bovine immunodeficiency virus 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
- 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 immunodeficiency virus infection
Other Scientific Names
- bovine visna virus infection
International Common Names
- English: BIV infection; bovine immunodeficiency-like virus; bovine lentivirus infection, bovine immunodeficiency virus, biv; bovine viral immunodeficiency syndrome
- Spanish: sindrome de inmunodeficiencia viral bovina
Pathogen/sTop of page bovine immunodeficiency virus
OverviewTop of page
Bovine immunodeficiency virus (BIV) is a lentivirus that was first isolated in the USA from a Holstein dairy cow with lymphoproliferative lesions during an investigation of the aetiology of enzootic bovine leukosis (Van der Maaten et al., 1972), and was originally termed ‘bovine visna virus’ due to its similarities to the eponymous sheep virus. The discovery of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) led to an increased interest in lentiviruses and further characterisation of BIV (Gonda et al., 1987). Infection with BIV has been shown to be associated with lymphadenopathy, lymphocytosis, ataxia, encephalitis, weakness and emaciation (Van der Maaten et al., 1972; Carpenter et al., 1992; Snider et al., 1996; Munro et al., 1998) but it is still controversial as to whether BIV causes true immunodeficiency. Indeed, BIV has also been called ‘bovine immunodeficiency-like virus’, reflecting this uncertainty.
Serological data suggest that BIV occurs throughout the world with the highest prevalence in the USA and Canada, where estimates of the prevalence of infection range from 20 to 60%. Seroepidemiological evidence has been presented for other countries in Europe and Japan, suggesting that the prevalence there is much lower, at 4-35%. The impact of BIV infection on disease in cattle is also controversial. In some cattle herds in the southern USA, BIV has been cited as the underlying cause of a syndrome of ill health and poor performance (Gonda et al., 1994; McNab et al., 1994; Snider et al., 1996, 1997) while other reports provide little evidence of pathogenicity (Martin et al., 1991; Onuma et al., 1992; Flaming et al., 1993; Suarez et al., 1993). There is considerable interest, therefore, in establishing the role of BIV in cattle disease. The majority of naturally acquired infections fail to produce a specific clinically recognised syndrome. Infection with BIV may predispose cattle to an increased incidence or severity of endemic diseases.
Host AnimalsTop of page
Hosts/Species AffectedTop of page
BIV appears to be specific for infection of its natural host Bos taurus. Sheep, goats and rabbits have been experimentally infected with cell-associated virus but in the field there is no evidence of natural infection (Whetstone et al., 1991; Pifat et al., 1992; Jacobs et al., 1996, Kalvatchev et al., 1998). A transient viraemia was detected following experimental infection of Bali cattle with BIV, together with a variable antibody response, but there were no clinical signs of disease (McNab et al., 2010). It does appear that rodents are not susceptible to BIV infection (Gonda, 1992). These findings support evidence that lentiviruses are species-specific.
Systems AffectedTop of page blood and circulatory system diseases of large ruminants
nervous system diseases of large ruminants
DistributionTop of page
Serological evidence shows BIV infection to be worldwide but virus isolation in many cases has proved elusive. It has been suggested that there is a higher prevalence in cattle from the southern USA than from the northern states. Despite this high seroprevalence, only a few isolates are available for study, the original R29 isolate and two that have been isolated from cattle in Florida (Suarez et al., 1993). BIV may also be present in cattle in Portugal, Switzerland, Croatia, and the UK; it is possible that the absence of confirmed reports of BIV infection in some countries is due to the unavailability of a suitable diagnostic test and lack of investigation.
A second lentivirus of cattle, Jembrana Disease Virus, has also been isolated but is restricted to Indonesia (Chadwick et al., 1995). This virus is antigenically and genetically closely related to BIV (Kertayadnya et al., 1993) but causes acute disease in Bali cattle (Bos javanicus) (Dharma et al., 1991) and a much milder syndrome in Bos taurus (Suarez et al., 1993).
