Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Cattle Boards
NCBA, R-CALF, COOL, USDA (No Politics!)
CANADA FINDS ANOTHER 'SUSPECT' BSE CASE ...USA ???
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="flounder" data-source="post: 241532" data-attributes="member: 3519"><p>VERY VERY IMPORTANT THING TO REMEMBER</p><p></p><p>>> Differences in tissue distribution could require new regulations</p><p>>> regarding specific risk material (SRM) removal.</p><p></p><p>Research Project: Study of Atypical Bse</p><p></p><p>Location: Virus and Prion Diseases of Livestock</p><p></p><p>Project Number: 3625-32000-073-07</p><p>Project Type: Specific C/A</p><p></p><p>Start Date: Sep 15, 2004</p><p>End Date: Sep 14, 2007</p><p></p><p>Objective:</p><p>The objective of this cooperative research project with Dr. Maria Caramelli</p><p>from the Italian BSE Reference Laboratory in Turin, Italy, is to conduct</p><p>comparative studies with the U.S. bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)</p><p>isolate and the atypical BSE isolates identified in Italy. The studies will</p><p>cover the following areas: 1. Evaluation of present diagnostics tools used</p><p>in the U.S. for the detection of atypical BSE cases. 2. Molecular comparison</p><p>of the U.S. BSE isolate and other typical BSE isolates with atypical BSE</p><p>cases. 3. Studies on transmissibility and tissue distribution of atypical</p><p>BSE isolates in cattle and other species.</p><p></p><p>Approach:</p><p>This project will be done as a Specific Cooperative Agreement with the</p><p>Italian BSE Reference Laboratory, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del</p><p>Piemonte, in Turin, Italy. It is essential for the U.S. BSE surveillance</p><p>program to analyze the effectiveness of the U.S diagnostic tools for</p><p>detection of atypical cases of BSE. Molecular comparisons of the U.S. BSE</p><p>isolate with atypical BSE isolates will provide further characterization of</p><p>the U.S. BSE isolate. Transmission studies are already underway using brain</p><p>homogenates from atypical BSE cases into mice, cattle and sheep. It will be</p><p>critical to see whether the atypical BSE isolates behave similarly to</p><p>typical BSE isolates in terms of transmissibility and disease pathogenesis.</p><p>If transmission occurs, tissue distribution comparisons will be made between</p><p>cattle infected with the atypical BSE isolate and the U.S. BSE isolate.</p><p>Differences in tissue distribution could require new regulations regarding</p><p>specific risk material (SRM) removal.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?ACCN_NO=408490" target="_blank">http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projec ... _NO=408490</a></p><p></p><p>3.57 The experiment which might have determined whether BSE and scrapie were</p><p>caused by the same agent (ie, the feeding of natural scrapie to cattle) was</p><p>never undertaken in the UK. It was, however, performed in the USA in 1979,</p><p>when it was shown that cattle inoculated with the scrapie agent endemic in</p><p>the flock of Suffolk sheep at the United States Department of Agriculture in</p><p>Mission, Texas, developed a TSE quite unlike BSE. 32 The findings of the</p><p>initial transmission, though not of the clinical or neurohistological</p><p>examination, were communicated in October 1988 to Dr Watson, Director of the</p><p>CVL, following a visit by Dr Wrathall, one of the project leaders in the</p><p>Pathology Department of the CVL, to the United States Department of</p><p>Agriculture. 33 The results were not published at this point, since the</p><p>attempted transmission to mice from the experimental cow brain had been</p><p>inconclusive. The results of the clinical and histological differences</p><p>between scrapie-affected sheep and cattle were published in 1995. Similar</p><p>studies in which cattle were inoculated intracerebrally with scrapie inocula</p><p>derived from a number of scrapie-affected sheep of different breeds and from</p><p>different States, were carried out at the US National Animal Disease Centre.</p><p>34 The results, published in 1994, showed that this source of scrapie agent,</p><p>though pathogenic for cattle, did not produce the same clinical signs of</p><p>brain lesions characteristic of BSE.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/volume2/chaptea3.htm#820543" target="_blank">http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/vol ... htm#820543</a></p><p></p><p>The findings of the initial transmission, though not of the clinical or</p><p>neurohistological examination, were communicated in October 1988 to Dr</p><p>Watson, Director of the CVL, following a visit by Dr Wrathall, one of the</p><p>project leaders in the Pathology Department of the CVL, to the United States</p><p>Department of Agriculture. 33</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1988/10/00001001.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1 ... 