 μM)Amodiaquine—1170073041.6
GC376 (10 μM)Grazoprevir—829073051.1
GC376 (20 μM)GS-441524 (NMPharmTech)8260302800.27
GC376 (10 μM)AmodiaquineElbasvir (5 μM)757073061.0
GC376 (10 μM)GS-441524 (MedChem)—6910108000.64
GC376 (20 μM)Ritonavir—6560250010.26
K777Lopinavir—553031618
GC376 (10 μM)GS-441524 (NMPharmTech)—4340125800.34
GC376 (20 μM)Lopinavir—3400253090.13
LopinavirRitonavir—313031010
LopinavirRitonavirToremifene17403205.4
GC376 (10 μM)EIDD-2801—25594100.03
K777Toremifene—25171.5
Table 4
Multiple reduction in FIPV viral RNA copy number in combination therapy (cACT).
The expected additive effect reflects the sum of the fold reductions in viral RNA of each compound used in monotherapy (Table 3).
* Unless otherwise indicated, all compounds were used at 10μM.
cACT / add - ratio of FIPV titer reduction in combination therapy versus the sum of fold reduction titers in monotherapy
Add - the sum of fold reduction titers in monotherapy
Figure 6
Selected examples of fold FIPV RNA copy reduction using combination therapy (cACT).
The bars represent the mean fold decrease in three wells of treated CRFK cells compared to the mean fold decrease in three untreated wells infected with FIPV. All compounds were tested at 10μM unless otherwise noted.

Given the strong anti-FIPV activity of GC-376, as well as its potential availability for advancement in in vivo pharmacokinetic studies, clinical trials, and promising use in cACT, this compound was selected for a series of “viral RNA knock-down” assays in monotherapy and combination therapy (Fig. 7). Overall, GC376 demonstrated excellent anti-FIPV activity at 20μM both in monotherapy and combination therapy in vitro. The most significant reduction in FIPV RNA occurred when GC376 was combined at 20μM with amodiaquine at 10μM. The experiment combining GC376 with amodiaquine was repeated, and both results are shown for comparison in Fig. 7C.

Figure 7
GC376 antiviral activity in monotherapy and in combination therapy at 10 and 20 μM

(A) FIPV RNA reduction quantified by RT-qPCR using GC376 as monotherapy at 10 and 20 μM. There is a significant difference between the two concentrations, with 20μM being better than 10μM. (unpaired t-test; p <0.0001).
(B) Combination in vitro therapy using GC376 at 10 μM.
(C) Combination in vitro anti-FIPV therapy using GC376 at 20 μM.

Discussion

Because there is currently no effective vaccine against FIP, there is a strong clinical and worldwide need for effective antiviral treatment options for FIPV-infected cats. We tested 89 compounds, which resulted in the identification of 25 antiviral agents with antiviral activity and strong safety profiles against feline coronavirus, FIPV. We also identified combinations of antiviral agents (cACT) that resulted in greater efficacy or synergism over monotherapy alone. Of particular interest was the finding regarding the use of elbasvirus, which repeatedly demonstrated excellent protection of CRFK against CPE-induced FIPV at concentrations below 1 μM based on multiple assays (EC50 0.16 μM). In principle, however, no difference in viral RNA copy number was found between infected cells treated with or without elbasvirus. Further visual analysis of FIPV-infected CRFK cells treated with elbasvirus revealed an atypical cell morphology relative to uninfected cells, which was characterized by variable enlargement, cell rounding, and partial cell detachment (cytopathic effect). These "atypical cells" were rarely detached from the culture plate, and as a result, absorbance values were comparable to uninfected control wells. This dichotomous result between platelet analysis and viral RNA knock-down assay suggests that the antiviral effect of elbasvir occurs after viral replication and, as a result, elbasvir may not protect cells from viral RNA accumulation. Elbasvir is used to treat patients infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) and is thought to target the HCV NS5A protein, which prevents replication and also to complete virions [34]. Although no NS5A homolog has been identified for FIPV, it is possible that elbasvir exhibits a similar antiviral effect by preventing the assembly of FIPV virions without blocking viral RNA synthesis in CRFK cells. Additional evaluation of treated FIPV-infected CRFK cells by transmission electron microscopy may shed light on the effect of elbasvirus on protecting CRFK from FIPV-related damage and death.

Co-administration of ritonavir with lopinavir has been shown to significantly increase lopinavir plasma concentrations in rats, dogs and humans [33]. Ritonavir is a potent inhibitor of CYP3A, which is the primary enzyme responsible for protease inhibitor metabolism, and therefore its co-administration with other protease inhibitors results in increased systemic concentrations of co-administered protease inhibitors such as lopinavir [38, 39]. The increase in the antiviral effect of lopinavir associated with ritonavir was relatively minimal in the viral RNA elimination assays with only a 10-fold inhibition of FIPV over the additive effect. This may be the result of an in vitro testing artifact on a feline kidney cell line (ie CRFK cells) that lacks the enzyme CYP3, an enzyme that typically occurs at sites of high protease inhibitor metabolism at the first pass effect (ie enterocytes). and hepatocytes) [39]. These results suggest that in vitro tests alone may not fully predict the effect of antiviral agents in FIPV-infected cats in vivo.

Grazoprevir, a serine protease inhibitor NS3 / 4, has been used in combination with elbasvirus, an NS5A inhibitor, to treat HCV-infected patients (Zepatier, Merck) [40]. Here, we demonstrated that grazoprevir has anti-FIPV activity when used as monotherapy. The cysteine protease inhibitor K777 / K11777 has been investigated for its ability to block coronavirus (MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-1) and ebolavirus entry and has been found to completely inhibit coronavirus infection, but only in target cell lines without virus-activating serine proteases. [41]. For other cell lines, K777 inhibited coronavirus cell entry in combination with a serine protease inhibitor [41]. It is possible that limited inhibition of FIPV RNA K777 production could be increased if combined with a serine protease inhibitor.

Amodiaquine is an antimalarial drug and belongs to the class of 4-aminoquinoline drugs. Amodiaquine, along with related 4-aminoquinolines such as chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, was originally developed to treat malaria [42], and like chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, it has a wide range of anatomical distributions, including the eyes and brain [43-49]. Penetration of antiviral agents into the CNS and / or ocular compartments is particularly important in FIPV-infected cats with neurological and / or ocular disorders. While several studies have defined the antiviral properties of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine [28, 50, 51], the antiviral activity of amodiaquin has also been investigated with the identification of antiviral activity against dengue virus, Ebola virus and severe fever with viral thrombocytopenia syndrome (SFTS) [52–55]. The mechanism of action of amodiaquine may involve an increase in cytoplasmic lysosomal and / or endosomal pH, which prevents the release of viable virions into the cytoplasm [56]. Due to its unique drug class status and presumed ability to cross the blood-brain barrier [57], amodiaquine is a promising candidate for the combined treatment of neurological and / or ocular forms of FIP.

Toremifene citrate, a selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM), is used to treat metastatic breast cancer in human patients. Recently, toremifene has been evaluated for its antiviral properties and has demonstrated anticorrosive activity against zoonotic coronaviruses, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS-CoV) and SARS-CoV-1 coronaviruses [58]. Toremifene has also been shown to be active against Ebola virus (EBOV) [59, 60]. Although the exact mechanism of antiviral action is not defined, the antiviral effect of toremifene against EBOV appears to be to destabilize the EBOV glycoprotein [59].

Interestingly, GC376 demonstrated confusing differences between 10 μM and 20 μM in combination therapy. When used at 10 μM with other compounds, synergism and in some cases a decrease in antiviral effect compared to additive values ranging from 0.03 to 1.6 were absent (Table 4). When used at 20 μM, there were still cases where combination with another compound resulted in a reduced antiviral effect compared to GC376 used as monotherapy at 20 μM. However, many more variations in the 20 μM combinations showed a fold effect compared to additive values ranging from 0.13 to 76 (Table 4). A specific example is the contrast between GC376 at 20 μM compared to GC376 at 10 μM combined with amodiaquine at 10 μM. The first caused the greatest inhibition of viral RNA as well as the greatest multiple of the additive (synergistic) effect, while the second caused almost a loss of synergism with a value of the additive multiple of 1.6.

The identification of effective antiviral strategies for the treatment of FIPV-infected cats has translational implications for the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. FIPV infection in cats resembles coronavirus infection in ferrets [61, 62] and is compared with the pathogenesis of other chronic macrophage-dependent diseases such as tuberculosis [63]. Because the clinical and pathogenic details of SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans are still emerging, there appears to be some overlap with FIPV in anatomical distribution, clinical manifestations, and likely response to certain antiviral therapies. In cats, the feline enteric coronavirus biotype (FECV) is restricted to the gastrointestinal tract due to enterocyte tropism. Clinical symptoms in FECV-infected cats range from mild gastrointestinal disease (diarrhea) to the absence of symptoms. The mutated FIPV coronavirus feline biotype acquires macrophage tropism and preferentially targets serous abdominal and thoracic surfaces with a subset of cats that demonstrate CNS or eye involvement [7]. Similarly, in patients with COVID-19, there are reports of diarrhea and a subset of patients with CNS involvement [14]. Although the cellular receptor for SARS-CoV-2 has been identified as ACE2 [64], the cellular receptor for FIPV serotype I has yet to be determined. The cellular receptor for less clinically relevant FIPV serotype II has been identified as feline aminopeptidase peptidase (fAPN) [4]. A study using RNAseq to evaluate gene expression profiles of ascites cells obtained from cats with FIP did not identify ACE2 expression, suggesting that ACE2 is unlikely to be a FIPV serotype I receptor [63]. A more detailed examination of the identity of the FIPV serotype I receptor is needed.

Clinical successes with GS-441524 or GC-376 in cats with experimental and naturally occurring FIPs indicate that FIP can be effectively treated, but treatment of dry (granulomatous), neurological and ocular FIPs remains a challenge. The protease inhibitor 3C-like protease, GC-376, appears to be relatively effective in the treatment of FIPV effusion infection limited to body cavities, but may be less effective in the treatment of neurological or ocular forms of the disease [24]. These different results may be the result of ineffective penetration of the blood-brain and blood-eye barriers, making GC-376 a promising candidate for combination therapy with a CNS-penetrating antiviral drug.

Materials and methods

FIPV inoculation for in vitro experiments

Crandell-Reese cat kidney cells (CRFK, ATCC) were cultured in T150 flasks (Corning), seeded with FIPV serotype II (WSU-79-1146, GenBank DQ010921) and propagated in 50 ml of Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM) with 4 , 5 g / l glucose (Corning) and 10% fetal bovine serum (Gemini Biotec). After 72 hours of incubation at 37 ° C, extensive cytopathic effect (CPE) and large cell clearing / separation areas were noted. The flasks were then flash frozen at -70 ° C for 8 minutes, thawed briefly at room temperature, and the cells and supernatant were then centrifuged at 1500 g for 5 minutes, followed by a second centrifugation step at 4000 g for 5 minutes to isolate cell - free viral volumes. The supernatant containing the virus base was divided into 0.5 and 1.0 ml aliquots in 1.5 ml cryotubes (Nalgene) and archived at -70 ° C. After freezing, one tube was allowed to thaw and the virus titer was determined using biological assays (TCID50) and real-time RT PCR methods (below).

The tissue culture dose-50 infectious dose (TCID50) was determined using a viral plaque assay. CRFK cells were grown in a 96-well tissue culture plate (Genesee Scientific) until CRFK cells reached approximately 75-85% confluence. Serial 10-fold dilutions were prepared from FIPV stock solution and 200 μl samples from each dilution were added to 10-well replicates. 72 hours after infection, cells were fixed with methanol and stained with crystal violet (Sigma-Aldrich). Individual wells were visually evaluated for virus-induced CPE, evaluated as CPE positive or negative, and TCID50 was determined based on the log equation.10TCID50 = [total number of # wells CPE positive / # replicates] + 0.5 to reflect infectious virions per milliliter of supernatant [68].

Quantification of FIPV by qRT-PCR

Cell-free viral RNA was isolated from the starting virus using the QIAamp Viral RNA Mini Kit (Qiagen) according to the manufacturer's instructions. The isolated RNA was treated with DNase (Turbo DNase, Invitrogen) and then reverse transcribed using the High-Capacity RNA-to-CDNA Kit (Applied Biosystems) according to the manufacturers' protocols. Copy numbers of FIPV and feline GAPDH cDNA were determined using the Applied Biosystems' QuantStudio 3 Real-Time PCR System and PowerUp SYBR Green Master Mix according to the manufacturer's protocol for a 10 μL reaction. Each PCR reaction was performed in triplicate with aqueous template as a negative control and plasmid DNA as a positive control. A control reaction excluding reverse transcriptase was included in each set of real-time PCR assays. cDNA templates were amplified using the FIPV forward primer, 5'-GGAAGTTTAGATTTGATTTGGCAATGCTAG, and the FIP reverse primer, 5'-AACAATCACTAGATCCAGACGTTAGCT (terminal part of the FIPV 7b gene) [25]. Real-time PCR for the feline housekeeping gene GAPDH was performed simultaneously using primers, 5'-GAPDH, 5'-AAATTCCACGGCACAGTCAAG, and 3'-GAPDH, 5'-TGATGGGCTTTCCATTGATGA. Cycling conditions for both FIPV and GAPDH amplicons were as follows: 50°C for 2 min, 95°C for 2 min, followed by 40 cycles of 95°C for 15 s, 58°C for 30 s, 72°C for 1 min. The final step included a dissociation curve to evaluate the specificity of primer binding. FIPV and GAPDH copy numbers were calculated based on standard curves generated in our laboratory. FIPV cDNA copies determined by real-time RT PCR were normalized to 106 copies of feline GAPDH cDNA.

Development of anti-helicase chemical fragments

The drugs studied and described in this study were already known antiviral agents. In contrast, the helicase enzyme FIPV was cloned, expressed and used as a target for coronavirus and enzyme-specific viral discovery. The AviTag-FIP Helicase-HisTag target DNA sequence was optimized and synthesized. The synthesized sequence was cloned (Adeyemi Adedeji) into the Avi-His tagged pET30a vector to express the protein in E. coli. E. coli strain BL21 (DE3) was transformed with a recombinant plasmid. One colony was inoculated into 1 liter of auto-induced medium containing the antibiotic and the culture was incubated at 37 ° C at 200 rpm.

When the OD600 reached about 3, the cell culture temperature was changed to 15 ° C for 16 hours. Cells were harvested by centrifugation. The cell pellets were resuspended in lysis buffer followed by sonication. The centrifuge precipitate was dissolved with a denaturing agent. The target protein was obtained by one-step purification on a Ni column. The target protein was sterilized with a 0.22 μm filter. The yield was 7.2 mg at 0.90 mg / ml and was stored in PBS, 10% glycerol, 0.5 mM L-arginine, pH 7.4. The concentration was determined by the Bradford protein assay with BSA as a standard. Protein purity and molecular weight were determined by SDS-PAGE with Western blot confirmation.

Surface plasmon resonance (SPR) fragments were screened on a ForteBio Pioneer FE SPR platform. A HisCap sensor chip containing an NTA surface matrix was used. Channels 1 and 3 were filled with 100 μM NiCl 2, followed by injection of 50 μg / ml FIP protein. Channel 2 was left protein-free as well as NiCl 2 as a reference. Channel 1 was immobilized to a density of 88000 RU, while channel 3 contained approximately 12000 RU. Channel 1 was used. The buffer used for immobilization was 10 mM HEPES, pH 7.4, 150 mM NaCl and 0.1% Tween-20. DMSO was added to a final concentration of 4% for this assay. The proprietary compound library was diluted in the same DMSO-free buffer to a final DMSO concentration of 4% DMSO. Compounds from the library were tested at a concentration of 100 μM using the OneStep gradient injection method. The findings were selected based on RU and kinetics and used for cell screening.

Viral plaque test

To screen for antiviral activity of compounds, infected CRFK cells were treated with compounds in six-well replicates and compared to positive control wells (infected cells), negative controls (uninfected cells) and treatment controls (infected cells treated with a known active antiviral compound) simultaneously on each tissue plate. culture. CRFK cells were grown in 96-well tissue culture plates (Genesee Scientific) containing 200 μl of culture medium. At 7575-85% cell confluence, the medium in uninfected control wells was aspirated and replaced with 200 μl of fresh medium. The medium in the infected wells was aspirated and replaced with FIPV inoculated medium at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 0.004 infectious virion per cell. The tissue culture plate was incubated for 1 hour with periodic gentle agitation ("number eight" manipulations) every 15 minutes to facilitate virus-cell interaction. One hour after infection, each putative antiviral compound was added to six wells infected with FIPV (to determine the antiviral activity of the compound) and six uninfected control wells (to screen for cytotoxicity of the compound in CRFK cells). All compounds were initially screened at 10 μM, except for the "chemical fragment" compounds supplied by M. Olsen (Midwestern University), which were evaluated at 50 μM. Tissue culture plates were incubated at 37 ° C for 72 hours and then fixed with methanol and stained with crystal violet. Plates were scanned for absorbance at 620 nm using an ELISA plate reader (FilterMax F3, Molecular Devices; Softmax Pro, Molecular Devices). For each treatment condition, individual well absorbance values ​​were recorded along with the mean absorbance value and mean error of the mean for 6-well experimental replicates.

For substances that demonstrated antiviral efficacy at initial screening at 10 or 50μM (protected from CPE-associated virus), the EC50 was determined by performing a series of progressive 2-fold dilutions of the compounds in a viral plaque assay. To determine the EC50, CRFK cells were grown in 96-well tissue culture plates similar to the antiviral screening assay. Except for uninfected control wells, all remaining wells were infected with FIPV as described above. A two-fold dilution series ranged from 20μM to 0μM and each concentration was performed in six well replicates. The number of dilution steps ranged from 6 to 14 and was compound dependent. Six well replicates of uninfected CRFK cells served as a control for normal CRFK cells; six FIPV-infected CRFK cell replicates served as untreated FIPV-infected control wells; and six well replicates of FIPV-infected CRFK cells treated with GS-441524 served as control wells for protection against virus-induced cell death based on published data on the efficacy of using GS-441524 in vitro in CRFK cells [26].

Tissue culture plates were incubated for 72 hours and then fixed with methanol, stained with crystal violet, and the absorbance at 620 nm was scanned using an ELISA plate reader. Individual absorbance values along with the mean absorbance value and standard deviation for 6-well experimental replicates were recorded for each treatment condition. The EC50 was calculated by plotting a non-linear regression equation (dose-response curve) using Prism 8 software (GraphPad).

Viral RNA knock-down test

Real-time RT-PCR assays were used to quantify inhibition of viral RNA production by the compound. CRFK cells were cultured in a 6-well tissue culture plate (Genesee Biotek). At approximately 75-85% cell fusion, the culture medium was replaced with fresh medium and the cells were infected with FIPV serotype II at an MOI of 0.2 (MOI based on TCID50 bioassay / pfu). The plates were incubated for one hour with periodic gentle shaking every 15 minutes. Wells infected with FIPV were treated with one (monotherapy), two or three (combined anti-cancer therapy) antiviral compounds; each experimental treatment was performed three times. The compound dose was based on the EC50 of the compounds and ranged from 0.001 to 20 μM. For each experimental set, three culture wells with FIPV-infected and untreated CRFK cells served as virus-infected controls. Infected cell cultures were then incubated for 24 hours and total RNA associated with the cells was isolated using a PureLink-RNA mini kit (Invitrogen). RNA was treated with DNAse (TurboDNAse, Ambion), reverse transcribed into cDNA using the High-Capacity RNA-to-cDNA Kit (Applied Biosystems), and FIPV cIPNA and feline GAPDH cDNA were measured by real-time qRT-PCR as described above. . The fold reduction in viral titer was determined by dividing the normalized mean FIPV RNA copy number for untreated FIPV-infected CRFK cells into the normalized mean FIPV RNA copy number for CRFK treated cells with the desired compound (s). The expected additive effect was determined by adding a fold reduction for each monotherapy used in combination. The composite additive effect was determined by dividing the predicted additive effect by the combined multiple reduction value for a particular combination therapy.

Determination of cytotoxicity safety profiles (CSP).

The cytotoxicity of the compound in feline cells was assessed using a commercially available kit (CellTox Green Cytotoxicity Assay, Promega) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Untreated CRFK cells were used as negative controls and the cells were treated with a cytotoxic solution provided by the manufacturer as positive toxicity controls. Briefly, in addition to control wells, CRFK cells were plated in 96-well tissue culture plates (Genesee Scientific) in four well replicates with 5, 10, 25, 50 or 100 μM concentrations of the desired compound and incubated for 72 hours. After 72 hours, all wells were stained with the DNA kit, incubated at 37 ° C protected from light for 15 minutes, and the fluorescence intensity at 485-500 nm Ex / 520-530 nm EM was subsequently determined using a plate reader (FilterMax F3, Molecular Devices; Softmax Pro, Molecular Devices). The cytotoxicity of a compound at a particular concentration was thought to be proportional to the fluorescence intensity based on the selective penetration and binding of the dye to the DNA of degenerated, apoptotic or necrotic cells. The extent of cytotoxicity was determined by adjusting the fluorescence value for cells treated with the positive control reagent to 100% and untreated feline cells as 0% cytotoxicity. The average fluorescence value for the four wells containing each compound concentration was then interpolated as a percentage (percent cytotoxicity) ranging from 0 to 100%.

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that there has been no conflict of interest.

We appreciate funding provided by the Winn Feline Foundation (MTW 17-020; MTW 19-026) and the University of California, Davis, Center for Companion Animal Health (CCAH; 2018-92-F; 2018-94-FE) through multi-FIP research donations individual donors and organizations (SOCK FIP, Davis, CA) and foundations (Philip Raskin Fund, Kansas City, KS).

Additional information

Complete list of compounds tested in vitro for FIPV activity

Nucleoside polymerase inhibitors

12x GS Nuc AnalogsNucleoside analogNPI
GS-441524 (China-sourced)Adenosine analog nucleosideNPI
3-Deazaneplanocin A HydrochlorideAdenosine analog nucleosideNPI
AdefovirAdenosine analog nucleosideNPI
GalidesivirAdenosine analog nucleosideNPI
GS-441524 (Manufactured in China)Adenosine analog nucleosideNPI
MK-0608Adenosine analog nucleosideNPI
NITD008Adenosine analog nucleosideNPI
DidanosineAdenosine analog nucleosideNPI
Tenofovir alafenamideAdenosine analog nucleosideNPI
Tenofovir disoproxil fumarateAdenosine analog nucleosideNPI
EIDD 1931Nucleoside analog Cytidine 
EIDD 2801Nucleoside analog Cytidine 
2′-C-methylcytidineNucleoside analog CytidineNPI
Gemcitabine HydrochlorideNucleoside analog CytidineNPI
2-C-methylguanosineNucleoside analogue GuanosineNPI
7-methylguanosineNucleoside analogue GuanosineNPI
EntecavirNucleoside analogue GuanosineNPI
MizoribineNucleoside analogue GuanosineNPI
RibavirinNucleoside analogue GuanosineNPI
PSI-6206Nucleoside analog UridineNPI
6-AzauridineNucleoside analog UridineNPI
BalapiravirNucleoside analog CytidineNPI
SofosbuvirNucleoside analog UridineNPI
FavipiravirNucleoside analog PurineNPI
Total 36

Protease inhibitors

GrazoprevirNS3 / 4A protease inhibitorPI
Rupin trivirRhinoviral 3CP inhibPI
LopinavirAntiretroviral PIPI
RitonavirAntiretroviral PIPI
NelfinavirAntiretroviral PIPI
Disulfiram (tetraethyliuram disulfide)Papain-like protease inhibPI
K777 / K11777Cysteine protease inhibitorPI
TelaprevirNS3 / 4A protease inhibitorPI
Camostat mesylateSerine protease inhibitorPI
ParitaprevirSerine protease inhibitorPI
GC376Coronavirus protease inhibitorPI
Total 11

NS5A inhibitors

VelpatasvirNS5A InhibitorNS5A Inhibitor
Ravidasvir / PPI-668NS5A InhibitorNS5A Inhibitor
LedipasvirNS5A InhibitorNS5A Inhibitor
OmbitasvirNS5A InhibitorNS5A Inhibitor
PibrentasvirNS5A InhibitorNS5A Inhibitor
DaclatasvirNS5A InhibitorNS5A Inhibitor
ElbasvirNS5A InhibitorNS5A Inhibitor
Total 7

NNPI

DasabuvirNon-nucleoside polymerase inhibitorNNPI
Total 1

other

MonensinIonophoreother
Phenazopyridine hydrochlorideCrystalline solidother
Pyrvinium pamoate hydrateAndrogen receptor inhibitorother
Toremifene citrateSelective estrogen receptor modulator other
AM580Retinobenzoic derivativeother
HomoharringtonineTranslation elongation inhibother
Amodiaquine4-aminoquinoloneother
Total 7

Midwestern Chemical Fragments

F0472-0017Midwestern
F6190-0257Midwestern
F6279-0675Midwestern
F2167-1080Midwestern
F6190-0740Midwestern
F6438-2155Midwestern
F3411-5663Midwestern
F6233-0011Midwestern
F9995-2543Midwestern
F2124-0890Midwestern
F2711-2577Midwestern
F2130-0055Midwestern
F2493-3358Midwestern
F2459-0974Midwestern
F2124-0465Midwestern
F1899-2269Midwestern
F2185-1982Midwestern
F2189-0717Midwestern
F2147-0158Midwestern
F1371-0192Midwestern
F2156-0057Midwestern
F9995-2431Midwestern
F3349-0218Midwestern
F2156-0059Midwestern
F2156-0070Midwestern
F5856-0194Midwestern
F2147-0975Midwestern
Total 27

