Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to page options Skip directly to site content

Volume 18, Number 6—June 2012

Letter

African Swine Fever Virus Strain Georgia 2007/1 in Ornithodoros erraticus Ticks

Adriana V. Diaz, Christopher L. Netherton, Linda K. Dixon, and Anthony J. WilsonComments to Author 
Author affiliations: The Royal Veterinary College, London, United Kingdom (A.V. Diaz); Institute for Animal Health, Pirbright, Surrey, United Kingdom (A.V. Diaz, C.L. Netherton, L.K. Dixon, A.J. Wilson)

Main Article

Figure

Predicted regression for each isolate–dose combination is shown. A) Ticks fed on African swine fever virus (ASFV) strain OUR T88/1 at 4 log10 50% hemadsorbing doses (HAD50)/mL. B) Ticks fed on ASFV strain OUR T88/1 at 6 log10 HAD50/mL. C) Ticks fed on ASFV strain Georgia 2007/1 at 4 log10 HAD50/mL. D) Ticks fed on ASFV strain Georgia 2007/1 at 6 log10 HAD50/mL. Crosses indicate experimental results, and solid line indicates model prediction. Dashed horizontal lines show the limits of the tissue

Figure. . . Predicted regression for each isolate–dose combination is shown. A) Ticks fed on African swine fever virus (ASFV) strain OUR T88/1 at 4 log10 50% hemadsorbing doses (HAD50)/mL. B) Ticks fed on ASFV strain OUR T88/1 at 6 log10 HAD50/mL. C) Ticks fed on ASFV strain Georgia 2007/1 at 4 log10 HAD50/mL. D) Ticks fed on ASFV strain Georgia 2007/1 at 6 log10 HAD50/mL. Crosses indicate experimental results, and solid line indicates model prediction. Dashed horizontal lines show the limits of the tissue culture sensitivity (lower limit 1.8 log10 HAD50 and upper limit 9.8 log10 HAD50).

Main Article

TOP