Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link

Disclaimer: Early release articles are not considered as final versions. Any changes will be reflected in the online version in the month the article is officially released.

Volume 31, Number 2—February 2025
Research

Respiratory Shedding of Infectious SARS-CoV-2 Omicron XBB.1.41.1 Lineage among Captive White-Tailed Deer, Texas, USA

On This Page
Methods
Results
Discussion
Suggested Citation
Figures
Figure 1
Figure 2
Tables
Table
Downloads
RIS [TXT - 2 KB]
Article Metrics
Metric Details
Related Articles
Evolution of MERS-CoV, Saudi Arabia, 2023–2024
Social Contact during COVID-19 Pandemic, Greece
Social Contact Patterns, Mozambique, 2021–2022
More articles on Coronavirus, COVID-19
Author affiliation: Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA (F. Ferreira, T. Pervin, W. Tang, L. Thomas, W. Cook, B.W. Neuman, G.L. Hamer, S.A. Hamer); Texas A&M University—Kingsville, Kingsville, Texas, USA (J. Hediger, M. Cherry)

Suggested citation for this article

Abstract

White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) have high value for research, conservation, agriculture, and recreation and might be key SARS-CoV-2 reservoirs. In November 2023, we sampled 15 female deer in a captive facility in Texas, USA. All deer had neutralizing antibodies to SARS-CoV-2; respiratory swab samples from 11 deer were SARS-CoV-2–positive by quantitative reverse transcription PCR, and 1 deer also had a positive rectal swab sample. Six of the 11 respiratory swab samples yielded infectious virus; replication kinetics of most samples displayed lower growth 24–48 hours postinfection in vitro than Omicron lineages isolated from humans in Texas in the same period. Virus growth was similar between groups by 72 hours, suggesting no strong attenuation of deer-derived virus. All deer viruses clustered in XBB Omicron clade and demonstrated more mutations than expected compared with contemporaneous viruses in humans, suggesting that crossing the species barrier was accompanied by a high substitution rate.

The white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) (henceforth referred to as deer), a species native to North America, is highly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection (1,2) and might serve as a viral reservoir because infected free-ranging deer can initiate onward intraspecies transmission (3,4). SARS-CoV-2 lineages have been detected in deer sampled up to 4–5 months after the same viral lineages were displaced from human populations by other lineages (5,6), suggesting sustained transmission within free-ranging animals. Transmission within deer can lead to a gradual accumulation of mutations in animal-adapted SARS-CoV-2 (7), which could alter infection kinetics or immune response when transmitted back into human populations (8). In addition, detections of deer-adapted virus infecting humans in Canada (9) and the United States (3) raise concerns about the emergence of sustained human–deer–human SARS-CoV-2 transmission cycles.

Captive animal herds with increased population densities and frequent human intervention might support transmission of zoonotic pathogens (10,11). Captive deer were also found to be naturally exposed to SARS-CoV-2, demonstrated by high rates of detection of viral RNA (12) and by high titers of neutralizing antibodies among deer (13). Managing highly susceptible animal species under human care creates opportunities for human-to-deer transmission and subsequent rapid dissemination within herds (14).

Data collected in 2012 estimated that ≈5,500 white-tailed deer breeding facilities exist in the United States (15). In the state of Texas, >1,000 existing facilities manage an average of 180–242 deer each (16,17). Having such large numbers of deer under human management might favor human-to-deer and deer-to-deer transmission events, leading to subsequent spread of deer-adapted viruses from farmed animals back into humans, which has been documented with farmed minks (Neovison vison) in Europe (18,19) and as a possibility in the United States (20).

Despite continued testing of deer for SARS-CoV-2 since the Omicron variant of concern emerged in the United States in November 2021, the detection rate of recent lineages in deer remains low (3,21). For example, only 2.5% (16 out of 648 genomes) of deer-derived sequences in GISAID (https://www.gisaid.org) as of August 14, 2024, belonged to the Omicron variant (GRA clade) (22). Those findings suggest deer are susceptible to new emerging lineages, yet the cause of a salient reduction in infection is unclear; reduced deer exposure to SARS-CoV-2, reduced virus fitness and detectability, protective immunity caused by exposure to pre-Omicron variants, reduced surveillance efforts, a lag between detection and reporting, or a combination of those factors could all play a role. Therefore, continued genomic surveillance of highly susceptible species remains critical to understand the current landscape of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and evolution in wildlife reservoirs.

