Submit a preprint


A Bayesian analysis of birth pulse effects on the probability of detecting Ebola virus in fruit batsuse asterix (*) to get italics
David R.J. Pleydell, Innocent Ndong Bass, Flaubert Auguste Mba Djondzo, Dowbiss Meta Djomsi, Charles Kouanfack, Martine Peeters, Julien Cappelle Please use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"
<p>Since 1976 various species of Ebolavirus have caused a series of zoonotic outbreaks and public health crises in Africa. Bats have long been hypothesised to function as important hosts for ebolavirus maintenance, however the transmission ecology for these viruses remains poorly understood. Several studies have demonstrated rapid seroconversion for ebolavirus antibodies in young bats, yet paradoxically few PCR studies have confirmed the identity of the circulating viral species causing these seroconversions. The current study presents an age-structured epidemiological model that characterises the effects of seasonal birth pulses on ebolavirus transmission within a colony of African straw-coloured fruit bats (<em>Eidolon helvum</em>). Bayesian calibration is performed using previously published serological data collected from Cameroon, and age-structure data from Ghana. The model predicts that annual birth pulses most likely give rise to annual outbreaks, although more complex dynamic patterns – including multi-annual cycles and skip years – may be possible. Weeks 30 to 31 of each year were estimated to be the most likely period for isolating the circulating virus in Cameroon. The probability that a previous PCR campaign failed to detect Ebola virus, assuming that it was circulating, was estimated to be one in two thousand. This raises questions such as (1) what can we actually learn from ebolavirus serology tests performed without positive controls? (2) are current PCR tests sufficiently sensitive? (3) are swab samples really appropriate for ebolavirus extraction? The current results provide important insights for the design of future field studies aiming to extract Ebola viruses from sylvatic hosts, and can contribute to risk assessments concerning the timing of zoonotic outbreaks.</p> should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https:// should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https:// should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://
age-structured model; Bayesian; bifurcation; birth pulse; chaos; dynamics; Ebola; epidemiology; fruit bat; maternal immunity; seasonality; skip year; recurrence plot; Eidolon helvum; bats; zoonoses
NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).
Animal diseases, Disease Ecology/Evolution, Ecohealth, Ecology of hosts, infectious agents, or vectors, Epidemiology, Population dynamics of hosts, infectious agents, or vectors, Reservoirs, Viruses, Zoonoses
Alison Peel, Raina Plowright, Olivier Restif, Cara Brook, David Hayman, Samuel Soubeyrand, Olivier Giminez, Samuel Alizon, Olivier Gimenez [] suggested: Clement Calenge <>, Olivier Gimenez [] suggested: Lucile Marescot <>, Olivier Restif [] suggested: Apologies for the late response. I was travelling and fell ill on the way back. I’m afraid I won’t have time to undertake this review as I catch up with my backlog of work. Suggestions of reviewers:, Olivier Restif [] suggested: - Dan Becker, Olivier Restif [] suggested: - Andrew Hoeghe, Olivier Restif [] suggested: - Amandine Gamble, Lucile Marescot [] suggested: (IZW Berlin), Lucile Marescot [] suggested: (IZW Berlin), Lucile Marescot [] suggested: (CEFE), Alexandre Courtiol [] suggested: Perhaps No need for them to be recommenders of PCIInfections. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct
e.g. John Doe []
2023-08-16 16:57:05
Aurelien Tellier