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.
|Continent/Country/Region||Distribution||Last Reported||Origin||First Reported||Invasive||Reference||Notes|
|Cambodia||Present||Meas et al., 2000|
|China||Present||Liu et al., 1997a; Liu et al., 1997b|
|India||Present||Bhatia et al., 2008|
|Iran||Present||Bazargani et al., 2010|
|Japan||Present||Present based on regional distribution.|
|-Hokkaido||Present||Meas et al., 1998; Usui et al., 2003|
|Korea, Republic of||Present||Cho et al., 1999|
|Pakistan||Present||Meas et al., 2000|
|Turkey||Present||Yilmaz and Yesilbag, 2008|
|Canada||Present||Present based on regional distribution.|
|-Ontario||Widespread||Jacobs et al., 1995|
|USA||Present||Whetstone et al., 1990|
|-Colorado||Present||Cockerell et al., 1992|
|-Florida||Present||Suarez et al., 1993|
|-Kansas||Present||Zhang et al., 1997b|
|-Louisiana||Present||Snider et al., 1996|
|-Mississippi||Widespread||St Cyr Coats et al., 1994; St Cyr Coats, 1995|
Central America and Caribbean
|Costa Rica||Present||Hidalgo et al., 1995|
|Argentina||Present||González et al., 2008|
|Venezuela||Present||Walder et al., 1995|
|France||Present||Polack et al., 1996|
|Italy||Present||Cavirani et al., 1998|
|Netherlands||Present||Horzinek et al., 1991|
|Australia||Present||Burkala et al., 1999; Lew et al., 2004|
|-Queensland||Present||Forman et al., 1992|
|-Victoria||Present||Forman et al., 1992|
|New Zealand||Present||Horner, 1991|
PathologyTop of page
BIV strain R29 was originally isolated from an animal that presented at necropsy with a generalised hyperplasia of the lymph nodes and a mild perivascular cuffing in the brain (van der Maaten et al., 1972); however, it is considered that clinically detectable lymphadenopathy and active BIV infection of the brain are not generalised features of BIV infection. Recent experimental studies have shown an association of BIV infection with lymphadenopathy and non-suppurative meningoencephalitis (Munro et al., 1998). The most common finding on post mortem examination of BIV infected animals was enlarged spheroidal, black coloured haemal nodes found associated with or encapsulated within the other carcass lymph nodes (Van der Maaten et al., 1972; Munro et al., 1998). Size, number and distribution of these nodes varied between animals. Histological evidence of meningoencephalitis has been demonstrated (Munro et al., 1998) and BIV has been detected in the brains of infected animals by PCR (Snider et al., 1996).
There is still uncertainty over the pathological effects of BIV infection and it should be remembered that the tissue-culture adapted R29 isolate used in most experimental infections may have become attenuated over the years and may not be directly comparable to either natural infection or experimental infection with the more recent Florida isolates.
In BIV infected cattle, proviral DNA has been detected by PCR and in-situ hybridisation in many tissues (Zhang et al., 1997a; Carpenter et al., 1992; Lew et al., 2004; Heaton et al., 1998; Wu et al., 2003; Baron et al., 1998). Reports have suggested that the predominant in vivo targets for BIV are cells of the monocyte/macrophage and B cell lineages (Carpenter et al., 1992; Onuma et al., 1992; Pifat et al., 1992; Heaton et al., 1998). Recent studies with new isolates and molecular techniques suggest that BIV may be pan-tropic (Whetstone et al., 1997; Heaton et al., 1998; Wu et al., 2003).
DiagnosisTop of page
Clinical diagnosis of BIV infection is rarely possible. One of the difficulties in assessing the role of BIV in bovine disease is the inconsistency of methods to detect infected cattle and the variable immune responses that accompany many lentiviral infections. While sero-epidemiological surveys have demonstrated that BIV infection occurs in many parts of the world, some of the assays used are unreliable and may have given false positive results. In addition, in certain assays the antibody response to some BIV antigens appears to decline to undetectable levels within a few months of infection (Isaacson et al., 1995) so that false negative results may be obtained. There is thus an urgent requirement for a reliable assay to specifically detect antibodies to BIV which can be used to study the immune response of cattle to infection and to investigate the occurrence of infection in cattle populations where the prevalence has been reported to be low (Horzinek et al., 1991). Another problem is that all assays are based on the only two available BIV strains, R29 and FL112. This raises the issue that some strains present in the field may be missed due to antigenic differences between field strains and the virus used as a source of antigen in the diagnostic tests. For this purpose, an assay that could detect antibodies to all BIV strains would be essential.