001001.pdf</a></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/volume2/chaptea3.htm#820546" target="_blank">http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/vol ... htm#820546</a></p><p></p><p>The results were not published at this point, since the attempted</p><p>transmission to mice from the experimental cow brain had been inconclusive.</p><p>The results of the clinical and histological differences between</p><p>scrapie-affected sheep and cattle were published in 1995. Similar studies in</p><p>which cattle were inoculated intracerebrally with scrapie inocula derived</p><p>from a number of scrapie-affected sheep of different breeds and from</p><p>different States, were carried out at the US National Animal Disease Centre.</p><p>34 The</p><p>results, published in 1994, showed that this source of scrapie agent, though</p><p>pathogenic for cattle, did not produce the same clinical signs of brain</p><p>lesions characteristic of BSE.</p><p></p><p>3.58 There are several possible reasons why the experiment was not performed</p><p>in the UK. It had been recommended by Sir Richard Southwood (Chairman of the</p><p>Working Party on Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy) in his letter to the</p><p>Permanent Secretary of MAFF, Mr (now Sir) Derek Andrews, on 21 June 1988, 35</p><p>though it was not specifically recommended in the Working Party Report or</p><p>indeed in the Tyrrell Committee Report (details of the Southwood Working</p><p>Party and the Tyrell Committee can be found in vol. 4: The Southwood Working</p><p>Party, 1988-89 and vol. 11: Scientists after Southwood respectively). The</p><p>direct inoculation of scrapie into calves was given low priority, because of</p><p>its high cost and because it was known that it had already taken place in</p><p>the USA. 36 It was also felt that the results of such an experiment would be</p><p>hard to interpret. While a negative result would be informative, a positive</p><p>result would need to demonstrate that when scrapie was transmitted to</p><p>cattle, the disease which developed in cattle was the same as BSE. 37 Given</p><p>the large number of strains of scrapie and the possibility that BSE was one</p><p>of them, it would be necessary to transmit every scrapie strain to cattle</p><p>separately, to test the hypothesis properly. Such an experiment would be</p><p>expensive. Secondly, as measures to control the epidemic took hold, the need</p><p>for the experiment from the policy viewpoint was not considered so urgent.</p><p>It was felt that the results would be mainly of academic interest. 38</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/volume2/chaptea3.htm#820550" target="_blank">http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/vol ... htm#820550</a></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/volume2/chaptea3.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/vol ... aptea3.htm</a></p><p></p><p>REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCRAPIE</p><p></p><p>Chair: Dr. Jim Logan, Cheyenne, WY</p><p></p><p>Vice Chair: Dr. Joe D. Ross, Sonora, TX</p><p></p><p>Dr. Deborah L. Brennan, MS; Dr. Beth Carlson, ND; Dr. John R. Clifford, DC;</p><p>Dr. Thomas F. Conner, OH; Dr. Walter E. Cook, WY; Dr. Wayne E. Cunningham,</p><p>CO; Dr. Jerry W. Diemer, TX; Dr. Anita J. Edmondson, CA; Dr. Dee Ellis, TX;</p><p>Dr. Lisa A. Ferguson, MD; Dr. Keith R. Forbes, NY; Dr. R. David Glauer, OH;</p><p>Dr. James R. Grady, CO; Dr. William L. Hartmann, MN; Dr. Carolyn Inch, CAN;</p><p>Dr. Susan J. Keller, ND; Dr. Allen M. Knowles, TN; Dr. Thomas F. Linfield,</p><p>MT; Dr. Michael R. Marshall, UT; Dr. Cheryl A. Miller, In; Dr. Brian V.</p><p>Noland, CO; Dr. Charles Palmer, CA; Dr. Kristine R. Petrini, MN; Mr. Stan</p><p>Potratz, IA; Mr. Paul E. Rodgers, CO; Dr. Joan D. Rowe, CA; Dr. Pamela L.</p><p>Smith, IA; Dr. Diane L. Sutton, MD; Dr. Lynn Anne Tesar, SD; Dr. Delwin D.</p><p>Wilmot, NE; Dr. Nora E. Wineland, CO; Dr. Cindy B. Wolf, MN.</p><p></p><p>The Committee met on November 9, 2005, from 8:00am until 11:55am, Hershey</p><p>Lodge and Convention Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania. The meeting was called</p><p>to order by Dr. Jim Logan, chair, with vice chairman Dr. Joe D. Ross</p><p>attending. There were 74 people in attendance.</p><p></p><p>The Scrapie Program Update was provided by Dr. Diane Sutton, National</p><p>Scrapie Program Coordinator, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA),</p><p>Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services (APHIS), Veterinary Services</p><p>(VS). The complete text of the Status Report is included in these</p><p>Proceedings.</p><p></p><p>Dr. Patricia Meinhardt, USDA-APHIS-VS-National Veterinary Services</p><p>Laboratory (NVSL) gave the Update on Genotyping Labs and Discrepancies in</p><p>Results. NVSL conducts investigations into discrepancies on genotype testing</p><p>results associated with the Scrapie Eradication Program. It is the policy of</p><p>the Program to conduct a second genotype test at a second laboratory on</p><p>certain individual animals. Occasionally, there are discrepancies in those</p><p>results. The NVSL conducts follow-up on these situations through additional</p><p>testing on additional samples from the field and archive samples from the</p><p>testing laboratories.