We established an active surveillance program to determine SARS-CoV-2 circulation in captive deer in Texas to understand and mitigate transmission risk between humans and animals. In this study, we describe a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in a captive deer-breeding facility in November 2023.

Methods

Cervid Facility

On November 15, 2023, we visited a private cervid facility in Milam County, Texas, as part of a larger project about SARS-CoV-2 surveillance in captive deer in the state. Deer were restricted to 2 pens separated by a fence and were able to have direct contact through the fence line. This facility falls into the category of outdoor ranch (23), although human–deer contact rates are high in our case because of veterinary care and animal husbandry.

Deer Sampling

Fifteen apparently healthy female white-tailed deer were chemically immobilized for chronic wasting disease testing and endectocide treatment (unrelated to our research), at which time samples were collected for this SARS-CoV-2 investigation. We collected oral and nasal swab samples from deer using sterile polyester-tipped applicators with polystyrene handles (Puritan Medical Products, https://www.puritanmedproducts.com) and combined samples (henceforth referred to as respiratory swab samples) for each animal into a vial containing 3 mL of viral transport media (VTM) made following Centers for Disease Control and Prevention standard operating procedure number DSR-052-02. We collected rectal swab samples from the same animals into a separate vial with VTM. We collected blood (≈10 mL) from all animals through jugular venipuncture using sterile needles and syringes, transferred samples to tubes without anticoagulants, and aliquoted the obtained serum samples into microtubes. Our study followed relevant guidelines and regulations approved by the Texas A&M University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and Clinical Research Review Committee (2022-0001 CA).

Molecular Detection and Whole-Genome Sequencing

We extracted total nucleic acid (TNA) from respiratory and rectal swab samples using the MagMax CORE Nucleic Acid Purification Kits on a 96-well Kingfisher Flex System (Thermo Fisher Scientific, https://www.thermofisher.com) following manufacturer instructions, using 200 μL of VTM from each sample and 90 μL of elution buffer. We added phosphate buffered saline 1× and a plasmid containing a portion of the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase SARS-CoV-2 gene to the TNA extraction plate as negative and positive extraction controls. We tested 5 μL of TNA for SARS-CoV-2 by quantitative reverse transcription PCR (qRT-PCR) targeting the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) gene of the virus following reagent concentrations as described in Corman et al. (24). We used molecular grade water as negative control and the same positive control described previously for qRT-PCR and yielded their expected results. We considered samples with cycle threshold (Ct) values <40 as positive.

We submitted all qRT-PCR–positive samples to whole-genome sequencing at the Texas A&M University Institute for Genome Sciences and Society Molecular Genomics Core. For each sample, 20 μL of TNA was submitted to library preparation using the xGen SARS-CoV-2 Amplicon Panel (Integrated DNA Technologies, https://www.idtdna.com). Sequencing was performed in an Illumina NovaSeq SP PE 2 × 150 flowcell version 1.5 (https://www.illumina.com) to generate an average of 3 million reads per sample.

Bioinformatics

We processed raw reads for each sample through a pipeline developed by the Institute for Genome Sciences and Society Bioinformatics Core. Briefly, raw reads from the sequenced libraries were trimmed of low-quality bases and intact adaptor sequences using trim_galore version 0.6.10 (https://zenodo.org/records/5127899). We then mapped trimmed reads against the SARS-CoV-2 wild-type isolate genome assembly (National Center for Biotechnology Information RefSeq accession no. GCF_009858895.2) using the bwa aligner (25). Aligned reads for each sample then had variants called and filtered using BCFtools (26). Variant call files were then subset to further remove ambiguously called variants (defined as the ratio of an alternative variant called over the reference, <0.8) before International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) interrogation using a combination of Python and BCFtools. Finally, consensus sequences were called using BCFtools.

All SARS-CoV-2 genomes we obtained had >99.8% coverage. We interrogated positions with missing sequence data or mixed sequence data, indicated by IUPAC nucleotide uncertainty codes K, S, R, Y, M, W, or N in the assembled genome by BLAST+ 2.15.0 (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov), to verify the presence of insertions/deletions and generate a majority-rule consensus sequence for each sample, which we used in subsequent phylogenetic analysis. We analyzed consensus sequences on Nextclade version 3.2.0 (https://clades.nextstrain.org) for clade and lineage assignment (27).

