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).