</p><p></p><p>For the period of time from January 1, 2005, until October 15, 2005, there</p><p>were 23 instances of discrepancies in results from 35 flocks. Of those 23</p><p>instances, 14 were caused by laboratory error (paperwork or sample mix-up),</p><p>3 results from field error, 5 were not completely resolved, and 1 originated</p><p></p><p>from the use of a non-approved laboratory for the first test. As a result of</p><p>inconsistencies, one laboratory's certification was revoked by APHIS-VS.</p><p></p><p>snip...</p><p></p><p>Infected and Source Flocks</p><p></p><p>As of September 30, 2005, there were 105 scrapie infected and source flocks.</p><p>There were a total of 165** new infected and source flocks reported for FY</p><p>2005. The total infected and source flocks that have been released in FY</p><p>2005 was 128. The ratio of infected and source flocks cleaned up or placed</p><p>on clean up plans vs. new infected and source flocks discovered in FY 2005</p><p>was 1.03 : 1*. In addition 622 scrapie cases were confirmed and reported by</p><p>the National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) in FY 2005, of which</p><p>130 were RSSS cases. Fifteen cases of scrapie in goats have been reported</p><p>since 1990. The last goat case was reported in May 2005. Approximately 5,626</p><p>animals were indemnified comprised of 49% non-registered sheep, 45%</p><p>registered sheep, 1.4% non-registered goats and 4.6% registered goats.</p><p></p><p>Regulatory Scrapie Slaughter Surveillance (RSSS)</p><p></p><p>RSSS was designed to utilize the findings of the Center for Epidemiology and</p><p>Animal Health (CEAH) Scrapie: Ovine Slaughter Surveillance (SOSS) study. The</p><p>results of SOSS can be found at</p><p><a href="http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cahm/Sheep/sheep.htm" target="_blank">http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cahm/Sheep/sheep.htm</a> . RSSS started April</p><p>1,</p><p></p><p>2003. It is a targeted slaughter surveillance program which is designed to</p><p>identify infected flocks for clean-up. During FY 2005 collections increased</p><p>by 32% overall and by 90% for black and mottled faced sheep improving</p><p>overall program effectiveness and efficiency as demonstrated by the 26%</p><p>decrease in percent positive black faced sheep compared to FY 2004. Samples</p><p>have been collected from 62,864 sheep since April 1, 2003, of which results</p><p>have been reported for 59,105 of which 209 were confirmed positive. During</p><p>FY 2005, 33,137 samples were collected from 81 plants. There have been 130</p><p>NVSL confirmed positive cases (30 collected in FY 2004 and confirmed in FY</p><p>2005 and 100 collected and confirmed in FY 2005) in FY 2005. Face colors of</p><p>these positives were 114 black, 14 mottled, 1 white and 1 unknown. The</p><p>percent positive by face color is shown in the chart below.</p><p></p><p>Scrapie Testing</p><p></p><p>In FY 2005, 35,845 animals have been tested for scrapie: 30,192 RSSS; 4,742</p><p>regulatory field cases; 772 regulatory third eyelid biopsies; 10 third</p><p>eyelid validations; and 129 necropsy validations (chart 9).</p><p></p><p>Animal ID</p><p></p><p>As of October 04, 2005, 103,580 sheep and goat premises have been assigned</p><p>identification numbers in the Scrapie National Generic Database. Official</p><p>eartags have been issued to 73,807 of these premises.</p><p></p><p>*This number based on an adjusted 12 month interval to accommodate the 60</p><p>day period for setting up flock plans.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.usaha.org/committees/reports/2005/report-scr-2005.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.usaha.org/committees/reports ... r-2005.pdf</a></p><p></p><p>Date: April 30, 2006 at 4:49 pm PST</p><p>SCRAPIE USA UPDATE AS of March 31, 2006</p><p></p><p>2 NEW CASES IN GOAT, 82 INFECTED SOURCE FLOCKS, WITH 4 NEW INFECTED SOURCE</p><p>FLOCKS IN MARCH, WITH 19 SCRAPIE INFECTED RSSS REPORTED BY NVSL</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/scrapie/monthly_report/monthly-report.html" target="_blank">http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/scra ... eport.html</a></p><p></p><p>Published online before print October 20, 2005</p><p></p><p>Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 10.1073/pnas.0502296102</p><p>Medical Sciences</p><p></p><p>A newly identified type of scrapie agent can naturally infect sheep with</p><p>resistant PrP genotypes</p><p></p><p>( sheep prion | transgenic mice )</p><p></p><p>Annick Le Dur *, Vincent Béringue *, Olivier Andréoletti , Fabienne Reine *,</p><p>Thanh Lan Laï *, Thierry Baron , Bjørn Bratberg ¶, Jean-Luc Vilotte ||,</p><p>Pierre Sarradin **, Sylvie L. Benestad ¶, and Hubert Laude *</p><p>*Virologie Immunologie Moléculaires and ||Génétique Biochimique