Many different tests have been reported for diagnosis of BIV (last reviewed in Evermann and Jackson, 1997). Most are based on serology utilising indirect immunofluorescent antibody (IFA) (Amborski et al., 1989; Whetstone et al., 1990), western blot (Whetstone et al., 1991; Abed et al., 1999) and ELISA technology (Scobie et al., 1999; Abed and Archambault, 2000). Diagnosis using PCR is also successful in confirming the presence of proviral DNA (Zhang et al., 1997a; Suarez and Whetstone, 1998) and sensitive qPCR methods have been developed recently (Lew et al., 2004). Virus isolation in cell culture is of limited use as it can be complicated by the presence of other viral agents and has very low sensitivity. IFA is not widely used due to potential problems with cross-reacting viruses and sensitivity, and it is unsuitable for screening large numbers of field samples. A Bayesian comparison of antibody detection using IFA versus nested PCR for the detection of BIV proviral DNA concluded that although PCR was more sensitive, substantial misclassification of infection was likely irrespective of the detection method used (Orr et al., 2003).
Although PCR is relatively expensive and requires further purification steps to obtain suitable samples, it has the advantage of being both extremely sensitive and specific. The development of qPCR assays to detect BIV proviral DNA (Lew et al., 2004) offer significant improvements over the nested PCR assays that have been used previously and can be used for high throughput screening of samples.
The most likely candidate for an inexpensive and relatively simple method for screening large populations is an ELISA. This requires a sample of blood and the serum can be tested for the presence of BIV antibodies. Antigens have been developed based on the p26 and TM regions of BIV and incorporated into ELISA tests, which have been confirmed using western blot. A competitive inhibition ELISA using a recombinant capsid specific antibody has recently been developed and is reported to offer increased sensitivity (Bhatia et al., 2010). The TM antigen appears to be immunodominant so that a higher proportion of cattle have antibodies to TM than to other viral proteins (Chen and Frankel, 1994; Abed et al., 1999; Abed and Archambault, 2000). There also appears to be no cross-reactivity with TM and other common bovine viruses and a peptide ELISA has been successfully developed based on the immunodominant domain of this protein (Abed and Archambault, 2000; Scobie et al., 1999).
List of Symptoms/SignsTop of page
|General Signs / Ataxia, incoordination, staggering, falling||Cattle & Buffaloes:All Stages||Sign|
|General Signs / Generalized lameness or stiffness, limping||Cattle & Buffaloes:All Stages||Sign|
|General Signs / Lymphadenopathy, swelling, mass or enlarged lymph nodes||Cattle & Buffaloes:All Stages||Sign|
|General Signs / Underweight, poor condition, thin, emaciated, unthriftiness, ill thrift||Cattle & Buffaloes:All Stages||Sign|
|General Signs / Weight loss||Cattle & Buffaloes:All Stages||Sign|
|Nervous Signs / Abnormal behavior, aggression, changing habits||Cattle & Buffaloes:All Stages||Sign|
|Nervous Signs / Dullness, depression, lethargy, depressed, lethargic, listless||Cattle & Buffaloes:All Stages||Sign|
|Nervous Signs / Hyperesthesia, irritable, hyperactive||Cattle & Buffaloes:All Stages||Sign|
|Ophthalmology Signs / Prolapsed third eyelid, protrusion nictitating membrane||Cattle & Buffaloes:All Stages||Sign|
|Reproductive Signs / Agalactia, decreased, absent milk production||Cattle & Buffaloes:Cow||Sign|
Disease CourseTop of page
The progress of the disease has been difficult to assess. Experimentally, cattle become seropositive for BIV by 2-4 weeks after infection (Venables et al., 1997; Scobie et al., 1999) and maintain an antibody response to the major proteins of the virus for longer than 2 years, although antibody to the Gag proteins has been demonstrated to decline within this period (Isaacson et al., 1995). Long term persistence does not appear to result in selection pressure and emergence of new serological strains of virus. Proviral DNA has also been detected by PCR at these early stages (Suarez et al., 1995; Venables et al., 1997; Suarez and Whetstone, 1998).
Observations of the development of clinical disease have varied between workers and the pathogenicity of BIV remains controversial. Many varying signs have been recorded which are not consistent. The most common reported signs are lymphadenopathy, weakness and emaciation. Generalised lameness and ataxia have also been evident (Snider et al., 1997; Munro et al., 1998) and some workers have reported a fall in milk yield (McNab et al., 1994). However, most animals found to be seropositive for BIV have no clinical signs.
In experimentally infected animals, there is some evidence of abnormal behaviour and aggression, which has not been reported for naturally infected cattle. Signs also appear to vary between individual cattle with some demonstrating hyperactivity while others becoming dull and listless.
