bovine enterovirus infection
- Host Animals
- Hosts/Species Affected
- Systems Affected
- Distribution Table
- List of Symptoms/Signs
- Disease Course
- Impact: Economic
- Zoonoses and Food Safety
- Disease Treatment
- Prevention and Control
- Links to Websites
- Distribution Maps
Don't need the entire report?
Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.Generate report
PicturesTop of page
IdentityTop of page
Preferred Scientific Name
- bovine enterovirus infection
International Common Names
- English: diarrhoea
Pathogen/sTop of page bovine enterovirus
OverviewTop of page
Bovine enterovirus (BEV) is an enterovirus in the family Picornaviridae. Picornaviridae are a family of small, non-enveloped, positive strand RNA viruses (Knowles and Mann, 1990). The other picornavirus genera are aphthovirus (foot and mouth disease virus), cardiovirus (encephalomyocarditis virus, Theiler’s murine encephalomyocarditis virus), hepatovirus (hepatitis A virus), parechovirus (echoviruses 22 and 23) and rhinoviruses in addition to enteroviruses (polioviruses, coxsackieviruses). Enteroviruses are also classified based on host species for example, human enteroviruses (HEV), porcine enterovirus (PEV) and BEV (Hyypiä et al., 1997).
Antigenic diversity is significant among enteroviruses. In HEV, 66 serotypes are recognized. PEV and BEV have 13 and 10 recognized serotypes, respectively. Recently genetic analysis of enteroviruses has allowed classification into clusters (Hyypiä et al., 1997). Based on the comparison of the 5’ untranslated region (UTR) gene sequences, two clusters of enteroviruses are observed; the first cluster contains polioviruses, coxsackie A virus (CAV)-21, CAV-24 and enterovirus 70. CAV-9 and CAV-16, CBV (coxsackie B virus –1), CBV-3, CBV-4 and CBV-5, and EV-11 and EV-12 belong to a second distinct cluster. Eight clusters are evident when available partial sequences from the VP2 capsid proteins of enteroviruses are compared; five human enterovirus clusters (clusters A, B, C1, C2 and D) and three animal enterovirus clusters (clusters E, F and G). Cluster A includes CAV-2, -3, -5, -7, -8, -14, -16, and enterovirus 71. Cluster B includes CAV-9, CBV serotypes 1-6, echoviruses, enterovirus 69 and SVDV (Swine vesicular disease virus). Cluster C1 includes poliovirus serotypes 1-3, cluster C2 contains CAV-1, -11, -13, -17, -18, -20, -21 and –24. Cluster D includes enteroviruses 68 and 70. Cluster E includes BEV serotypes 1 and 2, cluster F includes PEV serotype 8, and cluster G includes PEV serotypes 9 and 10. In addition, heterogeneity in 3’UTR sequences segregated the enteroviruses into 3 groups.
Based on the haemagglutination of rhesus monkey red blood cells, sensitivity to 2-(a-hydroxybenzyl)-benzimidole (HBB, an inhibitor of virus replication), virus neutralization and complement fixation, BEVs can be classified into two major groups (La Placa et al., 1965; Knowles and Barnett, 1985). The ten BEV serotypes are segregated into serogroups. Two serogroups are proposed with one group including BEV types 1, 4, 5, and 6, and the other including BEV types 2, 3, and 7.
More than 600 BEV isolates have been identified from healthy as well as sick cattle. BEV isolates from diverse clinical diseases are presumed to be the causative agents, but it is difficult to produce disease in cattle experimentally. There is evidence that some isolates of BEV are pathogenic. These isolates have been found in severe clinical cases in the absence of other detectable causative agents. Most isolates, however, tend to be of relatively low virulence in cattle (Kahrs, 1981). Therefore, the importance of BEV as an aetiological agent is not confirmed, although some isolates have been identified from animals suffering from idiopathic abortion, orchitis, neonatal diarrhoea, and winter dysentery.
BEV has a worldwide distribution and is ubiquitous among cattle populations. Because of the serological and virological similarities to foot and mouth disease (FMD), careful differentiation is required for diagnosis.