et</p><p>Cytogénétique, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, 78350</p><p>Jouy-en-Josas, France; Unité Mixte de Recherche, Institut National de la</p><p>Recherche Agronomique-Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire de Toulouse, Interactions</p><p>Hôte Agent Pathogène, 31066 Toulouse, France; Agence Française de Sécurité</p><p>Sanitaire des Aliments, Unité Agents Transmissibles Non Conventionnels,</p><p>69364 Lyon, France; **Pathologie Infectieuse et Immunologie, Institut</p><p>National de la Recherche Agronomique, 37380 Nouzilly, France; and</p><p>¶Department of Pathology, National Veterinary Institute, 0033 Oslo, Norway</p><p></p><p>Edited by Stanley B. Prusiner, University of California, San Francisco, CA,</p><p>and approved September 12, 2005 (received for review March 21, 2005)</p><p></p><p>Scrapie in small ruminants belongs to transmissible spongiform</p><p>encephalopathies (TSEs), or prion diseases, a family of fatal</p><p>neurodegenerative disorders that affect humans and animals and can transmit</p><p>within and between species by ingestion or inoculation. Conversion of the</p><p>host-encoded prion protein (PrP), normal cellular PrP (PrPc), into a</p><p>misfolded form, abnormal PrP (PrPSc), plays a key role in TSE transmission</p><p>and pathogenesis. The intensified surveillance of scrapie in the European</p><p>Union, together with the improvement of PrPSc detection techniques, has led</p><p>to the discovery of a growing number of so-called atypical scrapie cases.</p><p>These include clinical Nor98 cases first identified in Norwegian sheep on</p><p>the basis of unusual pathological and PrPSc molecular features and "cases"</p><p>that produced discordant responses in the rapid tests currently applied to</p><p>the large-scale random screening of slaughtered or fallen animals.</p><p>Worryingly, a substantial proportion of such cases involved sheep with PrP</p><p>genotypes known until now to confer natural resistance to conventional</p><p>scrapie. Here we report that both Nor98 and discordant cases, including</p><p>three sheep homozygous for the resistant PrPARR allele (A136R154R171),</p><p>efficiently transmitted the disease to transgenic mice expressing ovine PrP,</p><p>and that they shared unique biological and biochemical features upon</p><p>propagation in mice. These observations support the view that a truly</p><p>infectious TSE agent, unrecognized until recently, infects sheep and goat</p><p>flocks and may have important implications in terms of scrapie control and</p><p>public health.</p><p></p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p>----</p><p></p><p>Author contributions: H.L. designed research; A.L.D., V.B., O.A., F.R.,</p><p>T.L.L., J.-L.V., and H.L. performed research; T.B., B.B., P.S., and S.L.B.</p><p>contributed new reagents/analytic tools; V.B., O.A., and H.L. analyzed data;</p><p>and H.L. wrote the paper.</p><p></p><p>A.L.D. and V.B. contributed equally to this work.</p><p></p><p>To whom correspondence should be addressed.</p><p></p><p>Hubert Laude, E-mail: <a href="mailto:laude@jouy.inra.fr">laude@jouy.inra.fr</a></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0502296102" target="_blank">http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0502296102</a></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0502296102v1" target="_blank">http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0502296102v1</a></p><p></p><p>12/10/76</p><p>AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COUNCIL</p><p>REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTE ON SCRAPIE</p><p>Office Note</p><p>CHAIRMAN: PROFESSOR PETER WILDY</p><p></p><p>snip...</p><p></p><p>A The Present Position with respect to Scrapie</p><p>A] The Problem</p><p></p><p>Scrapie is a natural disease of sheep and goats. It is a slow</p><p>and inexorably progressive degenerative disorder of the nervous system</p><p>and it ia fatal. It is enzootic in the United Kingdom but not in all</p><p>countries.</p><p></p><p>The field problem has been reviewed by a MAFF working group</p><p>(ARC 35/77). It is difficult to assess the incidence in Britain for</p><p>a variety of reasons but the disease causes serious financial loss;</p><p>it is estimated that it cost Swaledale breeders alone $l.7 M during</p><p>the five years 1971-1975. A further inestimable loss arises from the</p><p>closure of certain export markets, in particular those of the United</p><p>States, to British sheep.</p><p></p><p>It is clear that scrapie in sheep is important commercially and</p><p>for that reason alone effective measures to control it should be</p><p>devised as quickly as possible.