The potential for BIV to dysregulate the immune system has been widely recognised, but again conclusive evidence of this has yet to be established. Immunosuppression in cattle may result from exposure to a number of infectious or toxic agents. There has been suggestion that dual infection of bovine leukaemia virus (BLV), and BIV occurs (Hidalgo et al., 1995; St Cyr Coats, 1995), but reports from other sources have found no correlation with seropositivity of animals (Cockerell et al. 1992; Hirai et al., 1996). Liang et al. (1995) and Liu et al. (1997b) demonstrated that BVD and BHV respectively can result in the in vitro transactivation of BIV and a potential role for BIV in bovine paraplegic syndrome has also been suggested (Walder et al., 1995). Investigation of the co-operation between BIV and other widespread cattle viruses should be considered, to ensure that cattle infected with BIV do not present a significant risk to other cattle within a herd.
During outbreaks of common diseases of cattle including pneumonia, diarrhoea and abortion, farm animal clinicians may find it difficult to explain why some individuals are affected by disease while others are not, or why some individuals are much more severely affected than others. This is particularly the case when cattle are kept in the same environment and are often of similar genetic background. Cattle from herds with these particular problems should be screened to establish if BIV might be an underlying cause.
EpidemiologyTop of page
The viral life cycle follows the natural progression as described for HIV (reviewed by Gonda, 1994). Once infected, animals have a persistent and chronic lifelong infection; however, the period of development for natural infection is unclear.
How BIV is transmitted between animals has not been fully established although transmission is thought to be horizontal, as for the other lentiviruses. BIV proviral DNA has been detected in the blood and semen of experimentally infected bulls (Gradil et al., 1999) as determined by indirect immunofluorescent antibody (IFA) testing and/or PCR. Jacobs et al. (1998) found that 12.6% of bulls tested by PCR were positive as compared to only 9.6% when serology was used. Both studies demonstrate the presence of BIV in both blood and semen but do not prove that infectious virus was present or whether transmission can occur through breeding practices.
Scholl et al. (2000) demonstrated that transplacental BIV infection can occur between seropositive dams and their calves. The effect of prenatal BIV infection on the health of the neonates was not indicated. There is also a potential for lactogenic transmission as BIV has been isolated from leukocytes derived from milk (Nash et al., 1995). However this risk could be minimised by the inactivation of BIV in milk and colostrum before hand feeding to calves (Moore et al., 1996). One of the most likely methods of the spread of infection is iatrogenically by the mass inoculation of cattle with shared needles during multiple vaccinations. There is no evidence to support the probability that BIV present in vector hosts would lead to amplification or biological transmission.
Impact: EconomicTop of page
The economic importance of the bovine immunodeficiency virus cannot be truly assessed until the nature of the disease associated with BIV infection is understood. It is difficult to define whether the virus per se is significantly detrimental to cattle health or if it predisposes the animal to opportunistic infection with other cattle pathogens. Research into dual infection with other diseases such as BVD and BLV may provide information to answer these questions. The financial loss attributable to BIV infection is unknown.
Zoonoses and Food SafetyTop of page
There is no evidence to suggest that BIV presents a significant risk to man as infection has only been reported in Bos taurus. A number of laboratory workers exposed to the virus did not seroconvert (Whetstone et al., 1992).
Lentiviruses are heat labile; the virus is inactivated and rendered safe by the pasteurisation of milk (Venables et al., 1997), and by treatment at lower temperatures (Moore et al., 1996). MacDiarmid (1992) has suggested that BIV constitutes no threat to human health due to its inability to survive the processing and storage methods associated with trade and dairy products. No evidence of transfer of infection by human consumption of cattle products has been reported.
Disease TreatmentTop of page
Symptomatic treatment of secondary infections is the only treatment method available at present.
Prevention and ControlTop of page
It has been suggested that clinical disease can be associated with stress. Snider et al. (1997) monitored experimentally infected dairy and beef herds and suggested that clinical signs were more apparent in BIV infected dairy cattle than in beef cattle, possibly due to lower stress factors in beef cattle production. Some of the more common stress factors linked to disease appear to be temperature extremes, parturition, feeding practices and over-crowded housing. Unfortunately, modern farming methods make it difficult to eliminate these factors.
In cases where herds naturally infected with BIV have been identified, management deficiencies such as poor nutrition, inadequate housing and poor husbandry have been found (Snider et al., 1997). Improvements in cattle management can be monitored and farmers can be advised on animal welfare.
