MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946337914 · doi:10.7717/peerj.6987

Evidence for low prevalence of ranaviruses in Ontario, Canada’s freshwater turtle population

2019· article· en· W2946337914 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sue Carstairs

Bibliographic record

VenuePeerJ · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurtle Biology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsOntario Turtle Conservation Centre
FundersJ.P. Bickell Foundation
KeywordsRanavirusTurtle (robot)AmphibianBiologyPopulationPainted turtleZoologyEcologyMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Ontario, Canada is home to eight native species of turtles; all eight are federally listed as Species At Risk, due to anthropogenic threats. However, until recently, reports of infectious disease have been lacking. Ranavirus is seen as an emerging threat for ectotherms globally, with mass die-offs most often reported in amphibians. Ranavirus has been detected in Ontario's amphibian populations, can be transmitted via water, and can be transmitted from amphibians to turtles. However, no studies on the prevalence of this virus in Ontario's turtles have previously been carried out. With recent reports of two confirmed positive case of ranavirus in turtles in Ontario, a knowledge of the ecology of ranavirus in Ontario's turtles has become even more important. This study estimates the prevalence of ranavirus in Ontario's turtles, and investigates the hypothesis that this is a newly emergent disease. METHODS: Sixty-three samples were tested for ranavirus via PCR. These included a variety of turtle species, across their home range in Southern Ontario. Fifty-two of the samples originated from the liver and kidney of turtles who had succumbed to traumatic injuries after being admitted to the Ontario Turtle Conservation Centre; ten of the samples were taken from cloacal swabs, lesion swabs, or tail clips collected from live turtles showing signs of clinical disease. One of the live turtles was later euthanized for humane reasons and PCR was also carried out on the liver/kidney. RESULTS: None of the 63 samples were found to be positive for ranavirus via PCR. The zero prevalence found in this study translates into a population prevalence estimate of less than 5%, with no change in prevalence from 2014-2018. DISCUSSION: This is the first report on the prevalence of ranavirus in Ontario's turtles, and will help build an understanding of the ecology of this virus in Ontario. Ranavirus has historically been underreported in reptiles, but there has been an increase in global reports recently, most likely due to increased awareness. A carrier state is thought to exist in reptiles which makes surveillance in the population via random sampling a viable method of detection of prevalence. The first report of ranavirus in Ontario turtles occurred in 2018. This study suggests a continued low population prevalence for the years 2014-2018, however. Ongoing surveillance is necessary, as well as investigation of the eDNA presence in waterways as compared to the PCR of resident turtles, to further understand the sensitivity of these species to ranavirus infection. The utilization of qPCR would be helpful, to better quantify any positives encountered.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeerJSame topicTurtle Biology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207