</p><p></p><p>Recently the question has again been brought up as to whether</p><p>scrapie is transmissible to man. This has followed reports that the</p><p>disease has been transmitted to primates. One particularly lurid</p><p>speculation (Gajdusek 1977) conjectures that the agents of scrapie,</p><p>kuru, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and transmissible encephalopathy of</p><p>mink are varieties of a single "virus". The U.S. Department of</p><p>Agriculture concluded that it could "no longer justify or permit</p><p>scrapie-blood line and scrapie-exposed sheep and goats to be processed</p><p>for human or animal food at slaughter or rendering plants" (ARC 84/77)"</p><p>The problem is emphasised by the finding that some strains of scrapie</p><p>produce lesions identical to the once which characterise the human</p><p>dementias"</p><p></p><p>Whether true or not. the hypothesis that these agents might be</p><p>transmissible to man raises two considerations. First, the safety</p><p>of laboratory personnel requires prompt attention. Second, action</p><p>such as the "scorched meat" policy of USDA makes the solution of the</p><p>acrapie problem urgent if the sheep industry is not to suffer</p><p>grievously.</p><p></p><p>snip...</p><p></p><p>76/10.12/4.6</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1976/10/12004001.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1 ... 004001.pdf</a></p><p></p><p></p><p>TSS</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="flounder, post: 241532, member: 3519"] VERY VERY IMPORTANT THING TO REMEMBER >> Differences in tissue distribution could require new regulations >> regarding specific risk material (SRM) removal. Research Project: Study of Atypical Bse Location: Virus and Prion Diseases of Livestock Project Number: 3625-32000-073-07 Project Type: Specific C/A Start Date: Sep 15, 2004 End Date: Sep 14, 2007 Objective: The objective of this cooperative research project with Dr. Maria Caramelli from the Italian BSE Reference Laboratory in Turin, Italy, is to conduct comparative studies with the U.S. bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) isolate and the atypical BSE isolates identified in Italy. The studies will cover the following areas: 1. Evaluation of present diagnostics tools used in the U.S. for the detection of atypical BSE cases. 2. Molecular comparison of the U.S. BSE isolate and other typical BSE isolates with atypical BSE cases. 3. Studies on transmissibility and tissue distribution of atypical BSE isolates in cattle and other species. Approach: This project will be done as a Specific Cooperative Agreement with the Italian BSE Reference Laboratory, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Piemonte, in Turin, Italy. It is essential for the U.S. BSE surveillance program to analyze the effectiveness of the U.S diagnostic tools for detection of atypical cases of BSE. Molecular comparisons of the U.S. BSE isolate with atypical BSE isolates will provide further characterization of the U.S. BSE isolate. Transmission studies are already underway using brain homogenates from atypical BSE cases into mice, cattle and sheep. It will be critical to see whether the atypical BSE isolates behave similarly to typical BSE isolates in terms of transmissibility and disease pathogenesis. If transmission occurs, tissue distribution comparisons will be made between cattle infected with the atypical BSE isolate and the U.S. BSE isolate. Differences in tissue distribution could require new regulations regarding specific risk material (SRM) removal. [url=http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?ACCN_NO=408490]http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projec ... _NO=408490[/url] 3.57 The experiment which might have determined whether BSE and scrapie were caused by the same agent (ie, the feeding of natural scrapie to cattle) was never undertaken in the UK. It was, however, performed in the USA in 1979, when it was shown that cattle inoculated with the scrapie agent endemic in the flock of Suffolk sheep at the United States Department of Agriculture in Mission, Texas, developed a TSE quite unlike BSE. 32 The findings of the initial transmission, though not of the clinical or neurohistological examination, were communicated in October 1988 to Dr Watson, Director of the CVL, following a visit by Dr Wrathall, one of the project leaders in the Pathology Department of the CVL, to the United States Department of Agriculture. 33 The results were not published at this point, since the attempted transmission to mice from the experimental cow brain had been inconclusive. The results of the clinical and histological differences between scrapie-affected sheep and cattle were published in 1995. Similar studies in which cattle were inoculated intracerebrally with scrapie inocula derived from a number of scrapie-affected sheep of different breeds and from different States, were carried out at the US National Animal Disease Centre. 34 The results, published in 1994, showed that this source of scrapie agent, though pathogenic for cattle, did not produce the same clinical signs of brain lesions characteristic of BSE. [url=http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/volume2/chaptea3.htm#820543]http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/vol ... htm#820543[/url] The findings of the initial transmission, though not of the clinical or neurohistological examination, were communicated in October 1988 to Dr Watson, Director of the CVL, following a visit by Dr Wrathall, one of the project leaders in the Pathology Department of the CVL, to the United States Department of Agriculture. 