We investigated mutations, insertions, and deletions in the consensus sequences using NextClade and the GISAID database (22). Sequence differences are reported relative to the strain genetically closest to the deer-derived SARS-CoV-2 isolates (GISAID accession no. hCoV-19/USA/CA-HLX-STM-DTHMADVDZ/2023), which was collected from a human in California on November 11, 2023. We used UShER (https://genome.ucsc.edu/cgi-bin/hgPhyloPlace) (28) (assessed August 14, 2024) to determine the 10 available SARS-CoV-2 genomes most closely related to the sequences obtained in this study.

Virus Isolation

We isolated SARS-CoV-2 in a Biosafety Level 3 laboratory at the Global Health Research Complex at Texas A&M University by passaging a mix of 100 μL of VTM with 900 μL of 1× Dulbecco modified Eagle medium through syringe filtration using an 0.2 micron pore size onto Vero E6-TMPRSS2-T2A-ACE2 (BEI Resources, https://www.beiresources.org) cells expressing both endogenous cercopithecine angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and transmembrane serine protease 2 (TMPRSS2), as well as transgenic human ACE2 and TMPRSS2. We cultured these cells in Dulbecco modified Eagle medium supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum, 1× antibiotic/antimycotic and puromycin dihydrochloride (10 µg/mL final concentration). We incubated cell plates at 37°C with 5% CO2 and collected the supernatants from samples exhibiting cytopathic effects within 24–72 hours for titration of infectivity. Those cytopathic effects are characterized by syncytium formation followed by rounding and detachment.

We performed titration of infectious virus by using the 50% tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50) method onto Vero E6-TMPRSS2-T2A-ACE2 cells. In brief, we prepared serial 3-fold dilutions of inocula in culture medium and then used them to inoculate monolayers of cells in tissue culture–treated 96-well plates. After 72 hours, we fixed the cells with phosphate buffered physiologic saline containing 25% final concentration of formalin and stained with crystal violet. We calculated titers of infectious virus using the Reed-Muench method (29).

Virus Growth Curves

We used freshly titrated virus stocks with equal infectivity to inoculate onto Vero E6-TMPRSS2-T2A-ACE2 cells for 30 minutes, removed inoculum by 3 rinses with phosphate-buffered saline, and replaced it with culture medium. Through Global Health Research Complex at Texas A&M University, we obtained contemporaneous human clinical samples from nasal swab samples that were collected at various medical centers in southeastern Texas as part of an ongoing Texas Department of State Health Services virus surveillance project. We worked under approval from the Texas A&M University Institutional Review Board. The samples selected for use here included 1 isolate from each Pango lineage (30,31) obtained from patient clinical samples at our COVID-19 screening facility during October 1–November 30, 2023 (namely Pango lineages HV.1, HY.1, HK.11, HK.3, EG.10, EG.5, and JD.1) and were processed (isolated and titrated) in parallel with deer-isolated viruses. These human-derived isolates include all the distinct Pango lineages that were obtained 1 month before to 1 month after the deer-derived samples. In addition, the selected lineages represent the genotypes of 864 (38%) of 2,253 total sequenced SARS-CoV-2 complete genomes (excluding low-coverage and partial sequences) reported to GISAID from Texas during October 1–November 30, 2023. Performing experiments in parallel using human and deer samples enabled us to compare in vitro growth rates for both sample types. We collected small aliquots (100 μL) of medium at 8, 24, 48, and 72 hours after inoculation and submitted them to RNA extraction and Luna One-Step qRT-PCR (New England Biolabs, https://www.neb.com) targeting the nucleoprotein gene. We conducted a 1-way analysis of variance with Tukey correction for multiple comparisons to compare growth curves of human- and deer-derived isolates. Growth curve plots were generated using GraphPad version 10.0.0 (https://www.graphpad.com).

Plaque Reduction Neutralization Tests

Serum samples from all deer were tested for the presence of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 (BEI Resources; isolate USAIL1/2020) through plaque reduction neutralization tests (PRNT) in Vero-CCL-81 (13). Aliquots of the samples were inactivated at 56°C for 30 minutes and screened at an initial dilution of 1:10. Samples that neutralized >90% of viral plaques, in comparison with the virus control, were further tested with serial 2-fold dilutions to determine the 90% endpoint titers (PRNT90).

Results

SARS-CoV-2 Detection and Serology in White-Tailed Deer

The respiratory swab samples of 11 (73.3%) of the 15 deer tested positive for SARS-CoV-2; of those SARS-CoV-2–positive deer, 1 (animal identification no. 231115-USDA-D89) also had a SARS-CoV-2–positive rectal swab sample, whereas all other rectal swab samples tested negative. The mean for the Ct values for respiratory samples was 27.93 (SD = 3.20, range 22.12–31.92) (Table).

