1. Introduction
The virome of pigs is not well studied [
1]. The virome is the total amount of viruses in and on the pig body and also includes the endogenous retroviruses as well as the bacteriophages infecting bacteria present in the pig organisms. Most common in healthy pigs are picornaviruses followed by circoviruses, adenoviruses, and parvoviruses [
2]. In the case of diarrhea the percentage of adenoviruses and circoviruses decreased and the percentage of anelloviruses and reoviruses increased [
2]. In diarrhoeic faeces samples from 27 Chinese pigs porcine bocavirus-2, a parvovirus, was found in 59 % of the animals, porcine bocavirus-4 (also a parvovirus) in 18%, Torque teno sus virus-2 (TTSuV-2, an anellovirus) in 7%, porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV, a coronavirus) in 70%, porcine stool associated circular virus (PoSCV, circovirus-like) in 7%, sapovirus (a calicivirus) in 33%, sapelovirus (a picornavirus) in 48%, torovirus (a coronavirus) in 33%, posavirus-1 (a picornavirus) in 40%, porcine astrovirus in 74%, coronavirus in 7%, porcine enterovirus-9 (a picornavirus) in 85%, picobirnavirus (PBV) in 15%, kobuvirus (a picornavirus) in 44% of the 27 animals [
3].
In a recent study in the United States, serum samples from healthy show pigs from the years 2018 or 2019 were analyzed by high-throughput sequencing to estimate the virome. Results demonstrated the presence of DNA viral families (Parvoviridae, Circoviridae, and Herpesviridae) and RNA families (Arteriviridae, Flaviviridae, and Retroviridae). Twenty-three viral species were identified, among them were important swine pathogens including porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV), atypical porcine pestivirus, and porcine circovirus (PCV) [
4]. The herpesvirus detected was PCMV/PRV, but only one contig. This underlines that next-generation sequencing (NGS) can detect known viruses but has an extremely limited sensitivity. When 36 pooled porcine nasal swabs and blood serum samples collected from both sides of the Dutch-German border region were evaluated, 46 different viral species were detected using viral targeted sequence capture (TSC), compared to 40 viral species with a shotgun metagenomics approach [
5]. In contrast, more sensitive methods such as PCR and real-time PCR can detect viruses even with a very low virus load [
1].
Studies on the prevalence of porcine viruses were stimulated by the rapid development of xenotransplantation using pig cells, tissues, and organs. Xenotransplantation is under development to alleviate the shortage of human donor organs for the treatment of organ failure. In the last years, remarkable survival times of pig xenotransplants in non-human primates were achieved. In 2022 and 2023 the first two pig hearts were transplanted into patients in Baltimore [
6,
7]. However, xenotransplantation may be associated with the transmission of porcine viruses which may be zoonotic or xenozoonotic. Viruses are zoonotic when they can cause a disease in healthy humans such as the hepatitis E virus (HEV). Viruses are xenozoonotic when they do not induce a disease in healthy humans but affect the recipient when transmitted with a xenotransplant such as PCMV/PRV [
8]. It was shown that the transmission of PCMV/PRV drastically reduced the survival time of pig xenotransplants in non-human primates [
9,
10]. PCMV/PRV was also transmitted to the first patient in Baltimore and probably contributed to his death [
6,
11]. To detect potentially zoonotic or xenozoonotic pig viruses, in many laboratories sensitive and specific detection methods were developed (for review see [
12,
13]). It became clear that for a successful detection of pig viruses not only sensitive and specific detection methods, either PCR-based or cell-based methods or immunological methods, are required. An entire detection system including sample generation, sample preparation, sample origin, time of sampling as well as negative and positive controls is important [
12,
13]. Using these detection systems, different minipigs such as the Auckland Island pigs [
14,
15], the Göttingen minipigs [
16,
17,
18,
19,
20,
21,
22], Göttingen minipigs with dippity pig syndrome (DPS) [
23], the Aachen minipigs [
24] and the Mini LEWE pigs [
25] as well as genetically modified pigs generated for xenotransplantation [
10,
26,
27,
28,
29,
30,
31], Greek pigs with erythema multiforme [
32] and wild boars [
33,
34] were analyzed.