33 [url=http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1988/10/00001001.pdf]http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1 ... 001001.pdf[/url] [url=http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/volume2/chaptea3.htm#820546]http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/vol ... htm#820546[/url] The results were not published at this point, since the attempted transmission to mice from the experimental cow brain had been inconclusive. The results of the clinical and histological differences between scrapie-affected sheep and cattle were published in 1995. Similar studies in which cattle were inoculated intracerebrally with scrapie inocula derived from a number of scrapie-affected sheep of different breeds and from different States, were carried out at the US National Animal Disease Centre. 34 The results, published in 1994, showed that this source of scrapie agent, though pathogenic for cattle, did not produce the same clinical signs of brain lesions characteristic of BSE. 3.58 There are several possible reasons why the experiment was not performed in the UK. It had been recommended by Sir Richard Southwood (Chairman of the Working Party on Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy) in his letter to the Permanent Secretary of MAFF, Mr (now Sir) Derek Andrews, on 21 June 1988, 35 though it was not specifically recommended in the Working Party Report or indeed in the Tyrrell Committee Report (details of the Southwood Working Party and the Tyrell Committee can be found in vol. 4: The Southwood Working Party, 1988-89 and vol. 11: Scientists after Southwood respectively). The direct inoculation of scrapie into calves was given low priority, because of its high cost and because it was known that it had already taken place in the USA. 36 It was also felt that the results of such an experiment would be hard to interpret. While a negative result would be informative, a positive result would need to demonstrate that when scrapie was transmitted to cattle, the disease which developed in cattle was the same as BSE. 37 Given the large number of strains of scrapie and the possibility that BSE was one of them, it would be necessary to transmit every scrapie strain to cattle separately, to test the hypothesis properly. Such an experiment would be expensive. Secondly, as measures to control the epidemic took hold, the need for the experiment from the policy viewpoint was not considered so urgent. It was felt that the results would be mainly of academic interest. 38 [url=http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/volume2/chaptea3.htm#820550]http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/vol ... htm#820550[/url] [url=http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/volume2/chaptea3.htm]http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/vol ... aptea3.htm[/url] REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCRAPIE Chair: Dr. Jim Logan, Cheyenne, WY Vice Chair: Dr. Joe D. Ross, Sonora, TX Dr. Deborah L. Brennan, MS; Dr. Beth Carlson, ND; Dr. John R. Clifford, DC; Dr. Thomas F. Conner, OH; Dr. Walter E. Cook, WY; Dr. Wayne E. Cunningham, CO; Dr. Jerry W. Diemer, TX; Dr. Anita J. Edmondson, CA; Dr. Dee Ellis, TX; Dr. Lisa A. Ferguson, MD; Dr. Keith R. Forbes, NY; Dr. R. David Glauer, OH; Dr. James R. Grady, CO; Dr. William L. Hartmann, MN; Dr. Carolyn Inch, CAN; Dr. Susan J. Keller, ND; Dr. Allen M. Knowles, TN; Dr. Thomas F. Linfield, MT; Dr. Michael R. Marshall, UT; Dr. Cheryl A. Miller, In; Dr. Brian V. Noland, CO; Dr. Charles Palmer, CA; Dr. Kristine R. Petrini, MN; Mr. Stan Potratz, IA; Mr. Paul E. Rodgers, CO; Dr. Joan D. Rowe, CA; Dr. Pamela L. Smith, IA; Dr. Diane L. Sutton, MD; Dr. Lynn Anne Tesar, SD; Dr. Delwin D. Wilmot, NE; Dr. Nora E. Wineland, CO; Dr. Cindy B. Wolf, MN. The Committee met on November 9, 2005, from 8:00am until 11:55am, Hershey Lodge and Convention Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania. The meeting was called to order by Dr. Jim Logan, chair, with vice chairman Dr. Joe D. Ross attending. There were 74 people in attendance. The Scrapie Program Update was provided by Dr. Diane Sutton, National Scrapie Program Coordinator, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services (APHIS), Veterinary Services (VS). The complete text of the Status Report is included in these Proceedings. Dr. Patricia Meinhardt, USDA-APHIS-VS-National Veterinary Services Laboratory (NVSL) gave the Update on Genotyping Labs and Discrepancies in Results. NVSL conducts investigations into discrepancies on genotype testing results associated with the Scrapie Eradication Program. It is the policy of the Program to conduct a second genotype test at a second laboratory on certain individual animals. Occasionally, there are