Review: SARS-CoV-2 infection in farmed minks – an overview of current knowledge on occurrence, disease and epidemiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coronaviruses (CoVs), which are enveloped, positive-sense RNA viruses, may cause infections in mammals and birds. Apart from the respiratory manifestations, CoVs are also responsible for infections of the gastrointestinal tract and nervous systems. Their propensity to recombine allows them to easily transmit and adapt to new hosts. The emergence of a new CoV in humans, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which is attributed to a zoonotic origin, has provoked numerous studies to assess its pathogenicity for different animal species (pets, farm and wild animals). Available results indicate that numerous animal species are susceptible to infection with SARS-CoV-2. From April 2020, when the first SARS-CoV-2 infection in minks was reported in the Netherlands, to the end of January 2021, further outbreaks have been confirmed in Denmark, Italy, Spain, Sweden, the United States, Greece, France, Canada, Lithuania and Poland. It has also been established that human-to-minks and minks-to-human transmission may occur. The results obtained to date indicate that the virus was originally introduced into the minks population by humans, possibly at the start of the pandemic and had been circulating in the population for several weeks before detection. Recent data indicate that minks are highly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, but the route or routes of virus transmission between farms, other than by direct contact with infected humans, have not been identified. In minks, infection can occur in clinical and subclinical form, making it possibly difficult to detect. Therefore, minks could represent potentially dangerous, not always recognized, animal reservoir for SARS-CoV-2. The current data indicate that further studies on minks and other Mustelidae are needed to clarify whether they may be a potential reservoir for SARS-CoV-2, and if so, how and whether this can be prevented.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".