key: cord-0862860-lqcoivr1
authors: Pedersen, Niels C.; Liu, Hongwei; Durden, Monica; Lyons, Leslie A.
title: Natural resistance to experimental feline infectious peritonitis virus infection is decreased rather than increased by positive genetic selection
date: 2016-01-28
journal: Vet Immunol Immunopathol
DOI: 10.1016/j.vetimm.2016.01.002
sha: 265a64befc940ea017cb202810f17562c9a315fe
doc_id: 862860
cord_uid: lqcoivr1

A previous study demonstrated the existence of a natural resistance to feline infectious peritonitis virus (FIPV) among 36% of randomly bred laboratory cats. A genome wide association study (GWAS) on this population suggested that resistance was polygenic but failed to identify any strong specific associations. In order to enhance the power of GWAS or whole genome sequencing to identify strong genetic associations, a decision was made to positively select for resistance over three generations. The inbreeding experiment began with a genetically related parental (P) population consisting of three toms and four queens identified from among the survivors of the earlier study and belonging to a closely related subgroup (B). The subsequent effects of inbreeding were measured using 42 genome-wide STR markers. P generation cats produced 57 first filial (F1) kittens, only five of which (9.0%) demonstrated a natural resistance to FIPV infection. One of these five F1 survivors was then used to produce six F1/P-backcrosses kittens, only one of which proved resistant to FIP. Six of eight of the F1 and F1/P survivors succumbed to a secondary exposure 4–12 months later. Therefore, survival after both primary and secondary infection was decreased rather than increased by positive selection for resistance. The common genetic factor associated with this diminished resistance was a loss of heterozygosity.

Feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) is enzootic in virtually all multiple cat populations that involve either kitten production or housing (Pedersen, 2014) . Eighty percent of FIP cases occur in cats younger than two years and 50% in kittens under 7 months of age (Worthing et al., 2012) . The FIP virus (FIPV) is a result of a series of unique and common internally occurring mutations in the ubiquitous and largely non-pathogenic feline enteric coronavirus (FECV) (Pedersen, 2014; Pedersen et al., 2008) . FIP cases almost always occur as mini-enzootics, with the incidence in some catteries varying from 0 to 10% over five years (Foley et al., 1997) . Shelters suffer a similar pattern of disease. This variability in incidence reflects a complex web of potential risk factors. The strongest risk factors are: (1) severity of exposure to feline enteric coronavirus (FECV) (Foley et al., 1997) ; (2) the likelihood that FECV will undergo specific mutations that alter tropism from enterocytes to peritoneal macrophages (Pedersen, 2014) ; (3) maternal immunity to FECV infection (Pedersen et al., 2008) ; (4) the age at which a cat is confronted with FIPV ; (5) the type of environment, husbandry procedures, and exposure to other infectious agents (Foley et al., 1997; Pedersen et al., 1977 Pedersen et al., , 2004 Poland et al., 1996) , and (6) heritable predisposition (Foley et al., 1997; Golovko et al., 2013) .

The role of genetic factors in FIP resistance/susceptibility is based on both indirect and direct observations. Pedigreed cats are more likely to develop FIP than random-bred cats and certain breeds are also more severely affected than others (Bell et al., 2006; Norris et al., 2012; Pesteanu-Somogyi et al., 2006; Worthing et al., 2012) . Heritability accounted for 50% of the incidence among Persian catteries that were studied over a five year period (Foley et al., 1997) . Genome wide association studies (GWAS) confirmed that genetic susceptibility to FIP in Birman cats was highly polymorphic and genetic associations varied depending on the age of cats tested (Golovko et al., 2013) . A recent study also found that 36% of laboratory cats from a specific breeding colony were also naturally resistant to FIPV infection, although GWAS was again unable to identify strong genetic associations . The present study was an offshoot of earlier experiments with FIPV infection among randomly bred laboratory cats . Because of difficulties in collecting sufficient DNA samples from the field, a decision was made to enhance the likelihood of identifying FIP protective genotypes by inbreeding FIPV resistant cats resulting from previous laboratory studies. Although immunity to infectious diseases in humans is polygenic, specific polymorphisms associated with risk have been identified for a number of important infections (Chapman and Hill, 2012) . The basic premise was that if resistance traits were of limited number and of sufficient strength that it should be possible to concentrate these genotypes by positive selection, making it easier to define them by GWAS or whole genome sequencing. The expectation was that inbreeding FIPV resistant cats would further decrease mortality in their kittens.