discrepancies in those results. The NVSL conducts follow-up on these situations through additional testing on additional samples from the field and archive samples from the testing laboratories. For the period of time from January 1, 2005, until October 15, 2005, there were 23 instances of discrepancies in results from 35 flocks. Of those 23 instances, 14 were caused by laboratory error (paperwork or sample mix-up), 3 results from field error, 5 were not completely resolved, and 1 originated from the use of a non-approved laboratory for the first test. As a result of inconsistencies, one laboratory’s certification was revoked by APHIS-VS. snip... Infected and Source Flocks As of September 30, 2005, there were 105 scrapie infected and source flocks. There were a total of 165** new infected and source flocks reported for FY 2005. The total infected and source flocks that have been released in FY 2005 was 128. The ratio of infected and source flocks cleaned up or placed on clean up plans vs. new infected and source flocks discovered in FY 2005 was 1.03 : 1*. In addition 622 scrapie cases were confirmed and reported by the National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) in FY 2005, of which 130 were RSSS cases. Fifteen cases of scrapie in goats have been reported since 1990. The last goat case was reported in May 2005. Approximately 5,626 animals were indemnified comprised of 49% non-registered sheep, 45% registered sheep, 1.4% non-registered goats and 4.6% registered goats. Regulatory Scrapie Slaughter Surveillance (RSSS) RSSS was designed to utilize the findings of the Center for Epidemiology and Animal Health (CEAH) Scrapie: Ovine Slaughter Surveillance (SOSS) study. The results of SOSS can be found at [url=http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cahm/Sheep/sheep.htm]http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cahm/Sheep/sheep.htm[/url] . RSSS started April 1, 2003. It is a targeted slaughter surveillance program which is designed to identify infected flocks for clean-up. During FY 2005 collections increased by 32% overall and by 90% for black and mottled faced sheep improving overall program effectiveness and efficiency as demonstrated by the 26% decrease in percent positive black faced sheep compared to FY 2004. Samples have been collected from 62,864 sheep since April 1, 2003, of which results have been reported for 59,105 of which 209 were confirmed positive. During FY 2005, 33,137 samples were collected from 81 plants. There have been 130 NVSL confirmed positive cases (30 collected in FY 2004 and confirmed in FY 2005 and 100 collected and confirmed in FY 2005) in FY 2005. Face colors of these positives were 114 black, 14 mottled, 1 white and 1 unknown. The percent positive by face color is shown in the chart below. Scrapie Testing In FY 2005, 35,845 animals have been tested for scrapie: 30,192 RSSS; 4,742 regulatory field cases; 772 regulatory third eyelid biopsies; 10 third eyelid validations; and 129 necropsy validations (chart 9). Animal ID As of October 04, 2005, 103,580 sheep and goat premises have been assigned identification numbers in the Scrapie National Generic Database. Official eartags have been issued to 73,807 of these premises. *This number based on an adjusted 12 month interval to accommodate the 60 day period for setting up flock plans. [url=http://www.usaha.org/committees/reports/2005/report-scr-2005.pdf]http://www.usaha.org/committees/reports ... r-2005.pdf[/url] Date: April 30, 2006 at 4:49 pm PST SCRAPIE USA UPDATE AS of March 31, 2006 2 NEW CASES IN GOAT, 82 INFECTED SOURCE FLOCKS, WITH 4 NEW INFECTED SOURCE FLOCKS IN MARCH, WITH 19 SCRAPIE INFECTED RSSS REPORTED BY NVSL [url=http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/scrapie/monthly_report/monthly-report.html]http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/scra ... eport.html[/url] Published online before print October 20, 2005 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 10.1073/pnas.0502296102 Medical Sciences A newly identified type of scrapie agent can naturally infect sheep with resistant PrP genotypes ( sheep prion | transgenic mice ) Annick Le Dur *, Vincent Béringue *, Olivier Andréoletti , Fabienne Reine *, Thanh Lan Laï *, Thierry Baron , Bjørn Bratberg ¶, Jean-Luc Vilotte ||, Pierre Sarradin **, Sylvie L. Benestad ¶, and Hubert Laude * *Virologie Immunologie Moléculaires and ||Génétique Biochimique et Cytogénétique, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, 78350 Jouy-en-Josas, France; Unité Mixte de Recherche, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique-Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire de Toulouse, Interactions Hôte Agent Pathogène, 31066 Toulouse, France; Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments, Unité Agents Transmissibles Non Conventionnels, 69364 Lyon, France; **Pathologie Infectieuse et Immunologie, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, 37380 Nouzilly, France; and ¶Department of Pathology, National Veterinary Institute, 