A New Approach for Monitoring Ebolavirus in Wild Great Apes
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases·
- DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003143
- PMID
- 25232832
- PMCID
- PMC4169258
- OpenAlex
- W1967361543
- Study type
- Journal article
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Article type
- journal-article
- Integrity
- current
Why this research matters now
The abstract describes possible public health relevance because identifying outbreaks in great apes may help characterize situations involving contact with infected wildlife carcasses. It also states that such detection could affect local communities where Ebola virus disease has high reported case-fatality rates, but the supplied evidence does not measure a public health effect.
Structured evidence summary
Research question
The study evaluated whether antibodies to Ebola virus could be detected noninvasively in wild ape feces, with applications to identifying exposure, geographic distribution, immunologically unexposed populations, and evidence of survival after exposure.
Study design
The article reports development and application of a noninvasive antibody-detection approach using fecal samples from wild apes. The abstract does not provide enough detail to characterize sampling procedures, assay validation, or comparison groups beyond the reported gorilla observations.
Population and setting
The evidence concerns wild great apes, including gorillas, in Central Africa. The supplied abstract does not specify the complete geographic sampling frame or the number and characteristics of animals tested.
Main findings
Antibodies to Ebola virus were detected noninvasively in wild ape feces, with an average gorilla antibody prevalence reported as reaching 10%. Antibody evidence was also found in gorillas previously considered unexposed, indicating that exposure or infection was not uniformly fatal in the studied species.
Public-health relevance
The abstract describes possible public health relevance because identifying outbreaks in great apes may help characterize situations involving contact with infected wildlife carcasses. It also states that such detection could affect local communities where Ebola virus disease has high reported case-fatality rates, but the supplied evidence does not measure a public health effect.
Important limitations
The supplied evidence is limited to a single-article abstract and bibliographic metadata. The original paper is required to assess sampling representativeness, test performance, uncertainty around prevalence, and the basis for broader interpretation.
GIDS interpretation
The article is discoverable under Ebola, hemorrhagic fever, outbreak investigation, transmission dynamics, vaccination, and vaccine effectiveness topics. These classifications provide context for retrieval and review only; the supplied article does not confirm or characterize a current surveillance signal.
Related GIDS surveillance
Literature context does not validate, explain, or change a surveillance signal. Exact and contextual relationships are shown separately.
Evidence relationships
This article has 11 auditable classifier relationships to diseases, places, topics, and study design.