Restrictions on the import and export of BIV-infected cattle cannot be justified unless certain constraints are overcome. A sensitive and accurate diagnostic method would have to be in place, as would a state-run programme for the control and prevention of spread of the disease. Evidence from serological studies suggests that the prevalence in continental Europe and the UK is similar and that continuing movement of animals using current methods would not alter this status significantly.
Until a specific disease syndrome is associated with BIV infection, it is questionable whether the infection requires to be controlled. There are currently no methods to prevent infection and vaccine development has not been undertaken due to the lack of pathogenicity of the virus and its questionable economic impact on infected cattle.
ReferencesTop of page
Abed Y; Archambault D, 2000. A viral transmembrane recombinant protein-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the detection of bovine immunodeficiency virus infection [In Process Citation]. J. Virol. Methods, 85(1-2):109-16.
Abed Y; St-Laurent G; Zhang H; Jacobs RM; Archambault D, 1999. Development of a Western blot assay for detection of bovine immunodeficiency-like virus using capsid and transmembrane envelope proteins expressed from recombinant baculovirus. Clin. Diagn. Lab. Immunol., 6(2):168-72.
Amborski GC; Lo JL; Seger CL, 1989. Serological detection of multiple retroviral infections in cattle: bovine leukemia virus, bovine syncytial virus and bovine visna virus. Veterinary Microbiology, 20(3):247-253; 24 ref.
Battles JK; Hu MY; Rasmussen L; Tobin GJ; Gonda MA, 1992. Immunological characterization of the gag gene products of bovine immunodeficiency virus. J. Virol., 66(12):6868-77.
Bazargani TT; Tooloei M; Broujeni GN; Garagozlo MJ; Bokaei S; Khormali M; Barjaste N, 2010. The first survey on the status of the bovine immunodeficiency virus infection and associated clinical, pathological, haematological and flow cytometric findings in Holstein cattle in Iran. Journal of Veterinary Research, 65(1):Pe1-Pe11, En77.
Bhatia S; Rakhi Gangil; Gupta DS; Richa Sood; Pradhan HK; Dubey SC, 2010. Single-chain fragment variable antibody against the capsid protein of bovine immunodeficiency virus and its use in ELISA. Journal of Virological Methods, 167(1):68-73. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01660934
Bhatia S; Richa Sood; Bhatia AK; Pattnaik B; Pradhan HK, 2008. Development of a capsid based competitive inhibition enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for detection of bovine immunodeficiency virus antibodies in cattle and buffalo serum. Journal of Virological Methods, 148(1/2):218-225. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal01660934
Carpenter S; Miller LD; Alexandersen S; Whetstone CA; Maaten MJvan der; Viuff B; Wannemuehler Y; Miller JM; Roth JA, 1992. Characterization of early pathogenic effects after experimental infection of calves with bovine immunodeficiency-like virus. Journal of Virology, 66(2):1074-1083; 44 ref.
Cavirani S; Donofrio G; Chiocco D; Foni E; Martelli P; Allegri G; Cabassi CS; Iaco Bde; Flammini CF, 1998. Seroprevalence to bovine immunodeficiency virus and lack of association with leukocyte counts in Italian dairy cattle. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 37(1/4):147-157; 35 ref.
Chadwick BJ; Coelen RJ; Wilcox GE; Sammels LM; Kertayadnya G, 1995. Nucleotide sequence analysis of Jembrana disease virus: a bovine lentivirus associated with an acute disease syndrome. Journal of General Virology, 76(7):1637-1650; 50 ref.
Chen L; Frankel AD, 1994. An RNA-binding peptide from bovine immunodeficiency virus tat protein recognizes an unusual RNA structure. Biochemistry (USA), 33:2708-15.
Cho KO; Meas S; Park NY; Kim YH; Lim YK; Endoh D; Lee SI; Ohashi K; Sugimoto C; Onuma M, 1999. Seroprevalence of bovine immunodeficiency virus in dairy and beef cattle herds in Korea. J. Vet. Med. Sci., 61(5):549-51.
Cockerell GL; Jensen WA; Rovnak J; Ennis WH; Gonda MA, 1992. Seroprevalence of bovine immunodeficiency-like virus and bovine leukemia virus in a dairy cattle herd. Veterinary Microbiology, 31(2-3):109-116; 15 ref.
Evermann JF; Jackson MK, 1997. Laboratory diagnostic tests for retroviral infections in dairy and beef cattle. Veterinary Clinics of North America, Food Animal Practice, 13(1):87-106; 105 ref.
