Crystal ball 2020: viral discovery in the ‘realm’ of COVID ‐19
Crystal ball 2020: viral discovery in the ‘realm’ of COVID ‐19
复制标题
水晶球 2020：新冠病毒“领域”中的病毒发现 - 19
DOI：
10.1111/1758-2229.12912
复制
发表时间：
2020
影响因子：
3.3
通讯作者：
Vega Thurber, Rebecca
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bistolas, Kalia;Vega Thurber, Rebecca
当我们坐在旧金山机场航站楼，等待飞往我们现场的航班时，我们听到一名空乘人员的声音回响着：“所有乘客在登机前必须提供RT-qPCR阴性的COVID-19检测证明。”一年前，我们很难在美国主要机场的任何扬声器上听到这样的术语。但一年前，我们还没有处于大流行中期。当我们到达登机线的前面时，服务人员检查我们的证件，另一名工作人员扫描人群中是否有生病、出汗、咳嗽的人。在角落里，一个青少年正在阅读《纽约时报》上关于病毒复制的文章（Corum and Zimmer, 2020）。隔着几排，一个孩子正在教他的两只恐龙标本——它们都戴着小面具——如何适当地与自己保持距离。我们抵达法属波利尼西亚后，一群服务人员和生物安全人员向我们介绍了COVID-19是什么，SARS-CoV-2是如何传播的，以及如何自行进行诊断测试并将其送回当地的加工设施。这是病毒学的主流。对于任何目睹和描述动物流行病并听到野生动物、人类或两者中下一个主要新发传染病（EID）的许多预测的人来说（Ogden et al., 2017），这是一种超现实的经历。SARS-CoV-2的出现和传播是一个明确的（和清醒的）提醒，人类与野生动物的互动增加和栖息地的侵占不仅对野生动物的健康构成威胁，而且对我们自己的健康构成威胁。随着人类影响的扩大，这些潜在的威胁已经超越了陆地，通过我们消费的水产养殖、我们利用的水道和我们越来越多地遇到的生物，进入了水生生态系统（Cotruvo et al., 2013）。海洋生态系统内大规模死亡事件（MMEs）的规模和频率正在逐步升级，尽管通常不清楚这是由于更大的检测努力还是由于气候变化介导的污染和热应力等外部因素造成的（Fey等人，2015；Sanderson和Alexander， 2020）。海洋动物流行病出现的共同趋势包括：(i)宿主分布（例如通过土地利用、贸易、旅行或迁移的改变以及宿主密度的增加而使正常异域物种接近）或（ii）微生物表型（例如通过遗传适应改变传播性、致病性或宿主生态位）的变化（Daszak, 2000; Ogden et al., 2017）。在海洋哺乳动物中，最近的一项研究得出结论，72%的MMEs可能归因于病毒性病原体，这表明作为eid具有溢出和传播的独特属性，并反映了它们潜在的人畜共患威胁（Sanderson和Alexander， 2020）。这些病毒对水生群落的稳定、生物多样性、养护工作和水产养殖经济构成风险，而且似乎并非孤立于陆地生态系统之外。例如，麻疹病毒感染（如犬瘟热）从家养狗向鳍足类动物扩散的多个实例的证据表明，两种宿主的接近可能是一个因素，虫媒病毒的鉴定（如蚊子传播的托加病毒和鲸类动物中的黄病毒）可能表明病毒载体是由陆生无脊椎动物传播的，而一种疱疹病毒样MME在斑马鱼中的非典型传播（澳大利亚，1995 - 1998）表明海鸟参与其中(Lafferty和Harvell，2014年;Bossart and Duignan, 2018)。这次在沙丁鱼之间发生的动物流行病也显示了海洋病毒快速传播的能力（7个月传播5000公里），进一步推动了MMEs在水生生态系统中传播速度更快的假设(由于水比空气具有更高的连通性和更低的粒度……
As we sit six feet apart in the San Francisco airport terminal, waiting for a flight to our field site, we hear an attendant’s voice echoing,‘All passengers must provide proof of a negative RT-qPCR COVID-19 test prior to boarding the airplane’. A year ago, we would have been hardpressed to hear such terminology on any loudspeaker in a major US airport. But a year ago, we were not mid-pandemic. When we reach the front of the boarding line, the attendant checks our documentation as another scans the crowd for anyone looking ill, sweating, coughing. In the corner, a teenager reads about viral replication in the New York Times (Corum and Zimmer, 2020). Another few rows over, a child is teaching his two stuffed dinosaurs-both wearing tiny masks-how to properly distance themselves. After we land in French Polynesia, we are briefed by an army of attendants and biosafety agents on what COVID-19 is, how SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted, and how to self-administer a diagnostic test and return it to a local processing facility. This is virology gone mainstream. For anyone who has witnessed and characterized epizootics and heard the many predictions of the next major emerging infectious disease (EID) in wildlife, humans, or both (Ogden et al., 2017), this has been a surreal experience. The surfacing and spread of SARS-CoV-2 has been an explicit (and sobering) reminder that increased human interaction with wildlife and habitat encroachment pose a threat not only to wildlife health but our own. As human influence advances, these potential threats extend beyond the terrestrial and into aquatic ecosystems through the aquaculture we consume, the waterways we utilize, and the organisms we increasingly encounter (Cotruvo et al., 2013). The magnitude and frequency of mass mortality events (MMEs) within marine ecosystems are escalating incrementally, although it is often unclear if these are due to greater detection efforts or external factors such as pollution and thermal stress mediated by climate change (Fey et al., 2015; Sanderson and Alexander, 2020). Uniting trends in the emergence of marine epizootics have included changes in either (i) host distribution (eg the joined proximity of normally allopatric species through alterations in land use, trade, travel, or migration, and increases in host density) or (ii) microbial phenotype (eg change in transmissibility, pathogenicity, or host niche through genetic adaptation)(Daszak, 2000; Ogden et al., 2017). In marine mammals, a recent study concluded that 72% of MMEs were likely attributable to viral pathogens, indicating unique attributes for spillover and transmissibility as EIDs and reflecting their potential zoonotic threat (Sanderson and Alexander, 2020). These viruses pose risks to aquatic community stability, biodiversity, conservation efforts and aquaculture economy, and do not appear to be isolated from terrestrial ecosystems. For example, evidence of multiple instances of morbillivirus infection (eg canine distemper) spillover from domesticated dogs to pinnipeds suggest proximity of the two hosts may have played a factor, arbovirus identification (eg mosquito-borne togaviruses and flaviviruses in cetaceans) may be indicative of viral vectoring by terrestrial invertebrates, and the atypical spread of a herpesviruslike MME among pilchards (Australia, 1995–98) suggest involvement of seabirds (Lafferty and Harvell, 2014; Bossart and Duignan, 2018). This epizootic among pilchards also showed the ability of marine viruses to spread rapidly (5000 km in 7 months), further driving the hypothesis that MMEs may advance faster in aquatic ecosystems (due to water having a higher connectivity and lower granularity than air …