References

  1. Chang HW, de Groot RJ, Egberink HF, et al. Feline infectious peritonitis: Insights into feline coronavirus pathobiogenesis and epidemiology based on genetic analysis of the viral 3c gene. J Gen Virol 2010; 91: 415–420.CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  2. Pedersen NC, Liu H, Dodd KA, et al. Significance of coronavirus mutants in feces and diseased tissues of cats suffering from feline infectious peritonitis. Viruses 2009; 1: 166–184.CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  3. Vennema H, Poland A, Foley J, et al. Feline infectious peritonitis viruses arise by mutation from endemic feline enteric coronaviruses. Virology 1998; 243: 150–157.CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  4. Rottier PJM, Nakamura K, Schellen P, et al. Acquisition of Macrophage Tropism during the Pathogenesis of Feline Infectious Peritonitis Is Determined by Mutations in the Feline Coronavirus Spike Protein. J Virol 2005; 79: 14122–14130.Abstract / FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
  5. Diaz JV., Poma R. Diagnosis and clinical signs of feline infectious peritonitis in the central nervous system. Can Vet J 2009; 50: 1091–1093.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Foley JE, Lapointe JM, Koblik P, et al. Diagnostic features of clinical neurologic feline infectious peritonitis. J Vet Intern Med 1998; 12: 415–423.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Pedersen NC. An update on feline infectious peritonitis: Diagnostics and therapeutics. Vet J 2014; 201: 133–141.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Stiles J. Ocular manifestations of feline viral diseases. Vet J 2014; 201: 166–173.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Pedersen NC. A review of feline infectious peritonitis virus infection: 1963-2008. J Feline Med Surg 2009; 11: 225–258.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hohdatsu T, Yamada M, Tominaga R, et al. Antibody-Dependent Enhancement of Feline Infectious Peritonitis Virus Infection in Feline Alveolar Macrophages and Human Monocyte Cell Line U937 by Serum of Cats Experimentally or Naturally Infected with Feline Coronavirus. J Vet Med Sci 1998; 60: 49–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Takano T, Yamada S, Doki T, et al. Pathogenesis of oral type I feline infectious peritonitis virus (FIPV) infection: Antibodydependent enhancement infection of cats with type I FIPV via the oral route. J Vet Med Sci 2019; 81: 911–915.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Vennema H, de Groot RJ, Harbor DA, et al. Early death after feline infectious peritonitis virus challenge due to recombinant vaccinia virus immunization. J Virol 1990; 64: 1407–1409.Abstract / FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
  13. Fenner's Veterinary Virology. 2017. Epub ahead of print 2017. DOI: 10.1016 / c2013-0-06921-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Wei X, Wang X, Peng W, et al. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine Clinical characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 infected pneumonia with diarrhea. 4.Google Scholar
  15. Hosoda T, Sakamoto M, Shimizu H, et al. SARS-CoV-2 enterocolitis with persisting to excrete the virus for about two weeks after recovering from diarrhea: A case report. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2020; 1-4.Google Scholar
  16. Hamming I, Timens W, Bulthuis MLC, et al. Tissue distribution of ACE2 protein, the functional receptor for SARS coronavirus. A first step in understanding SARS pathogenesis. 2004; 631–637.Google Scholar
  17. Zhang J, Wu Y, Wang R, et al. Bioinformatic analysis of reproductive system Bioinformatic analysis reveals that the reproductive system is potentially at risk from SARS-CoV-2. 2020; 1-15.Google Scholar
  18. Zheng YY, Ma YT, Zhang JY, et al. COVID-19 and the cardiovascular system. Nat Rev Cardiol. Epub ahead of print 2020. DOI: 10.1038 / s41569-020-0360-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chen L, Deng C, Chen X, et al. Ocular manifestations and clinical characteristics of 534 cases of COVID-19 in China: A cross-sectional study. medRxiv 2020; 2020.03.12.20034678.Google Scholar
  20. Mao L, Wang M, Chen S, et al. Neurological Manifestations of Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective case series study. medRxiv 2020; 2020.02.22.20026500.Google Scholar
  21. Chen C, Zhou Y, Wang DW. SARS-CoV-2: a potential novel etiology of fulminant myocarditis. Heart 2020; 10-12.Google Scholar
  22. Li YC, Bai WZ, Hashikawa T. The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2 may be at least partially responsible for the respiratory failure of COVID-19 patients. J Med Virol 2020; 24-27Google Scholar
  23. Shi J, Wen Z, Zhong G, et al. Susceptibility of ferrets, cats, dogs, and other domesticated animals to SARS-coronavirus 2. Science. Epub ahead of print 2020. DOI: 10.1126 / science.abb7015.Abstract / FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
  24. Pedersen NC, Kim Y, Liu H, et al. Efficacy of a 3C-like protease inhibitor in treating various forms of acquired feline infectious peritonitis. J Feline Med Surg 2018; 20: 378–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Murphy BG, Perron M, Murakami E, et al. The nucleoside analog GS-441524 strongly inhibits feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) virus in tissue culture and experimental cat infection studies. Vet Microbiol 2018; 219: 226–233.Google Scholar
  26. Pedersen NC, Perron M, Bannasch M, et al. Efficacy and safety of the nucleoside analog GS-441524 for the treatment of cats with naturally occurring feline infectious peritonitis. J Feline Med Surg 2019; 21: 271–281.Google Scholar
  27. Holshue ML, DeBolt C, Lindquist S, et al. First case of 2019 novel coronavirus in the United States. N Engl J Med 2020; 382: 929–936.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Wang M, Cao R, Zhang L, et al. Remdesivir and chloroquine effectively inhibit the recently emerged novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in vitro. Cell Res 2020; 30: 269–271.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Nakagawa F, May M, Phillips A. Life expectancy living with HIV: Recent estimates and future implications. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2013; 26: 17–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Simonetti FR, Kearney MF. Review: Influence of ART on HIV genetics. Current Opinion in HIV and AIDS. Epub ahead of print 2015. DOI: 10.1097 / COH.0000000000000120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Arts EJ, Hazuda DJ. HIV-1 antiretroviral drug therapy. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med; 2. Epub ahead of print 2012. DOI: 10.1101 / cshperspect.a007161.Abstract / FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
  32. Kim Y, Liu H, Kankanamalage ACG. Reversal of the Progression of Fatal Coronavirus Infection in Cats by a Broad-Spectrum Coronavirus Protease Inhibitor. 2016; 1-18.Google Scholar
  33. Kumar GN, Jayanti VK, Johnson MK, et al. Metabolism and disposition of the HIV-1 protease inhibitor lopinavir (ABT-378) given in combination with ritonavir in rats, dogs, and humans. Pharm Res 2004; 21: 1622–1630.CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  34. Sulejmani N, Jafri SM, Gordon SC. Pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of elbasvir and grazoprevir in the treatment of hepatitis C. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2016; 12: 353–361.Google Scholar
  35. Combination Antiretroviral Therapy for HIV Infection - American Family Physician, https://www.aafp.org/afp/1998/0601/p2789.html (accessed 6 April 2020).Google Scholar
  36. Julg B. Atripla ™ - HIV therapy in one pill. 2008; 4: 573–577.Google Scholar
  37. Clay PG, Taylor TAH, Glaros AG, et al. “One pill, once daily”: what clinicians need to know about Atripla ™. 2008; 4: 291–302.Google Scholar
  38. Hill A, Van Der Lugt J, Sawyer W, et al. How much ritonavir is needed to boost protease inhibitors? Systematic review of 17 dose-ranging pharmacokinetic trials. Aids 2009; 23: 2237–2245.CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  39. A. H, GR G, RJ B. Ritonavir: Clinical pharmacokinetics and interactions with other anti-HIV agents. Clin Pharmacokinet 1998; 35: 275–291.CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  40. Kwo P, Gane EJ, Peng C, et al. Effectiveness of Elbasvir and Grazoprevir Combination, With or Without Ribavirin, for Treatment-Experienced Patients With Chronic Hepatitis C Infection. Gastroenterology 2017; 152: 164–175.e4.Google Scholar
  41. Zhou Y, Vedantham P, Lu K, et al. Protease inhibitors targeting coronavirus and filovirus entry. Antiviral Res 2015; 116: 76–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Alessandro SD, Scaccabarozzi D, Signorini L, et al. The Use of Antimalarial Drugs against Viral Infection. 2020; 1-26.Google Scholar
  43. Rynes RI, Bernstein HN. Ophthalmologic safety profile of antimalarial drugs. In: Lupus. 1993. Epub ahead of print 1993. DOI: 10.1177 / 0961203393002001051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Briceño E, Reyes S, Sotelo J. Therapy of glioblastoma multiforme improved by the antimutagenic chloroquine. Neurosurg Focus. Epub ahead of print 2003. DOI: 10.3171 / foc.2003.14.2.4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Ekong M, Igiri A, Ekanem T, et al. The effect of amodiaquine on some brain macromolecules of Wistar rats. Int J Biol Chem Sci. Epub ahead of print 2009. DOI: 10.4314 / ijbcs.v2i4.39762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mackenzie AH. Pharmacologic actions of 4-aminoquinoline compounds. Am J Med. Epub ahead of print 1983. DOI: 10.1016 / 0002-9343 (83) 91264-0.CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  47. Kuroda K. Detection and distribution of chloroquine metabolites in human tissues. J Pharmacol Exp Ther.Google Scholar
  48. Maguire A, Kolb H. THE EFFECT OF A SYNTHETIC ANTIMALARIAL (AMODIAQUINE) ON THE RETINA. Br J Dermatol. Epub ahead of print 1964. DOI: 10.1111 / j.1365-2133.1964.tb15487.x.CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  49. McAnally D, Siddiquee K, Goma A, et al. Repurposing antimalarial aminoquinolines and related compounds for treatment of retinal neovascularization. PLoS One. Epub ahead of print 2018. DOI: 10.1371 / journal.pone.0202436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Keyaerts E, Li S, Vijgen L, et al. Antiviral activity of chloroquine against human coronavirus OC43 infection in newborn mice. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2009; 53: 3416–3421.Abstract / FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
  51. Savarino A, Boelaert JR, Cassone A, et al. Effects of chloroquine on viral infections: An old drug against today's diseases? Lancet Infect Dis 2003; 3: 722–727.CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  52. Azuma P, Massaquoi M, Job D, et al. Effect of Artesunate – Amodiaquine on Mortality Related to Ebola Virus Disease. 2016; 23–32.Google Scholar
  53. Boonyasuppayakorn S, Reichert ED, Manzano M, et al. HHS Public Access. 2015; 125–134.Google Scholar
  54. Baba M, Toyama M, Sakakibara N. Establishment of an antiviral assay system and identification of severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome virus inhibitors. 2017; 25: 83–89.Google Scholar
  55. Savarino A, Lucia MB, Rastrelli E, et al. Anti-HIV Effects of Chloroquine. JAIDS J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. Epub ahead of print 2004. DOI: 10.1097 / 00126334-200403010-00002.CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  56. Al-bari AA. Targeting endosomal acidification by chloroquine analogs as a promising strategy for the treatment of emerging viral diseases. 2017; 5: 1–13.Google Scholar
  57. Terauchi M. Pharmacokinetics of selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs). Clin Calcium 2016; 26: 1571–1581.Google Scholar
  58. Agents A, Dyall J, Diseases I, et al. Repurposing of Clinically Developed Drugs for Treatment of Middle. Epub ahead of print 2014. DOI: 10.1128 / AAC.03036-14.Abstract / FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
  59. Zhao Y, Ren J, Harlos K, et al. glycoprotein virus. Nature 2016; 535: 169–172.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Dyall J, Nelson EA, Dewald LE, et al. Identification of Combinations of Approved Drugs With Synergistic Activity Against Ebola Virus in Cell Cultures. 2018; 22908: 672–678.Google Scholar
  61. Michimae Y, Mikami S, Okimoto K, et al. The First Case of Feline Infectious Peritonitis-like Pyogranuloma in a Ferret Infected by Coronavirus in Japan. 2010; 99–101.Google Scholar
  62. Ramis A, Amarilla SP. Coronavirus Infection in Ferrets: Antigen Distribution and Inflammatory Response. 2016; 53: 1180–1186.Google Scholar
  63. Watanabe R, Eckstrand C, Liu H, et al. Characterization of peritoneal cells from cats with experimentally-induced feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) using RNA-seq. Vet Res 2018; 1-15.Google Scholar
  64. Inhibitor P, Hoffmann M, Kleine-weber H, et al. SARS-CoV-2 Cell Entry Depends on ACE2 and TMPRSS2 and Is Blocked by a Clinically Proven Article SARS-CoV-2 Cell Entry Depends on ACE2 and TMPRSS2 and Is Blocked by a Clinically Proven Protease Inhibitor. 2020; 1-10.Google Scholar
  65. Zhang B, Zhou X, Zhu C, et al. Immune phenotyping based on neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and IgG predicts severity disease and outcome for patients with COVID-19. medRxiv. Epub ahead of print 2020. DOI: 10.1101 / 2020.03.12.20035048.Abstract / FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
  66. Zhao J, Yuan Q, Wang H, et al. Antibody Responses to SARS-CoV-2 in Patients of Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019. SSRN Electron J. Epub ahead of print 2020. DOI: 10.2139 / ssrn.3546052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Cao X. COVID-19: immunopathology and its implications for therapy. Nat Rev Immunol; 2019. Epub ahead of print 2020. DOI: 10.1038 / s41577-020-0308-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Ramakrishnan MA. Determination of 50% endpoint titer using a simple formula. World J Virol 2016; 5:85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

The Neurological Form of Feline Infectious Peritonitis and GS-441524 treatment

1.6.2021
Niels C. Pedersen, DVM PhD
Original article: The Neurological Form of Feline Infectious Peritonitis and GS-441524 treatment

Introduction

Neurological impairment occurs in about 5–10% cases of FIP. This may vary from region to region, as the author's experience suggests that Turkish street cats are more prevalent. The age of onset is similar to other forms of FIP, with most cases occurring within 3 years.

Neurological FIP is considered a form of dry FIP, and typical dry FIP lesions in the abdomen, chest, or eyes occur in about half of the neurological cases of FIP. Neurological symptoms are only visible in about 5% cats with manifestations of wet FIP.1 However, in cats, there was a significant increase in the incidence of neurological FIP either during treatment with GS-441524 or in the form of post-treatment relapse periods in cats that were originally treated for non-neurological FIP.

Clinical signs

Neurological FIP occurs in two forms, primary and secondary. Abnormal neurological symptoms are present in cats with primary disease. However, general symptoms of ill health are also common, such as failure to thrive, weight loss, lethargy and anorexia. The fever may be overt or covert. About half of cats with primary neurological FIP will also have identifiable lesions outside the CNS and typical blood test results. However, cats with no obvious signs of CNS damage will often have normal or near-normal levels on the CBC and in their serum.

Early neurological symptoms, recognizable prospectively or retrospectively, include licking the floor or walls, sporadic muscle twitching, and indeterminate behavior and cognitive abnormalities. Anisocoria is another early sign. Suspicion of neurological FIP increases as clinical symptoms become more functional. The earliest sign is usually a gradual loss of coordination and balance (ataxia). The reluctance to jump up or down from high places is one of the first signs of incoordination. Incoordination is initially most noticeable on the hind legs, but quickly becomes general. In some cases, seizures of the grand mal type or psychomotor type may also occur. Grand mal seizures are manifested by a brief loss of consciousness, strong rhythmic muscle cramps affecting the whole body. Psychomotor epilepsy is associated with varying degrees of consciousness and uncontrolled or partially controlled body movements.

Cats with secondary neurological FIP show signs of extra-intestinal disease and CNS involvement occurs at a later stage of the disease. It often occurs during antiviral treatment of other forms of FIP and is a common cause of relapse in cats treated with other forms of FIP. These relapses usually occur within the first 1-4 weeks after successful treatment.

Spinal cord involvement is often overlooked in neurological FIP, although more than 50% cats with inflammatory spinal cord disease have FIP.2 Spinal cord involvement leads to fecal and / or urinary incontinence of varying severity. Paralysis of the tail or hind limbs are also symptoms of spinal cord disease. Spinal cord involvement is likely to lead to permanent neurological deficits and then to brain disease.

Diagnosis

The sudden onset of neurological abnormalities in cats less than 5-7 years of age is strong evidence of FIP on the basis of probability alone, as few other diseases will have similar symptoms in this age group. However, there is a tendency among veterinarians to include systemic toxoplasmosis on their diagnostic list above, especially when ocular or CNS symptoms are observed. Systemic toxoplasmosis in cats is a rare disease compared to FIP and often occurs in immunocompromised hosts, including hosts with FIP. 15-17 This is understandable because cats are the definitive host of Toxoplasma gondii in nature and have developed a state of facultative symbiosis. In addition, the main clinical manifestation of systemic toxoplasmosis is characteristic pneumonia, sometimes associated with hepatitis, pancreatic necrosis, myositis, myocarditis, and dermatitis.3-8 FIP-like uvitis occurs in approximately 10% cats with systemic toxoplasmosis, 4 and encephalitis is even less common.7,17 The diagnostic test for systemic toxoplasmosis is based on a comparison of IgG and IgM antibody titers using the indirect fluorescent antibody (IFA) procedure. 3 High IgG titers in the absence of IgM antibodies indicate previous toxoplasma exposure, which can reach up to 50% in feral cat populations.4 The presence of high titers of IgM antibodies is an indication of the systemic spread of the organism from the intestine to other tissues and is one of the requirements for the diagnosis of systemic disease. However, many cats with ocular and neurological signs are inappropriately treated for systemic toxoplasmosis only on the basis of high IgG titers.

The diagnosis of typical forms of FIP is usually made by combining information on the age and origin of the cat, historical and physical signs (eg ill health, fever, abdominal or thoracic effusions, palpable abdominal mass) with certain laboratory abnormalities in the complete blood count (anemia; high white blood cell count, low lymphocyte count and high neutrophil count), serum biochemical panel (high total protein, high globulin, low albumin and low A: G ratio), effusion tests, if present (exudate or modified exudate, yellow tint) and determining the likelihood that these findings can best be explained by the FIP. A definitive diagnosis can be obtained by identifying coronavirus proteins or RNA in effusions or tissue samples by PCR or immunohistochemistry. However, it is possible that cats that develop neurological FIP during or after treatment with a non-neurological form will lack many or all of these clinical signs.

Diagnosis of neurological FIP, especially in the primary form, is usually made in three ways: 1) consider all historical, clinical, and laboratory findings and estimate the likelihood of FIP, 2) examine the brain for FIP by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and / or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis, 8,9 and 3) treat on the assumption that it is a neurological FIP, and hope for a positive response to antiviral therapy.

Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging is increasingly being used in the diagnosis of neurological FIP. Dilation (hydrocephalus) of one or more ventricles is a common lesion in the brain.8,9 Similar dilatations in the form of syringomyelia can be observed in the spinal cord. Dilatations are secondary to inflammation of the surrounding ependyma. The ependyma ensures the excretion, circulation and maintenance of CSF homeostasis. Therefore, the severity of FIP secondary obstructive hydrocephalus is proportional to the degree of ependymal inflammation and the associated increase in contrast. Discrete lesions of the parenchyma are not identified. MRI significantly increases the cost of diagnosis, anesthesia increases the risk of death in seriously ill cats, and expertise and equipment are not always available. Therefore, the final diagnosis often falls in response to a specific antiviral treatment. The drug of choice for FIP neurological cases is GS-441524.9,12

CSF analysis is an alternative way to quantify the nature and severity of inflammation in the ependymus and meninges. CSF protein levels and cell numbers are elevated in cats with FIP, and it is often possible to obtain suitable samples for the detection of infected macrophages by IHC or PCR.10,11 CSF analysis is associated with a low risk of anesthesia and needle puncture into the magna tank.

Treatment

Neurological FIP can be cured if a sufficient amount of antiviral drug crosses the blood-brain barrier and the virus does not acquire drug resistance.9,12 Field tests with the GS376 viral protease inhibitor were the first to show that neurological symptoms could be significantly suppressed, but the infection could not be cured. The reason was considered the inability to reach sufficiently high levels of GC376 in the CNS. Greater success in treating cats with neurological FIP has been achieved with the nucleoside analog and viral RNA transcription inhibitor GS-441524.9,12 GS-441524 was shown to enter cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) at concentrations from 7-21% blood, depending on the cat tested. 13 These differences in the blood-brain barrier between cats are likely to explain the variable doses of GS-441524 from 4 to 10 mg / kg per day required for the treatment of naturally occurring cases of neurological FIP.9,12

The current starting dose for GS-441524 was based on recent findings7 set at 10 mg / kg daily by the subcutaneous route. Although it is possible to treat some cats at lower doses, 9,12 There is no easy way to measure the strength of the blood-brain barrier, so use the lowest dosage that will have a healing effect for most cats. Treatment success is measured by both improvement in clinical symptoms and improvement in critical blood test abnormalities. Weight gain and coat quality are also important quality traits that need to be observed. Sequence analyzes of MRI and CSF will provide more direct evidence of response to treatment,9 but in most cases they are impractical.

Improvement in general health and neurological symptoms usually appear within 24-48 hours, and most cats destined for complete recovery will return to normal within 4-6 weeks. However, a significant proportion of cats will respond more slowly and require a reassessment of their clinical condition and blood test status every 4 weeks. Slowing down the course of treatment, either clinically or in the form of a reversal in the initial abnormalities of the blood test, will require an increase in the dose from +2 to +5 mg / kg per day.9,12

Discontinuation of treatment, which is usually after 84 days, is not always easy to confirm. Typical blood test abnormalities used in most other forms of FIP either do not occur at the time of diagnosis or return to normal before treatment is stopped. Persistent neurological abnormalities may persist after the infection has healed, making clinical evaluation difficult. Without magnetic resonance and / or cerebrospinal fluid analysis to confirm that the disease has passed, the only option left is to stop treatment and hope that there will be no relapse.

Complications of neurological FIP

Relapses in cats treated for neurological FIP usually occur within a few days of stopping treatment and are caused by either inappropriate dosing and / or the acquisition of drug resistance. The incidence of relapses appears to be slightly higher than after treatment of forms of FIP without CNS involvement. Underdosing may be the result of a stronger blood-brain barrier in some cats compared to others, a poor quality antiviral drug, or incorrect dose calculation. However, it is common for cats to recover from re-treatment until drug resistance has occurred.

The acquisition of drug resistance is well known in antiviral drugs used in humans for diseases such as HIV / AIDS. It has also been reported with GC37611,14 also GS-441524 in cats.12 Drug resistance can occur by mutations in either the native FECV or its wild-type FIP biotype14, and manifested by an insufficient initial response to treatment, but this is not a common phenomenon.12 Resistance is more likely to occur during treatment and is due to both chronic drug exposure and lower sub-inhibitory drug levels. Drug resistance is usually partial and can often be overcome by increasing the dose. Drug resistance may worsen over time, and further dose increases will have no effect.

Cats with neurological FIP may show residual brain and / or spinal cord damage and permanent consequences after cessation of treatment. Disabilities include varying degrees of incoordination, behavioral changes, and dementia. The most problematic consequences are associated with spinal cord injury. The spinal cord is enclosed in a bone tube that does not allow for large expansion in the event of inflammation or some form of syringomyelia. Spinal cord involvement in FIP is often manifested by varying degrees of fecal and / or urinary incontinence. Paralysis of the hind limbs and tail is also observed, but is less common. Unfortunately, these clinical abnormalities are often permanent, especially if the neurological disease is not treated for a long time.

One of the most common negative antiviral treatment outcomes in cats with neurological FIP is failure to cure, although continuing high-dose treatment still allows for a sustainable quality of life (ie, management of disease symptoms without cure). This situation suggests that inhibition of virus replication by antiviral drugs may not be sufficient to cure the infection, and that an effective immune response is also required. This phenomenon of "treatment without cure" has in many cases led many owners to continue treatment at all costs for more than a year. It has also led to many experiments with ultra-high doses of GS441524 (> 15 mg / kg daily), divided doses, switching from injections to oral therapy, concomitant oral and injectable therapy, combination antiviral therapy (eg GS-441424 plus GC376) and antiviral support. treatment with high doses of corticosteroids and other immunosuppressants. Treatment with such treatments is occasionally required, but the result has been unfavorable for most of these cats.

There is circumstantial evidence that the host's immunity to FIP is shared between the CNS and other parts of the body. The incidence of CNS involvement appears to be increased when GS-441524 inhibits infection outside the CNS. Therefore, active disease outside the CNS appears to have an inhibitory effect on CNS disease. Cats with pure neurological disease often do not show abnormal blood test values on the CBC panel or in the serum, even with significant inflammatory changes in the cerebrospinal fluid.8 Compared to other forms of FIP, cats with neurological FIP often have the highest serum, ie the highest CSF antibody titers.8 These are all evidence of "compartmentalization" of the infection on either side of the blood-brain barrier.

References

  1. Pedersen NC. 2009. A review of feline infectious peritonitis virus infection: 1963-2008. J Feline Med Surg 11: 225–58.
  2. Marioni-Henry K. Feline spinal cord diseases. Vet Clin No Am Small Anim Pract. 2010; 40: 1011–1028.
  3. Pedersen NC. Toxoplasmosis. In: Feline Infectious Diseases. American Veterinary Publications, Inc., Goleta, CA, USA, 1988, pp 372-380.
  4. Petrak M, Carpenter J. Feline toxoplasmosis. J Am Vet Assoc. 1965; 146:728734. 
  5. Jokelainen P, Simola O, Rantanen E, Nareaho A, Lohi H, Sukura A. Feline toxoplasmosis in Finland: Cross-sectional epidemiological study and case series study. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2012; 24: 1115–1124.
  6. Henriksen P, Dietz HH, Henriksen SA. Fatal toxoplasmosis in five cats. Vet Parasitol. 1994;55:15-20.
  7. Holzworth J. Encephalitic toxoplasmosis in a cat. J Am Vet Assoc. 1954; 124:313-316.
  8. Foley JE, Lapointe JM, Koblik P, Poland A, Pedersen NC Diagnostic features of clinical neurologic feline infectious peritonitis. J Vet Intern Med. 1998;12:415-423.
  9. Dickinson PJ, Bannasch M, Thomasy SM, Murthy VD, Vernau KM, Liepnieks M, Montgomery E, Knickelbein KE, Murphy B, Pedersen NC. Antiviral treatment using the adenosine nucleoside analogue GS ‐ 441524 in cats with clinically diagnosed neurological feline infectious peritonitis. J Vet Intern Med. 2020; 34: 1587–1593.
  10. Ives EJ, Vanhaesebrouck AE, Cian F. 2013. Immunocytochemical demonstration of feline infectious peritonitis virus within cerebrospinal fluid macrophages. J Feline Med Surg. 2013; 15: 1149–1153. 
  11. Pedersen NC, Kim Y, Liu H, Galasiti Kankanamalage AC, Eckstrand C, Groutas WC, Bannasch M, Meadows JM, Chang KO. Efficacy of a 3C-like protease inhibitor in treating various forms of acquired feline infectious peritonitis. J Feline Med Surg. 2018;20:378-392.
  12. Pedersen NC, Perron M, Bannasch M, et al. Efficacy and safety of the nucleoside analog GS-441524 for the treatment of cats with naturally occurring feline infectious peritonitis. J Feline Med Surg. 2019;21:271-281. 
  13. Murphy BG, Perron M, Murakami E, et al. The nucleoside analog GS-441524 strongly inhibits feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) virus in tissue culture and experimental cat infection studies. Vet Microbiol. 2018;219:226-233. 
  14. Perera KD, Rathnayake AD, Liu H, Pedersen NC, Groutas WC, Chang KO, Kim Y. Characterization of amino acid substitutions in feline coronavirus 3C-like protease from a cat with feline infectious peritonitis treated with a protease inhibitor. Vet Microbiol. 2019;237:108398. 
  15. Ward, BC and Pedersen, NC: Infectious Peritonitis in Cats.  J Am Vet Med. 1969; 154: 26-35.  
  16. Toomey JM, Carlisle-Nowak MM, Barr SC, Lopez JW, French TW, Scott FW, Hoose W, Pizano S, Dubey JP. Concurrent toxoplasmosis and feline infectious peritonitis in a cat. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc. 1995;31:425-428.
  17. Zandonà L, Brunetta R, Zanardello C, Vascellari M, Persico L, Mazzolini E. Cerebral toxoplasmosis in a cat with feline leukemia and feline infectious peritonitis viral infections. Can Vet J. 2018;59:860-862

Rapid Resolution of severe feline infectious peritonitis using natural products

5.4.2021
Yue Zhang, Yuanfeng Zhang, Lili Zhu, Fang Lu, Xin Du, Xin Zhao, Tao Lu
Original article: Rapid Resolution of severe feline infectious peritonitis using natural products

Abstract

This is the first report of the successful treatment of a serious case of feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) with Lianhuaqingwen Capsule (LH), a Chinese natural products medicine that has also been used to treat Covid-19. The one-year-old cat was diagnosed with FIP - strong ascites, aphasia, inflammation, difficulty breathing and weight loss. After 22 days of treatment with LH capsules, all signs of the cat returned to normal and the ascites gradually disappeared. This case report is the first description of the clinical recovery of a cat with systemic FCoV infection using LH capsules.