Flaming K; Maaten Mvan der; Whetstone C; Carpenter S; Frank D; Roth J, 1993. Effect of bovine immunodeficiency-like virus infection on immune function in experimentally infected cattle. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology, 36(2):91-105; 41 ref.
Fong SE; Greenwood JD; Williamson JC; Derse D; Pallansch LA; Copeland T; Rasmussen L; Mentzer A; Nagashima K; Tobin G; et al, 1997. Bovine immunodeficiency virus tat gene: cloning of two distinct cDNAs and identification, characterization, and immunolocalization of the tat gene products. Virology, 233(2):339-57.
Garvey KJ; Obserste MS; Elser JE; Braun MJ; Gonda MA, 1990. Nucleotide sequence and genome organization of biologically active proviruses of the bovine immunodeficiency-like virus. Virology (New York), 175(2):391-409; 89 ref.
Gonda MA, 1992. Bovine Immunodeficiency Virus (editorial). AIDS, 6:759-776.
Gonda MA, 1994. The lentiviruses of cattle. The retroviridae: Volume 3, No.:83-109; 100 ref.
Gonda MA; Braun MJ; Carter SG; Kost TA; Bess JWJr; Arthur LO; Maaten MJvan der, 1987. Characterization and molecular cloning of a bovine lentivirus related to human immunodeficiency virus. Nature (London), 330(6146):388-391; 29 ref.
Gonda MA; Luther DG; Fong SE; Tobin GJ, 1994. Bovine immunodeficiency virus: molecular biology and virus-host interactions. Virus Research, 32(2):155-181; 99 ref.
González ET; Licursi M; Vila Roza V; Bonzo E; Mortola E; Frossard JP; Venables C, 2008. Evidence of bovine immunodeficiency virus (BIV) infection: serological survey in Argentina. Research in Veterinary Science, 85(2):353-358. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00345288
Gradil CM; Watson RE; Renshaw RW; Gilbert RO; Dubovi EJ, 1999. Detection of bovine immunodeficiency virus DNA in the blood and semen of experimentally infected bulls. Veterinary Microbiology, 70(1/2):21-31; 26 ref.
Hidalgo G; Flores M; Bonilla JA, 1995. Detection and isolation of bovine immunodeficiency-like virus (BIV) in dairy herds of Costa Rica. Journal of Veterinary Medicine. Series B, 42(3):155-161; 35 ref.
Hirai N; Kabeya H; Ohashi K; Sugimoto C; Onuma M, 1996. Detection of antibodies against bovine immunodeficiency-like virus in dairy cattle in Hokkaido. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science, 58(5):455-457; 21 ref.
Horner GW, 1991. Serological evidence of bovine immunodeficiency-like virus and bovine syncytial virus in New Zealand. Surveillance (Wellington), 18(2):9; 10 ref.
Horzinek M; Keldermans L; Stuurman T; Black J; Herrewegh A; Sillekens P; Koolen M, 1991. Bovine immunodeficiency virus: immunochemical characterization and serological survey. Journal of General Virology, 72(12):2923-2928; 11 ref.
Isaacson JA; Roth JA; Wood C; Carpenter S, 1995. Loss of Gag-specific antibody reactivity in cattle experimentally infected with bovine immunodeficiency-like virus. Viral Immunol., 8(1):27-36.
Jacobs RM; Jefferson BJ; Suarez DL, 1998. Prevalence of bovine immunodeficiency-like virus in bulls as determined by serology and proviral detection. Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research, 62(3):231-233; 29 ref.
Jacobs RM; McCutcheon LJ; Valli VEO; Smith HE, 1996. Histopathological changes in the lymphoid tissues of sheep exposed to the bovine immunodeficiency-like virus. Journal of Comparative Pathology, 114(1):23-30; 30 ref.
Jacobs RM; Pollari FL; McNab WB; Jefferson B, 1995. A serological survey of bovine syncytial virus in Ontario: associations with bovine leukemia and immunodeficiency-like viruses, production records, and management practices. Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research, 59(4):271-278; 54 ref.
Kalvatchev Z; Walder R; Perez F; Garzaro D; Barrios M, 1998. Infection of rabbits with R29 strain of bovine immunodeficiency virus: virulence, immunosuppression, and progressive mesenteric lymphadenopathy. Viral Immunol., 11(3):159-166.
Kertayadnya G; Wilcox GE; Soeharsono S; Hartaningsih N; Coelen RJ; Cook RD; Collins ME; Brownlie J, 1993. Characteristics of a retrovirus associated with Jembrana disease in Bali cattle. Journal of General Virology, 74(9):1765-1773.