Host AnimalsTop of page
|Animal name||Context||Life stage||System|
|Aepyceros melampus||Wild host|
|Bos indicus (zebu)||Domesticated host||Cattle & Buffaloes: All Stages|
|Bos taurus (cattle)||Domesticated host||Cattle & Buffaloes: All Stages|
|Bubalus bubalis (Asian water buffalo)||Domesticated host||Cattle & Buffaloes: All Stages|
|Camelus dromedarius (dromedary camel)|
|Canis familiaris (dogs)||Domesticated host, Wild host|
|Capra hircus (goats)||Domesticated host||Sheep & Goats: All Stages|
|Cavia porcellus (domesticated guinea pig)||Experimental settings|
|Cervus elaphus (red deer)|
|Cervus nippon (sika)||Domesticated host, Wild host|
|Macaca mulatta (rhesus macaque)|
|Meleagris gallopavo (turkey)|
|Mus musculus (house mouse)||Experimental settings||Other: Juvenile|
|Neovison vison (American mink)|
|Oryctolagus cuniculus (rabbits)|
|Ovis aries (sheep)||Domesticated host||Sheep & Goats: All Stages|
|Phasianus colchicus (common pheasant)|
|Sus scrofa (pigs)|
|Syncerus caffer||Wild host||Cattle & Buffaloes: All Stages|
Hosts/Species AffectedTop of page
Most picornaviruses are host specific except for the encephalomyelitis viruses isolated from over 30 host species, and the aphthoviruses that infect at least 200 species of mammals. BEV belonging to serotype 1 have been isolated from: domestic cattle (Bos taurus), water buffalo (Bubalusbubalis; Urakama and Shingu, 1987), sheep (Ovis aries; Jain and Batra, 1985; Sharma et al., 1986), goats (Capra hircus; Jain and Batra, 1985), Sika deer (Cervus nippon; Urakama and Shingu, 1987), a dog (Canis familiaris; Knowles and Mann, 1990), wild African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) and impala (Aepyceros melampus; Hamblin et al., 1985). The viruses belonging to serotype 2 have only been isolated from domestic cattle.
All ages and breeds of domestic cattle are susceptible to BEV. Susceptible experimental animals also include suckling mice and guinea pigs. Some strains of BEV demonstrate pathogenicity for suckling mice, causing lesions similar to those produced by the human coxsackievirus (Adair et al., 1987). Experimental infection of pregnant guinea pigs with BEV resulted in abortion (Moll, 1964). It appears that BEV can be host specific or infect multiple hosts depending on the strain.
Systems AffectedTop of page digestive diseases of large ruminants
digestive diseases of small ruminants
reproductive diseases of large ruminants
reproductive diseases of small ruminants
respiratory diseases of large ruminants
respiratory diseases of small ruminants
DistributionTop of page
Bovine enterovirus (BEV) has a widespread distribution in cattle populations and is easily transmitted. Most healthy cattle in herds examined have a high prevalence of neutralizing antibodies. Since BEV isolates were first designated as enteric cytopathogenic bovine orphan viruses (ECBO), more than 600 isolates have been identified from 14 countries showing a widespread presence. These include isolates from Asia (Japan and South Korea), Africa (South Africa), North America (Canada and the USA), South America (Argentina and Brazil), Europe (Germany, Italy, Norway, Poland, Spain and the UK) and Oceania (Australia).
Bovine enterovirus isolates from the USA were recovered from diverse sources that included faeces of normal calves, as well as sick cattle with various clinical problems. Some BEVs have been isolated from calves and pregnant cows with coughs, fever, serous or mucous nasal exudate, mild enteritis, or mild shipping fever (Moll and Davis, 1959). One BEV strain has been isolated from ascitic fluid, stomach contents, and allantoic fluid of an aborted foetus. Other BEV strains were isolated from cows with pink eye and from a dairy herd with a history of pink eye (Moll and Davis, 1959). Twenty-three BEV isolates from South Korea were obtained from faecal samples that were collected from dairy cattle and native Korean cattle with diarrhoea (Chung et al., 1998). Some of the Korean isolates have been identified from cases with significant diarrhoea and no other detectable major enteric pathogens. Japanese isolates have come from normal cattle and calves with diarrhoea (Inaba et al., 1962; Kurogi, 1976). Isolates from a calf with diarrhoea and a nasal swab from healthy cattle have been recovered in Canada (Durham et al., 1989). The serological evidence of a BEV epidemic has also been reported from Brazil and Italy (Linhares et al., 1974; Cavirani et al., 1995). A strong association of BEV with some cattle diseases including diarrhoea where no evidence of other aetiological agents is present indicates a causative role, however definitive confirmation requires induction of disease by experimental infection.
