1. Introduction
Peste des petits ruminants (PPRV) is a febrile viral disease of small ruminants that primarily affects sheep and goats. The disease PPRV is caused by Small Ruminant’s
Morbillivirus that causes PPR belongs to the Paramyxoviridae family [
1]. PPRV is characterized by a high fever, conjunctivitis, mucopurulent ocular and nasal discharge, and respiratory mucosa erosions. Bronchopneumonia and diarrhea are fatal in severe cases [
2]. This virus has a morbidity and mortality rate of up to 100% [
3]. PPRV as initially thought to only affect small ruminant species, such as sheep and goats [
4]. However, camels, wildlife species, large ruminants, and unusual hosts have recently shown clinical and pathological signs of PPRV infection, seroconversion, genomic identification, and viral antigen detection [
5]. PPRV can potentially spread to new susceptible hosts from infected ones, such as wild animals, small ruminants, and even large ruminants [
6]. Camels are not the only animals that have been affected by the disease [
7]. According to Hosny and colleagues [
8] and others [
9], who investigated the recent deaths of camels in Sudan from a fatal respiratory disease that was traced to PPRV, the PPR virus is spreading to new hosts, although sheep and goats are the most common hosts for PPRV.
PPRV was previously discovered in the Ivory Coast [
10]. At present, the disease is prevalent in Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, and South-West Asia [
11]. PPRV first appeared in Faisalabad, Pakistan [
12], where 44% of sheep and 54% of goats were infected, as can be observed from the data collected from reported cases [
13,
14]. PPRV’s behavior is expected to evolve over time. The F.A.O. (Food and Agriculture Organization) plans to eradicate PPR by the year 2030. Pakistan loses PKR 20.5 billion (USD 0.24 billion) annually as a result of PPRV cases [
15,
16]. These outbreaks of PPRV are highly damaging to the economy; inflicting varying socio-economic impacts round the year.
A standardized panel of diagnostic assays were developed over the period of time to ensure specific diagnosis of the PPR virus infections. These include agar gel precipitation test (AGPT), virus neutralization test (VNT), enzyme immunoassay, and other antigen-detection-based methods were originally used to diagnose PPRV. Immune-capture ELISA (Ic-ELISA) for antigen detection and monoclonal-antibody-based cELISA for antibody determination purposes are used to diagnose PPRV [
6,
32,
40]. It is evident that successful diagnosis of diseases relies on the application of reliable diagnostic procedures.
As molecular biology has progressed over time, cutting-edge techniques, such as the reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) method, have been developed [
18,
19,
20]. The PPRV has six structural and two non-structural proteins and four lineages (I, II, III, and IV) based on N and F genes [
17]. Pakistani PPRV was included in the lineage IV category based on the F gene [
18]. Most national diagnostic laboratories use conventional RT-PCR techniques with the N-gene-specific primer set NP3/NP4 to diagnose PPRV [
18]. However, this primer set was designed using the sequence of vaccine strain Nigeria/75/1, which may not be applicable in the scenarios at present, as multiple lineages of the virus are spreading through single countries or regions, and the problem becomes more difficult to study when a low level of viral infection persists or during the deterioration of viral material during its transportation to laboratories [
35].
Heat-sensitive components of commercial kits can easily deteriorate in a tropical climate, such as the climate in Pakistan, resulting in kit spoilage. There is an increasing need in the field to develop an in-house IELISA kit that is cost effective and that may also serve as a suitable replacement for cELISA, due to the changes/mutations in the indigenous strains originating in Pakistan. Numerous laboratories and researchers have developed in-house IELISA kits since commercial kits are very expensive. In the past, a group of scientists developed a polyclonal-antibody-based IELISA kit, and their test results obtained for seroepidemiological studies correlated very well with those of an expensive, commercial cELISA kit [
21].