KEY WORDS: coronavirus, inflammation, feline infectious peritonitis, FIP, natural products, TCM

Basic facts

Feline coronavirus (FCoV), RNA alpha coronavirus, is a highly infectious enteric virus that is epidemiologically a member of the Coronaviridae family of the Nidovirales family. [1,2], and can infect cats of all ages. Most cases occur in cats aged 1-2 years and older than 11 years. May lurk in the intestines for a long time and cause feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) in a weakened immune or stress state [3], which is known to cats as an "incurable disease" with almost 100% mortality.

Although treatment of FIP with new therapies has been published [4], further investigation is needed into the efficacy and safety of FCoV-targeted broad-spectrum antiviral drugs. GS441524 is a great promise in the treatment of cats with FIP [5], but is not currently FDA approved. What's more, the cost of FIP treatment costs $ 5,000 to $ 9,000, which is a big financial burden for most ordinary families. The LH capsule, one of the natural products of TCM (Traditional Chinese Medicine), was made to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication. [6]. The LH capsule exerts its anti-influenza activity by regulating the immune response in order to influence both viral and host responses. [7]. The LH capsule was approved by the National Board of Health for Covid-19, a prospective randomized study involving 284 patients conducted in a multicenter environment suggests that treatment with LH capsules for 14 days significantly improved the rate of symptom relief. [8].

Case Study

"Big Tangerine" is a one-year-old neutered Chinese domestic cat (Felis catus) from a household of four cats (2 Felis catus, 2 British Shorthair). "Big Tangerine" developed an appetite loss and weight loss lasting several weeks. The other cats showed no signs of disease. On November 15, 2020, the cat was transferred to Guaiguai Pet Hospital (Tianjin, China). Abdominocentesis showed a large amount of ascites. FCoV was detected by RT-PCR in ascites and was thus diagnosed with FIP. Symptoms included aphasia (inability to swallow), diarrhea, ascites, lethargy, weight loss and difficulty breathing (Figure 1)

Figure 1:
Cat body weight before, during and after recovery from FIP and timeline. Graphically represented cat weight: Day 0 represents the FIP diagnosis at the clinic. LH treatment was performed between 10 and 31 days. The cat lost 1.5 kg of weight during LH treatment (days 1 to 15). After the body returned to normal, the cat's weight increased rapidly and increased steadily even after the end of treatment, until it stabilized at about 7.2 kg.

RT-PCR of ascites showed a high FCoV load (Ct value 21.73). Laboratory test results showed elevated levels of white blood cells (WBC) and neutrophilic granulocytes (Neu), indicating severe inflammation (Table 1). In addition, the immune response was altered: lymphocyte levels (Lym%) were significantly reduced, indicating virus-induced lymphocyte depletion. SAA (marker of inflammation and tissue damage) was tested for cat diarrhea and respiratory distress (Fig. 2A). The patient received saline and protein as supportive care. Due to the clinical condition, the veterinarian recommended euthanasia or the experimental drug GS-441524 for the cat. Due to the high cost of GS-441524 treatment, cat owners decided to look for other therapy options.

TitleDay 0Day 30Reference rangeUnits
Leukocytes (WBC)44.813.855.5-19.510 ^ 9 / L
Neutrophilic granulocytes (Neu%)94.176.238-80%
Lymphocytes (Lym%)2.217.212-45%
Monocytes (Mon%)2.32.61.00-8.00%
Eosinophils (Eos%)1.43.91.00-11.00%
Basophils (Bas%)00.10.00-1.20%
Neutrophilic granulocytes (Neu#)42.1610.563.12-12.5810 ^ 9 / L
Lymphocytes (LYM#)0.982.380.73-7.8610 ^ 9 / L
Monocytes (Mon#)1.040.360.07-1.3610 ^ 9 / L
Eosinophils (Eos#)0.620.540.06-1.9310 ^ 9 / L
Basophils (Bas#)00.010.00-0.1210 ^ 9 / L
Erythrocytes (RBC)5.837.234.62-10.2010 ^ 12 / L
Hemoglobin (HGB)8511785.0-153.0g / L
Hematocrit24.834.626.00-47.00%
Mean erythrocyte volume (MCV)42.547.938.00-54.00fL
Mean erythrocyte hemoglobin (MCH)14.616.111.89-18.00pg
Mean erythrocyte hemoglobin (MCHC) concentration342337290.0-360.0g / L
Erythrocyte distribution width - coefficient of variation (RDW-CV)20.6166.50-23.00%
Erythrocyte distribution width - standard deviation (RDW-SD)40.535.519.30-43.10fL
Platelets (PLT)187333100.0-518.010 ^ 9 / L
Mean platelet volume (MPV)1111.79.90-16.30fL
Platelet distribution width (PDW)10.214.712.00-17.50 
Platelet hematocrit (PTC)0.210.390.09-0.70%
Table 1. Laboratory data related to FIP treatment monitoring

The cat's caregiver sought help in traditional Chinese medicine. Due to feline coronavirus infection and respiratory distress, he was recommended an LH capsule, which was prescribed for the treatment of respiratory diseases and approved by the National Animal Health Commission for the treatment of covid-19. FCoV and SARS-CoV-2 share partially identical RNA sequences, so antivirals targeting SARS-CoV-2 are likely to be effective against FCoV as well.

Figure 2. A, B, C. The SAA value on day 0 is 21.93 mg / l <0.5 mg / l on day 30. D, Abdominal swelling and ascites on day 0. E, ascites disappeared on day 21.

On 17 November 2020, 'Big Tangerine' began receiving 4 LH capsules (Table 2) three capsules a day (0.35 g per capsule) in combination with antipyretics; no side effects were observed. Shortly afterwards (November 18, day 1), shortness of breath improved. At that time, he received a liquid diet for his ongoing anorexia and diarrhea. 48 hours after taking the drug (November 19, day 2), the patient's condition was largely stabilized and the first soft stool appeared; his mental condition also improved. He was able to sit up, lick his fur while he was still lying on the ground a few days ago, gasping for breath. 3 days after starting treatment (November 20), he started eating on his own (albeit in small amounts). During the next 7 days of treatment, his appetite improved and the effusion began to decrease. During this time he had soft stools. In early December, the cat underwent a palpation examination, which showed that the effusion had almost completely disappeared. As shown in Figure 1, with ascites disappearing, it was estimated to be about 1.5 kg lighter, which was the lowest weight throughout the treatment. On December 2, all symptoms subsided. The cat started running and playing with the other cats.

IngredientComponent%
Forsythia suspensa (Zlatovka overhang)Dried fruit12.7
Lonicera japonica (Japanese earthworm)Dried flower bud or flower12.7
Ephedra sinica (Chinese wormwood)Dried herb stem4.2
Isatis indigotica (Boryt dyeing)Dried root12.7
Pogostemon cablin (Patchouli)Dried above ground part4.2
Rheum palmatum (RhubarbDried root and rhizome2.5
Glycyrrhiza uralensis (Ural Malt)Dried root and rhizome4.2
Dryopteris crassirhizomaDried rhizomes and leaves12.7
Rhodiola crenulata (Rozchodnica)Dried root and rhizome4.2
Houttuynia cordata (Hutinia)Dried above ground part12.7
Prunus sibirica (Siberian apricot)Dried ripe seed4.2
gypsumCaSO4 · 2H2O12.7
1-mentholC10H20O0.4
Table 2. Capsule composition (granules) Lianhuaqingwen
* LH capsules have been manufactured according to the Pharmacopoeia of the People's Republic of China.

Result and next steps

The patient continued to take LH capsules every day until December 9. The treatment period lasted 3 weeks and the symptoms did not return after discontinuation of the drug. On January 3, he was examined at a pet clinic in Guaiguai and his blood count and SAA levels were already in the normal range, except for total protein (8.2 g / dl, normally 5.4 to 8.2) and urea (42 mg / dl, normally 10-30). (Table 3 and Figure 2). The samples were subsequently tested by FCoV RT-PCR with a negative result, which means that the FCoV viral load was below the limit of detection. The symptoms of the FIP did not recur until the report was submitted (March 17).

TitleDay 30Reference rangeUnits
ALB albumin42.2-4.0g / dL
Alkaline phosphatase ALP3810-90U / L
Alanine aminotransferase ALT6020-100U / L
AMY amylase1082300-1100U / L
Total bilirubin TBIL0.50.1-0.6mg / dL
Urea BUN4210.0-30.0mg / dL
Calcium CA11.78.0-11.8mg / dL
Phosphorus PHOS4.53.4-8.5mg / dL
Creatinine CRE1.50.3-2.1mg / dL
Glucose GLU10170-150mg / dL
NA +146142-164mmol / L
K +43.7-5.8mmol / L
Total TP protein8.25.4-8.2g / dL
GLOB globulin4.21.5-5.7g / dL
Table 3: Laboratory values after FIP treatment

Discussion

FIP is a fatal disease in cats caused by FCoV, which lurks in the intestinal system. FIP is still a terminal disease with a variable death time, with more than 95% feline cats dying several days to months after diagnosis [9]. The symptoms of FIP in cats take two forms: dry and moist[10]. The most prominent symptom of wet FIP is effusion in the abdomen and thoracic cavity [11]. Glucocorticoids such as prednisolone are used to relieve symptoms. After diagnosing FIP ascites, a veterinarian may recommend euthanasia because there are few cases of successful treatment.

There are currently several effective therapies. For example, the successful treatment of FIP with GS441524 has recently been published [12], GC376 [13] or an oral adenosine nucleoside analog [14]. GS441524 in combination with antibiotic treatment, recommended by many veterinarians, has shown a good therapeutic effect. GS441524 is a precursor of remdesivir used in the treatment of COVID-19. GS441524 treatment lasts for 1-3 months, which can mean approximately $ 5,000 to $ 9,000 in China. Unfortunately, due to price and availability (GS441524 not yet officially approved), many cat owners are giving up this proven and effective treatment option.

In this case, the veterinarian feared that without the use of GS441524, the cat would not survive even a week. Cat owners hoped to find another therapy. LH Capsule, a Chinese patent drug composed of 13 herbs, is a commonly used broad-spectrum antiviral drug developed on the example of traditional Chinese medicine [15]. It is used to treat a series of influenza viruses, such as viral rhinitis, pneumonia and the like. [16, 17] Pharmacological and clinical studies have shown that it can significantly alleviate the inflammatory response by inhibiting viral replication and reducing the release of cytokines from host cells. [17]. It is also recommended as one of the supportive drugs in the treatment of COVID-19 [6, 18, 19]. Therefore, we tried to use this drug to alleviate the inflammatory response and symptoms caused by FIP. Surprisingly, there was a significant daily improvement during the first week of treatment. Therefore, we have recorded this case in detail for scientific purposes.

Several strengths of this case study need to be mentioned. First, it is a cheap and readily available drug for cat owners, which can benefit more cats. Especially in China, where the pet population has risen sharply in the last decade, while current pet clinics do not have sufficient capacity to meet the medical care needs of pets. Many pets have to face euthanasia because their owners cannot afford expensive drugs. Second, LH will take effect within a week and the FIP will heal in about a month, while the recommended duration of administration of GS-441524 is 84 days.

Although the decision to administer LH was based on the worsening of the cat's clinical condition and the optimistic results achieved with LH use, we should handle it with caution. Further studies are needed to determine the safety and efficacy of LH in the treatment of feline feline infections. Notably, although the samples were negative for FCoV, the TP and BUN values were slightly higher than normal. We cannot yet be sure whether the cause was LH capsules or a virus. Previous clinical studies have not shown whether the LH capsule has side effects causing liver damage in humans. Clearly, further research and data on BUN levels are needed in future cases. In order to find out whether this was not just an isolated case, 3 other cats also underwent experimental treatment and all of them recovered after about a month. Due to incomplete test data for some cats, we were only able to list them in supplementary materials.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this is the first use of natural products to reverse (or cure) a cat with FIP. A study with multiple cats undergoing this treatment protocol is required.

Abbreviations

FCoV: feline coronavirus;
FIP: Infectious feline peritonitis
LH capsule: Lianhuaqingwen capsule
TCM: Traditional Chinese Medicine

References

  1. Pedersen NC, Sato R, Foley JE, Poland AM. Common virus infections in cats, before and after being placed in shelters, with emphasis on feline enteric coronavirus. Journal of feline medicine and surgery. 2004;6(2):83-88.
  2. Felten S, Hartmann K. Diagnosis of Feline Infectious Peritonitis: A Review of the Current Literature. Viruses. 2019;11(11).
  3. Rissi DR. A retrospective study of the neuropathology and diagnosis of naturally occurring feline infectious peritonitis. Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation: official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc. 2018;30(3):392-399.
  4. Kim Y, Shivanna V, Narayanan S, et al. Broad-spectrum inhibitors against 3C-like proteases of feline coronaviruses and feline caliciviruses. Journal of virology. 2015;89(9):4942-4950.
  5. Ko WC, Rolain JM, Lee NY, et al. Arguments in favor of remdesivir for treating SARS-CoV-2 infections. International journal of antimicrobial agents. 2020;55(4):105933.
  6. Runfeng L, Yunlong H, Jicheng H, et al. Lianhuaqingwen exerts anti-viral and anti-inflammatory activity against novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). Pharmacological research. 2020;156:104761.
  7. Zhang ZJ, Morris-Natschke SL, Cheng YY, Lee KH, Li RT. Development of anti-influenza agents from natural products. Medicinal research reviews. 2020;40(6):2290-2338.
  8. Hu K, Guan WJ, Bi Y, et al. Efficacy and safety of Lianhuaqingwen capsules, a repurposed Chinese herb, in patients with coronavirus disease 2019: A multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial. Phytomedicine: international journal of phytotherapy and phytopharmacology. 2020:153242.
  9. Dickinson PJ, Bannasch M, Thomasy SM, et al. Antiviral treatment using the adenosine nucleoside analogue GS-441524 in cats with clinically diagnosed neurological feline infectious peritonitis. Journal of veterinary internal medicine. 2020;34(4):1587-1593.
  10. Hartmann K. Feline infectious peritonitis. The Veterinary clinics of North America Small animal practice. 2005; 35 (1): 39-79, vi.
  11. Giori L, Giordano A, Giudice C, Grieco V, Paltrinieri S. Performances of different diagnostic tests for feline infectious peritonitis in challenging clinical cases. The Journal of small animal practice. 2011;52(3):152-157.
  12. Pedersen NC, Perron M, Bannasch M, et al. Efficacy and safety of the nucleoside analog GS-441524 for the treatment of cats with naturally occurring feline infectious peritonitis. Journal of feline medicine and surgery. 2019;21(4):271-281.
  13. Pedersen NC, Kim Y, Liu H, et al. Efficacy of a 3C-like protease inhibitor in treating various forms of acquired feline infectious peritonitis. Journal of feline medicine and surgery. 2018;20(4):378-392.
  14. Sharun K, Tiwari R, Dhama K. Protease inhibitor GC376 for COVID-19: Lessons learned from feline infectious peritonitis. Annals of medicine and surgery (2012). 2021;61:122-125.
  15. Addie DD, Curran S, Bellini F, et al. Oral Mutian®X stopped faecal feline coronavirus shedding by naturally infected cats. Research in veterinary science. 2020;130:222-229.
  16. Ding Y, Zeng L, Li R, et al. The Chinese prescription lianhuaqingwen capsule exerts anti-influenza activity through the inhibition of viral propagation and impacts immune function. BMC complementary and alternative medicine. 2017;17(1):130.
  17. Liu L, Shi F, Tu P, et al. Arbidol combined with the Chinese medicine Lianhuaqingwen capsule versus arbidol alone in the treatment of COVID-19. Medicine. 2021; 100 (4): e24475.
  18. Duan ZP, Jia ZH, Zhang J, et al. Natural herbal medicine Lianhuaqingwen capsule anti-influenza A (H1N1) trial: a randomized, double blind, positive controlled clinical trial. Chinese medical journal. 2011;124(18):2925-2933.
  19. Ren JL, Zhang AH, Wang XJ. Traditional Chinese medicine for COVID-19 treatment. Pharmacological research. 2020;155:104743.

FELINE CORONAVIRUS AND FELINE INFECTIOUS PERITONITIS IN NONDOMESTIC FELID SPECIES

1.4.2021, Translation 8.5.2021
Stout, Alison E., André, Nicole M., and Whittaker, Gary R.
Original article: FELINE CORONAVIRUS AND FELINE INFECTIOUS PERITONITIS IN NONDOMESTIC FELID SPECIES

Abstract

Feline coronavirus (FCoV) is reported worldwide and is known to cause disease in both domestic and non-domesticated feline species. Although FCoV often leads to mild or subclinical disease, a small subset of cats succumb to the deadly systemic disease, feline infectious peritonitis (FIP). The outbreak of FIP in cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) in the zoo's collection highlighted the devastating effect of introducing FCoV into a group of animals. In addition to cheetahs, FIP has also been recorded in European wild cats (Felis silvestris), tigers (Panthera tigris), mountain lions (Puma concolor) and lions (Panthera leo). This article provides an overview of reported cases of FIP in non-domesticated cat species and highlights FCoV in non-domesticated cat populations.

Introduction

Infectious diseases pose a significant threat to wildlife conservation.74 Soil fragmentation has the potential to allow higher populations to grow in natural habitats than usual, and urban sprawl may increase the interaction of wild cats with domestic cats.15 Recently, the COVID-19 pandemic also highlighted undelivered felines when the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 was first detected in a tiger (Panthera tigris) at the Bronx Zoo in New York, NY, with subsequent cases diagnosed in other cats kept in captivity in the same zoo; 122 although the condition of these animals has improved since diagnosis, coronaviruses remain a concern for the health of cats in both domestic and non-domestic environments.

Feline coronavirus infections are currently widespread in the domestic cat population. 17 In most domestic cats, the disease is either asymptomatic or manifests as self-limiting mild diarrhea. 83 However, a small subset of cats experience an "internal mutation" that leads to macrophage tropism46, wherein these cats succumb to a systemic disease known as FIP. 9,60,99 FCoV classified as alpha-coronavirus (species alpha-coronavirus-1) can be divided into two biotypes: benign feline enteric coronavirus or feline infectious peritonitis virus (FIPV).82 Furthermore, the virus can be classified according to serotype as feline coronavirus type I or type II.52 These viral types originally differed based on a different antibody response, but it has recently been proposed that they be considered different genetic strains based on their spike glycoproteins.68 Type II viruses are much less common in natural infections, yet they are more easily isolated and propagated in cell culture systems, and have been characterized in more detail. The type II virus is considered to be derived from double homologous recombination between the native FCoV type and canine coronavirus.46

The viral spike protein is the driving mechanism of cellular tropism and pathogenesis. The FCoV type II receptor is known to be feline aminopeptidase (fAPN), 114 while type I viruses have a different and as yet unknown receptor. 21 Another feature distinguishing between the two virus types is the fusion activation process, the type I virus contains two proteolytic activation points (at sites S1 / S2 and S29), while the type II virus has a single cleavage point S29.52 Although both serotypes are known to cause FIP, many questions remain as to the natural behavior of each and the host's response to infection.

LocationYearSeroprevalenceReferences
South Africa1977–19781.1251
19823.528,45
19890/40and105
1999–2001105/10757
Serengeti / Tanzania19858.258,45
-24/3926
Kenya19854.128,25,45
Namibia1999–200119/3957
1992–199821/7272
2002-20043/88b113
Botswana2008–20112.611
Winston, Oregon (epidemic)Before June 19820/258,45
198335/358,45
198516/168,45
North America198631/908,45
198749/918,45
198942/10226
1990106/16426
199124/3926
England19851.128,25,45
Table 1. FCoV seroprevalence in cheetahs that move freely and in captivity.
a) Paired samples of a total of 40 animals (80 samples).
b) Repeated sampling has taken place

Antibody responses to both type I and type II FCoV have been reported in captive cats in the United States, with reports specifically reporting a response to FCoV type I in cheetahs, African lions (Panthera leo) and Bengal tigers (Panthera tigris tigris). ), and the response against FCoV type II in cheetahs, jaguars (Panthera onca), African lions, Bengal tigers, lynxes (Lynx canadensis), snow leopards (Panthera uncia) and African leopards (Panthera pardus pardus).56 In some cases, type II FCoV is considered to be more transmissible compared to type I virus in domestic cats, 123 although due to the presence of both types of viruses in the study facility, this could not be confirmed. The situation in feral cats is unknown.

Clinically, there are two classic forms of the disease in cats, namely effusion or non-fusion ("wet" or "dry"). The wet form of FIP is characterized by effusion in the abdominal or thoracic cavity, or both, or in the pericardial cavities, and the dry form by the presence of pyogranulomatous lesions. However, the clinical symptoms associated with the FIPV biotype can be quite variable and non-specific. FCoV and FIP remained a major global challenge. Vaccination is not recommended, in part due to concerns about negative outcomes due to exacerbation of antibody-dependent infection in the presence of non-neutralizing antibodies.125 Despite promising initial studies 73,84 and other treatment options still do not have approved antiviral therapies. Prevention is difficult and pre-mortem diagnosis is challenging. Current PCR and serological testing methodologies do not distinguish between pathological forms of the virus and antibody titers are unpredictable. In feline populations, FCoV secretion is often observed in non-FIP positive animals. Likewise, antibody titers only provide evidence of previous exposure and a negative antibody test in domestic cats does not rule out the possibility of FCoV secretion.29 Depending on the antibody assay, sensitivity and specificity may provide variable assistance in the diagnosis of FIP, as found by Felten and Hartmann.28 Immunohistochemistry (IHC) currently remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of FIP.28 Managing the virus can be problematic in the management of captive species, and limited reference ranges for blood analysis, high stress scenarios, and possible new presentations are uncertain.

FIP and FCoV in non-domesticated species

Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus): In 1979 Horzinek and Osterhaus51 demonstrated a serological response to FCoV in cheetahs for the first time (Table 1). In 1982, it became clear that cheetahs could suffer from the same serious illness as FCoV-infected domestic cats when a FIP outbreak in captive-bred cheetahs at Winston Zoo, Oregon. 27,88 The first individual (8.5 year old female) was recently introduced into the herd and had non-specific symptoms of the disease including lethargy, anorexia, dehydration, fever and jaundice with hematocrit 30%, hyperproteinemia (9.1 g / dl), leukocytosis and azotemia.88 Ascites was present at post-mortem examination, along with fibrinous lesions adjacent to the abdominal organs and fluid in the thoracic cavity.88 Petechization has been reported in several organs.88 In the months that followed between this initial case and other cases of FIP, occasional diarrhea was observed in other cheetahs.27 Pathology of tissue samples from other animals that died of FIP revealed multifocal necrotic lesions affecting the abdominal organs (liver, kidney, pancreas, spleen), lymph nodes, and thyroid gland. Facial erosions and ulcerative glossitis have also been observed.27 Although it is not possible to rule out calicivirus, which also causes these ulcers, there are a number of recent cases with human patients with COVID-19 who have experienced tongue ulcers due to infection.94 Longitudinal serological monitoring following the first case of cheetah FIP showed seroconversion, and by 1983 each cheetah in the park was serologically positive.6,27,45 During this epidemic, almost 60% cheetahs succumbed to FIP.25,45 Early characterization of the cheetah isolate involved inoculation of several cell lines, including feline Crandall-Rees kidney cells (CRFK), Felis catus-4 fetal cells (FCWF-4), and two kidney-derived cheetah cell lines (AjuKid234) or fibroblasts (AjuFib238).24 CRFK cells showed similar properties after inoculation with cheetah isolates compared to the two FCoV type I strains, while FCWF-4 cells were less permissive to the isolate. Across cheetah cell lines, AjuKid234 cell transmissibility was low.24

Other cases of FIP have also been reported in a litter of three caught, approximately 6-month-old wild cheetahs, co-infected with Toxoplasma gondii.119 Clinical pathology data revealed hypochromic anemia, neutrophilia, lymphopenia and eosinopenia with normal total protein but elevated alpha-2 globulin and gamma globulins.119 In addition to fibrinous peritonitis and lesions affecting the abdominal organs, pulmonary edema and gastric blood have also been reported.119 In this report, the authors point to a lack of diet; however, other predisposing factors may include relocation stress and genetic predisposition.119 In a pathological study of 31 dead cheetahs kept in captivity in North America, the FIP was considered the cause of death in two animals.71 Although FIP was undeniably considered a fatal disease in domestic cats, many hypotheses have been considered that have made cheetahs particularly susceptible to FIP, including genetic control of the immune response, especially the homogeneity of the majority histocompatibility complex (MHC). 25,79 Analysis of the cheetah-infected virus showed deletion mutations in gene 7a, although interestingly, genes 7a and 7b were intact in cheetahs with FIP.58 Since the first recorded case of cheetah FIP, the disease remains sporadic despite evidence of exposure. No further devastating losses have been observed since the initial outbreaks of the FIP epidemic in cheetahs, although research continues.