Distribution TableTop of page
The distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.Last updated: 10 Jan 2020
|Continent/Country/Region||Distribution||Last Reported||Origin||First Reported||Invasive||Reference||Notes|
|South Africa||Present||Verwoerd et al. (1967)|
|Japan||Present||Kurogi et al. (1976)|
|South Korea||Present||Chung ChungWon et al. (1998)|
|Italy||Present||Cavirani et al. (1995)|
|Norway||Present||Schiott and Hyldgaard-Jensen (1966)|
|Spain||Present||Barrandeguy et al. (1988)|
|United Kingdom||Present||Huck and Cartwright (1964)|
|Canada||Present||Durham et al. (1989)|
|United States||Present||Dunne et al. (1973)|
|-Pennsylvania||Present||Dunne et al. (1973)|
|-Washington||Present||MOLL and FINLAYSON (1957)|
|Australia||Present||Zhang and Burgess (1986)|
|-Queensland||Present||Zhang and Burgess (1986)|
|Brazil||Present||CABI (Undated)||Original citation: Linhares et al. (1974)|
|-Pernambuco||Present||CABI (Undated)||Original citation: Linhares et al. (1974)|
|-Sao Paulo||Present||CABI (Undated)||Original citation: Linhares et al. (1974)|
PathologyTop of page
Most enteroviruses, including bovine enterovirus (BEV), infect individuals by the oral route and result in colonization of the alimentary tract. Most BEV infections in cattle, like enterovirus infections in humans, are subclinical. Clinically affected cattle can have widespread replication in many organs in addition to local lymph nodes, and then show reproductive, respiratory and enteric symptoms. The most common clinical syndromes in cattle infected with BEV are abortion, stillbirth, infertility and neonatal death (Knowles and Mann, 1990). Enteritis with persistent diarrhoea and respiratory disease are also common pathologic syndromes in BEV infected cattle. BEV-specific IgM antibodies in the blood of a bovine foetus demonstrate intrauterine infection. However, there are no characteristic pathologic lesions to differentiate BEV infection from that with other pathogens causing similar clinical symptoms.
DiagnosisTop of page
It is difficult to diagnose bovine enterovirus (BEV) infection clinically because there are no pathognomic clinical signs of BEV infection. In cattle with gastrointestinal, respiratory and reproductive clinical signs, other agents causing gastrointestinal diseases must be ruled out. These include the following: gastrointestinal diseases (Mycobacterium paratuberculosis, pathogenic E. coli, bovine rotavirus, bovine coronavirus, bovine viral diarrhoea virus); respiratory diseases (infectious bovine rhinotracheitis virus, parainfluenza virus type 3, bovine respiratory syncytial virus, Pasteurella spp., Hemophilus spp.); and reproductive failures (infectious bovine rhinotracheitis virus, Akabane virus). Due to the uncertainty of the pathogenic potential of BEV, it is recommended that other causes of the actual aetiology of clinical episodes be eliminated before BEV is incriminated as the causative factor.
BEV isolation in the absence of any other pathogenic agent is the best criteria for the implication of BEV with clinical disease. BEV can be isolated from faeces, oesophageal scrapings, vaginal mucosa, rectal swabs, semen, blood, placenta, foetus and foetal fluid, lungs, salivary glands, small intestine, lymph nodes, hard palate, nasal swabs, epithelium, abomasum, large intestine, rectum, liver, kidneys, pancreas and spleen.
Through electron microscopy, BEV can be identified in preparations of faeces and other samples from infected animals based upon its morphology. Polymerase chain reaction can be used to amplify the 5’UTR and is a rapid way to identify enteroviruses including BEV. Other methods that can be used for identification include complement fixation, fluorescence antibody and haemagglutination tests.
A serum neutralization (SN) test is available for defining BEV-specific antibody in herds. A plaque reduction neutralization test is also available. Identification of BEV-specific antibody in an aborted bovine foetus suggests BEV as the active causative agent for the abortion.