The current study was thus conducted have an insight into the molecular diagnosis of PPRV in the country, on basis of N-gene. The commercial cELISA kits though highly sensitive & specific, however, are cost prohibitive which undermine their potential use in routine serological analysis. Therefore, an efficient Indirect ELISA (IELISA) was developed to screen out the reactors. The effectiveness of the newly developed IELISA was then evaluated by comparing it to a commercial cELISA kit. Additionally, the phylogenic analysis we performed will aid in our understanding of disease spread. In Pakistan, small ruminant outbreaks continue to occur, necessitating further research into the molecular details of circulating field viruses.
4. Discussion
PPRV is the is the greatest obstacle to small ruminant productivity in endemic nations. Unchecked trade or illegal migration across borders can spread the disease to non-endemic regions. Due to how the disease affects the economy, its control and eradication are crucial. The F.A.O. and O.I.E. have agreed on a global action plan for the complete eradication of the disease by 2030 worldwide [
15,
33], which is the most effective method to control the severity of this disease, which causes considerable economic losses [
34].
Morbilliviruses are known for their high degree of genetic divergence. As PPRV has been prevailing in Pakistan since 1995 [
12]. The genetic viability of PPRV can lead to changes in the viral genome, that affect the target regions, recognized by primers used in RT-PCR assays. There are four distinct genetic lineages of PPRV (I, II, III and IV) circulating globally but in Asia only lineage IV is circulating. A previous study [
35] reported that PPR virus primer sets used for PPRV identification vary in sensitivity and specificity, and suggested that new primer sets might be required to assess the virus’s genetic diversity. Another study conducted by Nafea and colleagues in 2019 [
7] suggested the need for DIVA diagnostic tests and markers to distinguish between field wild-type and vaccine PPRV strains, since no DIVA tests are available in the research for PPRV detection purposes.
Two types of live-attenuated PPR vaccines provide lifelong immunity. The Nigeria/75/1 vaccine (lineage II) is used worldwide, while India used Sungri/96 (lineage IV). Despite progress, made in controlling the disease, the virus is often reported in new territories. Most outbreaks in the developing world go unreported and uninvestigated. It is well-established in the literature that the Nigeria/75/1 vaccination strain’s sequence served as the basis for the initial design of the NP3/NP4 primer combination [
18]. The ability of the PPRVs to adapt to new hosts and change the set of outbreak patterns is influenced by genetic variability as well as climate change. This has resulted in the creation of new viral strains that the existing primer sets might not detect. Also the transportation of clinical materials from the field to the testing laboratory under un appropriate conditions is critical to the outcome of test results, as viral antigen/RNA can deteriorate during the transportation process, making diagnosis difficult.
In developing countries, particularly in Africa and Asia, nearly every national laboratory has the capability to conduct reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). One of the advantages of RT-PCR is that it can detect the PPR virus in both clinical and subclinical infections. This makes it an important tool for the early detection and management of future outbreaks. It is worth noting that, in addition to being highly conserved, the nuclear capsid (N-protein) is also highly immunogenic [
36,
37]. The molecular characterization of circulating strains through phylogenetic analysis utilizing the N-gene is the most reliable method for determining the lineage genetics of novel strains [
37,
38]. This resource is vital for monitoring outbreaks in both PPRV-prone and endemic countries. Such information is helpful for estimating the risks in a herd and determining where and when PPRV spreads, because it exhibits the activity of different strains For the accurate detection of these different strains, new sets of primers that target the evolving regions of the viral genome may be required [
35]. The aim of the current study was to successfully characterize indigenous PPR virus isolates During the period 2020–2021, outbreak samples were collected from three designated areas and characterized using RT-PCR followed by N-gene-based analyses.
Nucleotide sequencing and phylogenetic analyses revealed that the PPRV isolates obtained during the period 2020–2021 from Pakistan, were clustered genetically within lineage-IV viruses. The phylogeny of N-gene revealed genetic diversity among PPRV isolates from other regions (FIG:4). Some degree of divergence also existed within the circulating isolates in Pakistan. The current Pakistani isolates show somewhat divergence from earlier Pakistani isolate. This N-gene-based analysis provides a better understanding of PPRV genetic characterization of circulating PPRV isolates.