Lew AE; Bock RE; Miles J; Cuttell LB; Steer P; Nadin-Davis SA, 2004. Sensitive and specific detection of bovine immunodeficiency virus and bovine syncytial virus by 5’ Taq nuclease assays with fluorescent 3’ minor groove binder-DNA probes. Journal of Virological Methods, 116(1):1-9.
Liang Chen; Geng Yunqi; Wood C, 1995. Transactivation of bovine immunodeficiency virus LTR by the expression of bovine herpesvirus 1 immediate early gene BICPO protein. Chinese Journal of Virology, 11(2):144-150; 16 ref.
Liu Shuhong; Chen HeXin; Chen JiaTong; Chen QiMin; Geng YunQi; Qin ZhenKui; Zhao XiangPing; Hou YanMei; Zeng Yi; Liu SH; et al, 1997. Isolation and identification of a BIV (bovine immunodeficiency virus) isolate 92044. Chinese Journal of Virology, 13(4):357-364.
Liu Shuhong; Chen QiMin; Geng YungQi; Wood C, 1997b. Transactivation of bovine immunodeficiency virus by bovine diarrhoea virus. Chinese Journal of Virology, 13(3):229-234.
Maaten MJ van der; Boothe AD; Seger CL, 1972. Isolation of virus from cattle with a persistent lymphocytosis. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 49:1649-1657.
McNab T; Desport M; Tenaya WM; Nining Hartaningsih; Wilcox GE, 2010. Bovine immunodeficiency virus produces a transient viraemic phase soon after infection in Bos javanicus. Veterinary Microbiology, 141(3/4):216-223. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03781135
McNab WB; Jacobs RM; Smith HE, 1994. A serological survey for bovine immunodeficiency-like virus in Ontario dairy cattle and associations between test results, production records and management practices. Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research, 58(1):36-41; 15 ref.
Meas S; Kabeya H; Yoshihara S; Ohashi K; Matsuki S; Mikami Y; Sugimoto C; Onuma M, 1998. Seroprevalence and field isolation of bovine immunodeficiency virus. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science, 60(11):1195-1202; 31 ref.
Meas S; Seto J; Sugimoto C; Bakhsh M; Riaz M; Sato T; Naeem K; Ohashi K; Onuma M, 2000. Infection of bovine immunodeficiency virus and bovine leukemia virus in water buffalo and cattle populations in Pakistan [In Process Citation]. J. Vet. Med. Sci., 62(3):329-331.
Munro R; Lysons R; Venables C; Horigan M; Jeffrey M; Dawson M, 1998. Lymphadenopathy and non-suppurative meningo-encephalitis in calves experimentally infected with bovine immunodeficiency-like virus (FL112). Journal of Comparative Pathology, 119(2):121-134; 10 ref.
Nash JW; Hanson LA; Coats KStCyr, 1995. Detection of bovine immunodeficiency virus in blood and milk-derived leukocytes by use of polymerase chain reaction. American Journal of Veterinary Research, 56(4):445-449; 26 ref.
Oberste MS; Greenwood JD; Gonda MA, 1991. Analysis of the transcription pattern and mapping of the putative rev and env splice junctions of bovine immunodeficiency-like virus. Journal of Virology, 65(7):3932-3937; 44 ref.
Onuma M; Koomoto E; Furuyama H; Yasutomi Y; Taniyama H; Iwai H; Kawakami Y, 1992. Infection and dysfunction of monocytes induced by experimental inoculation of calves with bovine immunodeficiency-like virus. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 5:1009-1015.
Orr KA; O'Reilly KL; Scholl DT, 2003. Estimation of sensitivity and specificity of two diagnostics tests for bovine immunodeficiency virus using Bayesian techniques. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 61(2):79-89.
Pifat DY; Ennis WH; Ward JM; Oberste MS; Gonda MA, 1992. Persistent infection of rabbits with bovine immunodeficiency-like virus. J. Virol., 66(7):4518-4524.
Polack B; Schwartz I; Berthelemy M; Belloc C; Manet G; Vuillaume A; Baron T; Gonda MA; Lévy D, 1996. Serologic evidence for bovine immunodeficiency virus infection in France. Veterinary Microbiology, 48(1/2):165-173; 32 ref.