Since BEV have serological cross reactivity and virological closeness to foot and mouth disease (FMD) and vesicular stomatitis, careful differential diagnosis in the laboratory is recommended (Scott and Cottral, 1967; Anderson, 1978). Neutralizing antibody to BEV has serological cross reactivity against human poliovirus, coxsackieviruses, and other enteroviruses (Rovozzo et al., 1965). Immunodiffusion (ID) and haemagglutination inhibition (HI) tests can also be used for detection of the BEV antibody.
List of Symptoms/SignsTop of page
|Digestive Signs / Dark colour stools, faeces||Cattle & Buffaloes:All Stages||Sign|
|Digestive Signs / Diarrhoea||Cattle & Buffaloes:All Stages||Sign|
|Digestive Signs / Mucous, mucoid stools, faeces||Cattle & Buffaloes:All Stages||Sign|
|Digestive Signs / Unusual or foul odor, stools, faeces||Cattle & Buffaloes:All Stages||Sign|
|General Signs / Dehydration||Cattle & Buffaloes:All Stages||Sign|
|General Signs / Fever, pyrexia, hyperthermia||Cattle & Buffaloes:All Stages||Sign|
|General Signs / Weight loss||Cattle & Buffaloes:All Stages||Sign|
|Reproductive Signs / Abortion or weak newborns, stillbirth||Cattle & Buffaloes:Cow||Sign|
|Reproductive Signs / Mucous discharge, vulvar, vaginal||Cattle & Buffaloes:Cow||Sign|
|Reproductive Signs / Purulent discharge, penis or prepuce||Cattle & Buffaloes:Bull||Sign|
|Respiratory Signs / Mucoid nasal discharge, serous, watery||Cattle & Buffaloes:All Stages||Sign|
Disease CourseTop of page
As previously mentioned, acute infections are associated with diverse clinical symptoms in some herds, but usually infections are not recognized. After recovery from acute infection, especially from calf diarrhoea and winter dysentery, clinically normal cattle shed viruses. Virus shedding following recovery can occur for over a year, but the mechanism causing it is not known. The pathogenic relationship among healthy carrier, acute infection, and persistent infection after recovery is not clear.
EpidemiologyTop of page
Bovine enterovirus (BEV)-infected cattle disseminate the virus continually through faeces and nasal discharge for more than three months (up to 15 months) after recovery from clinical symptoms (Kahrs, 1981; Knowles and Mann, 1990; Chung et al., 1998). Transmission of most enteroviruses in animals and humans is horizontal, mainly by a faecal-oral or airborne route. Vector-borne transmission has not been demonstrated (Knowles and Mann, 1990). The virus is highly resistant to environmental stresses such as acid and heat. These factors facilitate its transmission to neighbouring herds.
Following an outbreak of diarrhoea in a dairy herd, BEV can be transmitted rapidly to neighbouring herds, and is associated with up to a 60 – 70% reduction of milk production (Chung et al., 1998). In addition, most cattle shed the virus for more than five months in normal faeces following clinical recovery. Therefore BEV is easily transmitted to other animals by infected individuals. This is supported by long periods of detectable virus shedding and up to 95 percent prevalence of BEV-specific (neutralizing) antibody within infected herds. Although the prevalence of neutralizing antibody within individuals varies between countries, the overall herd prevalence is significantly high in most countries. All herds tested were positive in Argentina, Italy, and South Korea (Cavirani et al., 1995; Puntel, 1997; Chung et al., 1998).
In addition to cattle, neutralizing antibodies to BEV have been detected in humans, monkeys, horses, pigs, goats, sheep, dogs, rabbits, guinea pigs and fowl (Moscovici et al., 1961; McFerran, 1962; Yamada, 1965).
Impact: EconomicTop of page
Since a definitive causative relationship between bovine enterovirus infection (BEV) infection and specific disease syndromes has yet to be demonstrated, the economic importance of BEV infections can not be evaluated.
Zoonoses and Food SafetyTop of page
There is no evidence that bovine enterovirus (BEV) infects humans or causes disease. However, there is high probability of BEV contamination of water and meat because some healthy individual cattle excrete the virus and it is very stable in the environment. A study in Germany showed that most cytopathic viruses isolated in sewage from an abattoir were enteroviruses such as porcine enterovirus (PEV) and BEV (Herbst et al., 1990). The acid pH that develops during rigor mortis is insufficient to inactivate enteroviruses (Knowles and Mann, 1990). Therefore, refrigeration of contaminated meat products will preserve the virus and can contaminate meat later in the production process. However, BEV in animal products can be inactivated by heat treatment at 60°C for at least 1 hour.