Here, we analyzed the indigenous Greek black pigs (
Figure 1) using these methods. This breed is the only traditional indigenous pig breed reared in Greece. Most interestingly, it has its roots in ancient Greece. It is thought that these are the pigs from the Odyssey in the farm of Odysseus with his swineherd Eumaios [
35].
Most Greek organic pig farms are located in mountainous or semi-mountainous areas, which is why they don’t have a thick layer of fat like other types of pigs. They are resistant to weather conditions and diseases. Conventional pigs give birth to 12-14 piglets, whereas indigenous Greek black pigs give birth only up to seven. A conventional pig is utilized at the age of 5 months and weight of 110 kg, in contrast, an indigenous Greek black pig is slaughtered at
7–10 months of age, reaching a carcass weight of about 60 kg [
36,
37]. The animals give delicious pork meat and in some farms they are fed with olives. When the genetic diversity, based on microsatellite analysis, of the Greek black pig was investigated, its genetic uniqueness was demonstrated. Despite their low population size, they have a high degree of genetic variability, which will be useful for breeding programs aimed at maintaining the long-term survival of this ancient breed [
36,
37].
Twenty-one animals from 4 farms in Greece (
Figure 2) were analyzed using real-time PCR for PCMV/PRV, PCV2, PCV3, PCV4, PLHV-1, PLHV-2 and PLHV-3, as well as real-time RT-PCR for HEV. For the detection of PERV-C and PERV-A/C conventional PCRs were used. In addition, 11 animals from two farms were screened for antibodies against PCMV/PRV using a Western blot assay.
4. Discussion
In order to evaluate the potency of our improved detection methods developed for the effective screening of viruses potentially posing a risk for xenotransplantation, indigenous Greek black pigs were thoroughly screened. First of all, they were tested for PCMV/PRV, which had been shown to reduce the survival time of pig transplants in non-human primates significantly [
9,
10]. PCMV/PRV was also transmitted in the first transplantation of a pig heart into a patient in Baltimore [
6,
11]. Since the symptoms in the baboons with PCMV/PRV-positive transplants are like the symptoms in the Baltimore patient, the virus obviously contributed to the death of the patient. The real-time PCR developed by Mueller at al. [
38] was modified and performed as a duplex real-time PCR detecting simultaneously porcine GAPDH [
25]. Furthermore, gBlocks comprising the virus-specific oligosequences corresponding to the primers and probes were used as positive control and for the standard curves (
Supplementary Figures 1). Using this real-time PCR, we detected 16 positive animals out of 21 (76%). In Farm 4 all animals were infected and in this farm the animals with the highest virus load (ct values around 29) were found.
When sera from animals from Farms 1 and 4 were analyzed in a Western blot using a recombinant C-terminal fragment of gB of PCMV/PRV, all tested animals were reacting positive (
Figure 4). Some animals had a very faint reaction, e.g., animal D from farm 1 and animals A and G from farm 4. Animals D, E, and F from farm 4 had a very strong reaction. The result is comparable with a Western blot testing of animals from a German slaughterhouse [
48]. The R2 fragment was shown immunodominant in the gB protein [
48] and gave similar results when compared with an ELISA using synthetic peptides corresponding to the R2 sequence [
53,
54]. The assay was used repeatedly to determine the antibody response in different pig breeds [
31,
49].
When we started the investigation, we did expect a very low number of viruses due to the seclusion of the farms. However, the opposite was observed. This was a great advantage for our investigations because the detection methods can only be tested if viruses are present. Despite the high number of detected viruses, the animals were healthy (the samples were collected from the slaughterhouse).