Feline coronavirus free randomly bred, cats used for this study were obtained from the breeding colony of the Feline Nutrition and Pet Care Center and housed in their Feline Research Laboratory. All animal experiments were in compliance with relevant regulatory standards as documented in UC Davis IACUC protocols #16988 and #18215.

Sixty three kittens 6 months of age were experimentally infected with FIPV by the intraperitoneal route. The origins of Type I FIPV-m3c2 and the preparation of cell-free infectious inoculates have been published (Pedersen et al., 2012 . Affected cats were either euthanized with an intravenous overdose of pentobarbital and phenytoin sodium or transferred to an antiviral drug treatment protocol (Kim et al., 2015) when clinical and laboratory signs indicated that their infection would be inevitably fatal, usually within 3-4 weeks of exposure (Pedersen et al., 2015) .

The genetic relationship of cats from the P, F1 and F1/P backcross generations was confirmed by using allele frequencies obtained from 42 microsatellites across the cat genome (Menotti-Raymond et al., 2003 , 2009 . Genotyping was conducted by the Veterinary Genetics Laboratory, UC Davis, and data were analyzed using STR and analysis software (Toonen and Hughes, 2002) . Population genetic and principal coordinate analyses (PCoA) were conducted using GenAIEX 6.5 (Peakall and Smouse, 2012) . The results of genome wide association studies (GWAS) and multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) were described in an earlier publication .

Seventy seven of 111 cats described in an earlier study were susceptible to FIPV infection and 34 were resistant; DNA from 107 of these cats was assessed by GWAS and MDS as previously reported . The cats were differentiated into three genetically distinct subpopulations labeled A-C when examined by MDS (Fig. 1) . The 34 cats that resisted FIPV challenge-exposure were randomly segregated among the three subpopulations (Fig. 1) .

Population B formed the largest and tightest cluster and three toms and four queens were selected from among this group to create a parental (P) generation. These seven cats produced 57 F1 kittens between them (Table 1) . One F1 female (12-4A) was bred once with her father (11-166) and once with a full brother of the father (11-225) to produced six F1/P-backcross kittens ( Table 1) . The breeding program was terminated at this point based on the results of subsequent FIPV challenge-exposures. Table 2 provides a genetic assessment of the P, F1 and F1/P backcross populations based on a panel of 42 STR loci. The average alleles/locus (Aa) and the average effective alleles/locus (Ae) remained the same in the P and F1 cats, but decreased in the F1/P backcrosses. Observed heterozygosity (Ho) decreased from the P to F1/P generations, reflecting the inbreeding. An increase in genome-wide homozygosity based on alleles at each of 42 genome-wide STR loci was also observed between the P and F1/P backcross generations (Table 3) .

Fifty seven F1 kittens were produced and 52 (91%) developed terminal signs of FIP by 3-4 weeks post-infection. Five of six (83%) F1/P-backcross kittens also developed terminal FIP upon primary exposure ( Table 2 ). The mortality among F1 and F1/P backcross cats to primary FIPV challenge exposure was significantly higher than the 21/34 (62%) mortality among B group cats that received a primary challenge-exposure at a similar age (P = 0.0011, two-tailed Fisher's exact test).

Eight cats from the F1 and F1/P generations were re-challenged with FIPV 4-12 months after resisting primary infection and 6/8 (75%) succumbed to FIP. This mortality was higher than that observed following secondary challenge-exposure of group B cats that survived primary infection (4/13 = 31%), although the difference was significant only at P = 0.08 (two tailed Fisher's exact test).