Following the outbreak of FIP in Oregon, FCoV monitoring revealed a common antibody response to the virus (Table 1). Initial tests have shown that faecal excretion and antibody titers are often inconsistent.45 In a study of farmed and wild South African cheetahs, an overall seroprevalence of 57% (169/298) was observed compared to 36% (66/182) in those who secreted the viral antigen, as assessed by nested reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT / nCR). .57 In 49 animals that shed viral antigen, 46 showed an antibody response against FCoV type I, 45 showed an antibody response against FCoV type II, and three showed no antibody response.57 Whether this high seroprevalence against both type I and II FCoV was caused by a number of circulating viruses, cross-reactivity, or other factors remains unknown, but this finding is unique. In South African cheetahs that were observed longitudinally (n¼48), almost a fifth (n¼10) excreted antigen at more than one time point, even after a negative test after a positive test.57 In serological research, Munson et al. in Namibia72 were more seropositive males, with 5/14 (36%) juvenile males showing seroprevalence compared to 0/8 juvenile females and 13/37 (35%) adult males compared to 3/13 (23%) adult females.

Lifestyle and risk factors for wild and captive species may vary depending on the disease. In a study among captive cheetahs in the United States, three of the 22 healthy cheetahs shed viral antigen (RT / nPCR) (Table 2).55 Of the three viral antigen shedding animals, one animal was positive for anti-FCoV type I antibodies and the other two were seronegative.55 In another 19 animals, the antibody response was determined in 15 animals, of which 10 showed no antibodies, four animals were seropositive against type I virus and one animal was seropositive against both type I and type II viruses.55 However, in another study on 10 cheetahs that did not shed the virus, the antibodies were common against type II virus (5/10) compared to type I (4/10) or both (1/10). Discrepancies in the response of specific antibodies may be due to changes in management strategies, seasonal fluctuations, or differences in sample handling. In addition, the differences between the antibody response and faecal excretion pose a challenge to the actual disease state of the animal, both in captive cheetahs and in wild cheetahs. To provide guidance on the testing strategy, faecal samples were collected from 25 cheetahs in captivity in the United States for 30 days.38 Of these faecal samples, viral antigen was found in 13% (4/31 samples) fecal samples from one animal to 93% (26/28 samples) samples from one animal.38

Common nameGenus speciesAntigen frequencyReferences
European wild catFelis silvestris5/1544
African wild catFelis lybica0/257
Black-footed catFelis nigripes0/157
American cougarPuma concolor0/2037
Jaguarundi catPuma yagouaroundi0/1637
  0/143
CheetahAcinonyx jubatus22/9045
  66/18257
  3/2255
Bengal catPrionailurus bengalensis3/3412
Spanish lynxLynx pardinus0/2567
  0/6865
LynxLynx lynx0/2102
OcelotLeopardus pardalis0/843
  0/2137
  0/1and62
MargayLeopardus wiedii0/1443
  0/737
Pampas catLeopardus colocolo0/2237
Small-spotted catLeopardus [Oncifelis] geoffroyi0/143
  0/637
Ocelot treeLeopardus tigrinus0/2437
  0/2043
Rys caracalCaracal caracal0/257
African lionPanthera leo0/157
American JaguarPanthera onca0/6137
Spotted leopardPanthera pardus0/257
Table 2. Detection of FCoV antigen in non-domesticated cats.
(a) part of the diagnostic test

The role of persistent cheetah infections in the development of ulcerative colitis and other long-term consequences remains relatively unclear and represents a potential area for study.96,112 In 1993 Munson71 described in two dead cheetahs with lesions characteristic of FIP also pathological changes in the villi of the small intestine in one animal (FIP did not consider the cause of death in even one cheetah). In a sample of nine cheetahs with necrotizing colitis and diarrhea that ruled out FCoV, six animals showed antibodies only to FCoV type I, two animals showed antibodies to both type I and type II, and one animal was not positive for antibodies of any serotype.56 Furthermore, FCoV was diagnosed in cheetah pups showing acute hind limb paresis, but no apparent relationship to serology was demonstrated, and antibody titers varied from animal to animal during testing.120,121 Feline leukoencephalomyelopathy (LFL) in large cats has been identified in many cheetahs and two other feline species in the United States. The disease is characterized by progressive vision loss, disorientation and difficulty eating.7 In the process of understanding the etiology of LFL, 14 animals were tested immunohistochemically for FCoV, but no animals in this small subgroup showed positive.7

European wild cat (Felis silvestris): In 1993, Watt and colleagues124 reported an outbreak of FIP in European feral cats in a closed colony that had existed for almost 14 years and affected only males. Numerous clinical signs have been reported, along with multisystem organ involvement, including liver, kidney, intestine, brain, lung, heart, and lymphatic tissue.124 Respiratory symptoms were noted in two cats.124 It has not been established how cats became infected and it is considered unlikely that a stray cat could introduce the virus. Whether the source of the contamination could have been the nurse or the nurses at the zoo was not further investigated. It was also not determined whether there was long-term shedding of the virus. Interestingly, a previous study by McOrist et al.64 was unable to identify European feral kittens as serologically positive for FCoV exposure by indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) performed on plasma and directed against the Wellcome virus strain (Table 3). Most recently, however, Heddergott et al.44 reported 47.1% (16/34) seroprevalence in a sample of 34 European wild cats in Luxembourg and found that increasing age was a predictor of antibody status. Of the 16 seropositive cats, 75% were seropositive for at least one other common feline viral infection (feline leukemia virus, feline parvovirus, feline calicivirus, or feline herpesvirus).44 Paradoxically, another group of European feral cats was seronegative in Portugal (0/26), although a third (5/15) of faecal samples were positive for viral antigen (Tables 2, 3).19 Differences in sampling and processing may explain some inconsistencies; Possible additional differences include interactions with domestic and other felines and the nature of FCoV infections.

LocationYearSeroprevalenceReferences
European wild cat (Felis silvestris), Scotland1987–19890/2364
1992–19973/4914
France1996–19972/5161
Luxembourg2001–201616/3444
Portugal1992–20070/2619
American Puma (Puma concolor), USA1978–19914/21 (IFA) vs 0/32 (KELA)97a
1987–199016/5881
1990–200425 / 180b4
2005-20080/977
1990–200874/48033
BrazilUnknown3/5103
1998–20040/1830
Canada1996–20010/1589
African lion (Panthera leo), Botswana2003-20050/2191
1992–200016 / 146b1
2008–20110/1411
2012–20140/1363
Namibia1991–20015/2231
1999–200116/9857
South Africa1987–19900/32106
1992–200043/3121
Tanzania1984–1991177 / 311c47
Uganda1997–19990/1418
Zimbabwe1990–19980/411
Germany19890 / 1d116
Table 3. Seroprevalence in non - domesticated cat species by country and year.
a) Felis concolor coryi.
b) Estimate from the bar graph presented in the study.
c) Repeated sampling.
d) Part of the diagnostic examination.
IFA uno immunofluorescence test; KELA ¼ Kinetic enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.

American Puma (Puma concolor): A case of FIP has been reported in a young male American cougar, moving freely in California, who, in addition to enlarged lymph nodes, also had lesions in the small and large intestine, heart, lungs and brain. Interestingly, the kidneys appeared histologically normal, but viral RNA was evident.108 This case report is unique in demonstrating FIP in a free-moving animal, especially in a species that often lives alone. The risk of further cases of FIP in free-ranging bombs remains unknown and other pathogens, such as the zoonotic disease Yersinia pseudotuberculosis, have been reported in bombs with pyogranulomatous liver lesions and peritonitis.3

According to serological research in California bombs, seroprevalence appears to fluctuate during the 18 years during which samples were taken.33 In 1992, only three samples were taken, but one animal was positive, while in the next 3 years no animal was positive (n ¼46). By 1996, seroprevalence began to rise and peaked in 2000–2001, and after another period of decline, the highest seroprevalence reached almost 50% (n ¼ 29).33 Longitudinal data provided by Foley et al.33 are important because previous years do not predict future seroprevalence. An additional study in the Rocky Mountains demonstrates a high degree of correlation between antibody levels in females and their pups, even when the pups were 4 months of age or older at the time of sampling.4 In addition, statistical modeling suggests that increasing age and population location are risk factors for FCoV exposure.4 Other seroprevalences have been reported in the United States (Table 3).

Tiger (Panthera tigris): FIP was reported in an 8-year-old male tiger in captivity in Romania, which initially showed non-specific clinical signs.49 The postmortem examination corresponded to FIP and revealed uveitis, abdominal discharge and, in addition to pericarditis, serous fluid in the pericardial space.49 Macrophage staining for FIP was consistent with the diagnosis, with infected macrophages being identified in the lung and other tissues.49 Amyloid deposits have also been reported.49 There was an increase in serum amyloid A in cats with FIP, potentially similar to human patients with SARS-CoV-2,39,69 Interestingly, amyloidosis is often observed in black-legged cats (Felis nigripes); thus, there may be other host factors that lead to the presence of amyloid plaques in the tiger.111 Finally, in a tiger with FIP, liquefied necrosis was detected in the spleen, although this may not be specific for FIP infection.49

In addition to the described case of FIP in tigers, one case of peritonitis in tigers was recorded in a survey of Italian zoos between 2004 and 2015; however, whether it was related to FCoV infection has not been established and is unlikely.101 A compilation of mortality data on captive-bred tigers in India identified peritonitis in addition to enteritis, gastritis, gastroenteritis, hepatitis and gastric ulcers.107 Although no viral etiology has been reported, gastrointestinal diseases have been one of the most common causes of mortality, even during the monsoon season.107

In Siberian or Amur tigers (Panthera tigris altaica), 43% animals (n-44) were positive for the presence of FCoV antibodies (Table 4).42 Neither sex nor age was associated with seroprevalence, although longitudinal monitoring led to three other tigers becoming seropositive.42 In one case report of a Siberian tiger that succumbed to a morbillivirus infection, IFA demonstrated the presence of anti-FCoV antibodies, although this was unlikely to have contributed to the animal's death.90 In the case report of an captured Amur tiger, which was originally presented with anorexia and lethargy, the IFA was negative for FCoV; further diagnosis revealed bacterial pyothorax.104 Virus shedding was observed in another Siberian tiger considered clinically healthy, but no antibody response.56

Of the three Bengal tigers housed in the same institution, two showed antibody responses to both type I and type II FCoV, and the third showed anti-type II antibodies, although none of these animals secreted viral antigen.56

Lion (Panthera leo): In 1970, Colby reported two cases of FIP in lions.13 Although this initial report did not provide any clinical details, the ocular form of FIP in a 15-year-old captive lion was recently described and confirmed to be blind.75 The patient's clinical pathology, including anisocytosis and hypochromasia, was non-specific for FIP, although PCV (HCT) was lower than normal (31%) and total plasma protein was higher than normal (7.8 g / dl), values commonly found in domestic Histopathology revealed bilateral panuveitis and retinal detachment along with an infiltrate of lymphocytes, plasma cells and several macrophages.75 In the anterior chamber, the exudate was characterized as eosinophilic and proteinaceous, and lesions were found in the brain.75

In free-ranging lions in East Africa, 57% serum samples were evaluated as evidence of an antibody response by IFA (Table 3). 47 FCoV secretion was previously observed in the captive African lion, but without an antibody response.56 Similarly, two other lions in different institutions did not actively secrete the virus, but showed antibody responses.56,57 Interestingly, one of these lions showed a low-level antibody response to both type I and type II FCoV.56. In the case of a series of lions with encephalitis, one lion was tested for antibodies to FCoV, but appeared negative.116 In a study of inbred lions compared to an outbred population, the relationship between inbreed status and FCoV antibodies was not statistically significant.115 A longitudinal study of lions in the Serengeti showed a high degree of seroprevalence variability each year, especially in younger animals.80 In addition, these data revealed possible effects on fertility and a possible link between the spread of the virus and higher population densities.80 The second longitudinal study showed a high degree of seroprevalence; in most age groups more than 50% animals demonstrated seroprevalence and a trend of increasing seroprevalence with increasing age, with a few exceptions34 (additional data from the study). In addition, FCoV seroprevalence may predict the occurrence of calicivirus or feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV).34

Common nameGenus speciesSeroprevalenceReferences
Desert catFelis margarita0/151
ManulOtocolobus manul0/376
  0/6and59
Amur catPrionailurus bengalensis euptilura0/151
  0/241
Iriomote catPrionailurus bengalensis iriomotensis14/1770
Flat-faced catPrionailurus planiceps0/151
JaguarundiPuma yagouaroundi0/131
  0/1103
OcelotLeopardus pardalis1/1103
  1/130
  0/1031
  0/1235
MargayLeopardus wiedii0/151
  4/4103
Pampas catLeopardus colocolo1/1103
Pampas catLeopardus geoffroyi0/931
  1/40118
Ocelot treeLeopardus tigrinus0/230
Rys caracalCaracal2/257
  3/3113
ServalLeptailurus serval0/251
JaguarPanthera onca3/4103
Spotted leopardPanthera pardus0/151
  1/257
  0/7113
  0/411
Sumatrian tigerPanthera tigris sondaica0/151
Ussuri TigerPanthera tigris altaica19/4442
Snow leopardPanthera uncia0/2b32
Table 4. Seroprevalence in other non-domesticated cat species.
(a) Immunodeficient animals from the Zoo. b) Part of a diagnostic run that involved two paired samples.

Serval (Leptailurus serval): Juan-Salle´sa et al.54 report two FIP cases in a group of four coexisting servers. Case 1, a two-year-old male, stopped entering the indoor area where the animals were routinely fed. It was not determined whether the cause was neurological behavioral changes or anorexia. Case 2 was an 8-year-old female with a melengesterol acetate implant, with non-specific clinical signs and mild abdominal distension.54 Exploratory laparotomy revealed abdominal effusion and FIP-like lesions, and clinical pathology demonstrated leukocytosis and anemia. Although no extensive lesions were reported in Case 1, histology revealed fibrinopurulent ventriculitis; accumulation of neutrophils, fibrin and macrophages in the brain; and severe leptomeningitis. Focal pyogranulomatous lesions were present in the kidneys.54 In case 2, in addition to pyogranulomatous necrotizing splenitis, pyogranulomatous lesions were also present in the mesentery, liver and gallbladder.54

Feature: VanRensburg and Silkstone119 mention personal communication about FIP that has affected at least one red lynx. Of the 25 red lynx in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area near San Francisco, California, the only urban red lynx was serologically positive for FCoV (Table 5).95 FCoV secretion was reported in two captive red lynx in the US Zoo, despite the absence of an antibody response.56 Similarly, in the second US zoological collection, one healthy feature in captivity secreted FCoV in the absence of an antibody response, while the other trait did not secrete virus but showed a low-level antibody response against FCoV type II.56

The Spanish lynx (Lynx pardinus) was once considered one of the most endangered wild carnivores, and as such, the risks of FCoV infection could be devastating. In one study of 22 Spanish traits evaluated by competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and 25 animals evaluated by IFA or rapid immunochromography, no animals showed signs of exposure or active FCoV infection.67. However, further studies have shown a seroprevalence of approximately 26%, with no apparent relationship between FCoV and FeLV.65 In a single sample of the Spanish lynx, 19/74 were positive for FCoV IFA exposure, although 0/68 animals shed virus in the faeces, as assessed by RT-PCR.65 In two other lynx features for which the cause of death could not be determined, neither animal was found to be IHC positive for FCoV, despite pancreatitis and fibrinous serositis in one of these animals.102 The effect of FCoV on the development of other disease pathologies, including membrane glomerulonephritis and lymphoid cell depletion, has also been investigated, but no study has shown an apparent link to disease development.53,86

Kind ofLocationYearSeroprevalenceReferences
Spanish Lynx (Lynx pardinus)Spain1989–20000/3798
  2003-200719/7465
  2004-20060/2267
Lynx lynxNetherlands1977–19780/151
 Sweden1993–19990/102100
Canadian Lynx (Lynx canadensis)North America1993–200112/2155
 Canada20000/589and
Red Lynx (Lynx rufus)USA1992–19951/2595
  Unknown0/1b87
Table 5. FCoV seroprevalence by lynx species species.
(a) Listed as a feature. b) Part of diagnostic processing.

Leopard (Panthera pardus): FIP has also been reported in leopards in Germany.117 No exclusion of FCoV was observed in three African leopards at two US zoos, but all three were serologically positive for type II FCoV.56 Of the other two African leopards in South Africa, only one animal was seropositive and none shed the virus (Tables 2, 4).57

Bengal wild cat (Prionailurus bengalensis): Between 2005 and 2006, 35 of a total of 1,453 rectal swab specimens obtained from Asian leopard cats in wildlife markets were positive for the new coronavirus, which found that the spike protein was phylogenetically similar to the spike protein of other alpha-coraviruses.16 However, this virus showed a phylogenetic relationship outside the group, suggesting that it separated at the beginning of the coronavirus evolutionary history, or probably represented an unidentified group of coronaviruses. Recent analysis suggests that the spike protein is related to a newly identified genus of deltacoronavirus.110 According to previously published results of an RT seminested PCR assay targeting viral polymerase, 8.8% (3/34) wild Bengal cats were positive for pancoronavirus, with a close phylogenetic relationship to FCoV.12 In Iriomote cats, subspecies (Prionailurus bengalensis iriomotensis), most animals (14/17) tested by ELISA against canine coronaviruses showed the presence of antibody (Tables 2, 4).70

Clouded Leopard (Neofelis nebulosa): In a survey of the causes of mortality of non-domesticated carnivores at Nandankanan Biological Park in Bhubaneswar, Orissa, India, peritonitis was thought to be the cause of death in one clouded leopard; 92 however, FCoV has not been studied.

Snow Leopard (Panthera uncia): FCoV secretion was observed in a healthy captive snow leopard, although no antibody response was evident.56 In contrast, virus excretion was not observed in two snow leopards at different institutions, but were positive for antibodies to FCoV type II. 56 In the case report of a 6-week-old captured bred male snow leopard with neurological disease, including cerebellar degeneration and encephalomyelopathy, FCoV was investigated as a potential cause, but was not identified.109

Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis): Philoni et al.30 reported one seropositive, caught, apparently healthy Amazonian ocelot, which was also serologically positive for feline herpesvirus1, feline calicivirus, feline parvovirus and Bartonella henselae. This single observation may have been an anomaly and the result of other underlying medical conditions. Interestingly, however, the anti-B. henselae antibody response was associated with the anti-FCoV antibody in domestic cats.40 It is not known whether a similar association exists for ocelots or other cats. Natural FCoV circulation in isolated ocelots nevertheless appears to be rare (Tables 2, 4).31,35

Swamp cat (Felis chaus): In a survey of non-domesticated feline carnivores in Nandankanan Biological Park, peritonitis was thought to be the cause of death in one jungle cat; 92 however, FCoV has not been studied.

American Jaguar (Panthera onca): FIP was considered a differential diagnosis in a case report of a newborn jaguar with respiratory difficulties that progressed to ascites.36 However, the confirmatory diagnosis did not take place and the pup recovered after extensive treatment.36 In two apparently healthy jaguars in captivity, FCoV secretion was observed; in addition, one of these animals showed an antibody response to FCoV type II. (Tables 2, 4)56

Caracal caracal: Four caracals showed an antibody response, although none animal excreted FCoV (Tables 2, 4).56,57

Discussion

In addition to other infectious diseases, feline coronavirus challenges the effort to preserve non-domesticated felines.74 Credible FIP records exist for seven non-domesticated species of felines and 15 species have shown seroprevalence. However, antigen release is observed relatively rarely. Screening and diagnostic testing are challenging and it is still difficult to determine the source of FCoV infection. In the cases reported by Watt et al.124 and Juan-Salle et al., 54 it was considered unlikely that the stray cat would be the source of the infection. Whether the virus was constantly circulating in these animals, or whether the virus was introduced in any other way, remains unknown. This leads to the need to always be vigilant with regard to biosecurity, especially in the case of endangered animals. The use of faeces to identify FCoV creates a strategy for easy sampling of both wild and captive animals; however, PCR from fecal contents may be inhibited.20 In addition, treacherous onset in some cases of FIP often requires an investigation of the potential or exposure to FCoV infection. The spectrum of clinical manifestations, in addition to the "standard clinical picture", also includes dermatological lesions, 10,93 myocarditis 22 and upper respiratory tract diseases.2

Reports of FIP outbreaks in non-domestic cats have shown that males are likely to be at higher risk than females, similar to those observed in domestic cats. FIP has only been found in European wild male cats, and through individual reports we know of FIP in mountain lion, lion and tiger, which only affected males. 49,75,108, 124 In domestic cats, males are also over-represented in FIP cases.78 In addition, in humans, SARSCoV-2 infection led to more serious consequences in men compared to women.66

While shelters and kennels are the optimal place for FCoV to spread, FCoV circulation in free-moving species can be improved by the solitary lifestyle of some of these species. The virus survives in the environment for a relatively short time, so that the transmission takes place mainly through direct or indirect interactions within the species or with other felines. In some cases, domestic cats can be a source of prey for larger non-domesticated felines. It is not known whether an infection could occur in this way, but it could be the cause of certain antibody responses or antigen secretion in the feces. Habitat changes, including fragmentation and habitat expansion, may, in addition to exposing domestic cats, lead to increased interactions within the same species in the wild.

Although antibody testing is useful for detecting previous exposure, even in non-domesticated species, a seronegative assay does not always indicate the absence of virus shedding.38,56 This discrepancy poses a challenge to understanding the true levels of FCoV circulating in feral cat populations. Several testing strategies have demonstrated the ability to detect virus shedding with a high degree of reliability, including the feasible possibility of obtaining five samples in a row.38 Taking into account critically endangered species, individuals must be adequately tested before being introduced to individuals of the same species, together with stress minimization, unnecessary anesthesia, etc. Sequential testing of faecal samples has been performed in captive animals, and similar strategies may be useful for understanding the presence or absence of FCoV in wild animal populations.

Acknowledgments: The authors greatly appreciate the members of the Whittaker Lab and the Cheetah Conservation Fund for their helpful discussion in preparing this manuscript. Jobs Dr. Stouta is supported by the National Institutes of Health comparative medicine training program (T32OD011000). The work in the author's laboratory (GRW) is partly funded by the Cornell Feline Health Center and the Winn Feline Foundation.