PLHV-3 was found in all tested indigenous Greek black pigs. This is a similar prevalence compared with other investigations: When 5 pigs in each of 22 farms in Ireland were screened for PLHV, every farm harbored animals infected with PLHV-1 (55%) and 82% of farms scored positive for the presence of PLHV-2 and PLHV-3, respectively [
40]. PLHV-1 was the most prevalent of the three species, followed by PLHV-3 and PLHV-2. Coinfections with two or even three viruses were reported. Despite the high prevalence of these viruses, until now, no association between PLHVs and any pig diseases had been described [
55]. However, we recently described the finding of PLHV-3 in pigs with dippity pig syndrome [
23] and Greek pigs with erythema multiforme [
32]. Whether porcine lymphotropic herpesviruses, especially PLHV-3, pose a risk for xenotransplantation, is unclear. The transmission of PCMV/PRV to the progeny can easily be prevented by caesarean section, which is not the case with PLHV. In one study, piglets obtained by somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) and derived via caesarean section, were screened
Table 3.
Screening for pig viruses in liver of indigenous Greek black pigs (mean ct values).
Table 3.
Screening for pig viruses in liver of indigenous Greek black pigs (mean ct values).
Animal |
Age (months)
|
PCMV/PRV |
PLHV-1 |
PLHV -2
|
PLHV -3
|
PPV-1 |
PCV2 |
PCV3 |
PCV4 |
HEV |
PERV-C |
PERV-A/C |
|
Real-time PCR |
Real-time PCR |
Real-time PCR |
Real-time PCR |
Real-time PCR |
Real-time PCR |
Real-time PCR |
Real-time PCR |
Real-time RT-PCR |
PCR |
PCR |
|
|
Farm 1 |
1 |
8-9 |
n.d. |
33.75 |
33.31 |
28.49 |
n.d. |
31.1 |
n.d. |
n.d. |
n.d. |
+ |
- |
|
2 |
8-9 |
34.31 |
n.d. |
28.74 |
28.09 |
n.d. |
31.35 |
32.85 |
n.d. |
n.d. |
+ |
- |
|
3 |
8-9 |
n.d. |
n.d. |
27.33 |
34.24 |
n.d. |
30.35 |
n.d. |
n.d. |
n.d. |
- |
- |
|
4 |
8-9 |
33.49 |
n.d. |
27.55 |
26.72 |
n.d. |
27.58 |
34.02 |
n.d. |
n.d. |
+ |
- |
|
|
Farm 2 |
1 |
11-12 |
n.d. |
33.51 |
n.d. |
29.91 |
n.d. |
30.12 |
n.d. |
n.d. |
n.d. |
+ |
- |
|
2 |
11-12 |
33.56 |
32.87 |
n.d. |
22.74 |
n.d. |
32.43 |
n.d. |
n.d. |
n.d. |
- |
- |
|
3 |
11-12 |
34.92 |
32.33 |
30.57 |
33.8 |
n.d. |
34.52 |
25.17 |
n.d. |
n.d. |
+ |
- |
|
|
Farm 3 |
1 |
4 |
33.44 |
n.d. |
31.15 |
22.86 |
n.d. |
18.66 |
29.69 |
n.d. |
n.d. |
- |
- |
|
2 |
36 |
35.32 |
n.d. |
31.98 |
32.19 |
n.d. |
33.37 |
29.45 |
n.d. |
n.d. |
- |
- |
|
3 |
4 |
32.00 |
n.d. |
32.34 |
27.27 |
n.d. |
32.8 |
28.02 |
n.d. |
n.d. |
+ |
- |
|
4 |
4 |
31.94 |
28.99 |
27.04 |
36.44 |
n.d. |
23.54 |
n.d. |
n.d. |
n.d. |
- |
- |
|
5 |
5 |
n.d. |
33.46 |
n.d. |
31.8 |
n.d. |
34.51 |
n.d. |
n.d. |
n.d. |
+ |
- |
|
6 |
5 |
n.d. |
32.44 |
n.d. |
34.33 |
n.d. |
34.58 |
n.d. |
n.d. |
n.d. |
+ |
- |
|
|
Farm 4 |
1 |
10-11 |
29.94 |
33.98 |
15.69 |
24.24 |
n.d. |
28.99 |
n.d. |
n.d. |
n.d. |
- |
- |
|
2 |
10-11 |
29.8 |
28.23 |
25.58 |
24.54 |
n.d. |
