ABSTRACT
Although the Malawi Lil20/1 (MAL) strain of African swine fever virus (ASFV) was isolated from Ornithodoros sp. ticks, our attempts to experimentally infect ticks by feeding them this strain failed. Ten different collections of Ornithodorus porcinus porcinus ticks and one collection of O. porcinus domesticus ticks were orally exposed to a high titer of MAL. At 3 weeks postinoculation (p.i.), <25% of the ticks contained detectable virus, with viral titers of <4 log10 50% hemadsorbing doses/ml. Viral titers declined to undetectability in >90% of the ticks by 5 weeks p.i. To further study the growth defect, O. porcinus porcinus ticks were orally exposed to MAL and assayed at regular intervals p.i. Whole-tick viral titers dramatically declined (>1,000-fold) between 2 and 6 days p.i., and by 18 days p.i., viral titers were below the detection limit. In contrast, viral titers of ticks orally exposed to a tick-competent ASFV isolate, Pretoriuskop/96/4/1 (Pr4), increased 10-fold by 10 days p.i. and 50-fold by 14 days p.i. Early viral gene expression, but not extensive late gene expression or viral DNA synthesis, was detected in the midguts of ticks orally exposed to MAL. Ultrastructural analysis demonstrated that progeny virus was rarely present in ticks orally exposed to MAL and, when present, was associated with extensive cytopathology of phagocytic midgut epithelial cells. To determine if viral replication was restricted only in the midgut epithelium, parenteral inoculations into the hemocoel were performed. With inoculation by this route, a persistent infection was established although a delay in generalization of MAL was detected and viral titers in most tissues were typically 10- to 1,000-fold lower than those of ticks injected with Pr4. MAL was detected in both the salivary secretion and coxal fluid following feeding but less frequently and at a lower titer compared to Pr4. Transovarial transmission of MAL was not detected after two gonotrophic cycles. Ultrastructural analysis demonstrated that, when injected, MAL replicated in a number of cell types but failed to replicate in midgut epithelial cells. In contrast, ticks injected with Pr4 had replicating virus in midgut epithelial cells. Together, these results indicate that MAL replication is restricted in midgut epithelial cells. This finding demonstrates the importance of viral replication in the midgut for successful ASFV infection of the arthropod host.
Correction to: Mechanism of interaction between virus and host is inferred from the changes of gene expression in macrophages infected with African swine fever virus CN/GS/2018 strain