All 15 deer had neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 as demonstrated by PRNT. PRNT90 endpoint titers varied from 1:10 to 1:320 in qRT-PCR–positive animals (mean 91, SD 93) and ranged from 1:20 to 1:640 in qRT-PCR–negative animals (mean 210, SD 294) (Table).

Virus Isolation

Figure 1

Multistep growth characteristics of contemporaneous strains isolated from captive white-tailed deer and humans in study of respiratory shedding of infectious SARS-CoV-2 Omicron XBB 1.41.1 lineage among captive white-tailed deer, Texas, USA, November 2023. A) Vero E6-TMPRSS2-T2A-ACE2 cells were inoculated with SARS-CoV-2 recovered from deer (D92-R to D100-R) or from human clinical nasopharyngeal samples (EG.10.1, EG.5.1.3, HK.11, JD.1, HV.1, HY.1, HK.3) at a multiplicity of infection of 0.002. Samples of the supernatant were collected and titrated by 1-step quantitative PCR. Lower limit of detection is indicated. B) Averaged data for the 24-hour and 48-hour timepoints. Statistically significant differences after 1-way analysis of variance with Tukey correction are indicated by asterisks for values significantly lower than aggregated human samples and asterisks in parentheses for values significantly higher than aggregated human samples. Error bars indicate SDs calculated from 3 replicates. We added “-R” to the name of each animal identification number to indicate that samples used in these experiments were recovered from the initial virus isolation step.

Figure 1. Multistep growth characteristics of contemporaneous strains isolated from captive white-tailed deer and humans in study of respiratory shedding of infectious SARS-CoV-2 Omicron XBB 1.41.1 lineage among captive white-tailed deer, Texas,...

To assess whether deer-derived SARS-CoV-2 was able to efficiently use human ACE2 and TMPRSS2 for cell entry, we inoculated Vero E6-TMPRSS2-T2A-ACE2 cells with all 12 qRT-PCR–positive respiratory and rectal swab samples. Six respiratory samples (D92, D93, D94, D95, D96, D100) (Figure 1) produced cytopathic effects characteristic of SARS-CoV-2 on this cell line (Table). Each of those viral isolates was designated as recovered to differentiate the isolates from the potentially broader SARS-CoV-2 populations present in the original samples from infected animals (Figure 1). We grew and titrated stocks of each isolate by the TCID50 method for further study.

To compare growth rates of viruses isolated from deer with strains that were circulating in humans in Texas at the same time, we performed multistep growth curves, starting at low multiplicity of infection (0.002). We observed that 5 of 6 deer-derived viruses showed lower growth rates than did human-derived isolates at 24 hours, and 4 of 6 deer-derived viruses showed lower growth rates than did human-derived isolates at 48 hours (p<0.05) (Figure 1, panel B). We noted no differences in growth at 8 hours or 72 hours (Figure 1, panel A). Those data indicated that deer-derived SARS-CoV-2 isolates were able to efficiently grow in cells expressing human ACE2 and TMPRSS2, with a delay in early growth and no difference in burst size compared with contemporaneous SARS-CoV-2 isolated from humans.

SARS-CoV-2 Sequencing

Figure 2

Phylogenetic context of SARS-CoV-2 from captive white-tailed deer in study of respiratory shedding of infectious SARS-CoV-2 Omicron XBB 1.41.1 lineage, Texas, USA, November 2023. Genome sequences from deer were compared in the main phylogenetic tree with genomes representative of the main virus Nexstrain clades as assigned by UShER (https://genome.ucsc.edu/cgi-bin/hgPhyloPlace) (28). The secondary tree at right details the 22F (XBB) clade and displays the placement of genomes obtained in our study (highlighted clade; O indicates oral/nasal swab, R indicates rectal swab) in relation to 10 of the most closely related samples deposited in GISAID (https://www.gisaid.org) as of August 14, 2024.

Figure 2. Phylogenetic context of SARS-CoV-2 from captive white-tailed deer in study of respiratory shedding of infectious SARS-CoV-2 Omicron XBB 1.41.1 lineage, Texas, USA, November 2023. Genome sequences from deer were compared...