29.98 |
n.d. |
n.d. |
n.d. |
- |
- |
|
3 |
10-11 |
29.42 |
30.22 |
n.d. |
31.52 |
n.d. |
21.69 |
n.d. |
n.d. |
n.d. |
+ |
- |
|
4 |
10-11 |
32.60 |
n.d. |
29.88 |
27.26 |
n.d. |
28.62 |
n.d. |
n.d. |
n.d. |
+ |
- |
|
5 |
10-11 |
32.47 |
n.d. |
28.43 |
20.98 |
n.d. |
31.14 |
n.d. |
n.d. |
n.d. |
- |
- |
|
6 |
10-11 |
30.21 |
31.38 |
28.85 |
22.51 |
n.d. |
26.1 |
n.d. |
n.d. |
n.d. |
- |
- |
|
7 |
10-11 |
31.41 |
29.74 |
n.d. |
31.79 |
n.d. |
23.02 |
n.d. |
n.d. |
n.d. |
+ |
- |
|
8 |
10-11 |
31.70 |
n.d. |
29.83 |
21.95 |
n.d. |
26.03 |
n.d. |
n.d. |
n.d. |
- |
- |
|
Table 4.
Comparison of the PCMV virus load in spleen and liver of four pigs in Farm 1.
Table 4.
Comparison of the PCMV virus load in spleen and liver of four pigs in Farm 1.
Animal |
Organ |
PCMV |
pGAPDH |
1 |
spleen |
n.d. |
19.10 |
liver |
n.d. |
19.72 |
2 |
spleen |
31.34 |
18.58 |
liver |
34.31 |
19.41 |
3 |
spleen |
n.d. |
19.57 |
liver |
n.d. |
19.89 |
4 |
spleen |
32.32 |
20.00 |
liver |
33.49 |
19.17 |
using real-time PCR methods. PLHV-3 was detected in five of nine and PLHV-2 in three of nine piglets [
56]. In a study transplanting pig kidneys and hearts into immunosuppressed baboons, all donor pigs carried PCMV/PRV, and 55% of them carried PLHV. PCMV was detected in all baboon recipients, but PLHV was not transmitted [
57]. PLHV was also not transmitted to baboons through the hearts of eight out of eight genetically modified pigs used for orthotopic pig heart transplantation which were all positive for PLHV-3 [
10]. As mentioned, PLHV-3 was also found in pigs suffering from dippity pig syndrome (DPS) [
23] and from erythema multiforme [
32]. However, it remains unclear whether the virus is involved in the corresponding pathogenesis.
Whereas all animals were positive for PCV2, only 6 animals were positive for PCV3 (
Table 3). PCV2 causes porcine circovirus-associated diseases (PCVAD) including subclinical infection (PCV-2-SI), systemic (PCV-2-SD) and reproductive (PCV-2-RD) diseases, and porcine dermatitis and nephropathy syndrome (PDNS) [
50,
58]. PCV2 was originally identified as the causative agent of Post-Weaning Multisystemic Wasting Syndrome (PMWS) and the respiratory form of PCV2 has been classified as PCV2-associated respiratory disease or PCV2-lung disease (PCV2-LD) [
59]. The situation with PCV3, which was also associated with pig diseases, was not clear from the beginning and it was thought that co-infections with other viruses were the reason for these diseases [
60]. PCV3 was found in tissues of animals displaying PDNS and reproductive disorders [
42]. However, meanwhile it is clear that cloned PCV3 can induce disease in specified pathogen-free (spf) pigs [
61,
62]. Therefore, is interesting that there are pigs infected with PCV3 without any clinical signs, suggesting that some pig breeds have also a genetic resilience protecting them from the pathogenic properties of PCV3.