References

  1. Alexander KA, McNutt JW, Briggs MB, StandersPE, Funston P, Hemson G, Keet D, van Vuuren M. Multi-host pathogens and carnivore management in southern Africa. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 2010; 33 (3): 249–265.
  2. Andre´ NM, Miller AD, Whittaker GR. Feline infectious peritonitis virus-associated rhinitis in a cat. J Feline Med Surg Open Rep. 2020; 6 (1): 1–6.
  3. Bernard JM, Newkirk KM, McRee AE, Whittemore JC, Ramsay EC. Hepatic lesions in 90 captive nondomestic felids presented for autopsy. Vet Pathol. 2015; 52 (2): 369–376.
  4. Biek R, Ruth TK, Murphy KM, Anderson CR, Johnson M, DeSimone R, Gray R, Hornocker MG, Gillin CM, Poss M. Factors associated with pathogen seroprevalence and infection in rocky mountain cougars. J Wildl Dis. 2006; 42 (3): 606–615.
  5. Biek R, Zarnke RL, Gillin C, Wild M, Squires JR, Poss M. Serological survey for viral and bacterial infections in western populations of Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis). J Wildl Dis. 2002; 38 (4): 840–845.
  6. Briggs MB, Evermann JF, McKeirnan AJ. Felineinfectious peritonitis: an update of a captive cheetah population. Feline Pract. 1986; 16 (2): 13–16.
  7. Brower AI, Munson L, Radcliffe RW, Citino SB, Lackey LB, Van Winkle TJ, Stalis I, Terio KA, Summers BA, de Lahunta A. Leukoencephalomyelopathyof mature captive cheetahs and other large felids: a novel neurodegenerative disease that came and went? Vet Pathol. 2014; 51 (5): 1013–1021.
  8. Brown EW, Olmsted RA, Martenson JS, O'BrienSJ. Exposure to FIV and FIPV in wild and captive cheetahs. Zoo Biol. 1993; 12 (1): 135-142.
  9. Brown MA, Troyer JL, Pecon-Slattery J, RoelkeME, O'Brien SJ. Genetics and pathogenesis of feline infectious peritonitis virus. Emerg Infect Dis. 2009; 15 (9): 1445–1452.
  10. Cannon MJ, Silkstone MA, Kipar AM. Cutaneous lesions associated with coronavirus-induced vasculitis in a cat with feline infectious peritonitis and concurrent feline immunodeficiency virus infection. J Feline Med Surg. 2005; 7 (4): 233–236.
  11. Chaber AL, Cozzi G, Broekhuis F, Hartley R, JW McNutt. Serosurvey for selected viral pathogens among sympatric species of the African large predator guild in northern Botswana. J Wildl Dis. 2017; 53 (1): 170–175.
  12. Chen CC, Chang AM, Chen WJ, Chang PJ, Lai YC, Lee HH. Molecular survey for selected viral pathogens in wild leopard cats (Prionailurus bengalensis) in Taiwan with an emphasis on the spatial and temporal dynamics of carnivore protoparvovirus 1. BioRxiv [Internet]. 2020.02.21.960492; doi: https: // doi. org / 10.1101 / 2020.02.21.960492
  13. Colby ED. Feline infectious peritonitis. Vet MedSmall Anim Clin. 1970; 65 (8): 783–786.
  14. Daniels MJ, Golder MC, Jarrett O, MacDonaldDW. Feline viruses in wildcats from Scotland. J Wildl Dis. 1999; 35 (1): 121–124.
  15. Daszak P, Cunningham A, Hyatt A. Emerginginfectious diseases of wildlife — threats to biodiversity and human health. Science. 2000; 287 (5452): 443-449.
  16. Dong BQ, Liu W, Fan XH, Vijaykrishna D, TangXC, Gao F, Li LF, Li GJ, Zhang JX, Yang LQ, Poon LLM, Zhang SY, Peiris JSM, Smith GJD, Chen H, Guan Y. Detection of a novel and highly divergent coronavirus from Asian leopard Cats and Chinese ferret badgers in southern China. J Virol. 2007; 81 (13): 6920–6926.
  17. Drechsler Y, Alcaraz A, Bossong FJ, CollissonEW, Diniz PPVP. Feline coronavirus in multicat environments. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 2011; 41 (6): 1133–1169.
  18. Driciru M, Siefert L, Prager KC, Dubovi E, Sande R, Princee F, Friday T, Munson L. A serosurvey of viral infections in lions (Panthera leo), from Queen Elizabeth National Park, Uganda. J Wildl Dis. 2006; 42 (3): 667–671.
  19. Duarte A, Fernandes M, Santos N, Tavares L.
    Virological survey in free-ranging wildcats (Felis silvestris) and feral domestic cats in Portugal. Vet Microbiol. 2012; 158 (3-4): 400-404.
  20. Dye C, Helps CR, Siddell SG. Evaluation of realtime RT-PCR for the quantification of FCoV shedding in the faeces of domestic cats. J Feline Med Surg. 2008; 10 (2-3): 167-174.
  21. Dye C, Temperton N, Siddell SG. Type I felinecoronavirus spike glycoprotein fails to recognize aminopeptidase N as a functional receptor on feline cell lines. J Gen Virol. 2007; 88 (Pt 6): 1753–1760.
  22. Ernandes MA, Cantoni AM, Armando F, Corradi A, Ressel L, Tamborini A. Feline coronavirusassociated myocarditis in a domestic longhair cat. JFMS Open Rep. 2019; 5 (2): 1–5.
  23. Evermann JF, Burns G, Roelke ME, McKeirnanAJ, Greenlee A, Ward AC, Pfeifer ML. Diagnostic features of an epizootic of feline infectious peritonitis in captive cheetahs. In: Proc Am Assoc Vet Lab Diagn; 1983. 26: 365–382.
  24. Evermann JF, Heeney JL, McKeirnan AJ, O'Brien SJ. Comparative features of a coronavirus isolated from a cheetah with feline infectious peritonitis. Virus Res. 1989; 13 (1): 15-27.
  25. Evermann JF, Heeney JL, Roelke ME,
    McKeirnan AJ, O'Brien SJ. Biological and pathological consequences of feline infectious peritonitis virus infection in the cheetah. Arch Virol. 1988; 102 (3-4): 155-171.
  26. Evermann JF, Laurenson MK, McKeirnan AJ, Caro TM. Infectious disease surveillance in captive and free-living cheetahs: an integral part of the species survival plan. Zoo Biol. 1993; 12 (1): 125-133.
  27. Evermann JF, Roelke ME, Briggs MB. Felinecoronavirus infections of cheetahs: clinical and diagnostic features. Feline Pract. 1986; 16 (3): 21-28.
  28. Felten S, Hartmann K. Diagnosis of felineinfectious peritonitis: a review of the current literature. Viruses. 2019; 11 (11): 1068.
  29. Felten S, Klein-Richers U, Hofmann-LehmannR, Bergmann M, Unterer S, Leutenegger CM, Hartmann K. Correlation of feline coronavirus shedding in feces with coronavirus antibody titer. Pathogens. 2020; 9 (8): 598.
  30. Filoni C, Cata˜o-Dias JL, Bay G, Durigon EL, Jorge RSP, Lutz H, Hofmann-Lehmann R. First evidence of feline herpesvirus, calicivirus, parvovirus, and Ehrlichia exposure in Brazilian Free-ranging felids. J Wildl Dis. 2006; 42 (2): 470–477.
  31. Fiorello CV, Noss AJ, Deem SL, Maffei L, Dubovi EJ. Serosurvey of small carnivores in the Bolivian Chaco. J Wildl Dis. 2007; 43 (3): 551–557.
  32. Fix AS, Riordan DP, Hill HT, Gill MA, EvansMB. Feline panleukopenia virus and subsequent canine distemper virus infection in two snow leopards (Panthera uncia). J Zoo Wildl Med. 1989; 20 (3): 273–281.
  33. Foley JE, Swift P, Fleer KA, Torres S, GirardYA, Johnson CK. Risk factors for exposure to feline pathogens in California mountain lions (Puma concolor). J Wildl Dis. 2013; 49 (2): 279–293.
  34. Fountain-Jones NM, Packer C, Jacquot M, Blanchet FG, Terio K, Craft ME. Endemic infection can shape exposure to novel pathogens: pathogen cooccurrence networks in the Serengeti lions. Ecol Lett. 2019; 22 (6): 904–913.
  35. Franklin SP, Kays RW, Moreno R, TerWee JA, Troyer JL, VandeWoude S. Ocelots on Barro Colorado Island are infected with feline immunodeficiency virus but not other common feline and canine viruses. J Wildl Dis. 2008; 44 (3): 760–765.
  36. Fransen DR. Feline infectious peritonitis in an infantile jaguar. In: Proc Am Assoc Zoo Vet; 1974. 261– 264.
  37. Furtado MM, Taniwaki SA, de Barros IN, Branda˜o PE, Cata˜o-Dias JL, Cavalcanti S, Cullen L, Filoni C, Almeida Ja´como AT de, Jorge RSP, Silva NDS, Silveira L, Ferreira Neto JS . Molecular detection of viral agents in free-ranging and captive neotropical felids in Brazil. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2017; 29 (5): 660– 668.
  38. Gaffney PM, Kennedy M, Terio K, Gardner I, Lothamer C, Coleman K, Munson L. Detection of feline coronavirus in cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) feces by reverse transcription-nested polymerase chain reaction in cheetahs with variable frequency of viral shedding. J Zoo Wildl Med. 2012; 43 (4): 776–786.
  39. Giordano A, Spagnolo V, Colombo A, PaltrinieriS. Changes in some acute phase protein and immunoglobulin concentrations in cats affected by feline infectious peritonitis or exposed to feline coronavirus infection. Vet J. 2004; 167 (1): 38–44.
  40. Glaus T, Hofmann-Lehmann R, Greene C, Glaus B, Wolfensberger C, Lutz H. Seroprevalence of Bartonella henselae infection and correlation with disease status in cats in Switzerland. J Clin Microbiol. 1997; 35 (11): 2883–2885.
  41. Goncharuk MS, Kerley LL, Naidenko SV, Rozhnov VV. Prevalence of seropositivity to pathogens in small carnivores in adjacent areas of Lazovskii Reserve. Biol Bull Russ Acad Sci. 2012; 39 (8): 708–713.
  42. Goodrich JM, Quigley KS, Lewis JCM, AstafievAA, Slabi EV, Miquelle DG, Smirnov EN, Kerley LL, Armstrong DL, Quigley HB, Hornocker MG. Serosurvey of free-ranging Amur tigers in the Russian Far East. J Wildl Dis. 2012; 48 (1): 186–189.
  43. Guimaraes AMS, Branda˜o PE, Moraes W de, Cubas ZS, Santos LC, Villarreal LYB, Robes RR, Coelho FM, Resende M, Santos RCF, Oliveira RC, Yamaguti M, Marques LM, Neto RL, Buzinhani M, Marques R , Messick JB, Biondo AW, Timenetsky J. Survey of feline leukemia virus and feline coronaviruses in captive neotropical wild felids from southern Brazil. J Zoo Wildl Med. 2009; 40 (2): 360–364.
  44. Heddergott M, Steeb S, Osten-Sacken N, Steinbach P, Schneider S, Pir JP, Mu¨ller F, Pigneur LM, Frantz AC. Serological survey of feline viral pathogens in free-living European wildcats (Felis s. Silvestris) from Luxembourg. Arch Virol. 2018; 163 (11): 3131–3134.
  45. Heeney JL, Evermann JF, McKeirnan AJ, Marker-Kraus L, Roelke ME, Bush M, Wildt DE, Meltzer DG, Colly L, Lukas J. Prevalence and implications of feline coronavirus infections of captive and freeranging cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus). J Virol. 1990; 64 (5): 1964–1972.
  46. Herrewegh AAPM, Smeenk I, Horzinek MC, Rottier PJM, Groot RJ de. Feline coronavirus type II strains 79-1683 and 79-1146 originate from a double recombination between feline coronavirus type I and canine coronavirus. J Virol. Ame Soc Microbiol J. 1998; 72 (5): 4508–4514.
  47. Hofmann-Lehmann R, Fehr D, Grob M, ElgizoliM, Packer C, Martenson JS, O'Brien SJ, Lutz H.
    Prevalence of antibodies to feline parvovirus, calicivirus, herpesvirus, coronavirus, and immunodeficiency virus and of feline leukemia virus antigen and the interrelationship of these viral infections in freeranging lions in east Africa. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 1996; 3 (5): 554–562.
  48. Holzworth J. Some important disorders of cats.Cornell Vet. 1963; 53: 157–160.
  49. Horhogea C, Lazar M. Immunohistochemicalmethods to diagnose atraumatic spleen rupture in feline infectious peritonitis of tiger (Panthera tigris). Rev Chim Buchar. 2017; 68 (5): 1055.
  50. Horzinek MC, Osterhaus AD. The virology andpathogenesis of feline infectious peritonitis. Brief review. Arch Virol. 1979; 59 (1-2): 1-15.
  51. Horzinek MC, Osterhaus ADME. Feline infectious peritonitis: a worldwide serosurvey. Am J Vet Res. 1979; 40 (10): 1487–1492.
  52. Jaimes JA, Millet JK, Stout AE, Andre´ NM, Whittaker GR. A tale of two viruses: the distinct spike glycoproteins of feline coronaviruses. Viruses. 2020; 12 (1): 83.
  53. Jime´nez A, Sa´nchez B, Pe´rez Alenza D, Garcı´a P, Lo´pez JV, Rodriguez A, Mun˜oz A, Martı´nez F, Vargas A, Pen˜a L. Membranous glomerulonephritis in the Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus). Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2008; 121 (1–2): 34–43.
  54. Juan-Salle´s C, Domingo M, Herra´ez P, Ferna´ndez A, Segale´s J, Ferna´ndez J. Feline infectious peritonitis in servals (Felis serval). Vet Rec. 1998; 143 (19): 535–536.
  55. Kennedy M, Citino S, Dolorico T, McNabb AH, Moffat AS, Kania S. Detection of feline coronavirus infection in captive cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) by polymerase chain reaction. J Zoo Wildl Med. 2001;
    32 (1): 25-30.
  56. Kennedy M, Citino S, McNabb AH, Moffatt AS, Gertz K, Kania S. Detection of feline coronavirus in captive Felidae in the USA. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2002; 14 (6): 520–522.
  57. Kennedy M, Kania S, Stylianides E, BertschingerH, Keet D, van Vuuren M. Detection of feline coronavirus infection in southern African nondomestic felids. J Wildl Dis. 2003; 39 (3): 529-535.
  58. Kennedy MA, Moore E, Wilkes RP, Citino SB, Kania SA. Analysis of genetic mutations in the 7a7b open reading frame of coronavirus of cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus). Am J Vet Res. 2006; 67 (4): 627–632.
  59. Ketz-Riley CJ, Ritchey JW, Hoover JP, JohnsonCM, Barrie MT. Immunodeficiency associated with multiple concurrent infections in captive Pallas' cats (Otocolobus manul). J Zoo Wildl Med. 2003; 34 (3): 239-245.
  60. Kipar A, Meli ML. Feline infectious peritonitis:
    still an enigma? Vet Pathol. 2014; 51 (2): 505–526.
  61. Leutenegger CM, Hofmann-Lehmann R, RiolsC, Liberek M, Worel G, Lups P, Fehr D, Hartmann M, Weilenmann P, Lutz H. Viral infections in free-living populations of the European wildcat. J Wildl Dis. 1999; 35 (4): 678–686.
  62. Masot AJ, Gil M, Risco D, Jime´nez OM, Nu´nez˜ JI, Redondo E. Pseudorabies virus infection (Aujeszky's disease) in an Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus) in Spain: a case report. BMC Vet Res. 2016; 13 (1): 6.
  63. McDermid KR, Snyman A, Verreynne FJ, Carroll JP, Penzhorn BL, Yabsley MJ. Surveillance for viral and parasitic pathogens in a vulnerable African lion (Panthera leo) population in the Northern Tuli Game Reserve, Botswana. J Wildl Dis. 2017; 53 (1): 54–61.
  64. McOrist S, Boid R, Jones TW, Easterbee N, Hubbard AL, Jarrett O. Some viral and protozool diseases in the European wildcat (Felis silvestris). J Wildl Dis. 1991; 27 (4): 693-696.
  65. Meli ML, Cattori V, Martínez F, Lo´pez G, Vargas A, Simo´n MA, Zorrilla I, Mun˜oz A, Palomares F, Lo´pez-Bao JV, Pastor J, Tandon R, Willi B , Hofmann-Lehmann R, Lutz H. Feline leukemia virus and other pathogens as important threats to the survival of the critically endangered Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus). PLOS ONE. 2009; 4 (3): e4744.
  66. Meng Y, Wu P, Lu W, Liu K, Ma K, Huang L, Cai J, Zhang H, Qin Y, Sun H, Ding W, Gui L, Wu P.
    Sex-specific clinical characteristics and prognosis of coronavirus disease-19 infection in Wuhan, China: a retrospective study of 168 severe patients. PLOS Pathog. 2020; 16 (4): e1008520.
  67. Milla´n J, Candela MG, Palomares F, Cubero MJ, Rodrı´guez A, Barral M, de la Fuente J, Almerı´a S, Leo´n-Vizcaı´no L. Disease threats to the endangered Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus). Vet J. 2009; 182 (1): 114– 124.
  68. Millet JK, Whittaker GR. Host cell proteases: critical determinants of coronavirus tropism and pathogenesis. Virus Res. 2015; 202 (2015): 120-134.
  69. Mo XN, Su ZQ, Lei CL, Chen DF, Peng H, Chen RC, Sang L, Wu HK, Li SY. Serum amyloid A is a predictor for prognosis of COVID-19. Respirology. 2020; 25 (7): 764–765.
  70. Mochizuki M, Akuzawa M, Nagatomo H. Serological survey of the Iriomote cat (Felis iriomotensis) in Japan. J Wildl Dis. 1990; 26 (2): 236-245.
  71. Munson L. Diseases of captive cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus): results of the cheetah research council pathology survey, 1989–1992. Zoo Biol. 1993; 12 (1): 105–124.
  72. Munson L, Marker L, Dubovi E, Spencer JA,
    Evermann JF, O'Brien SJ. Serosurveyof viral infections in free-ranging Namibian cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus). J Wildl Dis. 2004; 40 (1): 23–31.
  73. Murphy BG, Perron M, Bauer K, Park Y, Eckstrand C, Liepnieks M, Pedersen NC. The nucleoside analog GS-441524 strongly inhibits feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) virus in tissue culture and experimental cat infection studies. Vet Microbiol. 2018; 219 (2018): 226–233.
  74. Murray DL, Kapke CA, Evermann JF, FullerTK. Infectious disease and the conservation of freeranging large carnivores. Anim Conserv. 1999; 2 (4): 241–254.
  75. Mwase M, Shimada K, Mumba C, Yabe J,
    Squarre D, Madarame H. Positive immunolabelling for feline infectious peritonitis in an African lion (Panthera leo) with bilateral panuveitis. J Comp Pathol. 2015; 152 (2-3): 265-268.
  76. Naidenko SV, Pavlova EV, Kirilyuk VE. Detection of seasonal weight loss and a serologic survey of potential pathogens in wild Pallas' cats (Felis [Otocolobus] manul) of the Daurian steppe, Russia. J Wildl Dis. 2014; 50 (2): 188–194.
  77. Nicholson KL, Noon TH, Krausman PR. Serosurvey of mountain lions in southern Arizona. Wildl Soc Bull. 2012; 36 (3): 615–620.
  78. Norris JM, Bosward KL, White JD, Baral RM, Catt MJ, Malik R. Clinicopathological findings associated with feline infectious peritonitis in Sydney, Australia: 42 cases (1990–2002). Aust Vet J. 2005; 83 (11): 666–673.
  79. O'Brien SJ, Roelke ME, Marker L, Newman A, Winkler CA, Meltzer D, Colly L, Evermann JF, Bush M, Wildt DE. Genetic basis for species vulnerability in the cheetah. Science. 1985; 227 (4693): 1428–1434.
  80. Packer C, Altizer S, Appel M, Brown E, Martenson J, O'Brien SJ, Roelke-Parker M, HofmannLehmann R, Lutz H. Viruses of the Serengeti: patterns of infection and mortality in African lions. J Anim Ecol. 1999; 68 (6): 1161–1178.
  81. Paul-Murphy J, Work T, Hunter D, McFie E, Fjelline D. Serologic survey and serum biochemical reference ranges of the free-ranging mountain lion (Felis concolor) in California. J Wildl Dis. 1994; 30 (2): 205-215.
  82. Pedersen NC. A review of feline infectiousperitonitis virus infection: 1963–2008. J Feline Med Surg. 2009; 11 (4): 225–258.
  83. Pedersen NC, Allen CE, Lyons LE. Pathogenesisof feline enteric coronavirus infection. J Feline Med Surg. 2008; 10 (6): 529–541.
  84. Pedersen NC, Perron M, Bannasch M, Montgomery E, Murakami E, Liepnieks M, Liu H. Efficacy and safety of the nucleoside analog GS-441524 for the treatment of cats with naturally occurring feline infectious peritonitis. J Feline Med Surg. 2019; 21 (4): 271–281.
  85. Pedersen NC, Sato R, Foley JE, Poland AM.Common virus infection in cats, before and after being placed in shelters, with emphasis on feline enteric coronavirus. J Feline Med Surg. 2004; 6 (2): 83–88.
  86. Pen˜a L, Garcia P, Jime´nez MA´, Benito A, Alenza MDP, Sa´nchez B. Histopathological and immunohistochemical findings in lymphoid tissues of the endangered Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus). Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 2006; 29 (2): 114-126.
  87. Persky ME, Jafarey YS, Christoff SE, MaddoxDD, Stowell SA, NortonTM. Tick paralysis in a freeranging bobcat (Lynx rufus). J Am Vet Med Assoc.
    2020; 256 (3): 362-364.
  88. Pfeifer ML, Evermann JF, Roelke ME, GallinaAM, Ott RL, McKeirnan AJ. Feline infectious peritonitis in a captive cheetah. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1983; 183 (11): 1317–1319.
  89. Philippa JDW, Leighton FA, Daoust PY, NielsenO, Pagliarulo M, Schwantje H, Shury T, Van Herwijnen R, Martina BEE, Kuiken T, Van de Bildt MWG, Osterhaus ADME. Antibodies to selected pathogens in free-ranging terrestrial carnivores and marine mammals in Canada. Vet Rec. 2004; 155 (5): 135–140.
  90. Quigley KS, Evermann JF, Leathers CW, Armstrong DL, Goodrich J, Duncan NM, Miquelle DG. Morbillivirus infection in a wild Siberian tiger in the Russian Far East. J Wildl Dis. 2010; 46 (4): 1252–1256.
  91. Ramsauer S, Bay G, Meli M, Hofmann-Lehmann R, Lutz H. Seroprevalence of selected infectious agents in a free-ranging, low-density lion population in the Central Kalahari Game Reserves in Botswana. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2007; 14 (6): 808–810.
  92. Rao AT, Acharjyo LN. Etiopathology of mortality in Indian lesser cats at Nandankanan Biological Park. Indian Vet J. 1994; 71 (6): 550–553.
  93. Redford T, Al-Dissi AN. Feline infectious peritonitis in a cat presented because of papular skin lesions. Can Vet J. 2019; 60 (2): 183–185.
  94. Riad A, Kassem I, Hockova B, Badrah M, Klugar M. Tongue ulcers associated with SARS-CoV2 infection: a case series. Oral Dis. 2020. doi: 10.1111 / odi.13635
  95. Riley SPD, Foley J, Chomel B. Exposure tofeline and canine pathogens in bobcats and gray foxes in urban and rural zones of a national park in
    California. J Wildl Dis. 2004; 40 (1): 11-22.
  96. Robert N, Walzer C. Pathological disorders incaptive cheetahs. In: Vargas A, Breitenmoser-Wu¨rsten C, Breitenmoser U (eds.). Iberian Lynx ex situ conservation: an interdisciplinary approach]. Madrid (Spain): Biodiversity Fundation / IUCN Cat Specialist Group; 2009. p. 265–272.
  97. Roelke M, Forrester D, Jacobson E, Kollias G, Scott F, Barr M, Evermann J, Pirtle E. Seroprevalence of infectious disease agents in free-ranging Florida panthers (Felis concolor coryi). J Wildl Dis. 1993; 29 (1): 36-49.
  98. Roelke ME, Johnson WE, Milla´n J, Palomares F, Revilla E, Rodrí´guez A, Calzada J, Ferreras P, Leo´nVizcaı´no L, Delibes M, O'Brien SJ. Exposure to disease agents in the endangered Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus). Eur J Wildl Res. 2008; 54 (2): 171–178.
  99. Rottier PJM, Nakamura K, Schellen P, VoldersH, Haijema BJ. Acquisition of macrophage tropism during the pathogenesis of feline infectious peritonitis is determined by mutations in the feline coronavirus spike protein. J Virol. 2005; 79 (22): 14122–14130.
  100. Ryser-Degiorgis M, Hofmann-Lehmann R, Leutenegger CM, Segerstad CH, Morner T, Mattsson R, Lutz H. Epizootiologic investigations of selected infectious disease agents in free-ranging Eurasian lynx from Sweden. J Wildl Dis. 2005; 41 (1): 58–66.
  101. Scaglione FE, Biolatti C, Pregel P, Berio E, Cannizzo FT, Biolatti B, Bollo E. A survey on zoo mortality over a 12-year period in Italy. PeerJ. 2019; 7: e6198.
  102. Schmidt-Posthaus H, Breitenmoser-Wu¨rsten C, Posthaus H, Bacciarini L, Breitenmoser U. Causes of mortality in reintroduced Eurasian lynx in Switzerland. J Wildl Dis. 2002; 38 (1): 84–92.
  103. Schmitt AC, Reischak D, Clavac CL, MonforteCHL, Couto FT, Almeida ABPF, Santos DGG, Souza L, Alves C, Vecchi K. life and knowledge of the Pantanal matogrossense region. [Feline leukemia and feline peritonitis virus infection in captive and wildcats from Mato Grosso swamp region]. Acta Sci Vet. 2003; 31 (3): 185-188.
  104. Schrader GM, Whiteside DP, Slater OM, BlackSR. Conservative management of pyothorax in an Amur tiger (Panthera tigris altaica). J Zoo Wildl Med. 2012; 43 (2): 425–429.
  105. Spencer JA. Lack of antibodies to coronaviruses in a captive cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) population. JS Afr Vet Assoc. 1991; 62 (2): 124–125.
  106. Spencer JA. Survey of antibodies to felineviruses in free-ranging lions. South Afr J Wildl Res, 1991; 21 (2): 59–61.
  107. Srivastav A, Chakrabarty B. Seasonal distribution of deaths of tigers (Panthera tigris) in Indian zoos. Zoos Print J. 2002; 17 (3): 741–743.
  108. Stephenson N, Swift P, Moeller RB, Worth SJ, Foley J. Feline infectious peritonitis in a mountain lion (Puma concolor), California, USA. J Wildl Dis. 2013; 49 (2): 408–412.
  109. Stidworthy MF, Lewis JCM, Penderis J, PalmerAC. Progressive encephalomyelopathy and cerebellar degeneration in a captive-bred snow leopard (Uncia uncia). Vet Rec. 2008; 162 (16): 522–524.
  110. Stout AE, Andre´ NM, Jaimes JA, Millet JK, Whittaker GR. Coronaviruses in cats and other companion animals: where does SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 fit? Vet Microbiol. 2020; 247: 108777. doi: 10.1016 / j. vetmic.2020.108777
  111. Terio KA, O'Brien T, Lamberski N, FamulaTR, Munson L. Amyloidosis in black-footed cats (Felis nigripes). Vet Pathol. 2008; 45 (3): 393–400.
  112. Terio KA, Walzer ME, Schmidt-Kuntzel A, Marker L, Citino S. Diseases impacting captive and free-ranging cheetahs. In: Marker L, Boast, LK, Schmidt-Kuntzel A. Cheetahs: biology and conservation. Biodiversity of the world: conservation from genes to landscapes. Cambridge (MA): Academic Press; 2018. p. 349–364.
  113. Thalwitzer S, Wachter B, Robert N, Wibbelt G, Mu¨ller T, Lonzer J, Meli ML, Bay G, Hofer H, Lutz H. Seroprevalences to viral pathogens in free-ranging and captive cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) on Namibian farmland . Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2010; 17 (2): 232–238.
  114. 114. Tresnan DB, Levis R, Holmes KV. Feline aminopeptidase N serves as a receptor for feline, canine, porcine, and human coronaviruses in serogroup I. J Virol. 1996; 70 (12): 8669-8674.
  115. Trinkel M, Cooper D, Packer C, Slotow R.
    Inbreeding depression increases susceptibility to bovine tuberculosis in lions: an experimental test using an inbred-outbred contrast through translocation. J Wildl Dis. 2011; 47 (3): 494–500.
  116. Truyen U, Stockhofe-Zurwieden N, KaadenOR, Pohlenz J. A case report: encephalitis in lions. Pathological and virological findings. Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 1990; 97 (2): 89-91.
  117. Tuch K, Witte KH, Wu¨ller H. Feststellung der Felinen Infektio¨sen Peritonitis (FIP) bei Hauskatzen und Leoparden v Deutschland [Determination of feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) in domestic cats and leopards in Germany]. J Vet Med B Infect Dis Vet
    Public Health. 1974; 21 (6): 426–441.
  118. Uhart MM, Rago MV, Marull CA, Ferreyra Hdel V, Pereira JA. Exposure to selected pathogens in Geoffroy's cats and domestic carnivores from central Argentina. J Wildl Dis. 2012; 48 (4): 899–909.
  119. Van Rensburg IB, Silkstone MA. Concomitantfeline infectious peritonitis and toxoplasmosis in a cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus). JS Afr Vet Assoc. 1984; 55 (4): 205–207.
  120. Walzer C, Ku¨bber-Heiss A, Gelbmann W, Suchy A, Weissenblo¨ck H. Acute hind limb paresis in Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) cubs. In: Proc Eur Assoc Zoo Wildl Vet; 1998. p. 267–274.
  121. Walzer C, Url A, Robert N, Ku¨bber-Heiss A, Nowotny N, Schmidt P. Idiopathic acute onset myelopathy in cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) cubs. J Zoo Wildl Med. 2003; 34 (1): 36–46.
  122. Wang L, Mitchell PK, Calle PP, Bartlett SL, McAloose D, Killian ML, Yuan F, Fang Y, Goodman LB, Fredrickson R, Elvinger F, Terio K, Franzen K, Stuber T, Diel DG, Torchetti MK. Complete genome sequence of SARS-CoV-2 in a tiger from a US zoological collection. Microbiol Resour Announc. 2020; 9 (22): e00468-20.
  123. Wang Y, Su B, Hsieh L, Chueh L. An outbreacof feline infectious peritonitis in a Taiwanese shelter: molecular and epidemiological evidence for horizontal transmission of a novel type II feline coronavirus. Vet Res. 2013; 44 (1): 57.
  124. Watt NJ, MacIntyre NJ, McOrist S. An extended outbreak of infectious peritonitis in a closed colony of European wildcats (Felis silvestris). J Comp Pathol. 1993; 108 (1): 73–79.
  125. Weiss RC, Scott FW. Antibody-mediated enhancement of disease in feline infectious peritonitis: comparisons with dengue hemorrhagic fever. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 1981; 4 (2): 175-189.
  126. Zook BC, King NW, Robison RL, McCombs
    HL. Ultrastructural evidence for the viral etiology of feline infectious peritonitis. Pathol Vet. 1968; 5 (1): 91-95.