We obtained complete (>99.8%) SARS-CoV-2 genomes from all 12 qRT-PCR–positive samples (11 respiratory samples and 1 rectal swab sample) belonging to 11 animals. Analysis by Nextclade revealed that all viruses fell within the XBB clade (XBB.1.41.1 lineage assigned by Pangolin version 4.3, also known as JC.5). Viruses most closely related to the ones sequenced from deer were collected from humans in California on November 11, 2023 (GISAID accession no. hCoV-19/USA/CA-HLX-STM-DTHMADVDZ/2023); from Texas on December 19, 2023; and from Texas in January 2024 (Figure 2). Those sequences from humans were obtained from different GISAID submitters and had identities ranging from 95.5% (1,352-base difference) to 99.9% (21-nt difference) in relation to the sequences we obtained from deer. No SARS-CoV-2 detected in deer in other regions of North America clustered together with the genomes obtained here.

Our deer-derived sequences had 15 nt substitutions not found in the closest human-derived isolates and up to 11 substitutions shared by some or none of the other deer-derived sequences. Compared with those closely related human samples, the viruses detected in deer did not have unique mutations in the spike protein. However, the viruses detected from humans in Lubbock County, Texas, and in Oklahoma had amino acid changes (N74S [Lubbock County] and Q146H [Oklahoma]) not present in the deer samples when using the lineage XBB as a reference.

Discussion

All 15 deer sampled in a captive facility in Texas had evidence of exposure to SARS-CoV-2, and 11 (73%) deer were shedding viral RNA, showing a widespread virus dissemination among the animals. In addition, whole-genome sequencing revealed recent Omicron lineages continue to be detected within deer in North America. Of the qRT-PCR–positive deer assessed, 6 had infectious virus in their upper respiratory tract. Although viruses isolated from most deer showed slower growth at 24 hours and 48 hours after inoculation in vitro than did contemporaneous human-isolated viruses, the number of viral copies at 72 hours was similar between groups, showing no attenuation in deer-adapted viruses. The XBB lineage detected in our study was circulating at low frequency in human populations in the United States; cumulative prevalence was <0.5% during May 2023–January 2024 (32), concurrent with the period in which deer were sampled for this study.

Human-derived SARS-CoV-2 have 30–32 substitutions/genome/year (≈2.5/month; https://nextstrain.org/ncov/gisaid/global/6m?l = clock). The human strain hCoV-19/USA/CA-HLX-STM-DTHMADVDZ/2023 and our deer samples were collected 7 days apart and displayed 15–22 nt substitutions among them, suggesting that crossing the species barrier from human to captive deer was accompanied by a high substitution rate. However, determining that pace is difficult without knowing when the initial spillover into this population occurred. Possible explanations for the proposed burst of evolution include bottlenecking and strong activation of mutagenic intracellular factors, such as RNA editing enzymes (ADAR1) and apolipoprotein B mRNA editing enzyme, catalytic polypeptide-like (APOBECs) in deer (9). For instance, APOBECs play a key role during natural infections, and the catalytic subunit 3H was shown to display stronger upregulation in infected deer than in humans with natural infections (33). Furthermore, the comparable to slightly attenuated growth of deer and human isolates suggests that deer-to-human transmission, and concomitant bursts of evolution within deer, have the potential to produce variants that might not display substantial loss of adaptation for infection and development in humans. This finding suggests that Omicron SARS-CoV-2 lineages circulating in deer might be efficiently transmitted back to humans.

Further, the role of other wild or domestic animals in generating, harboring, or transmitting mutated virus at such deer facilities is unknown. The XBB clade has been detected in multiple wildlife species in areas within a rural-to-urban gradient; >5 transmission events from human to animals have occurred (34). Because wildlife species susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 share habitat with captive deer (34,35), our results suggest that infectious deer have the potential to infect and be infected by commingling species. Assessments of wildlife, livestock, and humans that commingle with infected captive deer are a high priority for testing for cross-species transmission events.

Free-ranging deer are predicted to be at higher risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2 when sharing fence line with captive populations (23), and the high frequency of infectious deer we detected emphasizes that transmission from captive to wild deer should be empirically tested. In addition, fence line transmission could explain, at least partially, the widespread sustained SARS-CoV-2 transmission among wild deer in North America (36).

Some wildlife species found to be shedding RNA of XBB lineages under natural conditions (e.g., raccoons [Procyon lotor] and cottontail rabbits [Sylvilagus floridanus]) (34) did not show clinical signs of infection, nor did they shed viral RNA when experimentally infected with early, pre-Omicron lineages (37,38). Those studies together provide strong evidence that, as new lineages emerge, the breadth of competent hosts for the virus changes, highlighting the importance of continued surveillance to assess risks of establishment of transmission cycles of SARS-CoV-2 among wildlife species.