Pakistani isolates are also segregated into two distinct sub clusters (FIG:4) The isolate KY967610 SRMV/Layyah/UVAS/Pak/2015 can be noticed, distinct from other Pakistani isolates and clustered with an isolate from Bangladesh. It is also evident from phylogenetic tree that PPRV isolates from current study, formed a distinct closely related sub cluster with a previous isolate, KY967609 SRMV/Faisalabad/UVAS/Pak/2015 from Pakistan. These findings would indicate that the N gene of Pakistan is under an evolutionary process [
41]. However, isolates from Turkey formed a separate branch under lineage IV [
41]. Similar findings were reported in several previous studies [
6,
36,
39]. The three sequenced isolates, from current study, were submitted in GenBank and have allocated accession numbers (MW600920, MW600921, and MW600922). These findings warrant additional molecular epidemiological research.
From our current investigation, one of the characterized indigenous PPRV virus isolates, having GenBank allocated accession number MW600922, was used as a coating antigen to develop an in-house -IELISA assay. We also compared the sensitivity and specificity factors of indirect IELISA and cELISA using a two-way contingency table.
Indirect IELISA, which performed much better than cELISA, presented 150 positives out of 176 serum samples (
Table 4). The 90.60% sensitivity and 85.23% specificity (
Table 4) rates are consistent with the results presented by Hosny and colleagues in their study [
8]. With IELISA, a large number of serum samples can be rapidly and affordably tested. Furthermore, duplicate serum samples (including positive and negative standards) were simultaneously added to three plates. No significant variation was observed in these plates. To assess the diagnostic efficacy of the IELISA assay, 325 serum samples were tested in parallel with the commercially available kit. The efficacy of IELISA was compared with a commercial kit employing all 325 serum samples. In seroepidemiological studies of PPR virus antibodies obtained from sheep and goats, it was determined that IELISA is superior to cELISA [
21]. The indirect IELISA described in this study was superior to cELISA for the seroepidemiological study of PPR virus antibodies in small ruminants. Maximum three consecutive blind passages on Vero cells were required to successfully isolate PPRV from field tissue samples; the virus was then identified by its characteristic cytopathic effects (CPE) (O.I.E., 2013) [
33]. According to Hosny and colleagues (2021) [
8], the PPRV virus is presently spreading to new hosts. Recently, camel deaths occurred in Sudan from a fatal respiratory disease that was traced back to PPRV; however, sheep and goats are the most common hosts for PPRV.
When detecting antibodies or antigens, ELISA is one of the most reliable immunological diagnostic tools currently available. Our assay presented 100% specificity when comparing IELISA to V.N.T., and 82.14% sensitivity (
Table 6). The results match those of [
21], which observed 100% specificity and 80% sensitivity values. The developed IELISA is a highly sensitive and specific assay, and it is also very easy to use. As shown in the contingency table (
Table 5), it is equally effective at detecting positive and negative samples, making it a viable alternative to an expensive commercial kit for seroepidemiological studies of large numbers of samples in the field.
Pakistan’s economy has been affected following the U.S. dollar exchange rate change. An increase of 1% in the exchange rate will cause an increase of almost 70% in the inflation rates as well, it can cause an increase of 68% in annual imports of Pakistan. Our findings show that IELISA is far more cost-effective than expensive commercial cELISA. The costs of the commercial cELISA kit reagents and IELISA assay developed in this study were compared for 92 samples (two tests/each were considered as positive and negative standards). The cost of the 92 samples we obtained was USD 7.81 (USD 0.21 × 92 reactions). For 92 reactions, commercially available cELISA kits cost USD 700–1100. Therefore, IELISA was significantly less expensive than the commercially available kit.
Therefore, IELISA could be a more cost-effective method in the long-term, if the relevant laboratory has a stable supply of reagents. Several factors were considered when comparing the cost of developed IELISA and commercially available cELISA kit for PPRV virus. Reagents, labor, time, and test accuracy were main factors. Depending on reagent availability, in-house IELISA may be cheaper, over time. Nevertheless, the choice between using IELISA and a commercial cELISA kit may entirely depend on the laboratory’s specific requirements and available resources.