Disease TreatmentTop of page
Since the causative agent is viral, no specific treatment for bovine enterovirus (BEV) infection is available other than symptomatic treatment and good nursing care. The importance of good animal husbandry including hygiene and nutrition cannot be over-emphasized for the general control of most infections, especially viral infections. Effective disinfecting and cleansing in addition to exclusion of infected individuals from herds are also fundamental considerations.
Prevention and ControlTop of page
Antibody responses are detected in the sera of bovine foetuses as well as in the sera of adult cattle. Infection with bovine enterovirus (BEV) is usually asymptomatic, but low level neutralizing antibody response occurs from antigen stimulation that is restricted to local lymph nodes (Moll, 1971). Cattle that show clinical disease have high neutralizing antibody responses reaching to more than 1:64 SN titre (Chung et al., 1998). The role of this BEV-specific neutralizing antibody in resistance to clinical infections or recovery from disease is not yet defined clearly. The prevalence of neutralizing antibody among individual cattle in herds that experienced clinical disease such as diarrhoea and recovered from the disease can be greater than 95%. This suggests a possible role for the neutralizing antibody in recovery. No vaccine to prevent or control BEV infection is available. Motivation for investing focused efforts in developing any preventive or control methods is limited due to insufficient knowledge of the pathogenicity and economic importance of BEV infections.
ReferencesTop of page
Adair BM; Kennedy S; McKillop ER; McNulty MS; McFerran JB, 1987. Bovine, porcine and ovine picornaviruses: identification of viruses with properties similar to human coxsackieviruses. Archives of Virology, 97(1/2):49-59; 21 ref.
Anderson AA, 1978. Cross reaction between bovine enterovirus and South African territories foot-and-mouth disease virus, American Journal of Veterinary Research, 39:59-63.
Andino R; Rieckof GE; Baltimore D, 1990. A functional ribonucleoprotein complex forms around the 5'end of poliovirus RNA. Cell, 63:360-380.
Barrandeguy ME; Cornaglia EM; Gottschalk M; Fijtman N; Pasini MI; Gomez Yafal A; Parraud JR; Schudel AA, 1988. Rotavirus, enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli and other agents in the feces of dairy calves with and without diarrhea. Revista Latinoamericana de Microbiología, 30(3):239-245; 43 ref.
Butterworth BE; Hall L; Stoltzfus CM; Rueckert RR, 1971. Virus-specific proteins synthesised in encephalomyocarditis virus-infected HeLa cells, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 68(12):3083¯3087.
Cavirani S; Allegri G; Foni E; Chiocco D; Boldini M; Cavalca M; Flammini CF, 1995. Serological survey of various virus infections of buffaloes in dairy farms in northern Italy. Atti della Società Italiana di Buiatria, 27:243-251; 27 ref.
Chung ChungWon; Cho JaeChin; Cho InSoo; Son YeonSung; Chang ChungHo; An SooHwan, 1998. Isolation and identification of bovine enterovirus from the feces of adult cow with diarrhea in Korea. RDA Journal of Veterinary Science, 40(2):28-35; 13 ref.
Dunne HW; Ajinka FM; Bubash GR; Griel LC, 1973. Parainfluenza-3 and bovine enteroviruses as possible important causative factors in bovine abortion. American Journal of Veterinary Research, 34:1121-1126.
Durham PJK; Hassard LE; Norman GR; Yemen RL, 1989. Viruses and virus-like particles detected during examination of feces from calves and piglets with diarrhea. Canadian Veterinary Journal, 30(11):876-881; 33 ref.
Huck RA; Cartwright SF, 1964. Isolation and classification of viruses from cattle during outbreaks of mucosal or respiratory disease and from herds with reproductive disorders, Journal of Comparative Pathology, 74:346-365.
Hyypiä T; Hovi T; Knowles NJ; Stanway G, 1997. Classification of enteroviruses based on molecular and biological properties. Journal of General Virology, 78(1):1-11; 83 ref.