Infectious virus can be isolated from nasal swab samples up to 6 days after infection in deer, whereas viral RNA can be detected in respiratory swab samples up to 22 days after direct experimental infection and up to 21 days after contact with infected deer (1,2). Those studies, which used pre-Omicron lineages, revealed efficient horizontal transmission among deer. Of the qRT-PCR–positive deer from our study, 6 of 11 had infectious virus, suggesting they became infected within ≈6 days before our sampling, although that timeframe might vary under natural conditions compared with laboratory-based experiments. Nevertheless, our results show that more recent lineages are also efficiently and quickly transmitted among deer. However, controlled laboratory experiments are needed to confirm the duration of infectious virus shedding during infections with more recent SARS-CoV-2 lineages in deer.

Our study demonstrates the continued and efficient spread of SARS-CoV-2 among deer as new virus lineages emerge and infect nonhuman species; an XBB lineage concurrently circulating in human populations spread rapidly within deer. These findings corroborate epidemiologic models predicting that deer facilities favor high virus dissemination within captive populations (23), and transmission potential might vary across the spectrum of scenarios in which deer and humans interact (e.g., deer ranches, wildlife sanctuaries, safaris, zoos, outdoor recreation with free-ranging animals). Our study cannot determine how SARS-CoV-2 entered the target deer population. This knowledge gap needs to be addressed to mitigate transmission risks among humans, deer, and other commingling species. Given the uncertain public health and animal health implications of viral maintenance within captive deer, agricultural biosecurity practices could be useful in reducing the possibility of establishing long-term animal reservoirs for the virus. The mid- to long-term evolutionary consequences for SARS-CoV-2 circulating in nonhuman populations is unknown, and captive facilities might provide opportunities for sustained transmission at this human–deer–wildlife interface.

Dr. Ferreira is an assistant research scientist in the Entomology Department at Texas A&M University. He is interested in wildlife and zoonotic pathogens at the human–animal–environment interface.

Top

Acknowledgments

We thank deer producers across Texas. Laboratory support was provided by Sankar Chaki and Lisa Auckland. Tom Gary, Isabel McAllister, and Yuexun Tian assisted in the field.

Virus genome sequences are available in GISAID (accession nos. EPI_ISL_19411338-48 and EPI_ISL_19413822). Raw sequencing data is available in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (BioProject no. PRJNA1149050). The following reagent was obtained through BEI Resources, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health: Cercopithecus aethiops Kidney Epithelial Cells Expressing Transmembrane Protease, Serine 2 and Human Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2 (Vero E6-TMPRSS2-T2A-ACE2), NR-54970.

Funding was provided by the American Rescue Plan Act through USDA APHIS A1181 Agricultural Biosecurity 2023-70432-39559 and by Texas A&M AgriLife Research. Use of the Global Health Research Complex, TIGSS Molecular Genomics Core, and TIGSS Bioinformatics Core is acknowledged. Portions of this research were conducted with the advanced computing resources provided by Texas A&M High Performance Research Computing. The findings and conclusions in this publication are those of the authors and should not be construed to represent any official USDA or US Government determination or policy.

This article was originally published as a preprint at https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.09.24.613938v1.