0033 Oslo, Norway Edited by Stanley B. Prusiner, University of California, San Francisco, CA, and approved September 12, 2005 (received for review March 21, 2005) Scrapie in small ruminants belongs to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs), or prion diseases, a family of fatal neurodegenerative disorders that affect humans and animals and can transmit within and between species by ingestion or inoculation. Conversion of the host-encoded prion protein (PrP), normal cellular PrP (PrPc), into a misfolded form, abnormal PrP (PrPSc), plays a key role in TSE transmission and pathogenesis. The intensified surveillance of scrapie in the European Union, together with the improvement of PrPSc detection techniques, has led to the discovery of a growing number of so-called atypical scrapie cases. These include clinical Nor98 cases first identified in Norwegian sheep on the basis of unusual pathological and PrPSc molecular features and "cases" that produced discordant responses in the rapid tests currently applied to the large-scale random screening of slaughtered or fallen animals. Worryingly, a substantial proportion of such cases involved sheep with PrP genotypes known until now to confer natural resistance to conventional scrapie. Here we report that both Nor98 and discordant cases, including three sheep homozygous for the resistant PrPARR allele (A136R154R171), efficiently transmitted the disease to transgenic mice expressing ovine PrP, and that they shared unique biological and biochemical features upon propagation in mice. These observations support the view that a truly infectious TSE agent, unrecognized until recently, infects sheep and goat flocks and may have important implications in terms of scrapie control and public health. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Author contributions: H.L. designed research; A.L.D., V.B., O.A., F.R., T.L.L., J.-L.V., and H.L. performed research; T.B., B.B., P.S., and S.L.B. contributed new reagents/analytic tools; V.B., O.A., and H.L. analyzed data; and H.L. wrote the paper. A.L.D. and V.B. contributed equally to this work. To whom correspondence should be addressed. Hubert Laude, E-mail: [email=laude@jouy.inra.fr]laude@jouy.inra.fr[/email] [url=http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0502296102]http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0502296102[/url] [url=http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0502296102v1]http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0502296102v1[/url] 12/10/76 AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COUNCIL REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTE ON SCRAPIE Office Note CHAIRMAN: PROFESSOR PETER WILDY snip... A The Present Position with respect to Scrapie A] The Problem Scrapie is a natural disease of sheep and goats. It is a slow and inexorably progressive degenerative disorder of the nervous system and it ia fatal. It is enzootic in the United Kingdom but not in all countries. The field problem has been reviewed by a MAFF working group (ARC 35/77). It is difficult to assess the incidence in Britain for a variety of reasons but the disease causes serious financial loss; it is estimated that it cost Swaledale breeders alone $l.7 M during the five years 1971-1975. A further inestimable loss arises from the closure of certain export markets, in particular those of the United States, to British sheep. It is clear that scrapie in sheep is important commercially and for that reason alone effective measures to control it should be devised as quickly as possible. Recently the question has again been brought up as to whether scrapie is transmissible to man. This has followed reports that the disease has been transmitted to primates. One particularly lurid speculation (Gajdusek 1977) conjectures that the agents of scrapie, kuru, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and transmissible encephalopathy of mink are varieties of a single "virus". The U.S. Department of Agriculture concluded that it could "no longer justify or permit scrapie-blood line and scrapie-exposed sheep and goats to be processed for human or animal food at slaughter or rendering plants" (ARC 84/77)" The problem is emphasised by the finding that some strains of scrapie produce lesions identical to the once which characterise the human dementias" Whether true or not. the hypothesis that these agents might be transmissible to man raises two considerations. First, the safety of laboratory personnel requires prompt attention. Second, action such as the "scorched meat" policy of USDA makes the solution of the acrapie problem urgent if the sheep industry is not to suffer grievously. snip... 76/10.12/4.6 [url=http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1976/10/12004001.pdf]http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1 ... 004001.pdf[/url] TSS [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cattle Boards
NCBA, R-CALF, COOL, USDA (No Politics!)
CANADA FINDS ANOTHER 'SUSPECT' BSE CASE ...USA ???
Top