A study of the relationship between feline infectious peritonitis and retroviruses in cats

02.2019, Translation 7.5.2021
Aydin Hakan, Yildirim Serkan
Original complete article: Investigation of the relationship between feline infectious peritonitis and retroviruses in cats

Abstract

Feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) infection is a highly pathogenic and fatal systemic inflammatory disease of cats. Although FIP infection is associated with the immune system, there are several predisposing factors for the disease. FIP has a high degree of interaction with other infectious agents. Feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) and feline leukemia virus (FeLV) infections play a predisposing role by reducing immunity to FIP. This study was performed with Turkish Van cats, a cat breed specific to the Turkish Lake Van region, between 2014 and 2015. Ascites and signs of organ damage in 15 Van cats were identified by pathological analysis at Van Yüzüncü Yıl University. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was used to examine the presence of FIV and FeLV in the homogenate of brain, lung, liver, kidney, spleen and intestinal samples with lesions. FIV was identified in 1 (6.7%) of 15 cats and all cat samples were positive for FeLV (100%). Phylogenetic analysis of the positive samples revealed that it was endogenous FeLV. In the FIV phylogenetic analysis, our study strain was found to belong to the FIV subgroup B. The fact that FIP-positive cats were also positive for FeLV has drawn attention to the pathogenesis of endogenous-FeLV in malignancies, which has not yet been understood. In particular, it was concluded that the prevalence of FIP infection can be reduced by paying attention to the vaccination of young cats with FIV and FeLV in environments with a high cat population.

Introduction

Feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) is a fatal disease caused by the feline infectious peritonitis virus (FIPV), which is the result of a coronavirus mutation (FCoV). While FCoV has an enteric form, FIPV is a pathogenic type with a systemic infection. The dramatic increase in the cat population after World War II and the subsequent placement of cats in shelters paved the way for the most important scenario of the FIP. FCoV is thought to spread in the cat population due to their mass concentration, leading to mutant FIPV [1, 2]. Although the disease is not common in older cats, FIP infection is one of the leading causes of death in young cats aged 3 to 24 months. There are two types of FIP: effusive (wet) and granulomatous (dry). While the wet form is the most common and takes the form of inflammatory exudate in body cavities, the granulomatous form attacks the organs [1, 3]. The hypothesis of FIP is based on the fact that viral replication in cats with FCoV occurs in enterocytes. However, another variant of FIPV that can replicate in macrophages due to a mutation in the FCoV genome has also been published. [4]. FIP is a slow, progressive disease and can last for weeks or months. However, retroviral opportunistic infections such as feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) and feline leukemia virus (FeLV), which cause immunosuppression, lead to the inevitable death by reduced immunity to FIP and accelerated disease. Although cats overcome FIP infection, secondary FeLV and FIV infection reactivates FIPV and dies in a short time. [4-6].

The Retroviridae family, which includes immune-suppressing viruses such as FIV and FeLV, has a linear, single-stranded, non-segmented, genome with a positive RNA polarity of 8-13 kb. Retroviruses that are morphologically enveloped and have icosahedral symmetry contain gag, pol and envelope gene regions [7, 8].

The immune system plays an important role in the clinical manifestations of FIP (wet / granulomatous). In granulomatous cases (dry FIP), T-cell mediated cellular immunity and humoral immunity are key. In FeLV infections in particular, FeLV infection affects the clinic of FIP infection due to disruption of this immune system mechanism. [9]. In addition, cats with FIP infection in the form of a latent or limited infection may experience re-infection due to FeLV. This will again result in death due to the FIP [5]. FIV infection is one of the most important co-infection factors in FIP outbreaks in cats with FCoV. It is reported that FCoV can achieve a very high rate of replication in immunosuppressed cats due to FIV infection, and that this may be a predisposing factor for FCoV to FIPV mutation. In cats infected with FIV and FCoV, FIV causes a high degree of FCoV replication and may lead to an outbreak of FIP in a short time. [1]. These retroviruses, which disrupt the immune system, are the most important clinical indicators of FCoV mutation. [1]. In the case of FIP-induced immune suppression, the transmission of opportunistic pathogens such as FIV / FeLV may occur. [10, 11]. Although there are currently commercial vaccines against FIV and FeLV, there is no protective vaccination or effective treatment against FIP in Turkey. [12].

This study was conducted to determine the interactions between FIPV infection and retrovirus co-infection (FIV / FeLV) in Van cats, a cat breed originating in Turkey.

Materials and methods

The population for the study consisted of a total of 15 cats with suspected FIP, which were transported to Van Yüzüncü Yıl University between 2014 and 2015 for pathological analysis of the death of the Turkish Van cat breed. Refrigerated tissue samples from the brain, lungs, liver, kidneys, spleen and intestines were sent refrigerated to a virology laboratory. For histopathological examinations, tissue samples from all tissues were taken into 10% formalin solution. After 48 hours of fixation in formalin solution, the samples were washed with running tap water for 10 hours. After passing through alcohol (70 °, 80 °, 90 °, 96 ° and 100 °) and xylene, they were immersed in paraffin blocks. Four thick sections were taken from each block to prepare slides on a slide. For histopathological examination, they were stained with hematoxylin-eosin (HE) and examined by light microscopy.

Immunohistochemical examination

All sections taken into adhesion (poly-L-lysine) immunoperoxidase slides were passed through xylene and alcohol series for deparaffinization and dehydration. They were then washed for 5 minutes in distilled water, 5 minutes with phosphate buffer (PBS, pH 7.2) and the endogenous peroxidase was inactivated by standing in 3% H202 for 3 minutes. After washing for 5-10 minutes in PBS, they were incubated for 5 minutes with Protein Block, which is compatible with all primary and secondary antibodies, to prevent non-specific staining of the substrate. At the end of the incubation, the excess blocking solution remaining on the tissue sections was removed and drops of primary antibodies (VGEF, caspase 3, caspase 8, caspase 9, PCNA, neuronectin, TRPM 1, TRPM 2, α synuclein, apelin) and PBS in the control group were used without washing. In accordance with the primary antibody, they were left to stand overnight at +4°C. After washing twice for 5 min. with PBS, they were incubated for 10-30 min. at room temperature with biotinylated secondary antibody. Sections washed again with PBS were left to stand in streptavidin-peroxidase for 10-30 minutes, then washed in the same manner with PBS. After washing, 3-3 'diaminobenzidine (DAB) chromogen was added to the sections and the mixture was left to stand for 5-10 minutes. according to the uptake of the chromogen. After immersion in Mayer's hematoxylin for 1-2 minutes for staining, they were rinsed with running water. They were then passed through an alcohol and xylene series, covered with coverslips and examined with a light microscope (Leica DM 1000). The sections were scored as negative (-), mild (+), moderate (++) and severe (+++) positive according to their immunopositivity.

Investigation of retroviral infections in FIP positive cats

For FIV and FeLV DNA testing of FIP-positive cats, liver, spleen, kidney and brain tissue samples with lesions were taken according to pathological analysis. These tissue samples were combined to prepare a homogenate. Nucleic acid isolation was performed using a supernatant from this tissue homogenate using a commercial kit (GF-1 Nucleic Acid Extraction Kits, Vivantis, Malaysia). The resulting nucleic acid suspension was used as a template for PCR for FIV and FeLV analysis. For FIV DNA screening, nested-PCR was performed using primer pairs specific for the V3-V6 region of the env gene (Table 1). [13]. For FeLV detection, PCR was performed using primer pairs specific for the FeLV env gene region [14]. The primer sequences and product sizes are listed in Table 1.

Example5′-3 ′ sequencePolaritySpecificitySize (bp)
Env FwTAY TGG GCC TGT AAC ACY G+FeLV508
Env RvCGC TGT TTT AGT CTT TCT CTT A–FeLV
VE1SGAG TAG ATA CWT GGT TRC AAG+FIV1211
VE1RCAT CCT AAT TCT TGC ATA GC–FIV
nVE2SCAA AAT GTG GAT GGT GGA AY+FIV859
nVE2RACC ATT CCW ATA GCA GTR GC–FIV
Table 1: Details of oligonucleotides used in the study

Sequential and phylogenetic analysis

After gel electrophoresis, FIV / FeLV positive PCR products were subjected to sequence analysis. The raw data obtained after sequencing were confirmed by GenBank (NCBI National Center for Biotechnology Information / BLAST). Sequences of reference strains and studied samples were arranged by BioEdit program (version 7.0.5) [15]. Phylogenetic analysis was performed using the MEGA program (version 6.0) by the neighborhood method [16].

The results

Pathological findings

At necropsy, gray-white granulomatous lesions in the spleen, liver, kidneys, intestines, lungs and cerebral organs and serous atrophy were observed macroscopically in adipose tissue (Figure 1). In the effusion form, the mucous membranes were found to be strongly icteric and there was a discharge of 1-1.5 l in the abdominal cavity (Figure 2).

Figure 1: Non-fusion form, pyogranulomas clearly visible in seroses of liver, spleen and intestine
Figure 2: Efusion form, approximately 1.5 l of effusion fluid in the abdominal cavity

Microscopic examination revealed, especially in the non-fusible form, pyogranulomatous lesions, necrotic in the middle, spleen, liver, kidneys, intestines, lungs and brain tissues, surrounded by neutrophils, macrophages, lymphocytes and plasma cells (Figure 3). Vasculitis was found in the vessels in these organs (Figure 4). While these granules were generally observed near the serosa, some of them progressed to parenchymal tissue, especially in the kidneys.

Figure 3: Liver, pyogranuloma and mononuclear cell infiltrations consisting of neurophilic leukocytes and mostly with necrotic mass in the middle; H&E, Molding: 50 µm
Figure 4: Renal tissue, FIP positive in tubular epithelium and interstitial intermittent macrophages, IHC-P, Rail: 100 µm

Virological findings

FIV / FeLV DNA was examined by molecular methods in 15 Van cats with FIP diagnosed by pathological analysis. As a result of PCR analysis, FeLV DNA was detected in all 15 cats (100%). In the phylogenetic analysis of FeLV strains in our study and GenBank reference strains, FeLV strains formed two phylogenetic groups: exogenous and endogenous. Sheep and horse retroviruses have been used as a non-member group. In phylogeny, it was observed that all our study strains coalesced together with endogenous FeLV (enFeLV) (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Phylogenetic tree based on the 508 bp nucleotide sequence of 15 FeLV strains generated by Neighbor-Joining using MEGA 6.0 software. Equine and ovine retroviruses were used as a non-member group. Round symbols (•) indicate Turkish tribes

PCR analysis identified FIV in 1 (6.7%) from 15 samples. Subsequently, a sequential reaction and phylogenetic analysis of the FIV strain was performed. Phylogenetic analysis of the FIV strain obtained from our study and reference strains from GenBank showed that the FIV strains were divided into 6 different subtypes from A to F. Our FIV strain was classified as FIV subtype B along with Turkish and Japanese strains (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Phylogenetic tree based on the 859 bp nucleotide sequence of FIV strains generated by Neighbor-Joining using MEGA 6.0 software. The square symbol indicates a Turkish tribe

Discussion

FIP is a systemic infection associated with the immune system caused by coronaviruses. This insidious and deadly infection significantly threatens domestic and street cats that share the same environment with humans, and even breeds of protected cats such as Van cats. Eliminating predisposing factors is the first combat strategy against FIP infection, for which there is not yet an effective method of prevention and treatment in Turkey. Of these factors, cleaning, hygiene and negative interaction in ordinary living spaces are important. Immunosuppressive diseases, such as FIV and FeLV, are the most important predisposing factors for the development of FIPV, a mutant form of coronavirus.

In our study, pathological analysis revealed FIP infection in cats of Van, a breed native to Turkey. Subsequently, the presence of FIV and FeLV was examined in tissue samples obtained from these cats.

FeLV and FIV are pathogenic infectious agents that cause immunosuppression mortality in domestic cats. While FIV is similar to human HIV infection, FeLV causes immunosuppressive, neoplastic, and hematopoietic disorders. [17]. Retroviral infections of cats are the most important trigger for FIP infection in cat homes and shelters. Successful results against retroviral infections have been achieved thanks to the aggressive policies of many Western countries, such as the eradication of infections through testing and vaccination. [18]. Although vaccines against FIV / FeLV infections exist in Turkey, an adequate and controlled vaccination program has not yet been established.

In our study, FeLV was detected in all cats with FIP. FeLV is divided into 6 groups: A, B, C, D, E and T. These types, called exogenous FeLV, are responsible for leukemia and tumor formation in cats. Endogenous FeLV (enFeLV) are FeLV sequences transfected into the genome of domestic cats. enFeLV proviruses are found in various organs and tissues and perform translation and transcription. However, due to the lack of essential parts of the viral genome, it cannot become an infectious viral particle. However, infection of a cat with exogenous FeLV (field strain) leads to recombination between the two (endogenous / exogenous) and transforms enFeLV into an infectious virus particle. However, it is still unclear whether enFeLV may be responsible for malignant formations in cats with lymphoma where exogenous strains are not detected. [19].

In our study, FeLV was detected in all tissue suspensions with pathological lesions collected from Van cats. Phylogenetic analysis showed that they were all enFeLV. Although this suggests that enFeLV may mutate and cause malignant formations, there is no information in the literature to support this hypothesis. There are several studies on coronavirus infection of cats in Turkey. In a study by Pratelli et al., FCoV seropositivity was determined in 62% cats living in environments such as shelters. [20]. In a study by Sahna et al. by molecular methods, the rate was identified by FCoV 54% [21]. A study in Turkey identified a rare ocular form of FIP infection in cats [22]. In a retrospective study of FCoV, FIV and FeLV in 169 sick cats in Turkey, seroprevalence ratios were determined to be 37%, 11% and 1% [23]. Similarly, in a study investigating FCoV, FIV and FeLV in chronic gastrointestinal, urinary, symptomatic and healthy cats in Turkey, viral substances were detected in 45.5%, 9.5% and 20.5%, respectively [24]. In our study, one cat was found to be co-infected with FIV and FeLV. In the phylogenetic analysis of the FIV strain identified in our study, it was found to be a subtype group B. In a previous study performed in cats in Turkey, subtype B was identified in parallel with our results. [25]. In a study of FIV and FeLV infections in cats, the incidence rates of FIV and FeLV were found to be 22.3% and 5.8%, respectively. [26]. Because our study was limited to a specific group, a relatively low FIV / FELV rate was achieved.

Conclusions

Eliminating predisposing factors is the first combat strategy against FIP infection, for which a method of prevention and treatment is not yet effective in Turkey. Although there are vaccines against FIV / FeLV infections that are predisposing factors for FIP, an adequate and controlled vaccination program has not yet been established. Due to the increased incidence of FCoV and predisposing factors, vaccination and awareness of cat owners is important in this regard in order to minimize the spread of FIPV. There is a need to establish a national eradication and control policy for agents such as FIPV and FeLV, which prepare the ground for FIPV infection in shelter cats and even in protected cat breeds.

Compliance with ethical standards

Acknowledgement

SY: For a time he worked at Van Yüzüncü Yıl University. At that time, cat samples were obtained. SY: provided cat samples and performed pathological analyzes, HA: performed virological analysis. SY and HA read the whole article and agreed.

Disclosure of conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they are not aware of the conflict of interest.

Declaration of ethical approval

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Veterinary Faculty Unit of Van Yüzüncü Yıl University (Protocol No. 2015/03).

References

  1. Pedersen NC. (2009). A review of feline infectious peritonitis virus infection: 1963-2008. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery, 11 (4), 225-258.
  2. Felten S, Weider K, Doenges S, Gruendl S, Matiasek K, Hermanns W, Mueller E, Matiasek L, Fischer A, Weber K, Hirschberger J, Wess G and Hartmann K. (2017). Detection of feline coronavirus spike gene mutations as a tool to diagnose feline infectious peritonitis. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery, 19 (4), 321-335.
  3. Riemer F, Kuehner KA, Ritz S, Sauter-Louis C and Hartmann K. (2016). Clinical and laboratory features of cats with feline infectious peritonitis – a retrospective study of 231 confirmed cases (2000-2010). Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery, 18 (4), 348-356.
  4. Hartmann K. (2017). Feline infectious peritonitis – new developments in pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management. The Thai Journal of Veterinary Medicine, 47, 97-100.
  5. Pedersen NC. (1987). Virologic and immunologic aspects of feline infectious peritonitis virus infection. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, 218, 529-550.
  6. Pedersen N, Evermann J, McKeirnan A and Ott R. (1984). Pathogenicity studies of feline coronavirus isolates 79-1146 and 79-1683. American journal of veterinary research, 45 (12), 2580-2855.
  7. Liu D. (2016). Feline Leukemia Virus. Molecular Detection of Animal Viral Pathogens, First edition. GRC Press. chapter22, 197.
  8. Burmeister T. (2001). Oncogenic retroviruses in animals and humans. Reviews in Medical Virology, 11 (6), 369-380. [9] Hardy WD. (1982). Immunopathology induced by the feline leukemia virus. Springer Seminars in Immunopathology, 5 (1), 75-106.
  9. Pedersen N. (1976). Feline infectious peritonitis: something old, something new. Feline practice, 6 (3), 42-51.
  10. Cotter SM, Gilmore CE and Rollins C. (1973). Multiple cases of feline leukemia and feline infectious peritonitis in a household. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 162 (12), 1054-1058.
  11. Lewis CS, Porter E, Matthews D, Kipar A, Tasker S, Helps CR and Siddell SG. (2015). Genotyping coronaviruses associated with feline infectious peritonitis. Journal of General Virology, 96 (6), 1358-1368.
  12. Nishimura Y, Nakamura S, Goto N, Hasegawa T, Pang H, Goto Y, Kato H, Youn HY, Endo Y, Mizuno T, Momoi Y, Ohno K, Watari T, Tsujimoto H and Hasegawa A. (1996). Molecular characterization of feline immunodeficiency virus genome obtained directly from organs of a naturally infected cat with marked neurological symptoms and encephalitis. Archives of virology, 141 (10): 1933-1948.
  13. Ramirez H, Autran M, Garcia MM, Carmona MA, Rodriguez C and Martinez HA. (2016). Genotyping of feline leukemia virus in Mexican housecats. Archives Virology, 161 (4), 1039-1045. Aydin and Yildirim / GSC Biological and Pharmaceutical Sciences 2019, 06 (02), 071–078 78
  14. Hall TA. (1999). BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98 / NT. Nucleic acids symposium series: [London]: Information Retrieval Ltd., c1979-c2000.
  15. Tamura K, Stecher G, Peterson D, Filipski A and Kumar S. (2013). MEGA6: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis version 6.0. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 30 (12), 2725-2729.
  16. Miyazawa T, Ikeda Y, Maeda K, Horimoto T, Tohya Y, Mochizuki M, Vu D, Vu GD, Cu DX, Ono K, Takahashi E and Mikami T. (1998). Seroepidemiological survey of feline retrovirus infections in domestic and leopard cats in northern Vietnam in 1997. Journal of veterinary medical science, 60 (11), 1273-1275.
  17. Weijer K, Uijtde Haag F and Osterhaus A. (1986). Control of feline leukemia virus infection by a removal program. Veterinary Record, 119 (22), 555-556.
  18. Krunic M, Ertl R, Hagen B, Sedlazeck FJ, Hofmann-Lehmann R, von Haeseler A and Klein D. (2015). Decreased expression of endogenous feline leukemia virus in cat lymphomas: a case control study. BMC Veterinary Research, 11, 90.
  19. Pratelli A, Yesilbag K, Siniscalchi M, Yalcm E and Yilmaz Z. (2009). Prevalence of feline coronavirus antibodies in cats in Bursa province, Turkey, by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery, 11 (10), 881-884.
  20. Can-Sahna K, Soydal Ataseven V, Pinar D and Oguzoglu TC. (2007). The detection of feline coronaviruses in blood samples from cats by mRNA RT-PCR. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery, 9 (5), 369-372.
  21. Baydar E, Eroksuz Y, Timurkan MO and Eroksuz H. (2014). Feline infectious peritonitis with distinct ocular involvement in a cat in Turkey. Kafkas Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, 20 (6), 961-965.
  22. Tekelioglu BK, Berriatua E, Turan N, Helps CR, Kocak M and Yilmaz H. (2015). A retrospective clinical and epidemiological study on feline coronavirus (FCoV) in cats in Istanbul, Turkey. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 119 (1-2), 41-47.
  23. Oğuzoğlu T, Muz D, Timurkan M, Maral N and Gurcan I. (2013). Prevalences of feline coronavirus (FCoV), feline leukemia virus (FeLV), feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) and feline parvovirus (FPV) among domestic cats in Ankara, Turkey. Veterinary Medical Review, 164 (11), 511-516.
  24. Oguzoglu TC, Timurkan MO, Muz D, Kudu A, Numanbayraktaroglu B, Sadak S and Burgu I. (2010). First molecular characterization of feline immunodeficiency virus in Turkey. Archives of Virology, 155 (11), 1877-1881.
  25. Yilmaz H, Ilgaz A and Harbor DA. (2000). Prevalence of FIV and FeLV infections in cats in Istanbul. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery, 2 (1), 69-70.

Coronaviruses as a cause of vascular disease: a comparative medicine approach

29.1.2021, Translation 2.5.2021
Alison E. Stout DVM, Nicole André LVT, Joshua Zimmerberg MD PhD, Susan C. Baker PhD and Gary R. Whittaker PhD
Original article: Coronaviruses as a cause of vascular disease: a comparative medicine approach

Contact the author: e-mail: grw7@cornell.edu. 618 Tower Rd., Ithaca NY 14853 USA.

Abstract

COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 often manifests as a respiratory disease including cough, dyspnoea, fever and olfactory loss. However, other manifestations of the disease occur in many organ systems, at least in part due to vasculitis and endothelitis. COVID-19-associated multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) has recently been identified as part of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In feline medicine, feline coronavirus is a common pathogen that can lead to a deadly disease called feline peritonitis (FIP). Like human COVID-19, the clinical manifestations of FIP are due in part to coronavirus-induced vasculitis, which can also lead to fatal multisystemic inflammatory syndrome in cats. Studies investigating how feline coronavirus infection can cause disseminated vasculitis in FIP cats will provide new information that may help people understand COVID-19. We strive for a comparative medicine approach to tackling coronavirus diseases.

The COVID-19 pandemic in 2019-2020 is caused by the recently discovered zoonotic beta-coronavirus classified as SARS-CoV-2. COVID-19 often manifests as a respiratory disease manifested by fever, cough, dyspnoea, olfactory loss, headache, and malaise. More severe disease may include acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); however, the disease also appears to affect other organ systems, including the gastrointestinal, central nervous system (CNS), cardiovascular, renal, hepatic, endocrine, dermatological, hematological, and ophthalmic systems.17 These systemic symptoms are thought to be due to viral endothelial cell infection and endothelitis49 leading to vasculitis.5 COVID-19 can be considered both a respiratory disease and a vascular disease, with widespread viral tropism and high transmissibility contributing to the current public health crisis and the differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 from SARS-CoV, despite the receptor (ACE2) common to both viruses.

After studying the history and pathogenesis of feline coronavirus, we see parallels between COVID-19 and feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) with a wide variety across human and feline coronavirus infections, as originally found in SARS.41 Feline coronavirus (FCoV) in cats is generally considered to be an initial gastrointestinal or rarely respiratory infection that results in FIP, a systemic vascular disease with high morbidity and mortality in some animals.46 This feline disease, originally called chronic fibrinous peritonitis, was first described in 1963. 22; shortly afterwards, the etiological agent (causative agent) was recognized as a coronavirus. This disease, now called feline infectious peritonitis (FIP), occurs worldwide, is almost always fatal, and mainly affects young cats (under 2 years of age).28,38 The etiological agent responsible for most cases of FIP is feline coronavirus (FCoV), alpha coronavirus.25 While FCoV transmission and infection are widespread in domestic cats, systemic disease develops in only a small subset of animals (Figure 1). Common to these various forms of the disease is the identification of virus-induced vasculitis.27 This review highlights the similarities between COVID-19 and FIP and opens up opportunities for cooperation between the medical and veterinary communities in the fight against these devastating diseases.

Figure 1: FIP develops only in a subset of infected cats, despite the widespread spread of FCoV. Similarly, according to current knowledge, many cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection are characterized by a mild or asymptomatic course.