Top

References

  1. Martins  M, Boggiatto  PM, Buckley  A, Cassmann  ED, Falkenberg  S, Caserta  LC, et al. From Deer-to-Deer: SARS-CoV-2 is efficiently transmitted and presents broad tissue tropism and replication sites in white-tailed deer. PLoS Pathog. 2022;18:e1010197. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Palmer  MV, Martins  M, Falkenberg  S, Buckley  A, Caserta  LC, Mitchell  PK, et al. Susceptibility of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) to SARS-CoV-2. J Virol. 2021;95:e00083–21. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Feng  A, Bevins  S, Chandler  J, DeLiberto  TJ, Ghai  R, Lantz  K, et al. Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in free-ranging white-tailed deer in the United States. Nat Commun. 2023;14:4078. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Hale  VL, Dennis  PM, McBride  DS, Nolting  JM, Madden  C, Huey  D, et al. SARS-CoV-2 infection in free-ranging white-tailed deer. Nature. 2022;602:481–6. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Caserta  LC, Martins  M, Butt  SL, Hollingshead  NA, Covaleda  LM, Ahmed  S, et al. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) may serve as a wildlife reservoir for nearly extinct SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2023;120:e2215067120. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Marques  AD, Sherrill-Mix  S, Everett  JK, Adhikari  H, Reddy  S, Ellis  JC, et al. Multiple introductions of SARS-CoV-2 Alpha and Delta variants into white-tailed deer in Pennsylvania. MBio. 2022;13:e0210122. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. McBride  DS, Garushyants  SK, Franks  J, Magee  AF, Overend  SH, Huey  D, et al. Accelerated evolution of SARS-CoV-2 in free-ranging white-tailed deer. Nat Commun. 2023;14:5105. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Zhao  J, Kang  M, Wu  H, Sun  B, Baele  G, He  W-T, et al. Risk assessment of SARS-CoV-2 replicating and evolving in animals. Trends Microbiol. 2024;32:79–92. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Pickering  B, Lung  O, Maguire  F, Kruczkiewicz  P, Kotwa  JD, Buchanan  T, et al. Divergent SARS-CoV-2 variant emerges in white-tailed deer with deer-to-human transmission. Nat Microbiol. 2022;7:2011–24. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Palmer  MV, O’Brien  DJ, Griffin  JF, Nugent  G. Lisle Gd, Ward A, et al. Tuberculosis in wild and captive deer. In: Mukundan H, Chambers MA, Waters, WRR, Larsen MH, editors. Tuberculosis, leprosy and mycobacterial diseases of man and animals: the many hosts of mycobacteria. Wallingforth, UK: CABI; 2015. p. 334–64.
  11. Tomori  O, Oluwayelu  DO. Domestic animals as potential reservoirs of zoonotic viral diseases. Annu Rev Anim Biosci. 2023;11:33–55. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kuchipudi  SV, Tan  C, van Dorp  L, Lichtveld  M, Pickering  B, Bowman  J, et al. Coordinated surveillance is essential to monitor and mitigate the evolutionary impacts of SARS-CoV-2 spillover and circulation in animal hosts. Nat Ecol Evol. 2023;7:956–9. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Roundy  CM, Nunez  CM, Thomas  LF, Auckland  LD, Tang  W, Richison  JJ III, et al. High seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) at one of three captive cervid facilities in Texas. Microbiol Spectr. 2022;10:e0057622. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hamer  SA, Nunez  C, Roundy  CM, Tang  W, Thomas  L, Richison  J, et al. Persistence of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies longer than 13 months in naturally infected, captive white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Texas. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2022;11:2112–5. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Adams  KP, Murphy  BP, Ross  MD. Captive white-tailed deer industry—current status and growing threat. Wildl Soc Bull. 2016;40:14–9. DOIGoogle Scholar
  16. Chiavacci  SJ. The economic costs of chronic wasting disease in the United States. PLoS One. 2022;17:e0278366. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Outlaw  JL, Anderson  DP, Earle  ML, Richardson  JW. Economic impact of the Texas deer breeding and hunting operations. College Station (TX): Agricultural and Food Policy Center, The Texas A&M University System; 2017.
  18. Oude Munnink  BB, Sikkema  RS, Nieuwenhuijse  DF, Molenaar  RJ, Munger  E, Molenkamp  R, et al. Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 on mink farms between humans and mink and back to humans. Science. 2021;371:172–7. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Rabalski  L, Kosinski  M, Mazur-Panasiuk  N, Szewczyk  B, Bienkowska-Szewczyk  K, Kant  R, et al. Zoonotic spill-over of SARS-CoV-2: mink-adapted virus in humans. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2022;28:451.e1–4. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Ghai  RR, Straily  A, Wineland  N, Calogero  J, Stobierski  MG, Signs  K, et al. Epidemiologic and genomic evidence for zoonotic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among people and animals on a Michigan mink farm, United States, 2020. Viruses. 2023;15:2436. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Barua  S, Newbolt  CH, Ditchkoff  SS, Johnson  C, Zohdy  S, Smith  R, et al. Absence of SARS-CoV-2 in a captive white-tailed deer population in Alabama, USA. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2022;11:1707–10. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Shu  Y, McCauley  J. GISAID: Global initiative on sharing all influenza data - from vision to reality. Euro Surveill. 2017;22:30494. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Rosenblatt  E, Cook  JD, DiRenzo  GV, Grant  EHC, Arce  F, Pepin  KM, et al. Epidemiological modeling of SARS-CoV-2 in white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) reveals conditions for introduction and widespread transmission. PLOS Comput Biol. 2024;20:e1012263. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Corman  VM, Landt  O, Kaiser  M, Molenkamp  R, Meijer  A, Chu  DK, et al. Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Euro Surveill. 2020;25:2000045. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Li  H, Durbin  R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics. 2009;25:1754–60. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Danecek  P, Bonfield  JK, Liddle  J, Marshall  J, Ohan  V, Pollard  MO, et al. Twelve years of SAMtools and BCFtools. Gigascience. 2021;10:giab008. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Aksamentov  I, Roemer  C, Hodcroft  EB, Neher  RA. Nextclade: clade assignment, mutation calling and quality control for viral genomes. J Open Source Softw. 2021;6:3773. DOIGoogle Scholar
  28. Turakhia  Y, Thornlow  B, Hinrichs  AS, De Maio  N, Gozashti  L, Lanfear  R, et al. Ultrafast Sample placement on Existing tRees (UShER) enables real-time phylogenetics for the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Nat Genet. 2021;53:809–16. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Lei  C, Yang  J, Hu  J, Sun  X. On the calculation of TCID50 for quantitation of virus infectivity. Virol Sin. 2021;36:141–4. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. O’Toole  Á, Scher  E, Underwood  A, Jackson  B, Hill  V, McCrone  JT, et al. Assignment of epidemiological lineages in an emerging pandemic using the pangolin tool. Virus Evol. 2021;7:veab064. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Rambaut  A, Holmes  EC, O’Toole  Á, Hill  V, McCrone  JT, Ruis  C, et al. A dynamic nomenclature proposal for SARS-CoV-2 lineages to assist genomic epidemiology. Nat Microbiol. 2020;5:1403–7. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Gangavarapu  K, Latif  AA, Mullen  JL, Alkuzweny  M, Hufbauer  E, Tsueng  G, et al.; GISAID Core and Curation Team. Outbreak.info genomic reports: scalable and dynamic surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 variants and mutations. Nat Methods. 2023;20:512–22. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Kotwa  JD, Lobb  B, Massé  A, Gagnier  M, Aftanas  P, Banerjee  A, et al. Genomic and transcriptomic characterization of delta SARS-CoV-2 infection in free-ranging white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). iScience. 2023;26:108319. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Goldberg  AR, Langwig  KE, Brown  KL, Marano  JM, Rai  P, King  KM, et al. Widespread exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in wildlife communities. Nat Commun. 2024;15:6210. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Moseley  WA, Cooper  SM, Hewitt  DG, Fulbright  TE, Deyoung  CA. Effects of supplemental feeding and density of white‐tailed deer on rodents. J Wildl Manage. 2011;75:675–81. DOIGoogle Scholar
  36. Hewitt  J, Wilson-Henjum  G, Collins  DT, Linder  TJ, Lenoch  JB, Heale  JD, et al. Landscape-scale epidemiological dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 in white-tailed deer. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2024;2024:1–11. DOIGoogle Scholar
  37. Bosco-Lauth  AM, Root  JJ, Porter  SM, Walker  AE, Guilbert  L, Hawvermale  D, et al. Peridomestic mammal susceptibility to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. Emerg Infect Dis. 2021;27:2073–80. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Francisco  R, Hernandez  SM, Mead  DG, Adcock  KG, Burke  SC, Nemeth  NM, et al. Experimental susceptibility of North American raccoons (Procyon lotor) and striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis) to SARS-CoV-2. Front Vet Sci. 2022;8:715307. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar

Top

Figures
Table

Top

Suggested citation for this article: Ferreira FC, Pervin T, Tang W, Hediger J, Thomas L, Cook W, et al. Respiratory shedding of infectious SARS-CoV-2 Omicron XBB.1.41.1 lineage among captive white-tailed deer, Texas, USA. Emerg Infect Dis. 2025 Feb [date cited]. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid3102.241458

DOI: 10.3201/eid3102.241458

Original Publication Date: January 10, 2025

Table of Contents – Volume 31, Number 2—February 2025

EID Search Options
presentation_01 Advanced Article Search – Search articles by author and/or keyword.
presentation_01 Articles by Country Search – Search articles by the topic country.
presentation_01 Article Type Search – Search articles by article type and issue.

Top

Comments

Please use the form below to submit correspondence to the authors or contact them at the following address:

Francisco C. Ferreira, Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University, TAMU 2475, College Station, TX 77843-2475, USA

Send To

10000 character(s) remaining.

Top

Page created: December 30, 2024
Page updated: January 10, 2025
Page reviewed: January 10, 2025
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
file_external