Inaba Y; Omori T; Kono M; Ishii S, 1962. BF1 virus: A new cytopathogenic virus from cattle. I. Isolation and properties. II. Hemagglutination, Japanese Journal of Experimental Medicine, 32:77-105.
Jacobson MF; Asso J; Baltimore D, 1970. Further evidence on the formation of poliovirus proteins, Journal of Molecular Biology, 49:657¯669.
Jacobson MF; Baltimore D, 1968. Polypeptide cleavages in the formation of poliovirus proteins, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 61:77¯84.
Jang SK, Pestova TV et al. , 1990. Cap-independent translation of picornavirus RNAs: structure and function of the internal ribosome entry site, Enzyme, 44:292-309.
Kahrs R, 1981. Viral diseases of cattle. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 115-120.
Knowles NJ; Mann JA, 1990. Bovine enteroviruses. Virus infections of ruminants., 513-516; 18 ref.
Kurogi H, 1976. Separation and properties of enterovirus and reovirus recovered from a fecal sample of calf with diarrhea. National Institute of Animal Health Quarternary (Tokyo), 16(2):49-58.
La Placa M; Portolani M; Lamieri C, 1965. The basis for a classification of bovine enteroviruses. Archiv fur die gesamte Virusforschung, 17:98-115.
Linhares MI, Carvalho RP et al. , 1974. Bovine enterovirus antibodies in sera from Sao Paulo and Pernambuco States, Brazil, Arq Inst Biol (Sao Paulo), 41(1):1-4.
McFerran JB, 1962. Bovine enteroviruses. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 101:436-443.
Moll T, 1964. Abortion and stillbirth of guinea pigs resulting from experimental exposure to bovine enteric virus, American Journal of Veterinary Research, 25:1757-1762.
Moll T, 1971. Bovine immune response to local infections: Immunization with bovine enteroviruses and quantitative studies on bovine colostral IgG, Journal of Dairy Science, 54:1331.
Moll T; Davis AD, 1959. Isolation and characterization of cytopathic enteroviruses from cattle with respiratory disease, American Journal of Veterinary Research, 20:27-32.
Moll T; Finlayson AV, 1957. Isolation of cytopathogenic viral agent from the feces of cattle, Science, 126:401-402.
Moll T; Ulrich MI, 1963. Biologic characteristics of certain bovine enteric viruses, American Journal of Veterinary Research, 24:545-550.
Moscovici C; LaPlaca M; Maisel J; Kempe CH, 1961. Studies of bovine enteroviruses, American Journal of Veterinary Research, 22:852-863.
Portolani M, Palenzona AM et al. , 1968. Bovine enteroviruses: Apparent correlation between antigenic characters and capacity to grow in the presence of small concentrations of 2-(a-hydroxybenzyl)-benzymidazole, Archiv fur die gesamte Virusforschung, 24:428-432.
Rossmann MG, Arnold E et al. , 1985. The structure of a human cold virus and its functional relations to other picornaviruses. Nature, 317:145¯153.
Rovozzo GC; Luginbuhl RE; Helmboldt CF, 1965. Bovine enteric cytopathogenic viruses, I. Characteristics of three prototype strains, Cornell Veterinarian, 55:121-130.
Sarnow P, 1989. Role of 3'-end sequences in infectivity of poliovirus transcripts made in vitro, Journal of Virology, 63(1):467-470.
Schiott CR; Hyldgaard-Jensen C, 1966. Isolation of a bovine enterovirus, Acta Vet. Scand., 7(4):296-302.
Scott FW; Cottral GE, 1967. Comparison of strains of bovine enterovirus with foot-and-mouth disease virus, American Journal of Veterinary Research, 28:1597-1600.
Sharma AK; Knowles NJ; Prasad S; Srivastava RN, 1986. Preliminary studies on a sheep enterovirus. Indian Journal of Virology, 2(1):86-88; 5 ref.
Smyth M, Tate J et al. , 1995. Implications for viral uncoating from the structure of bovine enterovirus, Structural Biology, 2:224-231.
Stott JE; Thomas LH; Collins AP; Crouch S; Jebbett J; Smith GS; Luther PD; Cashwell R, 1980. A survey of virus infections of the respiratory tract of cattle and their association with disease. Journal of Hygiene, 85:257.