Clinical and pathological profile of feline coronavirus infection: parallels with COVID-19

Like COVID-19 in humans, FIP is involved in many manifestations of the disease in cats (Figure 2), which are described as "variably manifested by multiple organ failure, seizures, generalized effusion, or shock."14 The disease is commonly classified in one of two clinical forms, effusive or "wet" (characterized by accumulation of protein effusion mainly in the peritoneal or pleural cavities) and non-fusive or "dry" (characterized by granulomatous lesions in many organs, including the brain).19 A “mixed form” is also considered, in the clinical spectrum of which granulomatous and pyogranulomatous lesions occurring in the serous part of the liver, kidneys and intestines are common. The spectrum of pathologies observed in FIP includes serositis, hepatitis, nephritis, uveitis and chorioretinitis.38,55 Neuropathological manifestations of FIPV in cats include meningitis, meningoencephalitis, ependymitis, and choroidal plexitis with inflammation ranging from lymphoplasma to pyogranulomatous, and often including vasculitis and perivasculitis. Ophthalmic manifestations, including uveitis and chorioretinitis, are also common. Case reports point to associated heart lesions, including myocarditis and fibrinous epicarditis.12,34 Dermatological lesions that are less commonly observed in FIP include erythema, nodules, and papules.4,8,10 In some cases, early respiratory symptoms have been reported8,54 and in some cats, immunostaining identified the virus in the lung parenchyma.27 Our latest laboratory has confirmed the presence of the virus in the upper respiratory tract by immunostaining.1

Figure 2: Vasculitis caused by FCoV infection can affect many body systems. Since the first descriptions in the 1960s, numerous studies have revealed various forms of the disease.

A similar feature in FIP outbreaks and patients with COVID-19 is extensive vascular involvement.3,5,20 In one of the first reports recognizing vascular involvement in FIP cases, four types of lesions were described: “perivascular edema,” “vascular wall degeneration,” “endothelial proliferation,” and “adventitial and/or perivascular infiltration.”20 In 1989, Boudreaux and colleagues described FIP lesions in several cats as "obliterating" vascular walls. Similarly, August concluded in 1984 that "FIP could be more accurately termed feline coronavirus vasculitis."3 As a naturally occurring disease in cats, FIP and FCoV infection provide an opportunity to understand the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2, especially with regard to the co-development of vascular manifestations.

Although observations of myocarditis, rhinitis or skin lesions in FIP are rare, they allow comparison with COVID-191,8,12,42. Frostbite-like lesions, a condition colloquially called "COVID-fingers", have been reported in several patients with COVID-19, although the direct association of these manifestations with COVID-19 remains open.30,33 In cats, a similar condition is known as plasma cell subdermatitis and may also be associated with FCoV. Plasma cell pododermatitis manifests as paw inflammation along with the potential for color changes, ulcerations, and cracks.40 In the case of feline subdermatitis, an association with an infectious disease has been suspected.11 In addition to observing similar paw lesions in FCoV-secreting cats, our laboratory has previously identified subdermatitis in cats due to FIP. Although "COVID fingers" and subdermatitis in cats are rare consequences of infection, they further highlight the spectrum of similarities between COVID-19 and FIP.

One of the characteristic symptoms of COVID-19 is anosmia (loss of smell). Also, in most cases of FIP, the onset of anorexia is common.38,53 Although a non-specific clinical symptom that can be attributed to many different causes, anorexia can be attributed to loss of odor perception - an extremely important sensation that drives appetite in cats. While anosmia is difficult to measure in cats, the relationship between olfactory bulb infection and possible spread to the brain by human and feline coronaviruses deserves further evaluation, especially with regard to the neurological manifestations of both diseases.14,29

Immune component of FIP disease

Based on previous observations of complement and immunoglobulin circulation, including immune complexes, FIP is classically characterized as immune-mediated.24,39 In particular, type III hypersensitivity and Arthus-like reactions lead to the development of immune complexes that can build up in the walls of blood vessels, leading to vasculitis. Despite attempts to classify FIP as a type III hypersensitivity reaction, further work by Kipar and colleagues has shown numerous differences.26,27 Type III hypersensitivity has also been studied in patients with COVID-19.43 The importance of FIP as a type IV hypersensitivity reaction with apparent perivascular lesions consisting of T-lymphocytes, granulocytes and a characteristic feature of FIP, macrophage infiltrates, was also evaluated.36 Delayed-type hypersensitivity is observed in cats inoculated intradermally with FCoV, leading to perivascular cellular infiltrates of macrophages, neutrophils and lymphocytes in the absence of immune complexes.52 However, cellular extravasation associated with FIP lesions contributes to endothelial disruption and the inflammatory response that underlies FIP.27 Specifically, antigen (LFA) -1 associated with β2 integrin adhesion molecules and lymphocytes, β1 integrin very late antigen (VLA) -4 and β2 macrophage antigen (Mac-1) have been demonstrated to be increased in peripheral blood leukocytes isolated from cats with FIP.35 Integrins (LFA) -1 and (VLA) -4 play an important role in neutrophil and monocyte migration across the endothelium and are involved in the development of vasculitis in other disease processes,9,47 while (Mac-1) may play an additional role in the development of thrombosis.51 The hypothetical role of endothelitis, which underlies COVID-1949, parallels previous findings on FIP and the resulting acute vasculitis.

The interaction between vascular pathogenesis and hemodynamics has long been known in FIP.53 In addition to peripheral pyogranulomatous lesions, phlebitis, endothelial edema with inflammatory infiltrates of tunica media, thrombophlebitis and thrombosis were observed in cats experimentally infected with FCoV, classical FIP.53 Additionally, thrombocytopenia, anemia, jaundice, decreased clotting factors VII-XII, increased antithrombin III, and prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time, prothrombin time, and thrombin time are observed after experimental infection.7,53 Thus, the end result for some cats with FIP is the development of disseminated intravascular coagulation.7,53 This is in contrast to the course in human patients with JIS, who are often anticoagulated at some point in their hospital stay, and the rare development of DIC in humans is associated with a worse course in COVID-19.48 The fibrin product D-dimer, a DIC marker, has been studied rarely in cats with FIP, but has been increased in two cases - as expected, observations in patients with COVID-19 have shown this.

The development of FIP in a subset of cats, although most FCoV-infected cats undergo only a subclinical phase, is thought to be the result of an initial immune response.37 Strong cell-mediated immunity (CMI) together with humoral immunity is thought to lead to a subclinical course of the disease, while a lack of CMI leads to an effusive form of the disease and partial CMI leads to a dry form of the disease.37 Similarly, with respect to the immune response, multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), which may be a manifestation of SARS-CoV-2, has recently been described.16which may develop due to a delayed response to interferon or due to an aberrant IgG response promoting disease progression.44 In addition to MIS-C, multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults (MIS-A) has been described as a result of SARS-CoV-2 exposure.32

Antibody-dependent exacerbation of infection

In the case of SARS-CoV-2, there were concerns about antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) infection,13 largely based on experience with other human viruses, such as respiratory syncytial virus, influenza and dengue; despite the need for caution, formal evidence linking ADE to COVID-19 clinical outcomes remains insufficient.2 In cats, it is noteworthy that the involvement of ADE in FCoV infection and the development of FIP with antibodies that would provide means for FCoV to gain macrophage entry has long been considered.21 So far, despite several trials, a viable FCoV / FIP vaccine is still not available.45,50 In contrast to these FIP vaccine studies, preliminary immunization results for COVID-19, for example with stabilized spike immunogens, documented neutralizing, not potentiating, antibody responses.23

Perspectives

COVID-19 is a complex and challenging disease in humans, and similarly, FIP is a complex disease in cats with many factors contributing to the outcome of the disease. By analogy with the persisting question in metastatic tumor research, "seed and soil", the availability of immunological, pathological and physiological samples and data on these similarly fatal inflammatory syndromes from two different coronaviruses in their own host species allow testing of structure / function hypotheses in venous vasculitis . In addition, due to the lack of enthusiasm for clinical biopsy of human patients with fulminant COVID-19 and the great difficulty in achieving good preservation of pathological specimens, it will take a very long time to learn more about the presence or absence of coronavirus in human patients at baseline and during their progression. inflammatory phase of COVID-19.

As a naturally occurring disease with many parallels with COVID-19, we think that FIP may help in future COVID-19 research. Both baseline vasculopathy in both FIP and COVID-19 underline the need to think of these diseases as multisystemic rather than organ-specific diseases. Although often considered a key enteric mode of transmission for FCoV, it is clear that the oropharyngus is a robust portal to host entry. Another factor to consider is that SARS-CoV-2 infects cats.15,18 Although not currently considered a serious disease in cats, it is not a robust animal model for COVID-19, The increased rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection in cats and possible FCoV co-infections raise, in addition to the possibility of viral recombination, concerns about the overlap of pathology and clinical manifestations of human and feline coronaviruses with surprisingly similar vascular disease profiles. However, the fact that SARS-CoV-2 naturally infects cats may offer a model for preclinical evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. We believe that further studies are needed to investigate how coronaviruses can cause vascular disease in order to eliminate these devastating diseases, and FIP provides a platform for joint clinical trials bridging feline and human medicine.

Financing

AES is supported by the NIH Comparative Medicine Training Program T32OD011000. GRW is funded by NIH grants R01AI135270 and R21AI135373, SCB is funded by NIH grant R01 AI085089. FIP research in the author's laboratories is funded in part by the Winn Feline Foundation and the Cornell Feline Health Center.

Thanks

We thank Andrew Miller, Robert Goggs, Natalie Zatz and Beth Licitra for critical reading of the manuscript and helpful discussion.

Conflict of interests

The authors are not aware of any conflict of interest.

References

  1. André NM, Miller AD, Whittaker GR. 2020.
    Feline infectious peritonitis virus-associated rhinitis in a cat. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery Open Reports 6: 1–6.
  2. Arvin AM, Fink K, Schmid MA, Cathcart A,
    Spreafico R, Havenar-Daughton C, Lanzavecchia A, Corti D, Virgin HW. 2020. A perspective on potential antibody-dependent enhancement of SARS-CoV-2. Nature 584: 353363.
  3. August JR. 1984. Feline Infectious Peritonitis: An Immune-Mediated Coronaviral Vasculitis. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice 14: 971–984.
  4. Bauer BS, Kerr ME, Sandmeyer LS, Grahn BH. 2013. Positive immunostaining for feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) in a Sphinx cat with cutaneous lesions and bilateral panuveitis. Veterinary Ophthalmology 16: 160–163.
  5. Becker RC. 2020. COVID-19-associated vasculitis and vasculopathy. Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis 50: 499-511.
  6. Biezus G, Cristo TG de, Schade MF da S,
    Ferian PE, Carniel F, Miletti LC, Maciel A da R, Casagrande RA. 2020. Plasma cell subdermatitis associated with feline leukemia virus (FeLV) and concomitant feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) infection in a cat.
    Topics in Companion Animal Medicine 41:
  7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcam.2020.100475.
  8. Boudreaux MK, Weiss RC, Cox N, Spano JS.
  9. Evaluation of antithrombin-III activity as a coindicator of disseminated intravascular coagulation in cats with induced feline infectious peritonitis virus infection. American Journal of Veterinary Research 50: 1910–1913.
  10. Cannon MJ, Silkstone MA, Kipar AM. 2005. Cutaneous lesions associated with coronavirusinduced vasculitis in a cat with feline infectious peritonitis and concurrent feline
    immunodeficiency virus infection. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery 7: 233–236.
  11. Coll-Vinent B, Cebrián M, Cid MC, Font C,
    Esparza J, Juan M, Yagüe J, Urbano-Márquez Á, Grau JM. 1998. Dynamic pattern of endothelial cell adhesion molecule expression in muscle and perineural vessels from patients with classic polyarteritis nodosa. Arthritis & Rheumatism 41: 435–444.
  12. Declercq J, De Bosschere H, Schwarzkopf I, Declercq L. 2008. Papular cutaneous lesions in a cat associated with feline infectious peritonitis. Veterinary Dermatology 19: 255–258.
  13. Diesel A. Image Gallery: Immune-Mediated Skin Diseases. Clinician's Brief [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 September 28]. Available from: http://www.cliniciansbrief.com/article/imagegallery-immune-mediated-skin-diseases
  14. Ernandes MA, Cantoni AM, Armando F,
    Corradi A, Ressel L, Tamborini A. 2019. Feline coronavirus-associated myocarditis in a domestic longhair cat. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery Open Reports 5: 1–5.
  15. Eroshenko N, Gill T, Keaveney MK, Church GM, Trevejo JM, Rajaniemi H. 2020. Implications of antibody-dependent enhancement of infection for SARS-CoV-2 countermeasures. Nature Biotechnology 38: 789–791.
  16. Foley JE, Rand C, Leutenegger C. 2003. Inflammation and changes in cytokine levels in neurological feline infectious peritonitis. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery 5: 313–322.
  17. Gaudreault NN, Trujillo JD, Carossino M,
    Meekins DA, Morozov I, Madden DW, Indran
    SV, Bold D, Balaraman V, Kwon T, et al. 2020. SARS-CoV-2 infection, disease and transmission in domestic cats. Emerging Microbes and Infections.
    https://doi.org/10.1080/22221751.2020.1833687.
  18. Godfred-Cato S, Bryant B, Leung J, Oster ME,
    Conklin L, Abrams J, Roguski K, Wallace B, Prezzato E, Koumans EH, et al. 2020. COVID-
    19-Associated Multisystem Inflammatory
    Syndrome in Children - United States, March-July 2020. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 69: 1074–1080.
  19. Gupta A, Madhavan MV, Sehgal K, Nair N, Mahajan S, Sehrawat TS, Bikdeli B, Ahluwalia N, Ausiello JC, Wan EY, et al. 2020.
    Extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. Nature Medicine 26: 1017–1032.
  20. Halfmann PJ, Hatta M, Chiba S, Maemura T, Fan S, Takeda M, Kinoshita N, Hattori S, Sakai-Tagawa Y, Iwatsuki-Horimoto K, et al. 2020. Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in Domestic Cats. New England Journal of Medicine 383: 592594.
  21. Hartmann K. 2005. Feline infectious peritonitis. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice 35: 39–79.
  22. Hayashi T, Goto N, Takahashi R, Fujiwara K. 1977. Systemic vascular lesions in feline infectious peritonitis. The Japanese Journal of Veterinary Science 39: 365–377.
  23. Hohdatsu T, Yamada M, Tominaga R, Makino K, Kida K, Koyama H. 1998. Antibodydependent enhancement of feline infectious peritonitis virus infection in feline alveolar macrophages and human monocyte cell line U937 by serum of cats experimentally or naturally infected with feline coronavirus. The Journal of Veterinary Medical Science 60: 49–55.
  24. Holzworth J. 1963. Some important disorders of cats. The Cornell Veterinarian 53: 157–160.
  25. Jackson LA, Anderson EJ, Rouphael NG,
    Roberts PC, Makhene M, Coler RN,
    McCullough MP, Chappell JD, Denison MR, Stevens LJ, et al. 2020. An Vaccine mRNA against SARS-CoV-2 - Preliminary Report. New England Journal of Medicine.
    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2 022483.
  26. Jacobse-Geels HEL, Horzinek MC. 1983. Expression of Feline Infectious Peritonitis coronavirus antigens on the surface of feline macrophage-like cells. J. Gen. Virol 64: 1859–1866.
  27. Jaimes JA, Millet JK, Stout AE, André NM,
    Whittaker GR. 2020. A Tale of Two Viruses: The Distinct Spike Glycoproteins of Feline Coronaviruses. Viruses 12: 83. https://doi.org/10.3390/v12010083.
  28. Kipar A, Bellmann S, Kremendahl J, Köhler K, Reinacher M. 1998. Cellular composition, coronavirus antigen expression and production of specific antibodies in lesions in feline infectious peritonitis. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology 65: 243–257.
  29. Kipar A, May H, Menger S, Weber M, Leukert W, Reinacher M. 2005. Morphologic features and the development of granulomatous vasculitis in feline infectious peritonitis. Vet Pathol 42: 321–330.
  30. Kipar A, Meli ML. 2014. Feline Infectious Peritonitis: Still an Enigma? Veterinary Pathology 51: 505–526.
  31. Mao L, Jin H, Wang M, Hu Y, Chen S, He Q, Chang J, Hong C, Zhou Y, Wang D, et al.
    Neurologic Manifestations of Hospitalized Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Wuhan, China. JAMA Neurology. 2020 June 1; 77: 683–690.
  32. Mazzotta F, Troccoli T, Bonifazi E. 2020. A new vasculitis at the time of COVID-19.
    European Journal of Pediatric Dermatology 30: 75–78.
  33. Mesquita LP, Hora AS, Siqueira A de, Salvagni FA, Brandão PE, Maiorka PC. 2016. Glial response in the central nervous system of cats with feline infectious peritonitis. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery 18: 1023–1030.
  34. Morris SB, Schwartz NG, Patel P, Abbo L, Beauchamps L, Balan S, Lee EH, PanethPollak R, Geevarughese A, Lash MK, et al.
  35. Case Series of Multisystem Inflammatory
    Syndrome in Adults Associated with SARS-CoV-2
    Infection - United Kingdom and United States, March – August 2020. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 69: 1450–1456.
  36. Noakes A, Majoe S. 2020. Understanding the role that 'COVID toe' has in recognizing the potential extent of COVID-19 infections: a case study. Pathogens and Global Health 114: 283–284.
  37. Oliveira LB, Susta L, Rech RR, Howerth EW. 2014. Pathology in practice: Effusive FIP with fibrinous epicarditis in a cat 245: 899–901.
  38. Olyslaegers DAJ, Dedeurwaerder A,
    Desmarets LMB, Vermeulen BL, Dewerchin HL, Nauwynck HJ. 2013. Altered expression of adhesion molecules on peripheral blood leukocytes in feline infectious peritonitis. Veterinary Microbiology 166: 438–449.
  39. Paltrinieri S, Parodi MC, Cammarata G, Mambretti M. 1998. Type IV hypersensitivity in the pathogenesis of FIPV-induced lesions. Journal of Veterinary Medicine, Series B 45: 151–159.
  40. Pedersen, N. 1983. Feline infectious peritonitis and feline enteric coronavirus infections. Feline Practice 13: 5–20.
  41. Pedersen NC. 2009. A review of feline infectious peritonitis virus infection: 1963-2008. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery 11: 225–258.
  42. Pedersen NC, Boyle JF. 1980. Immunologic phenomena in the effusive form of feline infectious peritonitis. American Journal of Veterinary Research 41: 868–876.
  43. Pereira PD, Faustino AMR. 2003. Feline plasma cell podsermatitis: a study of 8 cases. Veterinary Dermatology 14: 333–337.
  44. Perlman S, Netland J. 2009. Coronaviruses postSARS: update on replication and pathogenesis. Nature Reviews Microbiology 7: 439–450.
  45. Redford T, Al-Dissi AN. 2019. Feline infectious peritonitis in a cat presented because of papular skin lesions. The Canadian Veterinary Journal 60: 183–185.
  46. Roncati L, Ligabue G, Fabbiani L, Malagoli
    C, Gallo G, Lusenti B, Nasillo V, Manenti A,
    Maiorana A. 2020. Type 3 hypersensitivity in COVID-19 vasculitis. Clinical Immunology 217: 108487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clim.2020.108487.
  47. Rowley AH. 2020. Understanding SARS-CoV-2related multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children. Nature Reviews Immunology 20: 453–454.
  48. Scott FW, Corapi WV, Olsen CW. 1992. Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of PrimucellFIP vaccine. Feline Health Topics 7: 6–8.
  49. Sykes JE. Feline Coronavirus Infection. In: Canine and Feline Infectious Diseases. Elsevier; 2014. pp. 195–208. Available from:
    https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B978
    143770795300020X
  50. Takeuchi T, Amano K, Sekine H, Koide J, Abe T. 1993. Upregulated expression and function of integrin adhesive receptors in systemic lupus erythematosus patients with vasculitis. The Journal of Clinical Investigation 92: 3008–3016.
  51. Tang N, Li D, Wang X, Sun Z. 2020. Abnormal coagulation parameters are associated with poor prognosis in patients with novel coronavirus pneumonia. Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis 18: 844–847.
  52. Varga Z, Flammer AJ, Steiger P, Haberecker M, Andermatt R, Zinkernagel AS, Mehra MR,
    Schuepbach RA, Ruschitzka F, Moch H. 2020.
    Endothelial cell infection and endotheliitis in COVID-19. The Lancet 395: 1417–1418.
  53. Vennema H, Groot RJ de, Harbor DA,
    Dalderup M, Gruffydd-Jones T, Horzinek MC, Spaan WJ. 1990. Early death after feline infectious peritonitis virus challenge due to recombinant vaccinia virus immunization. Journal of Virology 64: 1407–1409.
  54. Wang Y, Gao H, Shi C, Erhardt PW,
    Pavlovsky A, A. Soloviev D, Bledzka K, Ustinov V, Zhu L, Qin J, et al. 2017. Leukocyte integrin Mac-1 regulates thrombosis via interaction with platelet GPIbα. Nature Communications 8: 15559. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15559.
  55. Weiss RC, Cox NR. 1989. Evaluation of immunity to feline infectious peritonitis in cats with cutaneous viral-induced delayed hypersensitivity. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology 21: 293–309.
  56. Weiss RC, Dodds WJ, Scott FW. 1980. Disseminated intravascular coagulation in experimentally induced feline infectious peritonitis. American Journal of Veterinary Research 41: 663–671.
  57. Wolfe LG, Griesemer RA. 1966. Feline infectious peritonitis. Path Vet 3: 255–270.
  58. Ziółkowska N, Paździor-Czapula K, Lewczuk B, Mikulska-Skupień E, PrzybylskaGornowicz B, Kwiecińska K, Ziółkowski H.
  59. Feline Infectious Peritonitis: Immunohistochemical features of ocular inflammation and the distribution of viral antigens in the structures of the eye. Veterinary Pathology 54: 933–944.

Therapeutic effect of an anti-human-TNF-alpha antibody and itraconazole on feline infectious peritonitis

31.3.2020, Translation 25.4.2021
Tomoyoshi Doki, Masahiro Toda, Nobuhisa Hasegawa, Tsutomu Hohdatsu & Tomomi Takano
Original article: Therapeutic effect of an anti-human-TNF-alpha antibody and itraconazole on feline infectious peritonitis

Abstract

Infectious feline peritonitis (FIP) is a deadly disease of wild and domestic species of cats. Although some drugs have been shown to be effective in the treatment of FIP, they are still not available in clinical practice. In this study, we evaluated the therapeutic effect of the combined use of adalimumab (anti-human TNF-alpha monoclonal antibody, ADA) and itraconazole (ICZ), which is currently available to veterinarians. ADA neutralizing activity against fTNF-alpha-induced cytotoxicity was measured in WEHI-164 cells. Ten specific pathogen-free (SPF) cats were inoculated intraperitoneally with FIPV KU-2 type I. Cats that developed FIP were administered ADA (10 mg / animal) twice between day 0 and day 4 after the start of treatment. ICZ (50 mg / head, SID) was administered orally every day from day 0 after the start of treatment. ADA demonstrated dose-dependent neutralizing activity against rfTNF-alpha. In an animal experiment, 2 of 3 cats showed an improvement in FIP clinical symptoms and biochemistry results, an increase in peripheral blood lymphocytes, and a decrease in plasma alpha 1-AGP levels after initiation of treatment. One of the cats did not respond to treatment and was euthanized, although the level of the viral ascites gene temporarily decreased after treatment. ADA was found to have neutralizing activity against rfTNF-alpha. The combined use of ADA and ICZ has shown a therapeutic effect on experimentally induced FIP. We consider these drugs to be a treatment option until effective anti-FIPV drugs are legally available.

Introduction

Feline Infectious Peritonitis Virus (FIPV), Feline Coronavirus (FCoV) Coronaviridae, causes a deadly disease in wild and domestic cat species called feline infectious peritonitis (FIP). In cats that develop FIP, several organs are affected, including the liver, lungs, spleen, serosis, kidneys, eyes, and central nervous system, and the formation of lesions in these organs is accompanied by necrosis and pyogenic granulomatous inflammation. Accumulation of pleural effusion and ascites fluid has been reported in some cats [1].

The FCoV virion consists mainly of nucleocapsid (N), envelope (E), membrane (M) and peplomer spike (S) proteins. FCoVs are classified into two serotypes, FCoV types I and II, based on differences in the amino acid sequence of the S protein. [2, 3]. FCoV type II was generated by genomic recombination between FCoV type I and canine coronavirus II. type (CCoV) [4,5,6]. Several serological and genetic surveys have shown that type I FCoV is dominant and that most cases of FIP are caused by FIPV type I infection [7,8,9].

We have previously shown that TNF (tumor necrosis factor) -alpha plays a crucial role in the progression of FIP. TNF-alpha is overproduced by FIPV-infected macrophages. TNF-alpha is involved in lymphopenia and elevated levels of the cellular receptor FIPV serotype II, aminopeptidase N (APN) [10, 11]. Neutrophil apoptosis in cats with FIP is also reported to be inhibited by TNF-alpha [12]. This finding suggests that neutrophilia in cats with FIP is due to TNF-alpha-induced neutrophil survival. We have found that monoclonal antibody (mAb) 2-4 with high neutralizing activity against feline TNF-alpha (fTNF-alpha) is useful as a treatment for FIP [13, 14]. However, the anti-fTNF-alpha mAb has never been marketed and cannot be used clinically in animal hospitals. In human medicine, the anti-human TNF-alpha mAb is used to treat inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn's disease. [15]. It is commercially available and can also be used in veterinary practice. However, it is not known whether this human antibody is effective against FIP, feline disease.

Several antiviral agents have been described for the treatment of FIPV [16,17,18,19,20]. These drugs have been shown to reduce FIPV proliferation, but are not commercially distributed as veterinary drugs. We have previously found that itraconazole (ICZ), which is used in veterinary medicine, reduces the multiplication of FIPV type I [21,22,23]. However, the therapeutic effects of ICZ in cats with FIP remain unclear.

In this study, we evaluated whether adalimumab (ADA), an anti-human TNF-alpha mAb, has neutralizing activity against fTNF-alpha. We further evaluated the therapeutic effects of ADA and ICZ on FIP by administering them to cats with experimentally induced FIP.

Materials and methods

Cell cultures and viruses

WEHI-164 mouse sarcoma cells were maintained in RPMI 1640 growth medium supplemented with 10% FCS, 600 U potassium benzylpenicillin per ml, 240 μg streptomycin sulfate per ml and 50 μM 2-mercaptoethanol. WEHI-164 mouse sarcoma cells were from the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC CRL1751).

FIPV KU-2 type I was grown in whole Felis catus fetal (fcwf) -4 cells at 37 ° C. FIPV type I KU-2 type I was isolated in our laboratory.