The present study was based on the assumption that resistance factors to FIPV infection in this particular colony of laboratory cats would be amenable to positive selection, thus yielding a small colony of inbred cats that would be much more resistant to FIPV than their parents and grandparents. These inbred cats would emphasize regions of the genome involved in FIPV resistance, a situation used to great advantage to identify both simple and polygenic traits in highly inbred breeds of dogs (Hedrick and Andersson, 2011; Ostrander et al., 2008) . The outcome of the breeding study confounded these expectations and actually led to F1 and F1/P backcross kittens that appeared to be significantly more susceptible to experimental FIPV infection than their progenitors, both to primary and secondary challenge-exposures.

The only apparent genetic association with decreased resistance was a loss of heterozygosity. The effect of lost heterozygosity can be best explained by models of autoimmune and infectious diseases in humans (Barreiro and Quintana-Murci, 2010; Goris and Liston, 2012) . These models implicate numerous genetic polymorphisms within the MHC and other parts of the genome. Each polymorphism contributes small degrees of genetic risk or protection against disease that is often below the level of detectability by GWAS, and with no single risk factor being essential. A number of different polymorphisms may also lead to the same clinical outcome. In this scenario, a loss of genetic diversity could actually decrease the number of resistance-associated options available to the host.

What are the observations among pedigreed cats that implicate a loss of heterozygosity in FIP resistance or susceptibility? Unfortunately, no one has directly studied the relationship between FIP incidence and inbreeding, although a number of cat breeds are known to be highly inbred (Lyons et al., 2008) and some breeds appear to be more susceptible to FIP than others (Bell et al., 2006; Norris et al., 2012; Pesteanu-Somogyi et al., 2006; Worthing et al., 2012) . The use of certain sires has been linked to a higher incidence of FIP among their offspring , not because the susceptibility traits are carried only in toms, but because a single tom produces far more offspring than a single queen. Multiple cases of FIP within the same litter are frequently observed. Therefore, the results of this study confirm both the genetic complexity of FIPV resistance and the widely recommended practice of avoiding the use of cats with progeny dying of FIP for breeding programs in pedigreed catteries.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

From evolutionary genetics to human immunology: how selection shapes host defence genes

The relationship between the feline coronavirus antibody titre and the age breed, gender and health status of Australian cats

Human genetic susceptibility to infectious disease

The inheritance of susceptibility to feline infectious peritonitis in purebred catteries

Risk factors for feline infectious peritonitis among cats in multiple-cat environments with endemic feline enteric coronavirus

Genetic susceptibility to feline infectious peritonitis in Birman cats

The immunogenetic architecture of autoimmune disease

Are dogs genetically special?

Broad-spectrum inhibitors against 3C-like proteases of feline coronaviruses and feline caliciviruses

Radiation hybrid mapping of 304 novel microsatellites in the domestic cat genome

An autosomal genetic linkage map of the domestic cat

Clinicopathological findings associated with feline infectious peritonitis in Sydney Australia: 42 cases

Canine genetics facilitates understanding of human biology

GenAlEx 6.5: genetic analysis in Excel Population genetic software for teaching and research-an update

Studies of naturally transmitted feline leukemia virus infection

Common virus infections in cats, before and after being placed in shelters, with emphasis on feline enteric coronavirus

Pathogenesis of feline enteric coronavirus infection

Feline infectious peritonitis: role of the feline coronavirus 3c gene in intestinal tropism and pathogenicity based upon isolates from resident and adopted shelter cats

An update on feline infectious peritonitis: virology and imunopathogenesis

The influence of age and genetics on natural resistance to experimentally induced feline infectious peritonitis

Levels of feline infectious peritonitis virus in blood effusions, and various tissues and the role of lymphopenia in disease outcome following experimental infection

Prevalence of feline infectious peritonitis in specific cat breeds

Two related strains of feline infectious peritonitis virus isolated from immunocompromised cats infected with a feline enteric coronavirus

Increased throughput for fragment analysis on AI prism 377 automated sequencer using a membrane comb and STR and software

Risk factors for feline infectious peritonitis in Australian cats

This work was supported by the Center for Companion Animal Health, School of Veterinary Medicine, UC Davis, the SOCK FIP Organization, and the Raskin Family Foundation.