Straub OC, 1965. Isolation of a bovine enterovirus from the genitalia, Dtsch. Tierarztl. Wochenschr., 72(3):54-55.
Summer DF; Maizel JV, 1971. Determination of the gene sequence of poliovirus with pactamycin, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 68(11):2852¯2856.
Verwoerd DW; Oellermann RA; Broekman J; Weiss KE, 1967. The serological relationship of South African bovine enterovirus strains (Ecbo SA-I and -II) and the growth characteristics in cell culture of the prototype strain (Ecbo SA-I). Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research, 34(1):41-52.
Wilner BI, 1969. Classification of the major groups of human and other animal viruses. Minneapolis, USA: Burgess Publishing Company, 32-39.
Yamada S, 1965. Studies on bovine enteroviruses. IV. Neutralizing antibodies in the Kyushu District, Japanese Journal of Veterinary Science, 27:317-323.
Zhang AQ; Burgess GW, 1986. Serotyping bovine enterovirus in Queensland. Livestock production and diseases in the tropics. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Livestock Production and Diseases in the Tropics held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia from 18th-22nd August 1986., 64-66; 11 ref.
Barrandeguy M E, Cornaglia E M, Gottschalk M, Fijtman N, Pasini M I, Gomez Yafal A, Parraud J R, Schudel A A, 1988. Rotavirus, enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli and other agents in the feces of dairy calves with and without diarrhea. Revista Latinoamericana de Microbiología. 30 (3), 239-245.
CABI, Undated. Compendium record. Wallingford, UK: CABI
Cavirani S, Allegri G, Foni E, Chiocco D, Boldini M, Cavalca M, Flammini C F, 1995. Serological survey of various virus infections of buffaloes in dairy farms in northern Italy. (Indagine sierologica sulla diffusione di virus diversi in allevamenti di bufale da latte del Nord Italia.). Atti della Società Italiana di Buiatria. 243-251.
Chung ChungWon, Cho JaeChin, Cho InSoo, Son YeonSung, Chang ChungHo, An SooHwan, 1998. Isolation and identification of bovine enterovirus from the feces of adult cow with diarrhea in Korea. RDA Journal of Veterinary Science. 40 (2), 28-35.
Dunne H W, Ajinkya S M, Bubash G R, Griel L C Jr, 1973. Parainfluenza-3 and bovine enteroviruses as possible important causative factors in bovine abortion. American Journal of Veterinary Research. 34 (No.9), 1121-1126.
Durham P J K, Hassard L E, Norman G R, Yemen R L, 1989. Viruses and virus-like particles detected during examination of feces from calves and piglets with diarrhea. Canadian Veterinary Journal. 30 (11), 876-881.
Huck R A, Cartwright S F, 1964. Isolation and classification of viruses from cattle during outbreaks of mucosal or respiratory disease and from herds with reproductive disorders. Journal of Comparative Pathology. 346-365. DOI:10.1016/S0368-1742(64)80041-2
Kurogi H, Inaba Y, Takahashi E, Sato K, Omori T, 1976. Separation and properties of enterovirus and reovirus recovered from a fecal sample of calf with diarrhoea. National Institute of Animal Health Quarterly, Japan. 16 (2), 49-58.
Puntel M, 1997. Seroprevalence of viral infections in llamas (Lama glama) in Argentina. (Seroprevalencia de infecciones virales en llamas (Lama glama) en la República Argentina.). Revista Argentina de Microbiología. 29 (1), 38-46.
Verwoerd D W, Oellermann R A, Broek-Man J, Weiss K E, 1967. The serological relationship of South African bovine enterovirus strains (ECBO SA-I and -II) and the growth characteristics in cell culture of the prototype strain (ECBO SA-I). Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research. 41-52.
Zhang AQ, Burgess GW, 1986. Serotyping bovine enterovirus in Queensland. In: Livestock production and diseases in the tropics [Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Livestock Production and Diseases in the Tropics held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia from 18th-22nd August 1986], 64-66.
Distribution MapsTop of page
Unsupported Web Browser:
One or more of the features that are needed to show you the maps functionality are not available in the web browser that you are using.
Please consider upgrading your browser to the latest version or installing a new browser.
More information about modern web browsers can be found at http://browsehappy.com/