Monoclonal antibody

Anti-fTNF-alpha mAbs 2-4 have been described in [13] and have been shown to have neutralizing activity for recombinant fTNF-alpha (rfTNF-alpha) and native fTNF-alpha. mAbs 2-4 were purified from the hybridoma culture supernatant using Protein G Sepharose (GE Healthcare Life Sciences, Marlborough, MA, USA). The anti-human TNF-alpha mAb, adalimumab (ADA, Humira®), was purchased from Eisai Co., Ltd. (Tokyo, Japan) as a 20 mg / 0.2 ml solution. ADA was diluted to a concentration of 2 mg / ml in saline.

Itraconazole

Itraconazole (ICZ) was purchased from NICHI-IKO (Toyama, Japan) and provided as a tablet (100 mg). The cats were given half a tablet, ground to a powder and mixed with food.

Neutralization of feline TNF-alpha by ADA in WEHI-164 cells

TNF-alpha neutralization in WEHI-164 cells was assayed as described by Doki et al. [13]. Briefly, WEHI-164 cells were suspended at a density of 1 × 106 cells / ml in dilution medium containing 1 μg actinomycin D (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) per ml and preincubated at 37 ° C for 3 hours. Serially diluted mAbs were mixed with 40ng rfTNF-alpha per ml. The mixture was incubated at 37 ° C for 1 hour. Preincubated cells were seeded in a volume of 50 μl in wells of a 96-well plate. Then 50 microliters of the mixture was added to each well. After incubation at 37 ° C for 24 hours, 10 μl of WST-8 solution (WST-8 Cell Proliferation Assay Kit; Kishida Chemical Co., Ltd., Osaka, Japan) was added, and the absorbance of the formazan produced was measured at 450 nm. The percent neutralization was calculated using the following formula: Neutralization (%) = (OD wells containing mAb and rfTNF-alpha - OD wells containing rfTNF-alpha without mAb) / OD wells without mAb and rfTNF-alpha × 100.

Experiment on animals

All relevant national and institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals have been complied with. The protocol on animal experimentation was approved by the President of Kitasato University based on the decision of the Institutional Committee on the Care and Use of Animals at Kitasato University (Approval No. 18-152). Specific pathogen-free (SPF) cats were bred in our own laboratory and maintained in an isolated temperature-controlled facility.

Experimental schedule

According to the experimental schedule shown in FIG. 1, 10 SPF cats (9- or 10-month-old domestic shorthair cats) were inoculated intraperitoneally with FIPV KU-2 type I (103.6 TCID50 / ml / animal). The cats were then examined daily for clinical signs and their body temperature and weight were measured. Cats that developed FIP were administered ADA (10 mg / animal) twice intravenously between day 0 and day 4 after the start of treatment. ICZ (50 mg / animal, SID) was administered orally every day from day 0 after the start of treatment. Blood was collected from cats at weekly intervals after virus inoculation and at the time of ADA administration. Heparinized blood was used to measure complete and differential cell numbers and to isolate plasma. Plasma samples were stored at -30 ° C until the day of analysis. Cats were euthanized after reaching the human endpoint or 60 days after infection. The diagnoses of FIP were confirmed by post-mortem examination with the detection of peritoneal and pleural effusions and pyogranuloma in the main organs.

Figure 1
Experimental schedule of treatment and vaccination of FIPV cats

Measurement of plasma alpha1-glycoprotein (AGP)

AGP plasma concentrations were determined using an alpha1 AG cat plate (The Institute for Metabolic Ecosystem Lab., Osaki, Japan) according to the manufacturer's protocol.

Measurement of plasma vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) concentration

Plasma VEGF concentrations were determined using a human VEGF ELISA kit (R&D Systems, Minneapolis, MN, USA) according to the manufacturer's protocol. The ELISA kit primarily detects feline VEGF isoform 164 [24].

Real-time quantitative RT-PCR (qRT-PCR)

To quantify viral RNA in supernatant and ascites cells, qRT-PCR was performed using a primer targeting the 3'-UTR [17]. One milliliter of ascites was collected from cat #6, and after centrifugation, the supernatant and cells were stored separately. Total RNA was isolated from the supernatant and cells from ascites using a high-purity RNA isolation kit (Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim, Germany) according to the manufacturer's instructions. RNA was reverse transcribed and amplified using RNA-direct Realtime PCR Master Mix (TOYOBO, Osaka, Japan) with specific primers 3′-UTR-F (5′-GGAGGTACAAGCAACCCTATT-3′) and 3′-UTR-R (5′-GATCCAGACGTTAGCTCTTCC-3′) and a probe (FAM-5′-AGATCCGCTATGACGAGCCAACAA-3′-BHQ1). The reaction was performed in a total volume of 20 μl/well in 48-well PCR plates using the StepOne Real-Time PCR System (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) at 90°C for 30 s, 60°C for 20 min, and 95°C for 1 min, followed by 45 cycles of 90°C for 15 s and 60°C for 1 min. To obtain control RNA for quantification, cDNA fragments amplified with primers 3'-UTR-F and 3'-UTR-R were cloned into pGEM-T Easy Vector (Promega, Madison, WI, USA). The linearized and purified plasmid was transcribed using the RiboMAX Large Scale RNA Production System-T7 (Promega, Madison, WI, USA) according to the manufacturer's instructions. The concentration of transcribed RNA was measured using a spectrophotometer. Tenfold dilutions of RNA transcript ranging from 1×101 up to 1 × 109 copies / μl with 10ng MS2 RNA per ml. RNA copy number was calculated according to the procedure described in Fronhoffs et al. [25]. In vitro stock solutions of transcribed RNA were stored at -80 ° C and diluted working solutions were stored at -30 ° C.

Protein sequence

The deduced amino acid sequences of feline and human TNF-alpha were obtained from RefSeq (accession numbers NP_001009835.1 and NP_000585.2). Comparison of the deduced amino acid sequences of feline and human TNF-alpha was performed using Clustal Omega (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/Tools/msa/clustalo/).

The results

Neutralizing activity of ADA against rfTNF-alpha

A comparison of the deduced amino acid sequences of feline and human TNF-alpha is shown in FIG. 2. The sequences were found to be identical to 89.7%.

Figure 2.
Amino acid sequence comparison of feline and human TNF-alpha. *: residues that interact with adalimumab

The neutralizing activity of ADA against rfTNF-alpha was measured using the WEHI-164 cytotoxicity assay. ADA neutralized rfTNF-alpha activity in a dose-dependent manner, similar to anti-fTNF-alpha mAb 2-4 (Fig. 3). The dose of mAb2-4 and ADA required to inhibit 50% cell death (IC50) was 18.1 ± 4.9 ng / ml and 36.9 ± 23.4 ng / ml, respectively.

Figure 3.
Neutralization dose-response curve against recombinant fTNF-alpha. ADA neutralizing activity against fTNF-alpha-induced cytotoxicity was measured in WEHI-164 cells. WEHI-164 cells were treated with mixtures of serial dilutions of ADA and fTNF-alpha and the level of TNF-alpha-induced cytotoxicity was measured after 24 hours.

Changes in body temperature and body weight

Ten SPF cats were inoculated intraperitoneally with 103.6 TCID50 FIPV KU-2 type I. Three cats (2, 3 and 6) showed fever, anorexia, lethargy and jaundice. Abdominal distension caused by ascites was observed in cat no. 6. These 3 cats were used in the following experiments as FIP cats. Treatment for cats 2, 3 and 6 was started on days 34, 32 and 21 after virus vaccination.

The changes in body temperature and body weight of the three cats are shown in FIG. 4. All developed fever ≥ 39 ° C several days before treatment (Fig. 4A). In cats 2 and 3, body temperature decreased to a pre-FIP range on day 7 after the start of treatment. Then the body temperature of cat no. 3 increased to 38.7 ° C on day 31 after the start of treatment. Cat body temperature no. 6 remained at ≥ 39.0 ° C even after the start of treatment.

Figure 4.
Changes in body temperature and weight of cats. †: The cat was euthanized because its clinical condition reached a human endpoint

In cats 2 and 3, no weight loss was observed compared to body weight on day 0 of treatment (Fig. 4B). Body weight of cat no. 6 continued to decrease from day 0 to day 15, resulting in a 8% loss compared to day 0.

Changes in WBC and lymphocyte counts

Total white blood cell and lymphocyte counts were measured in FIPV-infected cats. Cats 2 and 3 showed a small change in total white blood cell count throughout the experiment (Fig. 5A). In cat no. 6, the total white blood cell count increased after the start of treatment and remained at ≥ 20,000 cells / μl after day 6.

Figure 5.
Changes in WBC and lymphocyte counts in cats. †: The cat was euthanized because its clinical condition reached a human endpoint

In cats 2 and 3, the number of lymphocytes increased slightly after the start of treatment (Fig. 5B). In cat no. 6, the lymphocyte count remained low throughout the experiment. It decreased to approximately 800 cells / μl on day 6 after the start of treatment, but recovered to near pre-FIP levels on day 13 and did not show a significant change up to the human endpoint.

Changes in alpha1-acid glycoprotein (AGP) plasma concentrations

Plasma alpha 1-AGP levels were measured sequentially in three cats. In all three cats, it increased to a high level ≥ 750 μg / ml at the start of treatment (Fig. 6). In cats 2 and 3, plasma alpha 1-AGP levels decreased to near pre-FIP levels on days 14 and 16 after treatment. However, in cat no. 6, the increase in plasma alpha 1-AGP levels was suppressed until day 6 after the start of treatment, but increased to approximately 1,900 μg / ml on day 13.

Figure 6.
Changes in plasma alpha1-acid glycoprotein (AGP) levels in cats. †: The cat was euthanized because its clinical condition reached a human endpoint

Changes in plasma vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) concentration

Plasma VEGF levels were measured sequentially in three cats. In cat no. 2 remained low (FIG. 7). In cat no. 3, increased temporarily to approximately 200 pg / ml on day 5 before treatment, but decreased to near pre-FIP levels on day 0 of treatment and showed no increase after treatment. In cat no. 6, plasma VEGF levels increased to approximately 170 pg / ml after FIPV inoculation on day 0 of treatment. It then decreased from day 6 of treatment and was similar to the level before the onset of FIP on day 13.

Figure 7.
Changes in plasma vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) levels in cats. †: The cat was euthanized because its clinical condition reached a human endpoint

Levels of viral RNA in supernatant and ascites cells in cat no. 6

Levels of viral RNA in the supernatant and ascites cells collected from cat no. 6 were quantified by qRT-PCR. The level of viral RNA temporarily decreased on day 4 after the start of treatment in the supernatant and in the ascites cells (Fig. 8). However, on day 20 after the start of treatment, viral RNA levels in the supernatant and ascites cells doubled on day 0 of treatment.

Figure 8.
Levels of viral RNA in the supernatant and ascites cells collected from cat no. 6 were quantified by qRT-PCR. The level of viral RNA temporarily decreased on day 4 after the start of treatment in the supernatant and in the ascites cells (Fig. 8). However, on day 20 after the start of treatment, viral RNA levels in the supernatant and ascites cells doubled on day 0 of treatment.

Biochemical panel

After treatment, TP and A / G ratio, which are diagnostic indices of FIP, and AST, LDH, and TB, which are related to liver function, were measured (Fig. 9). TP increased slightly in cat no. 3, but remained within the normal range for all three cats. On the other hand, the A / G ratio decreased after FIPV exposure in all three cats and was ≤ 0.8 on day 0 of treatment. In cat no. 2, the A / G ratio remained similar to that after the start of treatment until the end of the experiment. In cat no. 3, decreased until day 16 of treatment, but then showed no further decrease. In cat no. 6 the decrease continued even after the start of treatment.

Figure 9.
Biochemical panel. The white areas of the graphs represent normal ranges. †: The cat was euthanized because its clinical condition reached a human endpoint

AST, LDH and TB were higher than the normal range on day 0 or 3 of treatment in all three cats. In cats 2 and 3, AST, LDH and TB decreased to near pre-FIP levels on day 7 or 9 after treatment. In cat no. 6, AST, LDH and TB were higher than the normal range on day 0 or 4 after the start of treatment and continued to increase until the end of the experiment.

Discussion

A strong therapeutic effect can be achieved when cats with FIP are administered an anti-fTNF-alpha mAb, which suppresses TNF-alpha activity, a FIP exacerbator, in combination with ICZ, which reduces FIPV proliferation. However, approving an anti-fTNF-alpha mAb as a veterinary drug in each country is costly and time consuming. Therefore, we focused on the anti-human TNF-alpha mAb, which is already used to treat human inflammatory diseases.

Prior to animal experiments, we investigated whether the anti-human TNF-alpha mAb could neutralize fTNF-alpha. ADA, an anti-human TNF-alpha mAb, demonstrated dose-dependent neutralizing activity against rfTNF-alpha, similar to anti-fTNF-alpha mAb 2-4. The nine previously reported anti-fTNF-alpha mAbs had IC50s ranging from 5 to 700 ng / ml against rfTNF-alpha at the same concentration [13]. The IC50 of ADA (36.9 ± 23.4 ng / ml) indicates that it has a high neutralizing activity against fTNF-alpha compared to these anti-fTNF-alpha mAbs. As a rule, anti-human cytokine mAbs do not show any cross-reactive neutralizing activity against animal cytokines. However, Aguirre et al. reported that human and feline TNF-alpha have similar neutralizing epitopes [26]. In addition, the deduced amino acid sequence of human TNF-alpha at 89.7% is identical to that of feline TNF-alpha, and both have 10 of the 12 residues that interact with ADA. [27]. This appears to be the reason for the strong neutralizing activity of adalimumab against feline TNF-alpha.

We administered ADA and ICZ to cats with experimentally induced FIP and investigated their therapeutic effect. Of the 10 SPF cats that received intraperitoneally administered FIPV KU-2 type I, three developed FIP. Of these three cats, cat no. 6 had apparent ascites. These three cats were considered to have developed FIP for the following reasons: (i) all three cats were infected with FIPV, (ii) clinical signs associated with FIP were observed, (iii) elevated plasma alpha-1 levels of AGP and VEGF, and (iv) as a reference data from our previous animal experiments were used. ADA (10 mg / animal) was administered intravenously to three cats on day 0 and within 4 days after the start of treatment. In addition, ICZ (50 mg / animal) was administered orally every day, starting on day 0 of treatment. In cats 2 and 3, an improvement in clinical signs and blood test results, an increase in peripheral blood lymphocytes and a decrease in plasma alpha 1-AGP levels were observed after initiation of treatment. Symptomatic improvements were observed between weeks 1 and 2 after the start of treatment. Furthermore, no ascites or pyogenic granulomas were pathologically observed in cats 2 and 3 at the end of the experiment, and no changes suggestive of recurrence of FIP were observed by the end of the treatment period. Cat no. 6 did not respond to treatment and was euthanized, although the level of the viral ascites gene temporarily decreased after the start of treatment. These results strongly suggest that anti-human TNF-alpha mAbs and ICZs are effective in the treatment of FIP.

VEGF is produced by FIPV-infected macrophages and improves feline endothelial cell permeability [28]. In cats with FIP, plasma VEGF levels correlate with ascites. Cat no. 6, in whom ascites was evident on both preliminary and palpation examinations (160 ml of ascites was obtained by euthanasia), had a high plasma VEGF level ≥100 pg / ml for 3 weeks. However, in cats 2 and 3, which showed no signs of ascites, plasma VEGF levels remained low or increased only temporarily. Thus, plasma VEGF levels were confirmed to correlate with the amount of ascites in cats with FIP.

Azole antifungal agents, including ICZ, are known to have hepatotoxicity as a side effect and are likely to cause cholestasis and jaundice. [29,30,31,32]. Because an increase in liver enzymes is observed in cats with FIP, the development of side effects after ICZ administration would be worrying. However, in cats 2 and 3, liver marker markers, which increased during treatment, returned to normal and the plasma jaundice disappeared. Therefore, no adverse effects of ICZ have been reported. Therefore, in terms of side effects, ICZ administration is considered safe for FIP cats.

Recently, GC-376, a 3C-like protease inhibitor, and GS-441524, a nucleoside analog, have been developed as drugs to inhibit FIPV proliferation. [16,17,18,19,20]. GC-376 and GS-441524 are effective drugs that have therapeutic effects in 30-80% cats with FIP. Although these drugs are expected to be useful in the treatment of FIP, they have not yet been approved. Therefore, no drugs are available in clinical practice to treat FIP. In this study, we demonstrated that the combined use of ADA and ICZ, which is currently available to veterinarians, is effective in the treatment of FIP. We consider these drugs to be a treatment option until antiviral drugs such as GC-376 and GS-441524 become available. In addition, these antiviral drugs have therapeutic effects on FIP by mechanisms different from ADA and ICZ [16, 18, 21, 23]. In the future, evaluating the therapeutic effects of their current use may help to develop a more effective treatment for FIP.

Conclusions

The therapeutic effects of adalimumab, anti-human TNF-alpha mAb and itraconazole on FIP were investigated. Adalimumab was found to have neutralizing activity against rfTNF-alpha, similar to anti-fTNF-alpha mAbs. FIP was successfully treated in 2 of 3 cats with experimentally induced FIP by adalimumab and itraconazole.

References

  1. Pedersen NC (2014) An update on feline infectious peritonitis: diagnostics and therapeutics. Vet J 201: 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2014.04.016Article PubMed Google Scholar 
  2. Tekes G, Thiel HJ (2016) Feline coronaviruses: pathogenesis of feline infectious peritonitis. In: Ziebuhr J (ed) Advances in virus research, vol. 96, Academic Press, pp 193–218
  3. Jaimes JA, Whittaker GR (2018) Feline coronavirus: insights into viral pathogenesis based on the spike protein structure and function. Virology 517: 108–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virol.2017.12.027TIME Article PubMed Google Scholar 
  4. Decaro N, Mari V, Campolo M et al (2009) Recombinant canine coronaviruses related to transmissible gastroenteritis virus of swine are circulating in dogs. J Virol 83: 1532–1537. https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.01937-08TIME Article PubMed Google Scholar 
  5. Herrewegh AA, Smeenk I, Horzinek MC et al (1998) Feline coronavirus type II strains 79-1683 and 79-1146 originate from a double recombination between feline coronavirus type I and canine coronavirus. J Virol 72: 4508–4514TIME Article PubMed Google Scholar 
  6. Terada Y, Shiozaki Y, Shimoda H et al (2012) Feline infectious peritonitis virus with a large deletion in the 59-terminal region of the spike gene retains its virulence for cats. J Gen Virol 93: 1930–1934. https://doi.org/10.1099/vir.0.043992-0TIME Article PubMed Google Scholar 
  7. Addie DD, Schaap IAT, Nicolson L, Jarrett O (2003) Persistence and transmission of natural type I feline coronavirus infection. J Gen Virol 84: 2735–2744. https://doi.org/10.1099/vir.0.19129-0TIME Article PubMed Google Scholar 
  8. Kummrow M, Meli ML, Haessig M et al (2005) Feline coronavirus serotypes 1 and 2: seroprevalence and association with disease in Switzerland. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 12: 1209–1215. https://doi.org/10.1128/CDLI.12.10.1209-1215.2005TIME Article PubMed Google Scholar 
  9. Hohdatsu T, Okada S, Ishizuka Y et al (1992) The prevalence of types I and II feline coronavirus infections in cats. J Vet Med Sci 54: 557–562. https://doi.org/10.1292/jvms.54.557TIME Article PubMed Google Scholar 
  10. Takano T, Hohdatsu T, Hashida Y et al (2007) A “possible” involvement of TNF-alpha in apoptosis induction in peripheral blood lymphocytes of cats with feline infectious peritonitis. Vet Microbiol 119: 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2006.08.033TIME Article PubMed Google Scholar 
  11. Takano T, Hohdatsu T, Toda A et al (2007) TNF-alpha, produced by feline infectious peritonitis virus (FIPV) -infected macrophages, upregulates expression of type II FIPV receptor feline aminopeptidase N in feline macrophages. Virology 364: 64–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virol.2007.02.006TIME Article PubMed Google Scholar 
  12. Takano T, Azuma N, Satoh M et al (2009) Neutrophil survival factors (TNF-alpha, GM-CSF, and G-CSF) produced by macrophages in cats infected with feline infectious peritonitis virus contribute to the pathogenesis of granulomatous lesions. Arch Virol 154: 775–781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00705-009-0371-3TIME Article PubMed Google Scholar 
  13. Doki T, Takano T, Nishiyama Y et al (2013) Generation, characterization and therapeutic potential of anti-feline TNF-alpha MAbs for feline infectious peritonitis. Res Vet Sci 95: 1248–1254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2013.09.005TIME Article PubMed Google Scholar 
  14. Doki T, Takano T, Kawagoe K et al (2016) Therapeutic effect of anti-feline TNF-alpha monoclonal antibody for feline infectious peritonitis. Res Vet Sci 104: 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2015.11.005TIME Article PubMed Google Scholar 
  15. Tracey D, Klareskog L, Sasso EH et al (2008) Tumor necrosis factor antagonist mechanisms of action: a comprehensive review. Pharmacol Ther 117: 244–279TIME Article PubMed Google Scholar 
  16. Kim Y, Lovell S, Tiew KC et al (2012) Broad-spectrum antivirals against 3C or 3C-like proteases of picornaviruses, noroviruses, and coronaviruses. J Virol 86: 11754–11762. https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.01348-12TIME Article PubMed Google Scholar 
  17. Kim Y, Liu H, Galasiti Kankanamalage AC et al (2016) Reversal of the progression of fatal coronavirus infection in cats by a broad-spectrum coronavirus protease inhibitor. PLoS Pathog 12: e1005531. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1005531TIME Article PubMed Google Scholar 
  18. Murphy BG, Perron M, Murakami E et al (2018) The nucleoside analog GS-441524 strongly inhibits feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) virus in tissue culture and experimental cat infection studies. Vet Microbiol 219: 226–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2018.04.026TIME Article PubMed Google Scholar 
  19. Pedersen NC, Kim Y, Liu H et al (2018) Efficacy of a 3C-like protease inhibitor in treating various forms of acquired feline infectious peritonitis. J Feline Med Surg 20: 378–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098612X17729626Article PubMed Google Scholar 
  20. Pedersen NC, Perron M, Bannasch M et al (2019) Efficacy and safety of the nucleoside analog GS-441524 for the treatment of cats with naturally occurring feline infectious peritonitis. J Feline Med Surg 21: 271–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098612X19825701Article PubMed Google Scholar 
  21. Takano T, Akiyama M, Doki T, Hohdatsu T (2019) Antiviral activity of itraconazole against type I feline coronavirus infection. Vet Res 50: 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13567-019-0625-3Article PubMed Google Scholar 
  22. Takano T, Endoh M, Fukatsu H et al (2017) The cholesterol transport inhibitor U18666A inhibits type I feline coronavirus infection. Antivir Res 145: 96–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.antiviral.2017.07.022TIME Article PubMed Google Scholar 
  23. Takano T, Wakayama Y, Doki T (2019) Endocytic pathway of feline coronavirus for cell entry: differences in serotype-dependent viral entry pathway. Pathogens 8: 300. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens8040300TIME Article Google Scholar 
  24. Koga L, Kobayashi Y, Yazawa M et al (2002) Nucleotide sequence and expression of the feline vascular endothelial growth factor. J Vet Med Sci 64: 453–456. https://doi.org/10.1292/jvms.64.453TIME Article PubMed Google Scholar 
  25. Fronhoffs S, Totzke G, Stier S et al (2002) A method for the rapid construction of cRNA standard curves in quantitative real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. Mol Cell Probes 16: 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1006/mcpr.2002.0405TIME Article PubMed Google Scholar 
  26. Aguirre A, Escobar A, Ferreira V et al (2003) An anti-human recombinant tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) monoclonal antibody recognizes an epitope in the TNFα feline. Vet Res 34: 177–184. https://doi.org/10.1051/vetres:2002064TIME Article PubMed Google Scholar 
  27. Hu S, Liang S, Guo H et al (2013) Comparison of the inhibition mechanisms of Adalimumab and Infliximab in treating tumor necrosis factor α-associated diseases from a molecular view. J Biol Chem 288: 27059–27067. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M113.491530TIME Article PubMed Google Scholar 
  28. Takano T, Ohyama T, Kokumoto A et al (2011) Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), produced by feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) virus-infected monocytes and macrophages, vascular permeability induces and effusion in cats with FIP. Virus Res 158: 161–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2011.03.027TIME Article PubMed Google Scholar 
  29. García Rodrǐguez LA, Duque A, Castellsague J et al (1999) A cohort study on the risk of acute liver injury among users of ketoconazole and other antifungal drugs. Br J Clin Pharmacol 48: 847–852. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2125.1999.00095.xArticle PubMed Google Scholar 
  30. Kao WY, Su CW, Huang YS et al (2014) Risk of oral antifungal agent-induced liver injury in Taiwanese. Br J Clin Pharmacol 77: 180–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.12178TIME Article PubMed Google Scholar 
  31. Susan M, Grant SPC (1989) Itraconazole. A review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic use in superficial and systemic mycoses. Drugs 37: 310–344Article Google Scholar 
  32. Khoza S, Moyo I, Ncube D (2017) Comparative hepatotoxicity of fluconazole, ketoconazole, itraconazole, terbinafine, and griseofulvin in rats. J Toxicol. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/6746989Article PubMed Google Scholar 

Thanks

We thank the members of our laboratory for supporting animal experiments. This work was partially supported by KAKENHI (Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B), No. 16H05039) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology in Japan and the Kitasato University Research Grants for Kitasato University Young Scientists.

Ethical statements

Conflict of interests

The authors are not aware of any potential conflicts of interest in connection with the research, authorship or publication of this article.

Ethical approval

All relevant national and institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals have been complied with. The protocol on animal experimentation was approved by the President of Kitasato University based on the decision of the Institutional Committee on the Care and Use of Animals at Kitasato University (Approval No. 18-152). SPF cats were bred in our own laboratory and maintained in an isolated temperature-controlled facility. Sample sizes were determined based on our experience with FIPV infection models and a minimum number of cats were used.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from the legal guardian of all experimental animals described in this work for the procedures performed. No animals or humans are identifiable in this publication and therefore no further informed consent to the publication was required.

More details

Publisher Note

Springer Nature remains neutral in terms of jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional links.

Editor: Sheela Ramamoorthy.

en_GBEN