PCV4 was described for the first time in China in 2019 [
63]. Recently the first detection of PCV4 in Europe, in Spain and in Italy, was reported [
64]. Notably, the prevalence of PCV4 was higher in wild boars compared with commercial pigs. The fact that the indigenous Greek black pigs are free from PCV4 demonstrates that the virus has not penetrated into remote Greek regions.
PPV-1 causes infectious infertility [
65]. Although this virus is ubiquitous among pigs throughout the world, all indigenous Greek black pigs were free of PPV-1 (
Table 3).
At present, HEV3 is the only virus with well-known zoonotic potential [
66,
67]; all indigenous Greek black pigs were free of HEV3 (
Table 3).
Whereas PERV-A and PERV-B are present in the genome of all pigs, PERV-C is not. 11 animals of the 21 tested indigenous Greek black pigs (52%) carried PERV-C in their genome. In some pig breeds even 100% of the animals carry PERV-C (for review see [
68]). A low prevalence of PERV-C was found in some farms in the USA (6% up to 41%) [
69], and in Chinese miniature pigs (30%) [
70,
71]. The presence of PERV-C opens the opportunity of a recombination with PERV-A. The resulting recombinant PERV-A/C was characterized by the ability to infect human cells with a high replication rate [
72]. PERV-A/C were never found in the germ line, supporting the fact that PERVs are active in living animals, can integrate de novo and recombine [
73]. All indigenous Greek black pigs tested were negative for PERV-A/C (
Table 3).
The fact that in all indigenous Greek black pigs so many viruses were found even though the animals were healthy, and the samples were taken at the slaughterhouse, is of great interest. It suggests that the animals have a natural resilience to virus infections, obviously they express many antiviral restriction factors protecting them. The situation seems to be similar to that in bats. Bats are recognized as important reservoirs of viruses deadly to other mammals, however, these viral infections are typically nonpathogenic in bats [
74]. For example, bats possess more tetherin genes – an antiviral protein, which prevents viral particles from escaping their host cell - than other mammals. Furthermore, some bats encode structurally unique tetherins [
75]. Another restriction factor, the tripartite motif-containing protein 5 (TRIM5) was found in multiple copies in bats and TRIM22 was often found duplicated in some bat species, an evolutionary phenomenon not yet observed in any other lineages of mammals [
76]. Other bat species possess the largest and most diverse array of APOBEC3 genes, another restriction factor, identified in any mammal reported to date [
77]. On the other hand, an excellent immune system may be the reason for the resilience of bats and all indigenous Greek black pigs [
78]. Possibly genetic markers could be associated with resistance to infectious diseases. Studies on Italian Large White pigs, wild boars and local breeds indicated that the frequency of the resistance-associated alleles for four polymorphisms was usually higher in local pig breeds, indirectly supporting a higher rusticity of autochthonous breeds than in commercial populations [
79]. In a study on indigenous Greek black pigs, the only local pig breed in Greece, it was shown, that this breeds can be the reservoir of interesting genetic variants. In these animals
a novel allele in the melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R) gene was identified, not previously reported in any other pig populations [
80]
. The novel allele leads to the production of different pigmentation. It was also shown that indigenous Greek black pigs
experienced genetic admixture from two sources, wild boars, and cosmopolitan breeds. This situation might raise concerns for the genetic integrity of this animal genetic resource, but on the other hand, this might contribute to within-population genetic variability reducing the problem of inbreeding of the small breed population.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, J.D.; methodology, H.J.; validation, H.J.; formal analysis, H.J.; investigation, H.J., L.K., V.P.; resources, V.P., G.P.; data curation, H.J., J.D.; writing—original draft preparation, J.D.; writing—review and editing, H.J., V.P., G.P., L.K., J.D., B.K.; visualization, H.J.; supervision, J.D.; project administration, J.D, B.K.; funding acquisition, J.D, B.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.