Scholl DT; Truax RE; Baptista JM; Ingawa K; Orr KA; O'Reilly KL; Jenny BF, 2000. Natural transplacental infection of dairy calves with bovine immunodeficiency virus and estimation of effect on neonatal health. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 43(4):239-252; 26 ref.
Scobie L; Venables C; Hughes K; Dawson M; Jarrett O, 1999. The antibody response of cattle infected with bovine immunodeficiency virus to peptides of the viral transmembrane protein. Journal of General Virology, 80(1):237-243; 25 ref.
Snider TG; Hoyt PG; Jenny BF; StCyr Coats K; Luther DG; Storts RW; Battles JK; Gonda MA, 1997. Natural and experimental bovine immunodeficiency virus infection in cattle. Veterinary Clinics of North America, Food Animal Practice, 13(1):151-176; 94 ref.
Snider TG; Luther DG; Jenny BF; Hoyt PG; Battles JK; Ennis WH; Balady J; Blas-Machado U; Lemarchand TX; Gonda MA, 1996. Encephalitis, lymphoid tissue depletion and secondary diseases associated with bovine immunodeficiency virus in a dairy herd. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis., 19(2):117-131.
St Cyr Coats K; Pruett SB; Nash JW; Cooper CR, 1994. Bovine immunodeficiency virus: Incidence of infection in Mississippi dairy cattle. Veterinary Microbiology, 42:181-189.
Suarez DL; Maaten MJvan der; Whetstone CA, 1995. Improved early and long-term detection of bovine lentivirus by a nested polymerase chain reaction test in experimentally infected calves. American Journal of Veterinary Research, 56(5):579-586; 31 ref.
Suarez DL; Whetstone CA, 1998. PCR diagnosis of the bovine immunodeficiency-like virus. PCR in bioanalysis., 67-79; 25 ref.
Tobin GJ; Sowder RC; Fabris D; Hu MY; Battles JK; Fenselau C; Henderson LE; Gonda MA, 1994. Amino acid sequence analysis of the proteolytic cleavage products of the bovine immunodeficiency virus Gag precursor polypeptide. J. Virol., 68(11):7620-7627.
Usui T; Meas S; Konnai S; Ohashi K; Onuma M, 2003. Seroprevalence of bovine immunodeficiency virus and bovine leukemia virus in dairy and beef cattle in Hokkaido. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science, 65(2):287-289.
Walder R; Kalvatchev Z; Tobin GJ; Barrios MN; Garzaro DJ; Gonda MA, 1995. Possible role of bovine immunodeficiency virus in bovine paraplegic syndrome: evidence from immunochemical, virological and seroprevalence studies. Research in Virology, 146(5):313-323; 25 ref.
Whetstone CA; Maaten MJ van der; Black JW, 1990. Humoral immune response to the bovine immunodeficiency-like virus in experimentally and naturally infected cattle. Journal of Virology, 64:3557-3561.
Whetstone CA; Maaten MJ van der; Miller JM, 1991. A western blot assay for the detection of antibodies to bovine immunodeficiency-like virus in experimentally inoculated cattle, sheep, and goats. Arch. Virol., 116(1-4):119-131.
Whetstone CA; Sayre KR; Dock NL; Maaten MJ van der; Miller JM; Lillehoj E; Alexander SS, 1992. Examination of whether persistently indeterminate human immunodeficiency virus type 1 Western immunoblot reactions are due to serological reactivity with bovine immunodeficiency-like virus. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 30:764-770.
Whetstone CA; Suarez DL; Miller JM; Pesch BA; Harp JA, 1997. Bovine lentivirus induces early transient B-cell proliferation in experimentally inoculated cattle and appears to be pantropic. Journal of Virology, 71(1):640-644; 28 ref.
Yilmaz Z; Yesilbag K, 2008. Clinical and haematological findings in bovine immunodeficiency virus (BIV) infected cattle. Turkish Journal of Veterinary & Animal Sciences, 32(3):207-214. http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/veterinary/
Zhang S; Xue W; Wood C; Chen Q; Kapil S; Minocha HC, 1997b. Detection of bovine immunodeficiency virus antibodies in cattle by western blot assay with recombinant gag protein. J. Vet. Diagn. Invest., 9(4):347-351.
Zhang ShuCheng; Troyer DL; Kapil S; Zheng Ling; Kennedy G; Weiss M; Xue WenZhi; Wood C; Minocha HC, 1997. Detection of proviral DNA of bovine immunodeficiency virus in bovine tissues by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and PCR in situ hybridization. Virology (New York), 236(2):249-257; 41 ref.
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/