https://doi.org/10.17161/bi.v2i0.4
Stading, B., Ellison, J. A., Carson, W. C., Satheshkumar, P. S., Rocke,
T. E., & Osorio, J. E. (2017). Protection of bats (Eptesicus
fuscus ) against rabies following topical or oronasal exposure to a
recombinant raccoon poxvirus vaccine. PLOS Neglected Tropical
Diseases , 11 (10), e0005958.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0005958
Streicker, D. G., Recuenco, S., Valderrama, W., Gomez Benavides, J.,
Vargas, I., Pacheco, V., Condori Condori, R. E., Montgomery, J.,
Rupprecht, C. E., Rohani, P., & Altizer, S. (2012). Ecological and
anthropogenic drivers of rabies exposure in vampire bats: Implications
for transmission and control. Proceedings of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences , 279 (1742), 3384–3392.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.0538
Streicker, D. G., Winternitz, J. C., Satterfield, D. A.,
Condori-Condori, R. E., Broos, A., Tello, C., Recuenco, S.,
Velasco-Villa, A., Altizer, S., & Valderrama, W. (2016). Host–pathogen
evolutionary signatures reveal dynamics and future invasions of vampire
bat rabies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ,113 (39), 10926–10931. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1606587113
Tojinbara, K., Sugiura, K., Yamada, A., Kakitani, I., Kwan, N. C. L., &
Sugiura, K. (2016). Estimating the probability distribution of the
incubation period for rabies using data from the 1948–1954 rabies
epidemic in Tokyo. Preventive Veterinary Medicine , 123 ,
102–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2015.11.018
van Brussel, K., & Holmes, E. C. (2022). Zoonotic disease and virome
diversity in bats. Current Opinion in Virology , 52 ,
192–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coviro.2021.12.008
Figure legends
Figure 1 Geographic location of bat roosts visited in
2017-2018, colored by roost type, and cattle farms, gray dots, in the
state of São Paulo.
Figure 2 (A) Model schematic for the transmission of bat rabies
virus between bat roosts and cattle farms. (B) Detailed between
roost dynamics schematic. The state changes between epidemiological
classes are shown by solid arrows. The parameters affecting the state
changes are displayed, see also Table 1. Dashed arrows represent virus
transmission. No interventions are included in these diagrams.
Figure 3 Diagram of the different reactive intervention
strategies, summarizing which farm and/or roost will be controlled. An
intervention would be implemented in farms and/or roosts within 10 km
distance from a detected positive farm (large light gray circle). The
only exceptions would be farms recently vaccinated (subindex V )
that will not be re-vaccinated again until 6 months have passed since
last vaccination, and controlled roosts (C ). Four different
intervention strategies were modeled (A) farm vaccination and
roost control, (B) farm vaccination, (C) roost
control, (D) no intervention.
Figure 4 (Top: A-C) Distribution of the number of outbreaks
(i.e. infection detections) in farms for different combinations of
interventions. (Bottom: D-F) Distribution of maximal distances
of virus spread from a single initial infection in a roost to a farm in
one year in kilometers, including no virus spillovers to farms, i.e.
zero distances; for different combinations of interventions. The initial
suitability environment of a first infected roost is either(Left: A, D) high (90-100th percentile), (Middle: B,
E) middle (45-55th percentile), or (Right: C, F) low (0-10th
percentile). For Welch’s F test statistics and p -values
for each comparison (A-F) to test the hypothesis of equal means in the
four intervention strategies, see Table S3 in Supporting Information.
Figure 5 Spillover risk to farms measured as the probability of
detected and undetected infections, among all simulations with initial
infection in high suitability environment, for each intervention
strategy. The value per pixel shown is the average across the farms
within the pixel (square 3’ latitude times 3’ longitude, i.e. approx. 30
km2).